Conference 7.286::digital

	BTW, not only were we told we could not do an internal transfer
	inside Digital, we were also told that if you decide not to
	accept BEA's non-negotiable offer (and we were only given 9
	days to decide on this unexpected and unsolicited offer), then
	you are considered to have "voluntarily" resigned from Digital
	(ie. not layed off so you wouldn't even be able to collect
	unemployment or any other benifits due layed off employees).

	Jeff (who, at the likely transfer date to BEA of mid-March,
	would have been only about 6 weeks from my 10-year anniversary
	with Digital :-((().

FWIW, that's not an isolated case. Here (France) about a year ago, we 
wanted to hire someone from Digital Learning Services. Everything was 
approved, everybody was happy, BUT the transfer was blocked when it 
was announced that Learning Services was being sold. We tried to 
fight, and failed.

The guy resigned and went to HP :-(

Moral of the story: when your business is sold, you're part of the 
furniture, no more.

	Vincent

    Same thing happened during the Rdb -> Oracle move.
    
    >Moral of the story: when your business is sold, you're part of the
    >furnitur, no more.
    
    Wrong. You (people) are the business, not the software itself.
    Software on itself is useless. 
    
    Jan
    
    

> ...we were also told that if you decide not to accept BEA's
> non-negotiable offer (and we were only given 9 days to decide
> on this unexpected and unsolicited offer), then you are con-
> sidered to have "voluntarily" resigned from Digital

  Of course, this is just Digital's *CLAIM*. A good labor attorney,
  familiar with the laws in your state, may have a different opinion.

  So might a judge hearing a legal action brought by aggrieved employees.

                                   Atlant

  And, of course, if we employees once in a while worked together
  to face up to Management, this sort of "picking off employee's
  rights by attacking employees a few at a time" might not occur.

                                   Atlant

    Brave words Atlant but I can assure you - even in heavily unionised
    Europe, this approach of selling an identifiable business "lock, stock
    and barrel" is also the norm as Vincent's French example points out.
    
    Legally, this manoeuvre is known as a "transfer of undertaking" - it is
    well defined in the statutes of most industrialised countries - I
    sincerely doubt that a lawyer (even American!) could make a dent in it.
    
    It is of course regrettable that corporations can't operate with
    "common sense" in exceptional circumstances like that pointed out in .0
    or the one of the employee who left for HP.  In the end, both parties
    come out losers by applying the letter of the law.  However "common
    sense" is an anathema to lawyers and any exceptional application of it
    would almost certainly open a company up to legal contests.
    
    /Chris/

    One of the strengths of DEC was the job mobility, which allowed an 
    individual to make choices, to move into new, different areas, to 
    grow and learn.   It was a powerful incentive to remain loyal to 
    the company, when there were choices for your future.

    This *was* one of the great things about working for DEC.

>    Wrong. You (people) are the business, not the software itself.
>    Software on itself is useless. 

My reference to furniture didn't imply people don't have any value. 
It was a reference to the fact that furniture can't usually express 
its opinions ;-)

	Vincent

    digital's top management and the bod do not even know what the word
    " EMPLOYEE LOYALTY " is or means. They do not even want to know because
    the only thing that they care about is the almighty dollar. DEC had 
    EMPLOYEE LOYALTY.  digital killed off most of the employee loyalty when
    they brought on the hentchmen leaders and bd's to kill the employee 
    loyalty.  To bad it is also killing off one of former best technology
    companies that there was before the digital down fall started.  Thank 
    god that there are still other companies, new and old that care about employee
    and customer loyalty.  To bad bp and the bod at digital could not hear the
    comments and have a chance to look in the trash cans to see what happened to the letter and
    nice plastic straight edges that we all got last week.  They would
    then see what people working at digital have for loyalty to the
    company.  I was surprised to hear and see for myself when we received
    them last week. I have found out that there is a very good life after
    digital and a life that meets the standards that are good for
    employees, customers and the owners like we had with DEC.   

    Personally, I'm hoping that the business unit that I belong to
    WILL be sold off. Thats why I have been hangin on these last
    couple of years. I am stuck tween a rock and a hard place; there
    are few tech jobs in my area, and I know moving within DIGITAL is
    next to impossible.
    
    Just my .02 worth
    DT
    

    
    rep .0
    
    
    If Bob "really" wants to stay at Digital, he should go to the new
    company, and then come back as a contractor for at least 2x his current
    pay.
    
    But if I was in his shoes, I wouldn't want to stay at this company,
    given the circumstances of the downsizing.
    
    About 9 years ago, I was in the Mid-Range range engineering group.
    Mariah was in the process of getting cancelled for the first time, and
    all of us Power engineers were told that we had to interview for our
    jobs, that there was 25 of us and only 16 or so jobs.  What???
    They knew our capibilities, etc, there was no way I was going to 
    re-interview for a job that I had held for over a year.  So I left the 
    group for another group designing a logic board.  But before I could
    leave I had to sign some forms saying I was voluntarily not
    re-interviewing.  Management is a funny sort, they didn't have to
    re-interview for their jobs.
    
    As for the jobs out there, there are more jobs than people!
    
    This is the information age, lots and lots of opportunities!!
    
    
     
    /art   (Who is also here temporarily, as "This to shall pass!".)
  

    	Hey, wait just one minute here. Haven't any of you been reading
    your new laminated cards with the corporate strategy and Digital's core
    values? It says right there:
    
    Respect for the individual: We show respect for everyone by what we say
    and do and value our diverse global workforce.
    
    And don't forget:
    
    "We work together...energized by our collective talent."
    
    And also:
    
    "...plus OpenVMS for ultra-high availability."
    
    Sorry, had to throw that last humorous anecdote in there. Just makes me
    feel warm and fuzzy all over. Can't you feel it?

    re .6 . Yes it is true that the company sold off bits in Europe. DITEC
    is an example. The company signed a contract with the union setting up
    DITEC as an employee owned company which is now doing a fine job
    selling Digital products and training people to use our products.
    Digital handed over the facility at Villingen-Swennigen to the
    employees. So even when the going gets rough, and in 1994 it was very
    rough, it pays to be organised.
    
    Nor does the employee organisation have to be a union. If the US
    colleagues were more comfortable with some kind of employee
    association, which could coordinate with those of us in Europe, that
    would be a big step along the way to putting a slow down on the chain
    saw. And, as the DITEC example shows, the bottom line of the
    Corporation can benefit as a result. 
    
    ..Kevin..  

>>"We work together...energized by our collective talent."

	Where have a heard that before? Hmm??

	"We are Borg. You will join the collective and be together
	with us. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

							mike

re: .1

>	BTW, not only were we told we could not do an internal transfer
>	inside Digital, we were also told that if you decide not to
>	accept BEA's non-negotiable offer (and we were only given 9
>	days to decide on this unexpected and unsolicited offer), then
>	you are considered to have "voluntarily" resigned from Digital
>	(ie. not layed off so you wouldn't even be able to collect
>	unemployment or any other benifits due layed off employees).

    Yeah, this is great.  If we accept the position, we're considered
    to have voluntarily resigned; if we don't accept the position, we're
    considered to have voluntarily resigned.  Why in God's name has DIGITAL
    spent a bazillion dollars TFSOing when it's far simpler and cheaper just
    to inform the faceless rabble "DIGITAL considers that you have voluntarily
    resigned"?


re: .several - "legal options"

    I've considered and investigated my legal options.  They are far from
    non-existent with respect to the forced "voluntary" resignation.  I also
    have reason to believe the manner in which my transfer attempts were
    blocked is against applicable Washington state labor law.  But I never
    have been interested in a legal "solution".  I just wanted to transfer
    to something new and different, and was in the process of doing just
    that *before* I was informed of the DIGITAL/BEA agreement.  The rest,
    as they say, is history.


re: .11
   
>   If Bob "really" wants to stay at Digital, he should go to the new
>   company, and then come back as a contractor for at least 2x his current
>   pay.
>
>   But if I was in his shoes, I wouldn't want to stay at this company,
>   given the circumstances of the downsizing.

    Until this week I *did* really want to stay with DIGITAL.  Numerous peers,
    managers, and (of all people) one of the principals in BEA (let's call him
    "A") have interceded on my behalf in the hope that sanity would prevail.
    To no end; stupidity reigns.  I'm so numbed by the whole experience that,
    at this point, even if I could transfer I'm no longer interested.  I cannot
    in good conscience do less of a job than I know I'm capable of doing, but
    I also can't imagine ever giving 100% to DIGITAL again.

    I sincerely thank and wish the best of luck to all those people who have
    been supportive of me.  I could care less what happens to DIGITAL.

    Bob

I also have been requested (by peers) to post a copy of the mail
that I sent to Palmer last night.

This morning, I was contacted by Corporate Employee Relations to let
me know that they were looking into it.  I'll keep you posted.

Kevin
==========================================================================

Mr Palmer,

Some time ago, you became aware of a large departure of senior engineering
talent from the NT group here in Seattle.  Your response was to send Sid
Ferrales out to find out what was going on, and how to respond.

Sid's response was to assure the engineering staff here that people are
one of Digital's most important resources, and that the corporation will
pay more attention to the personal side of the business deals that it makes
in the future.

As I recall, one of Sid's directives to management was, "Stop doing things
that upset the employees!!"

Unfortunately, the actions of the corporation have again contradicted that
assurance.  

As one case in point, I ask you to consider the situation of Bob Lyon.  He
was a member of the DecMessageQ engineering team that was part of the
sale to BEA.  He is one of two engineers located here at ZSO in Bellevue, WA.
Even before he was notified of the sale, he had been talking to two 
different groups at ZSO about transferring.  It so happened that our group
had an opening come up the very week that he was notified of the sale.

Now, Bob does not wish to continue with DMQ as a career, so he will not be
working for BEA long term whatever happens.  We have a great need for
an engineer with just Bob's talents.  He would be a perfect fit.

The problem is that a representative of Digital's HR, Leigh Bodington, 
has blocked all attempts to transfer Bob into either our group or the
NT clusters group.  Reasons given were vague references to "the contract" 
(which, conveniently, those impacted directly have never been allowed 
to see, even in censored form).  Leigh also directly refused to put any 
of this into writing for Bob.  Instead, he blocked the transfers in channels.

Bob, and the rest of the group, was told that they have a choice:  They can
either sign the offer from BEA, which is considered a voluntary resignation
from Digital, or they could not sign, which Digital will also take as voluntary
resignation.  It seems to me that if we can get away with telling a group of
people that they have just voluntarily resigned, whether they want to or not,
that we've been wasting millions of dollars on unnecessary TFSO payments over
the years!

Bob then went to BEA and talked to them.  In conversations with one of the
three founders, he was told that they would have no problem whatsoever
with him staying with Digital under the circumstances.  This person even
went so far as to try to influence Digital on Bob's behalf.  To no avail.

So now, it seems that Digital has gone far out of its way to create a 
three-way lose-lose situation:  Digital loses talent that we badly need;
BEA will not retain Bob for long;  Bob loses his career with Digital.

There are also further effects:  Many of the other engineers on this site
who are not involved with the sale have witnessed Digital's treatment of
our compatriot.  This lowers our morale and makes it harder and harder
to motivate ourselves.  Trust in management takes another hit.  My manager
wonders why her reports do not implicitly trust that she will take their 
interests into account when conducting negotiations which affect our careers,
and to which we are not privy.

Digital's actions in this matter are in my view illogical, immoral, and
possibly illegal.

So, you (through the words of Sid Ferrales) have said that employee morale
and loyalty are highly valued and important assets.  And you (through the
actions of Digital HR) have proved that employees are not considered important
at all.

Actions speak louder than words.


Kevin Farlee
Software Engineer
Seattle, WA

    I would like to thank Han, Kevin and Bob, for making this public.  Rest
    assured I am not the only employee wondering if loyalty goes both
    directions inside Digital.  Please let us know with any updates, I
    think it is in every digital employee's interest to see how this one
    shakes out.  
    
    Meg

    yet another nail in the coffin of DEC?
    
    {sigh}
    
    Yeah, I know that that sounds "negative". I really did _love_ this
    company. Years ago. Even now, I struggle to motivate myself to at least
    wish the company 'good' - not because of anything I've seen recently
    that is good, but for the company as it was.
    
    And yet, to see actions such as this...
    
    As mentioned, a 3-way lose-lose situation. Indeed, worse than '3-way',
    as many others will see this and be disheartened (again).
    
    dear oh dear, what hath we wrought?
    
    H

    re. #14  :-}
    
    
    perhaps the powers that be forgot to read this one...
    
                 TIPS FOR MANAGERS  -  January 24, 1997
    ______________________________________________________________________
    
             "An executive is a person who always decides; sometimes
              he or she decides correctly, but he or she always decides."
    
                                                 -John H. Patterson
    
    ______________________________________________________________________
    
                      COMMUNICATING VALUES & BUILDING TRUST
    
      If leaders don't talk about and act on their values, they shouldn't
    expect those who work for them to act on theirs. Russ Walden, President
    of Ridgecrest Properties, expresses the following thoughts on the
    management process:
      o A person may be appointed to a high position, but never to
    leadership.
    Leaders are effective only through the authority conferred on them by
    those upon whom they depend for results.
      o Leaders produce consent; others seek consensus.
      o Manage a business by its economics, not by the accounting numbers.
      o It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong.
      o Ethics are non-negotiable.
      o The personal dignity of each individual is inviolate. A manager who
    often breaks this rule will eventually self-destruct, but I will
    probably
    get him or her first.
      o As a manager, ask yourself, "How would I like it if my boss treated
    me the way I treat those who work for me?"
      o Authority is not inherently useful, but you can greatly influence
    most of the things which you cannot directly control. A manager without
    influence is a contradiction of terms.
      o Create values and the earnings will follow. Never sacrifice
    tomorrow's
    values for today's reputable earnings.
      o A person has the right to know the significance of his/her work.
      o We will only do things of which we can be proud. If our people are
    ashamed of a project it will be a disaster.
      o If you aren't having fun in your work, fix the problem before it
    becomes serious; ask for help if you need it. If you can't fix it and
    won't ask for help, please go away before you spoil the fun for the
    rest of us.
      o Never let well enough alone.
      o Manners are the lubricating oil of organizations.
    
    
     "The President has kept all of the promises
                              he intended to keep."
    
                               -digital employee?
                              

This is no isolated case. Recent examples in the UK include new contracts for
MCS employees which reduce their compensation significantly. This has 
driven the fasest unionisation of an organisation I've ever seen or heard 
of. The message "stop annoying employees" was not heard in the UK. The price
for DIGITAL is a less "flexible" workforce in the future, which will 
increase costs and reduce revenue, and far outweigh the benefits of employee
exploitation.

Dave.

    I like working for a company that treats it's
    employees as an asset.   Now the question is:
    "Am I working for a company that treats it's
    employees as an asset?"  Hmm.
    
    My second question is: "Could the next employee
    this happen to be me?"  (Do you just close your
    eyes and turn your head?)
    
    My third comment has to do with the 
    IMPROVING MANAGEMENT SKILLS information that
    was emailed to me this week.  A "QUICK TIP"
    in the notification was:
    
      People are more apt to follow you as a 
      leader if they like you as a person, according
      to Dr. Lee G. Young, educational psychologist,
      University of Oregon.  He found this factor to 
      be more important than gender, personal
      appearance and social graces.
    
    After the previously explained treatment of 
    another employee of this company, do I like 
    the leader of this company as a person?

Well,

I know a few similar cases from the past. They seem to be normal practice
though.

If two companies agree on the transfer of a particular product,
the buying company does not want an emply shell, but everything
related to that product. So that also implies engineers, training and
marketing materials etc. For that reason it is common that both
companies agree that no job-transfers of the affected people in the
selling company will be tolerated. Usually a specific date is agreed
after which no transfers are allowed. Breaking the agreement could cause
the entire transfer to be stopped.

For the buying company this also is some kind of assurance that no similar 
business (or product) as the one part of the sale will be developed inside 
the selling company.

Same things happened with the Rdb - Oracle, deal, the Polycenter - CA
deal etc.

Henny

  Re the statement that "Digital could save a lot of money on TFSOs": 
Digital has always had the right to lay people off without a pachage, just
as many other U.S. companies have done. What is different about the case
in this topic is that the person is considered to have "voluntarily"
resigned and is therefore not elibigle (usually) for unemployment benefits.
  Also note that accepting the forced offer from the new employer is not
quite the same as having resigned from Digital, in that one's seniority
carries over to the new employer (or does it?).

    >> in that one's seniority carries over to the new employer (or does it?).
    
    Yes - this is one of the normal conditions in a "transfer of undertaking"
    

RE: .22

But it seems particularly absurd when the company acquiring the people
*is* willing to let a particular individual stay.  (I can see why
a company would want a whole "package".  I *cannot* understand why it
would be in Digital's interest to act the way it did in this case.)

Yet another strong message to employees about how the company behaves
(and fairly contrary to "respect for the individual"...)

re .22

>For that reason it is common that both
>companies agree that no job-transfers of the affected people in the
>selling company will be tolerated.

This was not the case with the transfer of DECnet maintenance to EDS, or at
least that's what we were told.  Digital management repeatedly stressed that
this was not a downsizing exercise, and that it was up to the individual to
decide whether to go with EDS, stay with Digital or go to some other employer.
Whether this was an actual reality though, I cannot say.  It was also made clear
to us that since it was not a downsizing exercise, no TFSO package would be
available.

--Scott

As I have said before, your best defense is a good resume.  Do you have 
marketable skills?  If so, the then Bob should just take the job at
BEA, and immediately start interviewing.  Was this in Bob's plan?  No,
but you can't control everything.  I work in NSIS, if they sell us to a
bunch of jackals, I'm gone, it cuts both ways.

Digital is still a much better place to work than most.  I have heard so many
'war stories' from customers, I just assume stay till the bitter end.  But if
a surprise happens in between, I am as ready as can be to get another job.

How do you tell if you are marketable?  Read the Sunday job postings
*every* weekend, and make sure you can find at least a dozen jobs you 
are quailified for.  If not, start learning something new.

Good Luck Bob!

I am sorry you are a victim of stupid management, but it probably won't be
the last time either...

Brad.

    BTW, if anyone thinks that their employee file is confidential, as I
    did before this BEA deal, then I can assure you...it is NOT...

re: .28

I have heard this also - but I can't recall if it was related to the DECnet or
DECwindows or RDB or Oracle or... 

bjm

    Re; employee file confidentiality, please define this.
    
    Chip

re: .30:

Its the morning, I'm a little more awake.  It seems like a great number of
people I've been talking to lately the subject of "what happened when I left
Digital" comes up) but "we" had always been told that if someone was to call
Digital and asked:

	 "Could you tell me about Mr X, he applied for job with us
	   and listed you as his current employer"

The response from ANY DIGITAL EMPLOYEE should be:

1) If you are not personnel, transfer the person to the personnel office
2) The only information personnel will give out is:  "Yes they are currently
   employed by Digital."

This implied no salary information, no previous performance reviews, no 
nothing besides "they get a pay check every week".

Don't confuse the above with people you have listed as references who you
have hopefully talked to and will only give out the info you want them to.

The specific issue I heard was "easy to obtain" by a perspective future 
employer was current salary base, and I think it had to do with an Oracle 
transfer (after the initial split).

bjm

>2) The only information personnel will give out is:  "Yes they are currently
>   employed by Digital."

For a normal employment verification, this is correct.  However, in situations
like EDS and presumably BEA (from note .28) more access is available. I know as
a fact that EDS had access to my file, including current salary, salary history
and salary planning (I wasn't even allowed to know what was being planned for
me, but EDS was).  Given the nature of the transfer with EDS though, I think
this was to be expected, since EDS transfered all of my years that I had with
Digital (I am vested in EDS's pension plan, and considered to have worked for
EDS for 10 years, even though I've only worked for them for 5 months).

--Scott

re: .22

>                     ... For that reason it is common that both
>companies agree that no job-transfers of the affected people in the
>selling company will be tolerated. ...

This is against the law in Washington state.

   In a transfer such as the BEA deal, the new company is supposed to match
one's current salary. To do this, the new company would need to have access,
in advance, to one's personnel records, at least the portions dealing with
salary and length of service.

    When Quantum bought part of the disk business, people were told that
    they would likely be assigned to one job in one of the companies.  They
    could look for something else in Digital but if they didn't find anything,
    and didn't want to work for Quantum, they would be gone with no
    compensation.  The basic message was that you still had a job, so if
    you turned it down, you were quitting.  
    
    The sale was announced in June but took effect October 1, so there was
    quite a lot of time for jockeying.  I guess there were a few surprise
    assignments at the end on both sides, which led to some hard feelings. 
    Our group was not part of the sale, but people were encouraged to send
    resumes to Quantum the following March.  Those people cut their own
    deals on salary, vacation, etc.  A couple of contractors got hired
    directly by Quantum.
     
    I imagine that every sale is negotiated differently.  In the Quantum
    example, the people assigned to implement the sale were not the always
    the ones who negotiated it, so they were not given any freedom to bend
    the rules.  The recent sales seems to be finalized very quickly.  
    
    Ben

<-                    <<< Note 5162.30 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>
    Chip,
      If my employer gave my SS number to anyone outside the IRS without 
    my specific written consent, I believe I would have a valid lawsuit.
mk

    I'm pretty sure your SS# isn't protected. i think it was what
    prompted the Ma Registry to provide an assignable license#
    instead of using your SS#.
    
    I agree, it does stink.
    
    Chip

    Re. .35
    Actually, a large part (if not all) of the Quantum/ex-DEC workers were
    told that they *could not* transfer into another part of Digital,
    during the June (or whenever) to October 1, 1994 time period. The only
    way they would be allowed to do so (if I remember correctly) would be
    to quit Digital, and apply for the desired job - from outside of
    Digital. I was somewhat more risk-averse at that time, so I went
    to Quantum. For a short time.
    
    When I left Quantum to come back here, my then-manager suggested I not
    publicize that I was going to Digital. (He had no problem with the
    move, he just thought HR might get a little bent about it. He was
    right.) It's unfortunate to see that the same practice I detested in
    the Quantum deal is still in vogue. And, as I think was mentioned in
    an earlier reply: given the fairly-extensive layoffs which ensued at
    Quantum, you wonder if the corporations view the personnel as chattel.
       
    
     

    All,
    
    I worked with Bob Lyons in Seattle many moons ago... just tried sending
    him Email and apparently his account has been disabled... Those of you
    that know him, please pass the word on that I said good luck...
    
    I started working for Stan, KO's brother in 1976.  I doubt I would be
    where I am today if it wasn't for digital... sorry to see it go...
    
    /Mic
    

Re: .16

> So now, it seems that Digital has gone far out of its way to create a 
> three-way lose-lose situation:  Digital loses talent that we badly need;
> BEA will not retain Bob for long;  Bob loses his career with Digital.

> There are also further effects:  Many of the other engineers on this site
> who are not involved with the sale have witnessed Digital's treatment of
> our compatriot.  This lowers our morale and makes it harder and harder
> to motivate ourselves.  Trust in management takes another hit.

    As a survivor of the POLYCENTER sell-off to CA I can add two more
    down-side effects for Digital.

    1) Even though most all of the ex-Digital/Now CA engineers were looking
    for new work soon after moving over to CA, Digital was off their list
    for potential employers.  My new group had req's that none my old
    comrades wanted to apply for.

    2) Seeing the list of names of the products and people who are leaving,
    I'm beginning to question whether Digital will be able to maintain a
    'critical mass' of software talent. My work gets harder when there
    aren't enough sharp people who have the answers.  That's one of the
    benefits of working for a big company but, these days, there may
    be many smaller companies that retain more talent.  It's clear that
    Digital is not dedicated to holding on to software talent.

    A lot of you folks come across as software bigots.  Did you somehow
    miss the last several years as hardware types have been slaughtered
    right along with you?  You are much better off than "us".  Have you
    counted the number of software employment ads relative to hardware?
    Care to venture a guess on how many hardware folks have switched to
    software or CAD or left engineering altogether?  There are a few hot
    spots, like ASICs and analog, but not many.
    
    Tony
    

    Some years ago (around when Westfield was reduced/closed) the talk
    around here was that Digital was getting out of the hardware business
    and becoming a software company. ["here" being Kanata Mfg.]
    
    r

    > Did you somehow miss the last several years as hardware types have 
    > been slaughtered right along with you?  You are much better off 
    > than "us".

    I'm not interested in arguing whether one group of individuals have
    it better than another.  I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the
    experience of the hardware engineers.  My note was not intended to
    draw sympathy for individuals from anyone.

    I'm interested in the question of what is good for Digital.  It seems
    to me that Digital needs to retain and recruit software talent in order
    to succeed with it's 1-3-9 strategy for growth.  The impact that the
    current sell-off/partner strategy has on Digital's software talent pool
    needs to be a concern for higher level management.  The high number of 
    software job choices for job seekers only makes the problem for Digital 
    worse.

    Ah, divide and conquer.
    
    Seems nobody gets it.  The field is in a shamble from sales to support. 
    Software engineering has been decimated.  Hardware engineering has had
    it's hits as well.  As I expect has manufacturing and everyone else
    down the line.
    
    More important than software talent, we need leadership at all levels
    (and note, that does not mean we need more VPs).
    
    We are a company in retreat, running as fast as we can to shed people
    and product to cope with declining revenue.  Of course, we don't seem
    to have noticed that it's a loop.  The more we throw out, the faster
    we lose customers and revenue.  It's alot like being thrown into ice
    water, at first the shutdown of blood to to the extreamities is good, a
    life preserving measure, but soon it becomes the thing that kills you,
    even after you are removed from the ice water.  And if you survive,
    you won't be the same from the damage caused.
    

    RE:.45
    
    	"Right on Bro.."