Conference 7.286::digital

    I hear from two sources that it is manufacturing's turn in the barrel
    next, in August.  Also hear (and this is really scary) that they will
    only get two weeks severance pay, plus accrued vacation.

    i am in the arlington heights, illinois office; we got hit hard a
    couple of weeks ago!  they got the second package (13 wks & 3 wks
    starting yr 3 to 10, 4 wks each yr to 20).  what is this talk of 9wks
    instead of 13 wks etc, package?
    
    regards

    Talk to personnel if you want to know the specifics of the package. 
    They will give it to you straight so you do not have to rely on rumors. 
    I posted in another response what personnel told us here in our office. 
    I would doubt that it would vary from office to office.
    
    tgc

	COMPUTERWORLD   JULY 15, 1991	  page 80

  "Industry analysts expect another 20,000 to 25,000 DEC employees to be
  looking for new jobs during DEC's 1992 and 1993 fiscal years, and
  executives confirmed that future layoffs of 8,000 to 10,000 per year
  are likely."

    RE:.1
    
    	If manufacturing takes anymore cuts around here there won't be any
    indians for all these chiefs to push around.

    Here in Cupertino, Calif. we layed off a few hundred just a few weeks
    ago.  This was our second round.  Rumor was 3rd round would be
    September, but the plant manager said the rumor was definately not
    true.  He didn't say anything about Oct/Nov/Dec.....  We all know
    it will hit us again, but when!  It's difficult to keep putting
    your life on hold, not knowing what's next or when.  I never thought
    I would see layoffs at this site since we were manufacturing the
    hottest product in DEC, the 9000's.  Since sales are almost nothing,
    I'm sure we will be cutting more people soon.

>    hottest product in DEC, the 9000's.  Since sales are almost nothing,
>    I'm sure we will be cutting more people soon.

	Something isn't right here.  I've seen reports that 9000 sales were
    higher than projected, not lower.  (It probably depends on whose 
    projections you are using.  I remember one product where the development 
    team projected total sales to be in the thousands.  The buisness planning 
    team projected zero sales for the same product.  Both were wrong.)

    
    Just a minor nit, also: The VAX9000 is not manufactured in Cupertino.
    Components for the 9000 (MCUs) are manufactured in Cupertino.
    
    Also, I agree with .7. The last I heard was that last years' sales of
    the VAX9000 were 132% of projections for that year.
    
    But...I still wish you well in Cupertino. I wish *ALL* of us well.
    
    John

    re the last few...
       
    Higher than projected??!!??  NO-NO-NO. Sales were WAY OFF projections.
    Sounds like somebody "blowing sushine" in the place where the sun    
    never shines. ;^)
    
    Can somebody here in BTO (where they DO build it) give us some     
    figures to back me up?  
    
    Mark
    

             <<< AIDEV::DISK$AISG_SYS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ISTG.NOTE;1 >>>
                              -< ISTG Notes File >-
================================================================================
Note 123.388                 Readings from the Net.                   388 of 389
AIDEV::COLLIER                                       65 lines   9-JUL-1991 11:28
                        -< VAX 9000 ships 132% of plan >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subj:	FWD: VAX 9000 ships 132% of plan

[Forwards deleted...]

 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| d | i | g | i | t | a | l |			INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|

TO: Distribution				DATE: July 3, 1991
						FROM: William Askins
						DEPT: VAX 9000 Marketing
						DTN:  297-7268
						LOC:  MR01-1/T33

SUBJECT:  Thanks to your support -- VAX 9000 Closes Year at 132% of Plan

******************PLEASE DISTRIBUTE IN YOUR ORGANIZATION****************

Thanks to you, manufacturing shipped 336 VAX 9000 systems and we
achieved a strong entry into the multi-billion dollar mainframe
market. Bottom line: we shipped 10% more mainframes in our first year
than IBM did in the first year of the 3090 system.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your efforts on 
behalf of the VAX 9000 business during its first full year in the market. 
The geographies Q4 execution-to-plan has far exceed expectations. The
corporation shipped 132% and took orders for 138% of that plan. 

In fact, vector processing VAX 6000 and VAX 9000 systems have caught on
fast. Only a year after their introduction, they captured the lead in 
the supercomputer market. Digital shipped more vector processing systems 
than any other supplier in the past year.

The VAX 9000 systems have sold into 26 Countries against many
competitors representing numerous industries. These sales include many
repeat customers as a result of the total quality delivered by sales,
service, engineering, manufacturing and the marketing assistance
provide throughout the corporation. These sales are described as
follows: 

   -------------------------------|--------------------------------
   Systems Shipped	   336	  |	Financial Services	14%	
   CPU's Shipped	   382	  |	Education		 9%
   -------------------------------|	Telecommunications	 8%
   USA			   47%	  |	Aerospace		 8%
   Europe		   42%	  |	Government	 	 8%
   General International   11%	  |	Utilities		 8%
   -------------------------------|	Defense			 7%
   Mainframe		   88%	  |	Pharmaceutical		 7%
   Supercomputer	   22%	  |	Electronics		 7%
   -------------------------------|	Healthcare		 5%
   Off Base Sales	   35%	  |	Automotive		 4%
   Installed Base Sales    65%	  |	Oil & Gas		 4%
   -------------------------------|	Other			11%
   Single Processor	   84%	  |
   Multi Processor	   16%    |
   -------------------------------|--------------------------------
	
Thanks again to everyone. We look forward to working with you towards an
even more successful FY92.

[Distribution List deleted...]

    
    re -1
    
    How sickeningly sweet.....
    
    When was this mysterious "plan" conceived?  Q4?
    The one I remember projected something like 1.5 billion.
    Did we even get a third of that?  
    
    I don't think any congratulations is in order, it just promotes 
    this "business as usual" nonsense. Suddenly, this is a
    tremendous success, and everything is wonderful.
    
    1984 is here..whaddya say we rewrite the history books next.
    
    Mark 
    

    Re several previous......9000 sales were "replanned" in order to make
    "plan".  Come on people, this is a well developed system used to make
    poopoocaca look like ice cream.  It's important that the trade press,
    WSJ, etal, not get the true story.  I still have some early 9000
    planning documentation, and although I don't think it appropriate
    to share the details in such a public forum, suffice it to say that
    ships of 382 are dramatically less than plan.  Also, there is a bit
    of wordsmanship involved in that report.  I'd like to know exactly how
    many were SOLD, as in for money.
    
    On the packages....I talked to a contact in Atlanta last week whose
    wife was hit last week.  She got nine weeks, plus two weeks per year.
    It sounds like there is a lack of consistency.  Maybe local management
    get's to chose the type of financial settlement people get.  Gad, I
    sure hope that isn't the case.

    re:-2
    
    What a joke! is this guy still employed? It is sad, these are the
    kind of things and people that brought down digital. Anybody remotely
    associated with computers knows that the VAX 9000 sales were WAY OFF
    projections, anyone believing otherwise must be out of touch and/or
    extremely naive.
    

    The head of ISB sent out a memo 11-JUL retracting the 132%
    memo as FALSE and mistakenly sent without his apporval.  
    I just saw it.  I'm not sure of the rules, but I'll
    send it to the moderator.  If that blathering can be posted    
    and widely distributed, so should the retraction.
    
    Mark 
    

    
    	re the previous few from .9 thru .15
    
    	I was relying on the memo posted in .10 for my info. I've since
    	received two mail messages to the contrary. It was not my intent
    	to mislead anybody, nor do I consider myself naive or hopelessly
    	out of touch, as someone suggested. I said, "last I heard...".
    	Thanks to those who are closer to the real facts for enlightening
    	me...makes you wonder who the hell you can believe anymore!
    
    	John
    

    Interesting!  Wonder how they'll wiggle out of this one.  What I
    don't understand is how this guy thought he could get away with
    diddling the numbers that badly.  Everyone in the company with
    half a brain knew that initial projections were MUCH higher. 
    
    Maybe he is new......or maybe he was just doing what he was told.
    
    .....and the death spiral continues.

    So how come, with all the cutbacks, dozens of new jobs get posted in
    the US jobs book every week, and there are hundreds of open jobs
    posted?

    Presumably because the vanancies are not the same jobs...

    Oh come'n now, that's far too logical......
    
         THE FRIGGIN' INMATES ARE IN CHARGE!!!
    
    Seriously, in twenty years with Digital, I have never, ever seen an
    effective hiring freeze.  Don't see any reason why now should be
    different.

    Sorry, but logic beats emotion every time.
    
    	- andy

re .21:

	Damned Vulcan!

    Regarding the memo saying that the VAX 9000 closed FY91 at 132% of
    plan.
    
    Bob Glorioso wrote a subsequent memo to that saying that the 132% memo
    was mistakenly sent from his account by a substitute secretary. He then
    went on to say that VAX 9000 sales closed the year below plan.
    
    Interestingly enough if you read the original memo literally it implies
    that sales exceeded Q4 plans. The implication is that someone replanned
    the numbers just before going into Q4 so that Q4 numbers exceeded this
    modified plan.
    
    A side note to the moderator:
    	Since you have allowed the posting of the original mail message
        don't you think you should allow somebody to post the retraction.
        I think it is irresponsible to leave the memo in this notesfile
    	without the retraction.
    
    	I firmly believe that the policy against posting mail messages does
    	more harm than good. It prevents people from correcting
        misinformation.
    
    Dave

    FWIW, I sent the Glorioso memo to the mod yesterday, 
    but said he couldn't post it without permission.
    
    Great summary. 
    
    Mark
    

RE: .0

>    DOES ANYONE KNOW/GRAPE VINE WHEN THE NEXT HEAD COUNT CUTS ARE COMING?
>    WHAT RUMOR MILL/GRAPE VINE NEWS HAVE YOU HEARD.
>    
>    REGARDS

I heard that we are laying off everybody who posts notes written all in upper
case.

--PSW

    They are also laying off the people who have an obsessive interest with
    when the next layoffs are.

    RE: .25
    ARE YOU SO BORED THAT YOU HAD TO WASTE MY TIME WITH YOUR REPLY?  WHO
    CARES ABOUT THE DETAIL OF UPPER OR LOWER CASE, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. 
    GET WITH IT!  PLEASE DO NOT TAKE OFFENCE AND REPLY...THANKS

    RE: .26
    
    WHO ARE THEY?
    

    Re: .23: "Bob Glorioso wrote a subsequent memo ... saying that the
    132% memo was mistakingly sent from his account by a substitute
    secretary."
    
    <FLAME ON>
    
    Boy does that make me mad!  And I suppose the secretary WROTE the memo,
    and compiled all those figures herself/himself???  I hate the ol'
    "Blame the secretary" ploy.  S/he *may* have hit the "send" key
    prematurely, but s/he certainly can't be held responsible for the
    irresponsible contents.  What dribble.
    
    <FLAME OFF>
    
    Ruth
     (a secretary, needless-to-say)
    

    <<< Note 1534.27 by POBOX::PESZEK "SHEREE DIMALINE PESZEK" >>>
                    -< HERE TODAY, GONE TODAY! >-
    
    Just for your enlightenment, and so you do not offend others...
    
    Using uppercase letters in notes conferences is the same as yelling. 
    By placing your entries in uppercase, everybody reading the entry has
    to `listen' to you yell your response.  The tongue-in-cheek stating
    that people who entered in upper case were going to be next to go was a
    gentle hint to please stop using upper case.  I got a chuckle out of
    that response, until I saw the offense you took to it.  I would gently
    suggest that you lighten up.  The existance of more rumors is not going
    to change any facts.
    
    tgc

Re: .23, .29

I find this whole deal with the supposed Glorioso memo puzzling.  The
memo which was posted in another conference and then copied here did NOT
indicate that it was authored by Glorioso.  I saw the purported retraction
memo, but thought it was rather suspicious.  I share Ruth's skepticism
(and some of her annoyance) at the rather weak story about a "substitute
secretary".

I'll note that while I received the original memo through my management
chain as well, I have not similarly received the "retraction".

As a moderator, I was asked if it was ok to post the "retraction" memo
here.  I said that the author's permission would need to be obtained first.
It does appear that none of the moderators took action against the
original memo's posting, and that is unfortunate. 

				Steve

    Are you really real?  Did you ever hear of the word "kind".  May I
    suggest we get onto more interesting information (like whats happening
    at DEC lately).  Please!  :^)
    
    Thank you all for your kindness, I have received many memos in my A1
    account, they were all very sweet/kind, special thanks!  Yes, I am new 
    on notes.     ;^)
    
    regards,

    >     <<< Note 1534.32 by POBOX::PESZEK "SHEREE DIMALINE PESZEK" >>>
    >                      -< here today, gone today! >-
>
>    Are you really real?  Did you ever hear of the word "kind".  May I
>    suggest we get onto more interesting information (like whats happening
>    at DEC lately).  Please!  :^)
>    
>    Thank you all for your kindness, I have received many memos in my A1
>    account, they were all very sweet/kind, special thanks!  Yes, I am new 
>    on notes.     ;^)
    
   Oh God, you've done it now. Not only did you type in capital letters
    but the thought police will by now have noticed the use of A1 instead
    of the more correct ALL_IN_SACRED_CASH_COW. The VAX9000 that is set up
    in the BOIS group to monitor all notes files for this transgression by
    now has flagged you as a recalcitrant and the magic words:
    "The correct spelling is ALL_IN_SACRED_CASH_COW, not A1. Digital busts
    a gut and a half to ensure its trademarks are protected and you come
    along and ruin our day.....a curse upon you and your children's pet
    ducks" will be attached as a reply to this note.
    
    Mind you, the people who nit-pick on notes etiquette are the same ones
    who bought records and listened for the crackles, pops and scratches
    instead of listening to the music.
    
    regards,
    John
    

    Ruth, I wholeheartedly agree that blaming the secretary is horsepucky.
    Blunders are one thing, but even if a temp erroneously pushed the SEND
    button, that memo got created somehow.  Forgive me for being so
    outspoken, but the profession (secretarial) has taken enough of a
    beating.
    
    Regards, 
    
    marcia

    Re .34
    
    The original 132% memo wasn't actually authored by Bob Glorioso, it was
    authored by William Askins. The copy I got of the original memo didn't
    have Bob Glorioso anywhere in the forwarding. My guess is the original
    memo was forwarded to his account and his substitute secretary just
    forwarded as she would with a lot of other mail.
    
    The retraction memo didn't blame the secretary (so you can all climb
    down off your high horses) it made a simple statement that it was sent
    from his account without his approval. It didn't say that the secretary
    should necessarily have gotten approval before sending it out.
    
    Dave

Re .35:

>    The original 132% memo wasn't actually authored by Bob Glorioso, it was
>    authored by William Askins. The copy I got of the original memo didn't
>    have Bob Glorioso anywhere in the forwarding. My guess is the original
						   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    memo was forwarded to his account and his substitute secretary just
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    forwarded as she would with a lot of other mail.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The copy of the memo with Bob's name on it which I saw didn't have the name in
some forwarding header.  As I recall, Bob's name appeared in the "From:" field
in the boilerplate of the interoffice memo header - you know, underneath that
vital:

 ___________________________
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| d | i | g | i | t | a | l |      Interoffice Memorandum
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

stuff.

If we've got office automation software that changes the name of the original
author of a memo in the process of forwarding it, we should really be doing
better in Government market segments...
				/AHM
P. S:  Note: That header is missing 4 plus signs in the corners, 6 hyphens on
the bottom line, and doesn't acknowledge that the "Digital" logo is trademarked.
Nice to see that some organizations know when to blow off stupid rules.

RE: .35

So it's William Askins (whoever he is) and not Bob Glorioso who is acting
the part of at best Polyanna on the Titanic and at worst Goebbels in the
last days of Berlin.  I guess I should be pleased and relieved that our
high-end systems VP is smart enough not to delude himself and us in this way,
but instead I'm angry that anybody would try to BS us like this.

Mr. Askins apparently can't tell the difference between spin control and
a whitewash job.  This sort of thing we don't need.

--PSW

Can someone send me a copy of the retraction memo from Glorioso?
Thanks.

Jim

    Re .36
    
    Take a look at .10 where the original 'twist the facts' memo appears.
    You'll see it was authored by William Askins. That is the memo I
    originally saw.
    
    For some reason I can't fathom, it apparently is not against der
    moderators policy to publish that memo in this notesfile but it is
    against das policy to publish the retraction memo. Oh well nobody says
    the world has to be logical.
    
    Dave

The William Askins memo has been forwarding around UK Marketing for about a week
now, hit my account two days ago, still no sign of a retraction.

/Dave :-(

    I am not currently a moderator of this conference but I do have some
    experience with policy 6.54 which covers posting mail messages. That
    policy explicitly allows the posting of mail that is intended as an
    announcement. The memo in .10 clearly indicates that it is to be
    distributed "to your organizations." This is why I would guess the
    moderators allowed it. As to the retraction I have not seen it so I
    can not comment as to why that was not allowed.

    		Alfred

    A kind soul sent me a copy of the retraction memo (Thank you Mark).
    It does not indicate that it is to be widely distributed and is not
    worded in such a manner that it is obviously intended to be sent/posted
    beyond the original distribution. One would like to be able to assume
    that such an intent would be spelled out if that's what was wanted.

    			Alfred

    I believe that as DEC employees who have read the original memo here,
    we have the right to know and read of its retraction, isn't the
    purpose of the retraction to correct the "blunder" and manage damage 
    control to the already eroded employee morale. I would like to know 
    what kind of privilege, if any, do the people that have read the memo 
    have that I/we don't have. (we, is defined as employees who have read the
    original memo, but cannot read its correction/retraction). 
    
    We're in serious dodo!
    Franc.                                                  

>    I believe that as DEC employees who have read the original memo here,
>    we have the right to know and read of its retraction, isn't the

    I agree. That's why I mailed you a copy. Policy does not prohibit that.
    It does prohibit me from posting it here though. People who have read
    the retraction have no special privilege they are just on the right
    place of the grapevine. Call it luck perhaps but not privilege.

    		Alfred

    PS: If you think that the memo should be posted here why don't you ask
    Bob Glorioso for permission to post it?

    re. 44
    
    right place of the grapevine.... I like that, keep the information
    comming.  These days, the grapevine is pretty good!  It is nice to know
    what is about to hit, or what has currently hit.
    
    regards,

    FWIW:
    
    William Askins (VAX 9000 Marketing) wrote and sent the memo in .10
    
    Later it was sent to others (forwarded?) through Bob Glorioso's
    account. It was widely forwarded by still others because it looked 
    like good news, which we all are eager to hear and believe.
    
    Since then, Bob Glorioso sent mail to the original recipients
    saying that the 132% statement was not accurate (and he should know!)
    
    No one has "retracted" William Askins' memo; no one except Askins
    could do this.
    
    So, all anyone can know is that the statement about the
    9000 in .10 is (apparently) inaccurate. Perhaps what's needed is an
    accurate statement of VAX 9000 ships, rather than a statement that the
    old one is wrong.

Re:<<< Note 1534.46 by GUESS::WARNER "It's only work if they make you do it" >>>

>    William Askins (VAX 9000 Marketing) wrote and sent the memo in .10
                              ^^^^^^^^^

There are always several different sets of forecasts in Digital, and perhaps
they *did* meet 132% of Marketing organization's own forecast! 

I once worked in an organization where Marketing had a success party when we 
surpassed their forecast.  The fact that their goal was only 62% of my goal as 
product manager, which we also slightly exceeded in that year, seemed to
escape their attention.  Noone in authority seemed to mind that they were
actually 65% off in their forecast  :-) 

So perhaps Bob Glorioso's "official" forecast was different from Mr. Askin's.

-  David

Whatever the other faults of his memo and how it was distributed, Mr. Askins
did point out one very interesting item concerning VAX 9000 first year
shipments.  Namely, that we appear to have shipped more VAX 9000s in their
first year than IBM did 3090 mainframes in their first year.  If it's true,
that's significant.

--PSW

     RE. Bob Glorioso memo.
    
     So what if the figures are wrong. You all KNOW they are wrong. Big
    Deal. The bottom line is, this is a public notes conference. Posting
    a memo in here saying "grovel, grovel... The 9000 does not look as good
    as..." is NOT going to do anyone ANY good. The people who are running
    the show on the 9000 know what the figures are. Rescinding a memo that
    was mistakingly sent is NOT going to change anything. Give
    this topic a rest, and get on with it.
    
    -Mike Z.

Hello everybody,

I received this 132% memo through my manager but we 
never saw any retraction memo. Would it be possible to
get a copy?

Thanks 
Elisabet

    The bottom line is not that "this is a public notes conference".
    
    The bottom line is that something incredibly inaccurate about something
    very important has been circulated within the company, and what is the
    response to that after-the-fact.
    
    Digital has a crisis in electronic communications, and I won't repeat
    myself here.
    
    Digital also has a crisis in accurate information.  For the first time
    in my career and I suspect many others of you, you will need in your
    job hard numbers: forecasts, units sold, unit profit, sales attempted,
    market share.  These numbers are often not known or worse recorded and
    communicated incorrectly.  Facts are the currency of political
    transactions within Digital.  And people are misers.
    
    "Public" means available to non-employees.  If I had got my hands on
    the information of a competitor wherein a employee said their equivalent
    of of VAX Notes Conference was "public", I might consider speaking to
    Glen Rifkin or Andrew Pollack of the New York Times about it.  It's a
    private conference, a private network, a private corporation.

    re -1
    
    Very well said.  Sugar-coating facts and juggling numbers
    virtually eliminates ACCOUNTABILITY for any failures,
    and taints real accomplishments. I'm not specifically 
    speaking of the 9000.
    
    There are many *extremely* well paid professionals empowered to set 
    the massive machine, that is DEC, in motion on reliable forcasts,
    marketing windows etc.  If you blow it big-time and p*ss away    
    alot of DEC's money in the process, should you be allowed to 
    miraculously transform it into an accomplishment?  
    
    NO....you should be thrown in the creek.
    
    At the very least don't try to shove it down my throat.
    I find it very insulting.
    
    Mark
    

	Re .48: "... we appear to have shipped more VAX 9000s in their
	    first year than IBM did 3090 mainframes in their first year.  
	    If it's true, that's significant."

	How?  Why?  Over what normalized measure?

	When I read the "132" memo, that very 3090 claim tipped me off to
	crockola.  So we sold 10% more units.  Big deal.  How much money?
	Into which market?  The same market as the 3090 addressed?  New
	customers?  Into our old customer base?  Did we displace IBM 
	machines?  Did we displace VAXes?  What was our customers' 
	expenditure/budget ratio for the 9000 purchases?  Same pain level 
	as the 3090 purchases? 

	Regards, Robert.

    I have only one question..... What does any of this have to do with the
    topic "NEXT CUTBACKS"..?????


    Bob G. (Just the curious type)

    -1. This is an easy one to answer. Next cutbacks magnitude is directly
     proportional to missed sales forecasts of major revenues products ( i.e.
    Vax9000). Had we met our sales forecast and predictions of $2 Billion
    or ?? for the 9000, cutbacks, if any, would have been minimal. 
    
    
    Franc.  
          

    Well, we have an answer now, don't we?  Per the year end financial
    statement, the lay-offs will come quarter-by-quarter, and the $1.1B
    charge translates into something like 20,000+ dead bodies.....maybe
    even more if the package content is reduced, as I hear is the case.

    I just heard that on the 12:00 news it was annouced that DEC
    will have another layoff of 2000 employees in August.  Does anyone have
    an idea as to what area's might get hit?
    

    I hear a merger of the Ed Services Documentation Group (ESDP) and
    Corporate User Pubs (CUP) is underway, and that TSF04 is being held
    up pending that sorting out.  I would assume there will be a lot
    of tech writers, etc., effected.
    
    Interesting.....of it's 2,000 again in August, kinda confirms my
    20,000+ estimate for the year.

    But remember, the $1.1G restructuring charge *includes* costs for some
    layoffs in Q4 FY91. Your mileage may vary, since we don't know how many
    got the gate in Q4, how much of the $1.1G was applied towards the Q4,
    er, rightsizing, etc.
    
    In round numbers, though, Mr. Lennard's 10-20K people is probably in
    the right ballpark. 

	... earlier this week.  Some group is looking for "...7 or 8 Sales
Support people to staff funded, mission-critical needs..." that firmed up
sometime after the 8th of July.  The memo was apparently created bya
personnel recruiter, and asks managers to check their "...list for the
next transition..." to see if some jobs might be saved.

    regarding next cutbacks:
    
    Report 7/25, at 11:45 AM, on WBZ radio:
    
    Ken Olsen announced today that Digital suffered its first quarterly
    loss in its 34-year history of $617 million.  He stated that another
    9,000 employees will have to be laid off.
    
    That's all the brief report mentioned.
    
    regards,

Lets see...DEC started FY91 at 125,000 and ended at 121,000 including the
7,000 from Kienzle.  Subtracting the K-folks out, that puts year-end at
114,000, or 11,000 smaller.  Add to that the 8,000-10,000 that will, in
military parlance, attrit, and you've got Dick's magic 20,000.

BobW

    It wasn't the first quarterly loss.
    
    It wasn't a loss because of operations in any case.
    
    Re: UNISYS, get real.  UNISYS has NEGATIVE NET-WORTH.
    
    In other words, they carry more liabilities than assets.  If the
    company was sold, after paying off the employees, the government,  the
    secured bondholders, and the banks, there would be no cash left over!
    
    Digital sits on a mountain of cash and has a conservative balance
    sheet.  This doesn't guarantee the future, but it means that we're not
    a basket case like Unisys.

    Someone's title reminded me of a story I heard many years ago.
    
    It seems there was this guy who had a dog, and he thought the dog's
    tail was too long. But, not wanting to hurt the dog, he didn't cut
    it off all at once. He made it a little shorter every day.
    
    Any resemblance of this story to actual persons or management decisions
    is coincidental.
    
    To paraphrase Mark Twain, anyone looking for a moral will be shot. (Or
    is that fired? Sorry; "TFSO'ed".)
    

>      <<< Note 1534.63 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>

>    Re: UNISYS, get real.  UNISYS has NEGATIVE NET-WORTH.
    
>    In other words, they carry more liabilities than assets.  If the
>    company was sold, after paying off the employees, the government,  the
>    secured bondholders, and the banks, there would be no cash left over!
    
    
    Was that also the case in 1986 when the Burroughs/Sperry merger took
    place?
    
    I seem to remember the price offered was around $5x per share - may
    even have been more (the old memory's not too good!).
    
    The problem identified then, and which seems to have borne fruit, is
    the difficulty of maintaining two totally disparate product lines -
    both competing with each other in the same market places.
    
    Also, from an employee point of view, there's a very great attraction
    to eliminating costs in the two companies to pay for the acquisition. 
    Manufacturing is an obvious target, but so are all the field offices,
    development centres etc etc.
    
    As I said - deja-vu all over again.
    
    Mike

    re .62
    
    7/25 we have 121,000 does this include the 7,000?  Is 121,000 the real
    amount of Digital employees as of date?
    
    regards,

    
    on WHDH radio this morning an analyst suggested 25,000 people will go
    this fiscal year and of course Digital wouldn't confirm. :0(
    
    
    
    

    
    Well, it's all over the news and papers 9000 employee layoff figure. 
    
    Why aren't we giving new, more realistic figures with analysts
    quoting almost three time that figure?
    
    Mark
    

    we started fy91 with 125,000.  we let 9,000 go.  we added over 3,600.
    
    are you with me?   119,600/Digital says 121,000
    
    add another 7,000 = 126,600 or 128,000 current amount of employees
    
    delete another 10,000 for fy92 = 116,600 or 118,000
    
    delete another 10,000 for fy93 = 106,600 or 108,000
    
    am I correct on this?
    
    regards,	         
    

    I sincerely hope I'm very, very wrong in my 20K assessment.  We 
    certainly aren't going to see the Corporation using numbers like
    that.  Real panic would follow.  I think we'll probably find out
    by the end of this fiscal year that the 9,000 figure is some kind
    of an "adjusted" number.
    
    Considering all the pain that has been and will be generated, it's
    really too bad that there is some pretty good evidence that these
    successive waves of lay-offs don't work.

    My observation on much of the above discussion:
    
    	o  We ALL want to know when these layoffs will stop - and will I be
           'caught'.  The sizing exercise is somewhat futile because:
           -  Our people decisions will be tied to business conditions.
              These still seem very hard to forecast - as U.S. improves, Europe may
              deteriorate.
           -  Some of the $1.1.B is for writing off unsellable but
              un-depreciated plant and equipment.
    
    	o  Our bite by bite layoffs are really distracting people, yet we
           don't want to lose people unless absolutely necessary.
        
    	My personal view is that we really knew 1 1 /2 years ago the size
    of the cost problem we faced, and where the economies might take place,
    especially in designing and building our products; but onomewhat later
    in selling and servicing them.  But few senior managers could/would
    make the first step and we waited and played chicken for far too long
    while the problem simply grew.

    I want the package!  
    
    
    current info:
    
    Employee Statistics
    
    Q4/FY91   
    
    US		65,727
    Europe	32,644
    GIA		18,799
    Total      117,170
    
    regards,

    I think that part of the "crying shame" of this whole layoff thing is
    the lack of sense applied to it.  Successful people gone, mediocrity
    rewarded through DEC's favorite prize, salary continuation.  On top of
    all that, we have lots openings that lie fallow or are filled with
    expensive, constantly-in-a-training-mode temporaries (i.e., order
    management, contract admin, secretaries, etc.) because we can't hire
    from the outside to fill what are basically entry-level positions.  
    
    And yet, at the same time, the implementation of One Plan and Quality
    Base Management (at least in this region/state/district) will cause a
    workload upswing of tremendous proportions in Customer Services Account
    Support.  For many, many years, the nature of the Account Support Reps
    job has been such that all s/he could do was behave in a reactive
    manner (if it ain't broke, don't fix it!), meaning that business
    retention, warranty conversion, add-ons/modifications were all they've
    had time for.  Now along comes One Plan, which says that we have to
    have dedicated Customer Services New Business reps, who do nothing but
    joint-sell total solutions with Sales, and they should be aligned by
    Sales Account Manager.  Then this Quality Base Management (basically
    inside sales for Customer Services) will take care of everything else,
    like retention, warranty conversions, etc.  So, we are now supposed to
    have outside reps and inside reps.  In this Distric, through attrition,
    transition to other parts of the company, etc., where replacement reqs
    were not approved, we now have just 5 Account Support reps, who sold
    and/or retained well over $30 million in FY91; four of them must 
    be aligned to Sales AMs as "outside" reps.  That leaves one person 
    to do the job that it took 5 people to do last year, and the fight to
    obtain more headcount to staff for QBM is a losing battle to date.  
    
    What's wrong with this equation?
    
    Yes, I certainly agree that there are too many employees, that the cost of
    sale must decrease, and that yield per person is much too low.  I do
    not necessarily agree with the lack of foresight used in these new
    organizational concepts.  How can any one say that one person must 
    handle retention/warranty, etc., for 750 - 850 customers generating 
    so many millions in revenue??  If you ask me, that is simply corporate
    suicide!
    
    M.
    

    If you haven't gotten the message yet, Digital has changed.  Sales
    people will be goaled not just on revenue, but on revenue, margin
    contribution, and growth.  If the business is losing money, or the
    sales rep is not bringing in alot more than they did last year then
    the account won't need as many people (sales reps and sales support).
    
    Budgets will be larger and they will need to show contribution to
    margin, not just more bucks because we gave away a lot of stuff.
    
    Account managers are going to be encouraged to try strategies to
    bring in more business and more profitable business.  If they can't
    come up with any, then they are they people will be at risks.  Digital
    can't just grow itself out of its current problem, especially in the
    present world economy, so there will continue to be layoffs and the
    support packages for people leaving will continue to shrink as the
    cash Digital has available continues to shrink.  
    
    But DEC is still in a strong position and if the behavior Ken believes
    the new management system fosters comes true, we will sell our way out
    of our problems while getting rid of groups of people who can't adjust
    to a profit and loss mentality.  If Ken is wrong and/or if the behavior
    fostered is not what Ken expects, then ????  But what is the option, if
    we do nothing we will continue to spiral downwards as the business slips
    away from us to other competitors.  I like many others would like to see
    the layoffs done quickly and move on with a company rightsized for the
    business we can win.  It will not happen that way.  I am not certain it
    ever happens that way anywhere!!! 
    
    So plan on changing and plan on being under a lot more pressure for a
    long time, or plan on finding a new job (you might be lucky and get a
    helping hand from TFSOxx)  Welcome to the brave new world!  Those who
    survive may have a lot of fruits to enjoy, or we may be in the death
    spiral Mr Lennard envisions and those who got out will be happier for
    it.  But only we can make it happen, so chose a path and charge down it
    for your own sake and that of Digital.
    

RE: .53 (the 9000 and selling more units in its first year than IBM's 3090)

>	When I read the "132" memo, that very 3090 claim tipped me off to
>	crockola.  So we sold 10% more units.  Big deal.  How much money?
>	Into which market?  The same market as the 3090 addressed?

The 9000 is a mainframe.  That's the same overall market as the 3090.

>       New
>	customers?  Into our old customer base?  Did we displace IBM 
>	machines?  Did we displace VAXes?

Doesn't matter, any more than it mattered whether IBM sold their first 3090s
into their installed base or whether they displaced 3080s or VAXes.

>       What was our customers' 
>	expenditure/budget ratio for the 9000 purchases?

Why do you consider this important?

>       Same pain level 
>	as the 3090 purchases? 

I doubt it.  We have a MUCH less rocky upgrade path than IBM does.

--PSW

    re .74      RIGHT ON !

    If I understand what has been said here and in the papers the past few
    days, we can expect:
    
    1. This situation of not knowing of you have a job tomorrow to continue
    for sometime,
    
    2. Your job continuation tied to the profit and loss of the accounts
    you support and not your performance,
    
    3. And that somewhere between 9,000 and 20,000 DECes will be gone by
    this time next year.
    
    Do I have the picture correct now?
    
    Frank

    correcting employee head count amount, Q4/FY91 showed:
    
    U.S.   65,727
    Europe 32,644
    GIA    18,799
    
    Total 117,170  Employee Master File
    Add     3,600  FY91 Report = 121,000 or 122,000
    Add     7,000  Phillips
    Total 128,000 ot 129,000 current Digital head count, before next
    layoff
    
    I think Digital only wants 75,000 to 90,000 employees worldwide, that
    is my guess!  I wonder what their figure is?
    
    regards,

	Re .75: ">What was our customers' expenditure/budget ratio for the
		 >9000 purchases?

		 Why do you consider this important?"

	The e/b ratio hints at how important the customer considers
	acquiring the machine.  I'm wondering which machine faced the
	higher resistance (which is what I meant by "pain level": how
	much it hurts the customer to spend the money).

	By "expenditure", I mean the money the customer spent on the
	machine purchase; by "budget", I mean the money the customer 
	spends annually on computation or data processing, or on 
	everything.  Matsushita wouldn't miss a megabuck for a 9000,
	but Joe's Bait Shop would.

	By the way, in addition to considering only normalized customers,
	what about the machines themselves?  How many of our 9000s does
	it take to equal one of IBM's 1st-year 3090s, per se, as well as
	as a fraction of customers' computing work?

	Regards, Robert.

    re: .78
    
    Perhaps it would be appropriate to factor in the estimated $1 Billion
    annual revenue to be potentially acquired with the Philips IS group (I
    say potential since the sale is not consumated, only in the talking
    stages).  The "need only 90K (=/-)" employees scenario was based upon 
    current revenue position, which will change (instantly) upward by $1 B 
    IF Philips IS is acquired.
    
    Sort of hard to nail down absolutes in a fluid situation, isn't it?  I
    don't think you can reasonably assume that you can add another billion
    in revenues (in a new area of focus) without adding any headcount to
    service those revenues.  I suspect that some large portion of the 7K
    Philips headcount will remain, and that the "ideal size" guesstimates
    will be revised upward accordingly.  IMHO.

    Next round of downsizing may be coming from MRO1, the VAX9000
    Engineering Group we where all told to start looking for a job.

    The Colorado Springs "big" disk business is being moved to Kaufbeuren,
    Germany.  CXO will do only 2.5 and 3.5" drives after conversion to a
    new "highly automated" production lines.  Morning paper says 1000
    people are now involved in disk production, and that announcement
    about how many heads will roll will be made in October.  I'd guess at
    least half.
    
    We will try to compete openly in that small disk world.  Hope somebody
    can do something about our outrageous overhead costs, or they are
    already dead in the water.

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






This is the scoop around here (We're inside the 495 belt in Massachusetts)

   There will be a 20% cut in our group.
   Of the 95 people in our technical group, (programmers, etc), 20 will 
   be 'outsourced' on 23-SEP-91.  This includes contractors (but not Indian 
   DEIL contractors).  It means that about 5 contractors and 15 employees will 
   be getting the axe.  Everyone is nervous because they won't identify the 15 
   employees.  They really should identify them.  This would give the 15 people
   a chance to find new jobs and it would ease the minds of the 75 who won't be 
   leaving. The contractors know they will be leaving, the DEIL contractors
   know they will NOT be leaving, and the regular employees have got to sit
   around and be nervous for 7 weeks.

   Another classic point:
     There have been several 'informational' meetings on the 'outsourcing' over
     here in the past few days, and at each meeting the managers of the people
     in the meeting have been CONVENIENTLY OUT OF THE OFFICE.  They've had
     the lowest-level managers do the presentations and Q&A.  
     The lowest-level managers only manage a small fraction of the people in 
     the meetings, and all the low-level managers can do is write down the 
     questions and bring them to the higher-level managers.

     Is anyone surprized that they'd be out of the office when the bad new was
     presented?  Is anyone surprized that they had someone else do their dirty
     work?  What strong spines!  

    Sounds like instead of MBWA what we have here is MBRA (Management By
    Running Away).  ;^)
    
    Steve

    If anyone else is sick and tired of this 'anonymous' stuff,speak up!
    
    Ken

    Re .-1
    
    I'm speaking up. I'm sick and tired of this anonymous stuff. I've
    always believed the following:
    
    "If you're not man enough (women enough) to put your name to it then
     keep your mouth shut"
    
    I've never bought this living in fear excuse. If you have to live in
    fear then you can't be happy or effective and that'll cause you to
    suffer long term anyway.
    
    So I say to all you anonymous noters. Please join us vertebrates.
    
    Dave

For the benefit of us hillbillies could someone tell me what an
"Indian DEIL contractor is"?

John

    I've no complaint with someone in a really tight spot using an
    anonymous posting to cry out for help.  On the other hand, most of the
    recent spate of anonymous notes haven't even been particularly
    controversial.  They've simply been the product of timidity and
    paranoia.
    
    If I were to find myself in a situation where I couldn't ask questions
    or discuss policy in a public forum without fearing for my job, then my
    highest priority would be finding a new job, not posting anonymous
    notes.
    
    -dave

Re: .85, .86

I aqppreciate how you and others feel about anonymous noters.  However,
I feel that anonymous entries, made through a moderator who DOES know the
author's identity, are valid and important contributions.  The people who
contribute anonymously do so out of a desire to avoid retribution from
their management, or out of a desire for personal privacy.  I have heard
from many noters that their participation in DIGITAL is under scrutiny
by their management, and in these troubled and uncertain times, I don't
blame people for wanting to avoid persecution.

There are some limits on what we'll allow, though.  We won't post an
anonymous note whose purpose is to escape responsibility for an action
contrary to corporate policy.  But a message from someone saying "this is
how it is here" is valuable, and would likely not otherwise get heard if
it could not be contributed anonymously.

You are free to accept or reject any note, anonymous or otherwise.

This conference is serving as a touchstone and a "group therapy session"
for Digital employees, many of whom are afraid of what the future holds,
afraid of turning around lest they get the "tap on the shoulder".  As the
moderator who seems to be getting the brunt of the anonymous requests, I'm
scared for Digital, even though I believe my own position to be relatively
safe (though nothing is certain.)  I'd rather give people the benefit of the
doubt and let them use this channel to express their feelings than tell
them that if they don't want to "come out" then they must stay silent.

				Steve

These anonymous notes have bothered me, too, but not as much as the generalized
management-bashing that goes on in here.

It's a tough decision, knowing that there's something that you think should be
said because you *care* about the company, but worrying that saying it out loud
(i.e., with your identity attached) could cost you your job.  As a matter of
fact, it's not only our job, it's your wife's job, you child's job, ... from
that perspective, a lot rides on *keeping* that job.  I sympathize with someone
who is in this dilemma, and I understand it, although I don't agree with their
decision to go 'anon'.

The change I'm waiting for is to see the driving forces behind all of this
stuff  (bashing, anonymity, etc.) get redirected into productive effort.  This
company has changed, which saddens me, but doesn't everything?  Dammit, we're
not dead, but we will be unless we get up off the road and start truckin'!

Pete

re .87:
>For the benefit of us hillbillies could someone tell me what an
>"Indian DEIL contractor is"?
    
DEIL = Digital Equipment India Ltd. (our India subsidiary, partially owned)

    Some DEIL people are here training while working so that they'll
    go back to India with software skills that they got while working
    in the real world over here.  (assuming that they go back...we had
    one guy quit and go work for a competitor...against his visa, I think).
    
    The hiring group pays for part of their salary over here and typically
    see them as a great deal...(much less than an engineer from here),
    while the original group gets back trained engineers.  The visiting
    DEIL engineers get a good deal because (I think) they get paid more
    relative to what they were making at home.  They just save it up and
    bring it home (where it'll go alot farther than it would here).

    Re .86:

    It seems to me that anonymous entries are sent by people who are trying
    to get important information into the light when others are or might be
    opposing them.  One of the forces opposing them is people who react
    reflexively against bad news, criticism, or rocking the boat.  Quite
    possibly, the people without vertebrae are those who cannot stand up to
    possibly bad information and:

    	1) examine it critically,
    	2) react to the information, and
    	3) refrain from attacking the messenger.

    The attack of a messenger is repugnant to intelligent people.
    

    				-- edp

    I agree with edp, but for me the overriding concern is one of
    retaliation.

    Digital has "transitioned" from a company with important ideals to a
    company of none.  Among these former ideals was that employees could
    discuss management policies and practices without fear that the
    managers would personally retaliate against them.  In the now-extinct
    culture, managers would answer directly or just shut up.

    re. last couple
    
    bingo and bingo...well said.
    
    Mark
    
    

    Can we get back to discussing "next cutbacks" and move the dialog on 
    anonymous noters to a new note?

    Yes,EDP,anonymous noters certainly *do* put valuable information into
    the light. Just look at the anonymous note that tells us of the
    employee who feels compelled to both hold his private parts all night
    and tell his manager about it in a memo. Now *that's* stuff that we
    other employees have to know about!
    
    Ken

    Back to the topic at hand .....
    
    Digital News in this weeks issue states another 1200 field sales and
    sales support people are to shot in the head before the end of Q1.
    If we use last July as a model, my Accounts Group lost 10 in an 800
    people layoff that makes our take this time at 15, that's a lot of
    people. in a group of 45. The last round resulted in me being the only
    support person for 6 sales reps. Does that give me job security? Who
    knows?
    
    The same article states that we will be gaining 7,000 more with the
    Philips deal. It also says that part of the $1.1B is to be used for
    getting rid of some of those 7,000 new "short timers".
    
    

    Re .97:
    
    > Just look at the anonymous note that tells us of the employee who
    > feels compelled . . .
    
    1) The note did not say that.  It said it wasn't anybody's business.
    
    2) There was plenty of additional information in the note.  Even if YOU
    got nothing from the note, that is no reason anybody should interfere
    with people who did get information from it.
    
    Don't attack the messenger.
    
    
    				-- edp

What difference does it make?  I don't know many of the people that are 
active in this notes file anyway.  The noter's name is irrelevant.  The
message in the note remains the same.

Bruce

    As I am reading this note, personnel is dropping the ax on 
    one of our secretaries.

You know, Steve, your comment about DIGITAL.NOTE being a big group therapy
session is an interesting one. My understanding of group therapy sessions
has always been that they (such sessions) work and are beneficial because
they are "safe" places where one can express one's mind without concern for
retribution. Obviously the anonymous entries are due to the fact that
DIGITAL.NOTE is _NOT_ considered a "safe" place anymore. More importantly, DEC
in general is no longer a "safe" place. That's the pitiful part.

-Jack

    
    	30 folks from Workstation Manufacturing were walked to the door
    this Wednesday. All were from Engineering or other indirect labor 
    groups, and two were from our group. It hurts!
    	/john

OF course, an enterprising individual that had the 1.6 Billion dollars that we
have spent on layoffs so far, and their choice of all of the talented
employees that we have marched out of the door, would be able to start several
extremely profitable ventures. (Pick me, Mr Olsen. - I have several bright
ideas that could net this company 100 times the initial investment.)

Have we ever spent as much in such a short time on any of our engineering
projects. No way. Layoffs were meant to be a means to an end. i.e. Improving
the revenue/employee ratio. Any one with the most basic Economics training,
can tell you that that is not the approach to take. Now of course, they are an
end in their own right.

As I have said before, too many people take directives in this corporation far
too literally, I think the fault both lies in the lack of clarification and
monitoring from on high, and the lack of willingness to be enterprenuerial,
that has been promoted at Digital...

q

    Re: Is this a safe place....
    
    Call David Carnell at home in Atlanta and ask him what he thinks...
    
    (He is no longer employed here)

    Re .106 Could you explain ? I just started reading this file as I was
    curious to hear what's going on throughout the company these days
    and had already wondered if any people had suffered retributions
    for expressing opinions here....I noticed some people have jumped
    on others for sending annonymous notes, but this is definitley a
    different company, with new ideals and priorities then the past.
    Has anyone had difficulties for writing in DIGITAL ? How safe is
    the sources name if they do choose to post a note by way of the
    moderator ? Has the moderator ever been asked to provide the source?
    
    Just curious....
    
    Marty

    I've got a gut feeling that if a moderator was ever asked for a name
    and didn't comply,said moderator would be an instant candidate for "the
    package". Remember,the COMPANY owns the computer resources that this
    notesfile lives on and anybody that notes here is presumably an
    employee of the company so therefore no protection exists whatsoever.
    (you know,like when a reporter refuses to divulge a source and goes to
    the slammer) This is my opinion only.
    
    Ken

    Just to burrow a little further in this rathole, perhaps the anon.
    noter who wants the package should try this tactic? :-)

    	re .106
    
    	Who is David Carnell?

An outspoken noter in this conference that has been "TFSOd".

Lee

    Where's ::LENNARD???  (another outspoken member of this conference)
    
    Mark

    Hear that,Dick? Quiet down,they're looking for you.
    
    Ken

    *opportunity*  
    
    A rumor given to me yesterday from a good source is, expect here at
    the ACT in Elk Grove Village cutbacks from 8/30/91 to 9/30/91.  We just
    had 5 cutbacks around the first of July/91.  In addition, a August 8,
    91 memo states that SCO will participate in Phase Three of Transition. 
    A copy was sent to me yesterday.  Below is what the article stated,
    this is all it said, I do not know anything more..... 
    
    We have reviewed the work reqirements and business conditons for the
    SEG organization and determined that this group will not participate in
    Phase Three, during the first quarter of fiscal 1992.
    
    For those groups that will be affected the selection process will be
    based on the criteria of:
    
    1.  Work going away or
    2.  Groups being downsized.
    
    At this time, recommendations for downsizing are currently being
    reviewed and those individuals who will be affected has yet to be
    determined.  This process is expected to be completed by the end of Q1.
    
    In an effect to respond to employee concerns about allowing people to
    leave with dignity, the notification process has been modified.  On the
    day of notification, employees will complete their separation
    paperwork, pack their personal belongings, and be allowed to leave the
    building unsecorted.  If employees wish to complete personal business
    or to say good bye to co-workers on the following day, they can arrange
    this with their supervisor.  
    
    Further communication will follow in an effort to keep all employees in
    SCO informed.
    
    -------
    
    regards,

    Who?  Me?? Somebody must be using my name in vain {:^).....

    Someone told me all the Application for Technology (ACT's) Centers are
    going to shut down, has anyone heard any rumors of this nature?
    
    We started out with sixteen, now we are at eleven.
    
    Chicgo, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Hartford, Houston, Irvine, New York,
    Philadelphia, Santa Clara, and Washington.
    
    regards,

    Whew.  Good to see you back.  One can never tell these days.
    
    Mark
    
    
    
    
    

Just because David Carnell or Cindy Lilly or whomever happens to no longer
be with the company, there's not necessarily any reason to conclude that
they were removed for being a thorn in someone's side. It may be coincidental.
There may have been other reasons. But I can't logically draw the conclusion
that being outspoken was the cause for their departure. Even their own personal
_opinion_ that that was the case does not necessarily make it so.

-Jack

    re -2..... don't sweat it Mark.  I'm just applying some old survival
    technology I learned in the infantry in Korea when the scrap metal
    started flying rather heavily....
        
         1 - Always wear your helmet and flack vest.
    
         2 - Never stand on the ridgeline.
    
                             {:^)
    
    Dick......BTW thanks for the Christ memo.

>       <<< Note 1534.118 by 16BITS::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dog face)" >>>
>                  -< What ever happened to reason and logic? >-

>Just because David Carnell or Cindy Lilly or whomever happens to no longer
>be with the company, there's not necessarily any reason to conclude that
>they were removed for being a thorn in someone's side. It may be coincidental.
>There may have been other reasons. But I can't logically draw the conclusion
>that being outspoken was the cause for their departure. Even their own personal
>_opinion_ that that was the case does not necessarily make it so.

It's mighty coincidental.  It's also typical DEC management style to remove
a thorn in the side via the currently convenient "program".

Thanks for the advice, but this is one conclusion to which I think I'll jump.
If ever I've seen a sign that says "don't make waves" it's the list of people
who have been asked to leave.  I think the deadwood was axed a long time ago
in this process and I'm sure management just tacked on the troublemakers 
when their list wasn't long enough.

Just MHO.

K.

	Pardon me for my skepticism, but all the deadwood is far from gone.
When I see things like a 3-times-my-hourly-wage contracter who thought
VAXmail was too difficult to use still working for the company two years
after I spent a lot of time and finally convinced my group not to renew the
contract, I have to be skeptical.  (Obviously, it was more than inability
to use MAIL that I objected to.)

	I will agree with you that the troublemakers probably looked like
good targets though.  Sad, but probably true.

						--D

    Employees who "tell the hard truth" will be classified troublemakers.
    Troublemakers are dismissed.
    Therefore people who are dismissed were really "telling the hard truth".


None of this is valid logic.  Nor is it valid judgement.  The human
temptation to hear one side of the story, and then side with that
party is powerful, but in this conference we *never* get enough
information to make reliable assumptions about severances including
dismissals.

The trouble is that there *are* certain personalities that cause a
lot of problems, are poor performers, yet produce a volume of public
compaints and stories that make them out as martyrs and yield the
predictable public sympathy.

And, the truth is that there are people who accurately, truthfully,
and relentlessly prosecute faults and errors of the company who then
enter an antagonistic relationship with the company that ends with
the severance of the relationship (often by joint agreement though
that fact may not be disclosed).

Unfortunately, unless one is familiar with the details, the personalities,
and *both* sides, it is simply impossible to tell a real martyr from a
self-proclaimed one --- they _look_ exactly alike.

- greg

RE: .122

>Unfortunately, unless one is familiar with the details, the personalities,
>and *both* sides, it is simply impossible to tell a real martyr from a
>self-proclaimed one --- they _look_ exactly alike.

Absolutely true.

So is it bad judgement to say, "I'll pass on making waves, thank you." ?

I don't think so.  OK, so I don't know the whole story.  I've made the
decision that I know enough of the story.  I also have the experience of
my years at DEC and my knowledge of DEC's management style.  And from the
context I have, I have decided I can reasonably come to the conclusion that
TFSO is the solution du jour for management to deal with the loudmouths and
noisemakers.  Somehow I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that.

.122's context is different from mine and seems to think otherwise.  Fine.
It takes a pretty healthy dose of self-confidence, though, to tell someone that
their judgement is wrong, given that you don't know their background,
experience, relationship with management, etc. and especially since you don't
claim to know that their conclusions are positively incorrect.  (As .122
says, we have only partial information available in this conference.)

.122 starts by stating that the LOGIC of .120 is faulty.  If there
were no more information available than
>    Employees who "tell the hard truth" will be classified troublemakers.
>    Troublemakers are dismissed.
>    Therefore people who are dismissed were really "telling the hard truth".
then .122 would be correct.  However, every employee has more information
than that.  We all have experiential context into which to place the somewhat
ambiguous facts.  So to conclude that "nor is it valid judgement" is not
particularly logical, nor is it necessarily accurate.

And, while I believe my conclusion is reasonable, I certainly don't want
to assume that others must come to the same conclusion as I.  But, to say
that my judgement is not valid presumes to comment on my experience and
background in dealing with the facts as I know and process them.  It is
a remarkable individual (as .122 may be) who can fully place themselves
into the mindset of someone he's never met and help them realize a
mistake in judgement.  Usually it takes years of training and several meetings
with a person to reach that level of understanding of their experiential
context.  It's also usually very expensive.  :^)

Anyway, thank you, .122, for your insight.

I'll continue to believe that troublemakers get tossed.  Maybe I'm
gullible, but I think Cindy Lilly is one of the REAL martyrs (to use .122's
term).  

K.

    Well, before last week, I would not have agreed with some of the
    comments made related to "loud mouths" getting the boot, just for being
    "loud mouths"..... NOW, I know first hand it is happening.
    
    How do I know? A few months ago, I saw something happening within the
    group that I saw as being a possible damage to the business and to the
    proper servicing of our customer.... I went to my manager (has since
    been reassigned) and attempted to discuss this with him.. He refused to
    talk with me concerning the situation..., SO I went to the business
    group (for this particular product) and discussed the problem with that
    manager (I had informed my manager I was going).
    
    Well, my current manager was preparing my PA and asked my previous
    manager (the one that got reassigned) to add his input (my new manager
    had not been with the group long enough to give input). Well, my old
    manager was able to get his revenge... It seems that I went from a 2
    and 3 performer, to a 4 performer rather fast. My old manager sighted
    that I had not been following my job discription... Awefully funny that
    I hadn't had a "job discription" prior to this insident.
    
    So, though I am in a group that is not effected under the current TSFO
    package... I can see that if some other type of "give 'em the boot"
    package comes out, I will be heading for the door.
    
    The worst thing about this whole thing is, it seems my current manager
    is convensed that the old managers' statements concerning my job
    performance are true and accurate... BUT they are not. It is bad enough
    that he has suggested looking for another job... Ths action would
    surely put me in a position for "the boot".
    
    I saw a problem, I spoke up, I'm getting the shaft..! Will this stop me
    from attempting to right wrongs... I don't think so..!!
    
    One heck of a way to be treated after 10 years of excellent service!!!!
    
    Just one mans story..!
    
    

    re -1 
    
    Bravo!
    
    Mark

    is there a pattern?  any help/guesses?
    
    There used to be sixteen (16) ACT's (Application Centers for
    Technology) about eighteen (18) months ago.  Today we have about ten
    (10) or eleven (11).  It appears every two or three months one ACT hits
    the dust!  What do you think?  Any comments?  Any rumors?  Almost
    anything is welcome.....:^)
    
    

re.124:

What were your old manager's reasons for not discussing the problem?
Did you eventually solve the problem through the other group? Is so, is this
what your manager resented?

When you had your PA, did you ask for a copy of the job description (as you had
not already got one) and an explanation of which parts of the job you had not
been following? As part of you PA are you allowed to write a response to others
comments? (Note: This is a common practice in the UK, if you disagree with a
comment).

One consolation, if you are a good performer, your new manager will see it and
eventually form his own opinions.

/Dave.

As a former ACT employee (former, due to downsizing) we were quite 
successful. I can't speak for the other ACT's, since I have never been
there, nor have I talked with any of the sales reps in those areas, but
the Wash DC ACT always had a reputation of doing everything humanly
possibly for the sales reps -- our sales reps (a good majority of them)
thought we were extremely useful!

As for the demise of the ACT's, that is still unknown. The one in DC looks
like it will be closing down very shortly. They downsized the staff, laying
off 3, putting 3-4 others in "Solution Sets" (another name for DCC...) and
5 stayed. Rumor has it that sales pulled the funding for what was left of
the ACT, since it was such a small group. 

As for the rest, the Wash ACT was to be renamed "Demo Center". I'm assuming
the rest of the ACT's will be called something similar to that. However, there
are "mumblings" that some ACT's WILL retain the name ACT -- but there will
be few, if not NO ACT's left.

    RE: .129

    I can not say why my old (former) manager did not want to discuss the
    problem. He would not even schedule time for me to discuss it with him.
    The situation did finally get resolved, through the other channel(s).

    I did ask for a copy of my job description. It was a shocking piece of
    work, in that there is no way possible that that job description could
    have been mine, because I had never been hired to do any of that, cause
    90% of it, I had never done in my life.

    Finally, when I had follow up meetings with my new manager, I was
    informed that the PA is NOT yet being sent to personnel, due to the
    gross difference in the PA and his perceived opinion of my abilities.

    So, I guess, for now at least, I am off the hook. I will have to
    continue to prove myself as the professional that I am.
    
    Bob G.
    

    I'm fishing for information on the ACT's (Application Centre for
    Technology) shuting down, I'm not even particular, I will take any 
    data/information/rumor you have come across.  What have you heard?  You
    can write poorly, misspell words here, just tell me what you have
    heard.  regards ;-)

    re .132
    
    I saw a note in another conference indicating that the Seattle ACT is 
    now called the "Manufacturing Solution Ctr."

Announced last Friday, Augusta will "restructure" 100 people
by October 25th.

TFSO 3 is in effect.... Mostly Indirect Labor but a few Direct
labor folks will be involved.

BTW - We are currently at 640 (about). This will bring us to
      540 (about). 

Jim

    Rumor has it that October is the month here for more layoffs, we shall
    see.  (ACI)
    

    We are hearing Greenville is being looked at for a merger or
    sale...anyone else hearing it?

								PAGE 1 OF 2
     
                                PLANT CLOSINGS               UPDATED 11-4-91
     
     		 					    
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     SITE CODE               ADDRESS          UPDATED 11-4-91    CLOSE DATE
     =======================================================================
     AET1	 6 TECH DRIVE, ANDOVER, MA. 01810		     CLOSED     
     AET2	 TECH DRIVE, ANDOVER, MA. 01810 		     CLOSED
     AKO4	 43 NAGOG PARK, ACTON, MA.  01720		     CLOSED
     APO  ***	 100 MINUTEMAN RD, ANDOVER, MA. 01810		     Q2 ***
     ASM	 UNUSED WHSE.,  MAYNARD, MA. 01754		     CLOSED
     BGO 	 146 MAIN ST., MAYNARD, MA. 01754		     CLOSED
     BKO	 12A ESQUIRE RD., BILLERICA, MA. 01862 		     CLOSED
     BPO1	 197A NORTHBORO RD., MARLBORO, MA. 01752  	     CLOSED
     BPO2	 219 BOSTON POST RD., MARLBORO, MA. 01752	     CLOSED
     BPO3	 199 BOSTON POST RD., MARLBORO, MA. 01752	     CLOSED
     BUO	 12 CROSBY DR., BEDFORD, MA.  01730		     Q2
     CFO2	 150 COULTER DR., CONCORD, MA. 01742		     CLOSED
     CHM	 199 RIVERNECK RD., CHELMSFORD, MA. 01824	     CLOSED
     DLB5	 290 DONALD LYNCH BLVD., MARLBORO, MA. 01752	     CLOSED
     DLB8	 450 DONALD LYNCH BLVD., MARLBORO, MA. 01752	     CLOSED
     DLB9	 500 DONALD LYNCH BLVD., MARLBORO, MA. 01752	     CLOSED
     DLB12	 295 DONALD LYNCH BLVD., MARLBORO, MA. 01752	     Q3
     ENO 	 1 VISION DRIVE, ENFIELD, CT. 06082		     CLOSED
     HUO	 428 MAIN STREET, HUDSON MA. 01749		     CLOSED
     HYO	 337 TURNPIKE RD., SOUTHBORO, MA.		     CLOSED
     HZO	 24 FLAGSTONE DRIVE, HUDSON, N.H. 03051		     CLOSED
     ICO	 20 ALPHA ROAD, CHELMSFORD, MA. 01824		     CLOSED
     IND	 67 FOREST STREET, MARLBORO, MA. 01752		     CLOSED
     KNX	 36 KNOX TRAIL ROAD, ACTON, MA. 01720		     CLOSED
     LMO4	 150 LOCKE DRIVE, MARLBORO, MA. 01752		     CLOSED
     LWO	 205 INDUSTRIAL AVE., LOWELL MA. 01852		     CLOSED
     MET	 600 NICKERSON ROAD, MARLBORO, MA 01752		     Q3
     MHO	 25 CONSTITUTION DR., BEDFORD, N.H. 03102	     CLOSED 
     NSO	 32 HAMPSHIRE RD., SALEM, N.H. 03079		     Q3
     
     ***  APO WILL BE UTILIZED FOR THE STAGING OF DEC WORLD '92 AND IT'S 
          CLOSING IS DELAYED BUT ALL BUSINESSES AT APO WILL MOVE IN Q2.
     
     
     		 						     CONT.



     
     		 					        PAGE 2 OF 2     
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     SITE CODE               ADDRESS          UPDATED 11-4-91    CLOSE DATE
     =======================================================================
     NKS1	 100 NICKERSON RD., MARLBORO, MA. 01752		     CLOSED
     NKS2	 200 NICKERSON RD., MARLBORO, MA. 01752		     CLOSED
     NKS5	 500 NICKERSON RD.,MARLBORO,  01752                  CLOSED
     NRO1	 450 WHITNEY STREET, NORTHBORO, MA.   		     CLOSED
     PDM	 397 WILLIAMS ST., MARLBORO, MA. 01752		     CLOSED
     PNO	 2500 W. UNION HILLS DR., PHOENIX. AZ. 85027	     ??????
     QLO 	 16 HAMPSHIRE DR., HUDSON, N.H.  03051		     CLOSED
     RIV	 9 RIVERSIDE DR., WESTON MA. 			     CLOSED
     RWC	 DANGELO DR., MARLBORO, MA. 01754 		     CLOSED
     USO 	 22 KANE INDUST. PARK, HUDSON, MA. 01749	     CLOSED
     UFO 	 5 BURLINGTON WOODS,BURLINGTON, MA. 01803	     CLOSED
     VRO3	 555 VIRGINIA ROAD, CONCORD, MA. 01742               CLOSED
     VRO5	 555A VIRGINIA RD., CONCORD, MA. 01742		     CLOSED
     VRO6	 555 VIRGINIA ROAD, CONCORD, MA. 01742		     CLOSED
     VWO 	 687 ANDOVER ST., LAWRENCE, MA.			     CLOSED
     WCO	 904 TURNPIKE RD., SHREWSBURY, MA 01545		     CLOSED
     WFR	 150 FLANDERS RD., WESTBORO, MA. 01581		     CLOSED
     WJO1	 5 CARLISLE RD., WESTFORD, MA. 01886		     CLOSED
     WJO2	 3 CARLISLE RD., WESTFORD, MA. 01886		     CLOSED
     WSA	 1800 WEST PARK DR., WESTBORO, MA. 01581	     CLOSED
     WVT 	 115 KIMBALL AVE., S. BURLINGTON, VT. 05403	     Q3
     YKO1	 2200 NORTHHAMPTON ST., HOLYOKE, MA. 01040	     CLOSED
     YWO	 14 WALKUP DRIVE, WESTBORO, MA. 01581		     CLOSED
     ZWO3	 234 BALLARDVALE ST., WILMINGTON, MA. 01887	     CLOSED
     =======================================================================

>     WVT 	 115 KIMBALL AVE., S. BURLINGTON, VT. 05403	     Q3
>    =======================================================================

    Right warehouse..wrong address  115 KIMBALL AVE is BTO.
    
    uh-oh :^)
    
    Mark 

    146 Main st. in Maynard was listed. This is the Mill. Which building is
    shutting down or is the Mill going away?
    
    Ken

.140>    146 Main st. in Maynard was listed. This is the Mill. Which building is
.140>    shutting down or is the Mill going away?

Sorry, no such luck 8^)  

.137>    BGO 	 146 MAIN ST., MAYNARD, MA. 01754		     CLOSED
 
BGO is (was) the site code for the St. Bridget's School building.  It's 
across the street from the "Lower Thompson" parking lot, next to the 
Pond.  Digital leased the  upper floor(s) for a number of years.  Among
other tenants, I think that KO had his office there during the renovation 
of bldg 12 and the lobby.

The addresses are the mail addresses.  BGO and WVT apparently don't have
mailrooms.

Just to clarify, WVT is the (leased) BTO warehouse, located in the adjacent
town of Williston (Vermont), hence (I believe) the call letters (WVT).

All warehouse storage is being moved (back) into the BTO Plant and should be
complete by Q3.

-Gary

    The latest Livewire says that BTO will be laying off 75 employees
    as they convert from manufacturing to a service center.