Conference 7.286::digital

    re: -1 
    
    What group are you from & where are you located? 
    
    How many were cut?
    
    

    Re: .1
    
    The Western Software Lab, part of TNSG.  But, does that matter?  I
    thought access to accounts would be a company-wide policy?
    

    There's some mention in note 1948.189 in this conference.

    Reading note 2062.0 and replies, one gets the impression that inquiring
    minds not only want to know; they're anxious about any kind of info on
    lay-off procedures.  When your only source for info is the grape-vine,
    you watch how it gets pruned.
    

    In our group the terminating person's accounts (including email
    addresses) were terminated during the termination interview.  A new
    account was provided to permit email "good-bys"; however, mail sent
    to the former employee's old account will not be forwarded to the new
    account.  However, in at least one case the error message that you
    get when sending to the terminated account provides the name of the
    new account.
        
    I relate the above from personal experience.  I was told that I "no
    longer have a job with Digital" today.  On my way home I visited the
    unemployment office and the local vocational school.
        John Sauter
                

    Re .6
    
    John, I'm very sorry to hear that you'll be departing Digital. I still
    use EDT as my preferred editor. Can't get used to all the fake EDTs
    that don't emulate EDT properly. I've got two key defined that do a:
    =A. and =MAIN. and I'm a dab hand at constructing ^K macros. Can't seem
    to do that with the LES/TPU impersonators.
    
    I'll take my hat off to you. You were doing portable software before it
    became fashionable. I've also been very impressed by your obvious
    concern for the customer and quality software. Especially the way
    you've always helped out the CSC. I vaguely seem to remember that once
    you even took part of your vacation to help out at the CSC.
    
    Then of course there's the 3270 support for DECforms document that you
    wrote that my engineering group has nearly finished implementing.
    
    I'm sorry to see you go (could think of a number of other people I'd
    rather see go than you). I wish you the very best in your future
    career. Digital is the worse off for your departure.
    
    Good luck,
    
    Dave 

    When I went through Transition last month no one lost their account 
    until the following monday.

    re: .7
    
    To avoid ratholing this note I will respond to Dave by Email.
        John Sauter

See also:

  This conference --> topic 861.*
  HUMAN::SECURITY_INFORMATION --> topic 344.*

Over here, people accounts were disabled while being interviewed and
notified. There are many security implications...

	We were told that departing employees could request access to
	their accounts via their managers.  We admins could then pull
	off selected and approved files onto media provided by the
	employee.

    I believe it is policy in TNSG for the person's account to be disabled
    while they are in their first interview. Then they get a guest account
    to mail farewells, and that's it.
    
    Ray

    The policy stated in the memo contained in 2024.24 clearly states:
    
   "Where access to PRIVALEGED system accounts is a concern to organizations 
from an information security viewpoint, it is acceptable to deactivate access 
to these accounts by selected employees AFTER notification occurs.  However, 
normal user accounts (i.e. VAXMAIL, or ALLIN1) should remain active through the 
entire week of notification and should not be deactivated until after the
employee's last day of work (the Friday of the week of their notification)."

    This policy was supposed to have been placed into the "Guide to
    Managing the U.S Involuntary Separation Program", according to
    a statement in that same memo.
    
    Assuming that the above-quoted paragraph is indeed corporate policy,
    this notes string (and at least one case outside of my own group that
    I know of, not mentioned in this string) contains several instances
    of apparent violations of that policy.
    
    At the very least, mail should be forwarded to the newly-created
    temporary accounts (in most cases, people won't be aware of the
    new account), and mail in the new temporary account should enable
    both send and receive; in addition, the account should be able to
    access notes conferences.  Otherwise, the "find a job in four days"
    would be even more unfeasible than common sense would ordinarily
    dictate.
    
    I understand the security issues involved here.  But let's not
    become so overzealous that we strip our colleagues of every last
    vestige of respect, trust, and dignity.
    
    Chris

    This of course bring to mind a related problem, which I don't think is
    really being addressed. 
    
    I needed some routines, which I knew someone had already done. I sen't
    him mail, It bounced, I sen't mail to someone else on the same node,
    finally found out that he had been serped. And his account had been
    backed up to tape. His group was a about 60% strength, and after asking
    two different people, it became plain that noone was going to restore
    those tapes so that I could get at that software. (Said person was a
    20+ yr veteran, who had been a prolific writer of General Purpose
    Software in his time.) What frightens me, is that in a few months,
    those backups will have been over written, and thousand of lines of
    damn good code, will go into hyperspace. This is happening in Stone's
    Organization, and I recalll Stone saying sometime back that we need to
    get into Software "re-Use". Not like this, we won't, David. This
    scenario is being repeated all over the corporation, thousands of
    times, not just with Software, but with Business plans, communications
    with outside vendors and so on and so forth. 
    
    If we insist on continuing to downsize, can we at least do it
    surgically, with a scalpel, and bandages, rather than with a chainsaw,
    and a pot of tar...
    
    q
    

    So, have you called Stone?

    re .13
    
    Just remember, Chris, that no "policy" is binding on local management. 
    If they believe there are reasons to do something different, they are
    empowered to do so.
    
    Dick

RE: .14

I've smelled the smokey smell of the chainsaws being warmed up, but I don't
smell any tar...  Maybe there's been a cutback on the downsizing that allows
tar to be optional.

/Marty

    Re: .16 Just remember, Chris, that no "policy" is binding on local
      management.  If they believe there are reasons to do something
      different, they are empowered to do so.
    
    In our case, local management wanted to treat people with dignity. 
    But, I was told, "someone from back East" was cruising around in our
    systems checking that the laid off peoples' accounts had been shut off,
    and local management was basically powerless to exercise any choice.
    
    It did turn out that they could give people "guest
    accounts" for the purpose of sending goodbye mail, and that ops could
    retrieve specifically requested personal files from their old accounts
    for them, but by then virtually everyone laid off had packed up and
    left.
    
    Some of this is clearly miscommunication on procedures, but some of it
    is the type of classless behavior that that transition policy was
    designed to prevent.

>     <<< Note 2066.16 by SGOUTL::BELDIN_R "D-Day: 217 days and counting" >>>
>             -< reminder about the force of "policy" in Digital >-
>
>   re .13
>   
>   Just remember, Chris, that no "policy" is binding on local management. 
>   If they believe there are reasons to do something different, they are
>   empowered to do so.
  Please explain further what you mean by this. Is their power to do something
different based on a policy document, or is it de facto power based on lack of
enforcement?
  The fear of being "cut off" abruptly, as described in .0 and .18, is just the
sort of thing that many of us are losing sleep over. For a while I thought this
fear had been put to rest, but it looks like it's only partly true. I inter-
preted the relevant policy to mean that people would have access to their
ORIGINAL main account, and the files therein. during the notice period, but at
a non-privileged level. Being switched over to a guest account IMO doesn't com-
ply with the spirit of this policy. Having to ask someone else to copy over the
personal files on your account that you want to keep is degrading, especially
under the rushed conditions that exist during the layoff notice period. And it
appears that at least a few people decided to forgo their personal files after
their old VAX accounts were closed, rather than hang around long enough to 
have them off-loaded by someone else.
  

    >> Please explain further what you mean by this. Is their power to do
    >> something different based on a policy document, or is it de facto 
    >> power based on lack of enforcement?
    
    I think I can explain it ... the concept of corporate policy which is
    universally applied throughout the company is a myth in Digital.  Local
    managers are given broad latitude by their superiors (and by the
    corporation) to interpret policies in whatever way they see fit. As 
    long as their decisions do not put the corporation into a legal bind,
    their superiors will support them, regardless of how the "spirit"
    of the policy is affected.  Some upper managers are even willing to
    look the other way when employees are treated in ways which are
    dishonest or unethical, for the sake of "supporting" their middle
    managers.  Of this I speak from first-hand experience.
    
    This, quite simply, is why there is so much confusion within the
    company about how virtually ANY aspect of personnel situations get
    handled.  The same exact circumstances can occur within two different
    groups (even within the same organization) and be handled completely
    differently.  It all depends on the whim of your local management, and
    on their ability to "justify" their actions in such a way as to prevent
    the company from being sued.
    
    Fortunately, I believe that the majority of managers in this company
    see the value of treating their direct-reports with respect and
    dignity.  Unfortunately, there's no such thing as an enforced policy
    within Digital which tells them that they have to.  And so you get the
    occasional horror story, which may affect only a small minority of our
    employees, but will cause a great many to lose sleep wondering if the
    same thing can happen to them.
    
    As a former boss of mine once told me ... "there isn't a single policy
    in the Orange Book that isn't subject to your manager's individual
    interpretation.  Fair treatment for you at Digital is exactly what your
    manager decides it is."
    
    IMO - that part of our "corporate culture" will have to change if we're
    ever again going to engender a sense of trust between management and
    the individual contributor.
    
    ... Bob
    

    re .20
    
    Bob is right.  Can you say "management discipline"?
    
    Dick