Conference 7.286::digital

    
    
    .1...lost me....maybe that's why I'm still here warming a chair.
    
    Assuming that you are a salaried employee seeking a position in another
    department that is the level above you and you are NOT in that pay
    range, WHY could you NOT have that job if the interview proves you are
    qualified? That's my question. 
     
    Is the answer to all this  that employees are DOOMED to stay in their
    current level until, after many 4% pay raises they are fortunate enough
    to cross over into the next salary range and at THAT time they are
    eligableto interview and get a job at that next level? For some people
    here who were caught by JEC and the freeze all at one hack, that could
    mean 8 years....(make it 10 years. I just figured it ou
    
    :-(

It has always been my belief that an employee can NOT get a promotion to 
another level simply by changing jobs. The only way of moving up a level is
by having your manager recommend that you be promoted to said level.
This is done by convincing them that you are consistently performing the
tasks that an employee at that level is expected to perform. Typically what
happens in .0s case is that the req is downgraded to level 1X and the 
employee makes a lateral move.

- George

       Let me explain an actual, and recent experience.  I left one group
    for another while having problems with my manager. (Partially explained
    in note 1006)  I was a project engineer handling numerous tool
    engineering projects.  My new position allowed me to become extensively
    involved in automation projects, including managing them.
    
       After 4 1/2 years the old group, under new management, called me up
    and wanted to know if I would be interested in taking a similiar
    position that was posted at a higher level.  My response was yes I
    would be, but if the upgrade was not to be offered going in lets not go
    through the bother of interviewing and wasting everones time.  They put
    me through the interview loop and then offered me a lateral transfer. 
    I refused the offer and to here the talk you would think I had stabbed
    someone in the back.  I thought I had made my position very clear just
    to avoid needless trouble.  
    
       The point is that no matter how well qualified you are promotion
    probably will not happen.
    
    Ray

    	re .4
    
    	Would the new job level's salary range encompass your current
    	salary?  If so, why not offer to take the new job at the higher
    	job level without a raise?  You are better off under current
    	policy to be at the lower end of a salary range at pay raise
    	time.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    
    I believe that there are rules but that they are altered many times in
    order to facilitate individual situations!

      
    
    .6
    
    No, in this case, the employee was NOT in the pay range (not by quite
    ALOT which is the jist of the problem).  But as I said earlier, because
    of JEC AND 4% raises, it will take him 10 years to GET to the BOTTOM of
    that range.
    
    Dear Abby,
    
    Should he wait 10 years to be able to get that job?
    
    

    I don't understand the problem.
    
    If an employee believes he is underpaid and his management won't pay
    him more then the employee has a very simple choice:
    
    	1) Accept his current salary
    	2) Find an employer outside Digital whose view of the employee more
    	   closely matches that of the employee.
    
    Regarding the particular situation. Have you considered that the
    potential hiring manager is using the range jump as a smoke screen
    instead of saying that he didn't want to hire the employee?
    
    If the above is not the case then I certainly wouldn't want to work
    for that manager. If the manager isn't going to bat for you on day 1
    he certainly won't on day n.
    
    Remember Rules are made to be broken and all rules have exceptions.
    
    Dave

    
     -1.Of course there is always the alternative of leaving Dec.
        Why do that when it is so much easier to find out if DEC is right
        and some of the folks who make decisions are WRONG?
    
    No one said anything about someone feeling that they are underpaid.
    Managment in question is no the immediate manager of person with the
    problem.
    
    
    I would agree that this COULD be a smoke screen because the
    interviewing manager didn't want to have to say "sorry you're not
    qualified", BUT, this is NOT an isolated incedent. This is, as we
    are TOLD              POLICY.  It happens ALL THE TIME.
    You CANNOT get a promotion on a move within the center. ONLY LATERAL
    MOVES.  SOOOO. Again, if an employee is currently a 1X but QUALIFIES
    in his interview for a 3X, can he have the job (with the $$) as the 3X
    or does he have to take a lateral move if the interviewing manager is
    willing to downgrade the job for him. 
    
    I think that .6 gave me a pretty good answer in saying that this is NOT
    corporate policy that they were aware of.  Promotions are good. 
    Not allowing someone to advance himself is NOT good for the company.
    
    I'll find out when I talk to corporate personal.

    It doesn't sound like a smoke screen, it sounds like everyday red
    tape. I'd hate to see the real number of times that similar cases
    happen. Employees regularly are taking "downgraded" positions when
    everyone, including the employee, knows damn well that they are
    doing the exact job that was written up one or two levels higher.
    
    Employees will continue to do this for several reasons. One is that
    they believe/trust the personnel "professional" that they are working
    with that tell them it is the "only way" to get them that job. It
    is the minority of job seekers that will turn down the job on the
    principle that it is not the right thing to do. I agree with them,
    but if I were in the same spot I think I'd go for the job first
    and the promotion second. DEC loves this philosophy, look how much
    money it saves them. With such a red tape process in place very few
    have the energy to fight for the promotion and raise that is rightfully
    theirs as a result of their skills.
    
    Unplanned promotions can happen, unfortunately you have to have
    the stamina and drive to put up with the system. Some managers aren't
    inclined to go through that exception process for you, thus you are
    SOL. If the good Lord is with you maybe you will hook up with a
    manager that has the pull or the sense of value to do the right
    thing for you.

    Gail

    
    We are truly an International Company.................!
    
    Same problem in DEC Germany.  A promotion for example 2 levels
    above present is just about impossible (even if qualified), and
    1 level above is possible if you are at the top of the salary range
    in your present level.  Your next salary increase may place you
    in the bottom range for the next level.... so one can "slip into"
    the next level by default.  Great for motivation!
    
              - "Our employees are our greatest assets and we count
                 on them to help us reach  our goals ........."
    
              :  then show us that we are the company's greatest assets
                 by giving us promotions or positions which we deserve
                 according to our skills and positive contributions
                 to Digital's success.
    
    Bruce

.3>This is done by convincing them that you are consistently performing the
.3>tasks that an employee at that level is expected to perform. Typically what
.3>happens in .0s case is that the req is downgraded to level 1X and the 
.3>employee makes a lateral move.

If the 'most qualified' person for a job were an outside hire, there
would not exist a method (that I know of, anyway) to realy check that
they had been 'consistenly performing the tasks that an employee at that
level is expected to perform'- the only thing you have to go on is that
they appear to be qualified.  In this case they would be hired in at the
3X level and paid $3.

If the above scenario were played out (except that the most qualified
were an internal person) then the gating factor seems to be how much they
currently make. If they make too little then they are out of luck even
though they are the best qualified.

What if an outside candidate were told "You are the most qualified, but
we cannot pay you $3 because of what you currently make ($1), so we
cannot extend to you an offer of employment". Would you feel disapointed
or relieved that you did not go to work for Digital? We essentially tell
the interal person the same thing and expect them to take it gracefully.

I have heard of far too many cases like .0 describes. DEC should realize that
if the most qualified person for job 3X is an internal candidate then the job
should be filled by an internal person! The person already at DEC is a known
quantity and knows the company, the outside hire is not.

The continuation of this informal policy (not promoting internal people for
$ reasons, even if they are the most qualified) , IMHO, is a bad business
decision and a morale bummer.

Lee

    I don't believe there are any two adjacent salary ranges (job levels)
    where an individual's pay would place him/her more than one quartile
    below their current position, when going from lower to higher level at
    the same salary.  In the case where the individual would be below the
    minimum of the range (i.e., they're in the 1st quartile now), an
    increase is required.  The problem arises when _any_ increase is
    _unplanned_, as would be the case when moving to a job under a
    different manager.  Special justification is always required under
    these circumstances, and many managers just aren't willing to take
    the extra time and effort needed to produce it.
    
    /Ed
    
    /Ed

    I know someone who has gotten 3 promotions in the last four years.

    The total promotion dollars for this period......... $3.60/week.
    What we have happening is merit raises that barely if ever keep
    up with range adjustments.   If you are at n% penetration you
    will very likely be there forever unless you are promoted.
    
    If you ARE promoted, we have created JEC range values that will
    cause you to go through ever lower penetration until you bottom
    out at minimum.   In the low SRI values you'll find minimums 
    incrementing at roughly one thousand dollar intervals and spreads 
    (max/min) on the order of 1.7.   So for example a SRI of 31 at 
    mid point has to go all the way to SRI 35 before they fall out of 
    the range.   Each promotion lowers your penetration.  The net effect 
    is that if you are a great performer under this philosophy, you will 
    sink progressively lower in your range, as you are promoted, until 
    (from a penetration perspective) you look like a poor performer.
    
    This is probably about the time you'll get into a TMP program :*(
    The only thing that will break the cycle is a manager willing to
    break their budget or dip into reserve budget to fund promo dollars.
    
    
    of 

    Sounds like we have the same old problems we've always had and that
    JEC  was an exercise in futility (not to mention a colossal waste of
    $$'s)

    If your position in the range is known only to you and your manager,
    why worry about being low in the range if it's because you've been
    promoted?  You know why.  Your boss knows why.  Who else knows?  In
    theory, it should mean that your raises will be bigger, anyway.

    In this discussion, I don't think JEC-bashing is appropriate.  But I do
    want to bash something else.  A few replies back, a Noter
    wondered, given the broad post-JEC salary ranges, how it would be
    possible for someone to be offered a new position with a salary 
    range starting *above* that person's current salary.  Well, it's
    happening, and here's who it's happening to: a secretary who wants to
    get into programming, who has spent the last three years going to night
    school to get a BS, whose hard work had made her (or him) qualified to be
    a software engineer I, but whose WC2 salary is so low "personnel" won't
    approve the transfer.  It's happening to a manufacturing specialist
    whose job is going away, who has found a suitable niche elsewhere in
    the company, but whose salary, again, is "too low" to make the jump.
    I am speaking generally here, but I can cite specific cases.

    You've heard of the immigrant who arrives in this country
    unable to speak English and gets a job as a waiter.  Five
    years later, after enormous effort, he owns the restaurant.
    These stories are true.  Some people really do work that hard,
    and God bless them.  Well, if that immigrant got a job on the
    loading dock at Digital, he'd still be there, because there
    are "rules" keeping him in his place.  I think that has to be
    changed.

    We have a major problem with headcount in the company.  The highest
    level of management has initiated programs to try and move people to
    positions that need filling, rather than flat laying them off.  People
    are, in good faith, trying to move to these positions.  They
    go to night school, they take internal courses, and they make
    themselves qualified for professional jobs.  They interview,
    and are accepted by the hiring manager...

    AND THEN PEOPLE ARE TELLING THEM THEY CAN'T HAVE THE MONEY!

    If there's any deadwood at Digital, I think it can be found in the
    offices of people who are working against the stated direction and
    the best interests of this company, who are, in effect, punishing those
    who show determination and desire to better themselves by denying them
    the reward of a significantly more lucrative job.

    
    
    I was wondering if there is anyone in the audience from Corporate
    who can answer this question with POLICY? 
    
    The Orange book is rather vague and I KNOW what local personnel's
    response is.                              
     

    rep .13
    
    that's the reason why we are overstaffed! we got external hire's when
    it should best be filled by someone internal (probably at less $$ too!)
    
    hw

    
    
    According to the Orange Book (roughly translated):
    
    An EXEMPT employee who is promoted into a position in which he does not
    fall into the pay scale, must be brought into that pay scale within 6
    months. (not retro).  For NON-EXEMPT, the pay increase must come
    immediatly. 
    
    That IMPLIES that there is no policy that you CANNOT get a job at a
    level higher than your current because of salary levels.  Leads me to
    believe that it is then the hiring managers decision as to whether or
    not he wants to cough up the money to get you. But why wouldn't he if
    he's going to spend it anyways?
    Seems I remember something about 'if your new job warrants a pay
    increase then it is the OLD managers pot of money that pays it...' and
    that the OLD managar has to write up an exception to get that money.
    
    am I right on this?  
    
    So, what recourse does Employee .0 then have if an interviewing manager
    says  "nope".   Again, nothing in Corporate Policy to
    say it's so.  Can Areas make up their own policies on something so
    potentially stagnating to its employess??
    
    E.

>                       <<< Note 1008.20 by CSC32::PITT >>>
    
>    That IMPLIES that there is no policy that you CANNOT get a job at a
>    level higher than your current because of salary levels.  Leads me to
>    believe that it is then the hiring managers decision as to whether or
>    not he wants to cough up the money to get you. But why wouldn't he if
>    he's going to spend it anyways?

   That's the trick (at least as I understand it). For any internal transfer,
your salary plan follows you -- thus, if you are scheduled for a 5% raise, and
the new position requires a 15% raise, the 10% difference comes from the
incoming Cost Center's coffers. An external hire starts at whatever the agreed
salary is, and doesn't affect the current salary cycle.

    Thus, even if an internal candidate (with raise) costs fewer dollars than an
external candidate,the external candidate is cheaper in terms of effect on the
Cost Center raise pool, so the manager concerned with rewarding their own people
will opt for the external candidate.

    
    >    Now my questions here are: 

    >    1) WHERE does pay for performance come into play?


    You want the truth? It doesn't. It's something that we pay a lot of lip
    service to. Someone who busts their butt working 80 hours a week to
    make sure the next widget design makes it to market on schedule, thus
    bringing in millions in revenue gets the same raise as someone who
    works 40 hours a  week and kisses the right butts instead of working
    theirs off.  (Give or take a few cents here and there.)

    Or you can be the sales rep on a totally loser account and make 110% of
    your budget anyway and still be a scumbag with a mediochre raise. The
    fact that you slayed all the dragons and flushed your competition down
    the toilet doesn't always count.


    >    2) Where is the motivation or incentive to improve and advance 
    >      oneself?
       
    I guess you've just got to love what you do and want to do it for	
    MANY reasons other than money. Anybody I've ever hired or worked	
    with who had money as a prime motivator never stayed here very long.
       
    Overall, I think a strong case could be made that Digital rewards
    mediochre performance. Star performers are, overall (with some 
    exceptions I suppose) quickly brought back into line.

    >    3) Doesn't this sound a little like discriminating against 
    >	    an employee because of his current title/salary. Seems if 
    >	    you're told 'you are a good candidate BUT...then the rest 
    >	    of the sentence better be something like 'there is someone 
    >	    better' etc. 

    Yeah ... try 'n' prove it though. An external candidate can take DEC
    to court if we ask about age. When you already work here, the rules
    just might be different.



    >    4) How does $$$$ work? It would SEEM that if you as a manager are given
    >      a req with some $ figure attached, then whether you hire from
    >      the company or off of the streets, you will spend X$ on this req.  I
    >	   know that there must be some 'pot' or magic figure that comes into
    >      play here.
 
    If, as a manager starting a new organization, I put forth a budget that
    says that my "average employee" will earn $53,000 a year, and I get
    authorization to hire 10 people, I have a $530,000 payroll budget (plus
    fringes, but let's keep it simple).

    If I REALLY wanted to (within SOME bounds of reason, of course) I could
    hire 8 people at $40,000, and 2 at $105,000 (total $530K) and still be
    within my "Headcount and Budget" commitments. This example is REALLY an
    extreme, but it will serve the purpose.

    If I want to bring an external person in at $105K and I think they're
    worth it and can justify their high price tag to my management (and
    whoever else has to sign off on the offer letter) the person gets the
    job. However, If I want to TRANSFER somebody from inside DEC, that
    person comes to me with a salary (of let's say $34,000) and a "Salary
    Plan" that says they're entitled to a 6% pay increase this year
    (they're HOT!).

    As a manager, the dilemma is .. IF you honestly believed this person was
    worth every penny of $105K, you don't have enough money in your "Salary
    Plan" (read INCREASES) to cover the difference between $34K (+ 6%) and
    $105K.

    You could give this person all your "salary increase" money, give
    nobody else in your group a raise, and not get them anywhere near
    $105K. There is no central "pot" to reward an exemplary employee who is
    working for a wage that is 1-2 levels below his or her expertise or
    capabilities.

    >   5) Is this the best thing for the company, turning away someone who
    >	   MAY be the BEST candidate because they are not in your price
    >	   range?
    >
    	Well, don't be ridiculous ... of COURSE it isn't in our best
    	interest. People who are really good and know it can find the
    	dollars they want on the outside ... IF money motivates them.

    	Even if money doesn't motivate them, it gives a star performer
    	(or potential star perform) something to bitch about, thus
    	taking time away from their ability to achieve monumental things.

    	Eventually the star performer (who is not totally motivated by 
    	compensation anyway) decides it's easier all around to just chill
    	out a little and become "normal" just like the rest of his/her 
    	colleagues.

    >
    >Thanks for any inputs E.
    >
    >You're welcome!  S.
    
    

    
    
    Money is most certainly ONE of the motivators here. How many of us can
    honestly say (or would even ADMIT!) that we work here doing our current
    jobs, cause it's the most personally rewarding thing we can think to do
    with our lives.......
    Recognition is important. Pride in accomplishments. 
    But recognition in this company is harder to come by then $$$$$ is. 
    And pride takes a beating when you see someone take a job that YOU
    should have because you don't make enough money to get it.        
    As stated in a previous note, the secretary who studies her butt off to
    become an engineer wants the recognition as much as the money (maybe!). She
    wants to be applauded and respected for what she has accomplished and
    what she can offer. 
    
    Sometimes a little pat on the back goes a long ways...something Dec is
    yet to instil in its managers. 
    
    
    
     
    
    If you're a 'fast tracker', then you're gonna be dissapointed at Dec. 
    There are no rewards for being aggressive. 
    
    This isn't a question of a free ride or more money or promotion for
    sake of a promotion. This is a simple case of 'give me what I've
    earned; treat me fairly'.  That gets about the same amount of lip
    service as 'pay for performance'. You're right, it's bunk. 
    
    
    I see alot of tired faces around these days. Tired and disappointed.
    
    e.

    re: .0
    
    That wimp! How many times does KO have to say tell us all all that
    "policy" does not mean "rule cast in concrete"? There is no "rule"
    about lateral transfers. If you go to purchase a car, you don't dicker
    on the price? The person giving the upgrade excuse was feeding a line
    of bull, and the interviewer meekly walked away. Let's use a little
    brains here.
    
    1) If the they had 3X opening they were budgeted to pay for 3X.
    So, if a 1X walks in, they have the money to upgrade to 3X.
    
    2) The person offering the job was trying get better deal (pay less),
    and gave the line of "can't afford" as starting position for
    bargaining. But instead of negotiating, the interviewer walked away.
    
    The person deserved not to get the 3X job! I certainly hope this wasn't
    a sales job. How would that kind of person handle are hard nosed
    customer trying to get a better deal or handle an objection raised?
    
    -George

    I basically agree with George but as pointed out earlier the manager
    does have to do a bit of "WORK" (maybe this was the problem) to
    get the extra money immediately by getting authorization to use the
    exception pot.
    
    Dave

    
    
    .24
    
    nobody said he walked away.

    	The only reason I respond to this topic is because the field troops
    on Peoria Illinois once told me they know the "way to get ahead in
    DEC".  He said, and I quote "You have to dress nice and SUCK UP", as he 
    adjusts his tie to a tighter position.
    
    Mark

re: .27:

    as he 
    adjusts his tie to a tighter position.
    
Of course, all us engineers know that keeping your tie too tight cuts
off blood circulation to the brain.

Martin.

    Re. .27 ... well, if it'll play in Peoria, then ... :-)
    
    -- B

       RE: .28
       
       You mean you OWN a tie Martin? NOW I'm disillusioned!
       
       	:-) :-)
       	
       						mike

    Yes, he wore it (and a suit) to either a ten or fifteen year dinner
    last fall. Fifteen, must be.

>    Yes, he wore it (and a suit) to either a ten or fifteen year dinner
>    last fall. Fifteen, must be.

I saw it, too.  Back in 1976, when he was interviewing for a transfer.

Ray

Both my suits were bought in 77/78 when I was in the field.

/john

       RE: .32
       
>I saw it, too.  Back in 1976, when he was interviewing for a transfer.
       
       	OhMyDeity... In an INTERVIEW? Ok Martin, I'll keep this hush if
       you buy me a beer at the Brewery. :-)
       
       		End of rathole. 
       
       							mike

        Actually, Martin was in a Tuxedo (and tie) at the party at his
        place a month or so ago.
        
        q
        

	Can we stop picking on Martin here and get back to the topic at
	hand? Thanks.

			Alfred

    .o, our whole salary planning system simply does not accommodate large
    unplanned promotional boosts.
    
    In theory, you could be moved to the new higher position and remain
    positioned under the salary range temporarily.  The problem is that
    at next salary planning time, the manager would have to grant you
    an increase to bring to the entry range of the new job.  He then would
    have to give you a promotional increment, and then finally your
    regular pay raise.
    
    As the manager would be working with a fixed percentage for the whole
    organization, the extra money would come from one place....your
    friends and colleagues.  I know it ain't fair, but that's how it works.

    re: .37
    
    A nit: what "promotional increment"?  I've never heard of such a thing
    here.  In the case you theorize about, a person would expect to be
    brought to the bottom of the range (within 3 months, I believe), with
    some amount added to that at raise time.  I have been told repeatedly
    that the notion that "a raise implies added money" is untrue.  A
    promotion simply lowers your place within your new range, which (in
    theory) might produce a slightly higher percentage than if you remained
    in a higher position in the old range.
    
    But, from what I understand, your conclusion is apparently correct. 
    The raise bucket for your group would be seriously drained by one
    person being elevated to a much larger salary, regardless of whether
    the person deserved the raise or not.
    
    -- Russ

    re: .38
    
    Make that "a PROMOTION implies added money".
    
    -- Russ

	Nit. If you get a promotion and are now below the bottom of the
	pay scale for that job than the promotion does imply a raise.

			Alfred

    re: .40
    
    True.  But there still wouldn't be a "promotional increase" stated in
    .37.  As I read it, the author states the following increases would
    occur:
    
    		1. Increase to entry level in the range (as per .40)
    		2. "Promotional Increase"
    		3. Any merit increase based on performance
    
    It is #2 which I contend does not exist (according to what I've been
    told).  #1 is the one which apparently "drains the pot" of increases
    for the group, thus causing large jumps to be refused by hiring
    managers.
    
    True or false?
    
    -- Russ

        re    <<< Note 1008.36 by CVG::THOMPSON "My friends call me Alfred" >>>
>      -< Come on, almost everyone wore a suit once. It's not *that* bad. >-
>
>	Can we stop picking on Martin here and get back to the topic at
>	hand? Thanks.
        
        Of course, the only way to get ahead at DEC is to borrow Martin's
        tuxedo, and wear it to work. Makes your boss think a) that you are
        going for an interview, and he/she might lose you. b) That you are
        having to moonlight as a waiter to make ends meet and forgot to
        change... :-)
        
        q
                
        
        

    Let's all be average.... There is no reason to bust your butt to
    succeed.  If you are say a SpecII or T5F and past the TPRB by spending
    countless hours on your own studing. Yeah they promote you to SpecIII
    but because you already fall in the SpecIII range you get nothing.. so
    why bother??  I know it's because your nuts and believe that Digital
    pays for performance.
      It has gotten totally out of hand. Your internal value to DEC means 
    nothing. If you are a above average performer then you should be paid
    in the upper level of your scale no matter how long you have been in 
    that scale.
      I wonder if KO really knows how it works...
    
     Jeff

    re .42
        
>   Of course, the only way to get ahead at DEC is to borrow Martin's
>   tuxedo, and wear it to work. Makes your boss think a) that you are
>   going for an interview, and he/she might lose you. b) That you are
>   having to moonlight as a waiter to make ends meet and forgot to
>   change... :-)
    
    or c) you are already making too much money, as you can 1) afford the
    tux and 2) afford to go someplace where a tux is required.

    /Petes

    re: .41
    
    There are three types of promotional increases: Degree promotional;
    Non-exempt to exempt; and Exempt, non-supervisory to supervisory - or
    higher level supervisory.
    
    You could look it up in the Salary Management handbook, but the bottom
    line is this:  Salary increases for promotions of the first type are
    according to plan, unless the promotion leaves you under the salary
    range, in which case you should be adjusted within 3 months.
    
    For promotions of the third type, an unscheduled salary review should
    take place and an increase granted which reflects the ability of the
    employee to handle the increased responsibilities.   Please note that 
    the book says "should" not "must".  
    
    Al
    

    Al, what date is on that handbook, out of curiosity?

    re: .46
    
    The copy I have is dated 1988 and was received by the previous
    office-holder just before the FY89 salary planning process.
    
    Al
    

    Ok, so what I've gathered so far (I'll choose to ignore the tuxedo
    stuff),
    is that:
    
    If you go to another cost center and have to be given money to bring
    you into the salary range of the new job, then the money comes out of
    THAT managers 'pay raise pot'. 
    This then screws over his current employees, so he won't hire you.
    
    If you are hired in off of the street, then the pay raise pot is
    unaffected, and he can start you at whatever he wants to within that
    salary range. No one is hurt, and you get to negotiate your price based
    on how good you are and how badly they want you.
    
    So what I gather from this is DIGITAL has put current employees into a
    can't win situation with how they choose to divey up money pots.
    
    Paper money and unimaginative people holding the purse strings.
    
    I also gather that the seceratary from .6 (or so) who has earned a
    EE degree in her spare time (at decs expense) will always be a
    seceratary if she stays with Dec.
    Of course she won't, so HP is probably getting alot of well educated
    folks at Decs expense.  
    
    
    So ends another saga of "why Digital will always only be the worlds
    umpteen largest computer company".
    Without people who are motivated to always be improving, we are
    destined to be mediocre. Really motivated employees are motivated right
    out of the company. 
    As was stated earlier, lets all just be average. That way we will never
    be disappointed. 
    Maybe I oughta start wearing a tie...
    
    E.

    re .48

    This is how it works.

    Each cost center has a salary raise pot based on a percentage of the
    cost center employees' aggregate salary.

    (1) the more expensive your people, the more absolute dollars you will
    	have to hand out as raises
    (2) if you can keep your organization growing, preferably doing your
    	hiring right at the end of the salary year, you can plan new people
    	out in salary plan year+2 but have their "percentage" increment your
    	salary plan year+1 total pot

    Salary increase money goes with the employee.

    (1) if someone is in the plan and leaves, those dollars disappear and
    	cannot be reallocated
    (2) ...but if you know they are leaving, you can plan them for low/no
    	raise, making that money available for your remaining staff
    (3) [if I remember right] if you leave for another cost center, your
    	$$'s leave with you as well; being that this has the same effect
    	as (2), it is in your soon-to-be-former manager's interest to plan
    	you small to keep more for the remaining staff

    Hire pots are discrete unto themselves.

    (1) every new hire req. carries with it an approved "new" pot for
    	salary payment; since this and the raise pot are not related, the
    	more expensive you hire, the more you "help" current employees
    	(see above)

    Agency fee pots are discrete unto themselves.

    (1) agency fees come out of a separate (essentially personnel) pot

    (2) there is NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT to your cost center when they hire
    	a referral --  the 20%-25% of an annual salary saved IN NO WAY
    	BENEFITS THE HIRING COST CENTER

    So, the current $ pot administration promotes hiring expensive people
    from the outside. While that increases the salary increase pot for
    existing people, it only promotes more and more disparity between new
    hires and folks who have already demonstrated their commitment to DEC.

    If a cost center had its salary raise pot incremented even just by a
    percentage of the usual agency fee if they instead hire a referral or
    internal transfer, that would go a long way toward promoting the right
    behavior.

    I'm not holding my breath on this one. There are too many people at DEC
    whose livelihood depends, sadly, on perpetuating this marass.


    /Petes

    I agree with everything in the previous reply except the information
    about agency fees.  It's been a looong time since I hired anyone from
    outside, but when I did, there was a line in my cost center report
    entitled "Agency Fees" which was the fee paid to the outside agency.
    
    That may have changed in the last few years and the previous reply may
    be entirely correct.

    I never remember worrying about agency fees when I hired people.
    Personnel took care of all that paperwork. In any event, whether
    the charge made it back to the cost center or not, the amount of
    fees paid (or not paid) did not affect in any way the $$s for
    staff. That's a CRIME when just one agency fee saved can be a 10%
    raise for 4 people!!! Our rewards for referrals have not
    traditionally been anything to write home about, either.

    /Petes

    re .49
    Though your facts are correct, your interpretation is extremely
    self-serving.  I have done an awful lot of salary plans and never
    once planned based on who was staying and who wasn't.
    
    I have also done an awful lot of hiring and while initially there
    may be a disparity in salary (which is totally at the discretion of
    the hiring manager) over time the disparity works itself out as
    new salary plans are done.  
    
    I would like to hope that "do the right thing" for everyone is our
    motivation not how big our salary pot might or might not be.  

    ref.53
     Sorry but you have never planned my salary...if you believe that
    disparities are made up in a short time frame-- between new hires
    and current employees PLEASE come plan my next salary hike...
    
    I know of more than few people who were hired in at my current
    Spec level 3 years ago... and I'm no where near their salary
    yet I have 6 more years with the company.... and you can't blame
    performance mine has always been above average
    

 
    re .53

    I wouldn't call my explanation self serving. When you have a limited
    pot, you do what you have to do to make that pot stretch as far as
    possible.

    As far as my experience with new-hire vs. existing staff salaries, I
    have found that the disparity grows over time. When the disparity
    gets to the point where it needs desparate fixing, that person gets
    a sizable increase, but at the expense of reduced raises for the rest
    of the cost center. Even in an organization of a hundred people, you can
    probably afford to fix less than 10 such "problems" a year.

    I appreciate the sincerity of your reply. But we can't "hope" that
    things like I mention don't happen. I can't say that I personally ever
    hired someone expensive on purpose. But if I needed to hire that
    person I made sure I used it to the advantage of my staff as much as
    possible. I was merely being blunt without dancing around the issues.
    Sometimes we act more like a ballet company than a computer company!

    If we had a rational, integrated approach to salaries and agency fees we
    would greatly enhance our ability to prevent salary problems. To hope
    that the kinds of things I mentioned don't come into consideration is
    like saying we hope we don't try and "manage" customer survey results.

    Let's call a spade a spade and do something about it instead of hoping
    sincerely that these problems do not occur. Rewarding cost centers for
    sourcing internally or through referrals is so simple that -- even with
    five years at DEC -- I'm _still_ surprised we don't do it.

    /Petes

    RE: .-1
    
    Ten years ago, we did have an employee referal program.  Applicants
    referred by employees were supposed to have gotten preferential
    treatment and the employee making the reference got a dinner for two if
    their reference got hired.  I don't remember if this was a corporate
    program, a regional program, or an organizational program.
    
    I suspect that we started using agencies because we were growing too
    quickly and needed more new employees than could be generated without
    agencies.  

    
     I just had the exact same situation as .0 happen to me.
    I had to go through 2 Career Opportunity days and get 
    flown to Atlanta to be told wage class 2 can't be
    promoted to wage class 4, this after being incorrectly
    written up as w.c.4. When I corrected the mistake, the
    offer was retracted.
    
     I am currently working with my local personnel people
    to get the folowing question answered;
    
    "Why can't obviously qualified wage class 2 employees
    be upgraded to a wage class 4 job that will be filled
    by someone eventually anyway?"
    
     I have no problem with taking this personally all
    the way to Corporate Personnel. I just want to know
    the official reason, that's all. 

    re .55
    
    since you obviously see the problem, do the whole corp a good turn and
    talk to social::involvement, cc KO.
    
    hw
    
    we need people in your position to speak up

        Re: .57

        Please post the eventual outcome of your quest in this
        conference.

        I think that how/if your situation gets resolved will reveal
        Digitals' real abilty and desire to reform; i.e. determined to
        say 'no' to red tape and say 'yes' to "do the right thing".

        Lee

    
     I should correct .57;
    
       I wasn't "told" that the wage class issue was the problem,
    but an interview that was going very well, I would have had
    an offer before I left that office, came to an immediate,
    screeching halt immediately after my correcting the paperwork
    that listed me in the wrong wage class.
    
     If anyone else has had this problem, and can explain it well
    in writing, if you would send me mail explaining the situation,
    (please, no specific names other than your own). I would rather
    go to personnel with more than just my own case. There is truly
    safety in numbers in a situation such as this.
    
    
    Thanks,
    Paul Wheeler

    .60
    In the situation in port .0, the person was told "we can't give you
    that much money" (to bring him up to the level of the new job).
    Since it was the sitution where the interviewER and the interviewEE
    were also friends, I'm not sure if that person would want to push it
    to personnel. ( I KNOW the obvious responses to that..you can't fix
    anything if you're not willing to push it..I agree. unfortunatly, it's
    not my call to make in this case). 
    
    Please DO let us know the outcome of your discussion with personnel.
    I'm not meaning to imply that you're on your own with this. I will do
    what I can to convince .0 to not let it drop.
    
    E.

 Since I made great claims of getting answers, I felt i should
provide as much of an update as I can. I have since given up,
but since my problems originated in COD II, they may resurface 
with COD III coming.

 I brought the issue to local personnel but didn't follow it past
1 follow up phone call. The personnel rep had contacted someone in
the site where the incident in .57  occured to find out what may have 
happened (exactly what I asked him NOT to do, since I may be applying
there again I don't want to make myself look bad there.)

 Someone who had a similar problem had suggested I contact the COD
hotline and talk to someone they had spoken to. That same day the woman
working the COD hotline called me to hear about the incident, which
I found surprising and encouraging that she would contact me. I got a
couple of impressions from her, which I have taken to be about the
best answers I would be able to get. I took notes during our conversation,
but have since misplaced them upon moving into the TMP group, so here's
the impressions I got from talking to her;

 That there was at one time if not a policy at least an unwritten 
understanding that Wage Class 2 employees were not eligable for
relocation since their job skills can be found locally (I was BOILING
mad while this was being said.) What was meant was entry level positions,
lower level secretaries, shipper/ recievers, etc. But as a 13 1/2 year
WC2 Technician with great experience I was still offended at the 
implications.

 Based on the situation I mentioned in .57, I think the effort to
change this unfair thinking is not going well, for whatever reason.

 I also understand now what people mean when they say that your
pay level follows you throughout your career here at DEC, and can
hinder your progress, but that falls within the same category of
frustration as the rest of this situation.

 So basically, i've dropped the ball that i swore to carry to the 
top if necessary. I don't think any further pursuit will get me
more honest answers than I got from the COD hotline. But if I feel
I have been slighted because of my current position again, I will
only have the choices of making a big noisy battle of this, taking
a job I don't really want, or leaving DEC in disgust. Since I have
no intention of leaving, we'll see what happens.

 Anyway, I felt I owed a follow up to all who were so willing to
send their stories for support. Sorry this is so long. I still 
have all stories that were sent to me and as I said before, may have
to start this up again, but I hope not. 

 Did I cop out?

 YUP!

Paul Wheeler