<<< HUMANE::DISK$SCSI:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>> -< The Digital way of working >- ================================================================================ Note 5162.0 Letter to Mr. Palmer 46 replies 12368::"ridder@zso.dec.com" "Hans Ridder" 62 lines 26-FEB-1997 18:54 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was suggested I post a copy of this letter I sent to Mr. Palmer. It's about how Digital rewards loyal employees. -hans ------------------------- Dear Mr. Palmer, Employee Loyalty. Digital says it wants employee loyalty. Well, I have a story to tell you. A true story, happening right now. Bob Lyon has worked for Digital for many years, and he wanted to keep it that way. Bob wanted a transfer within the company. There are two open positions he was interersted in, positions open to any qualified person off the street, with managers interested in hiring him. But Bob's transfer is being blocked. Why? Unfortunately for Bob, his timing was bad. His job was sold. He works on DECmessageQ, a product recently sold to BEA Systems Inc. He has an offer from BEA for his expertise, but he decided that all things considered he would prefer to take another position available locally within Digital. In fact, he had already been looking at the two positions mentioned when he was informed of the sale to BEA. Bob continued to persue the positions, but was told (by both hiring managers) that his transfer was blocked, they were not allowed to make him an offer. Bob discussed his situation with HR at BEA, who at one point even suggested he could accept their offer, if only to have job while looking for other work. He even contacted the "A" in BEA, who tried to get Digital to "do the right thing" and let Bob have his transfer. That wasn't good enough. Apparently Digital is unable to do the right thing. The irony is that BEA cares more about Bob than Digital, even though he had refused BEA's offer and he has worked for Digital for years. What Digital is doing to Bob is just plain wrong, and possibly even illegal. It's bad for the company and bad for the customers. Bob wanted to keep working for Digital, but that didn't matter, his position was sold, he wasn't welcome at Digital anymore. Any qualified person off the street would be welcome, except Bob. So, Bob will probably wind up taking the job with BEA. He'll sign the offer, and BEA will gladly accept it, even though the deadline for accepting has passed. Digital will lose a loyal employee for no reason other than than blind stupidity. And those of us around him, we lose a little loyalty too. We wonder "Will we be next?" Mr. Palmer, if Digital is honestly concerned about employee loyalty, it has to recognize and respond to it (in a positive way, of course.) Digital was given an opportunity here, and refused it. You know, BEA sounds like the kind of company I'd like to work for. Sincerely, Hans Ridder Software Engineer ridder@zso.dec.com [Posted by WWW Notes gateway] ================================================================================ Note 5162.1 Letter to Mr. Palmer 1 of 46 vaxcpu.zko.dec.com::michaud "Jeff Michaud - ObjectB" 11 lines 27-FEB-1997 02:15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, not only were we told we could not do an internal transfer inside Digital, we were also told that if you decide not to accept BEA's non-negotiable offer (and we were only given 9 days to decide on this unexpected and unsolicited offer), then you are considered to have "voluntarily" resigned from Digital (ie. not layed off so you wouldn't even be able to collect unemployment or any other benifits due layed off employees). Jeff (who, at the likely transfer date to BEA of mid-March, would have been only about 6 weeks from my 10-year anniversary with Digital :-(((). ================================================================================ Note 5162.2 Letter to Mr. Palmer 2 of 46 nova05.vbo.dec.com::BERGER 12 lines 27-FEB-1997 04:29 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FWIW, that's not an isolated case. Here (France) about a year ago, we wanted to hire someone from Digital Learning Services. Everything was approved, everybody was happy, BUT the transfer was blocked when it was announced that Learning Services was being sold. We tried to fight, and failed. The guy resigned and went to HP :-( Moral of the story: when your business is sold, you're part of the furniture, no more. Vincent ================================================================================ Note 5162.3 Letter to Mr. Palmer 3 of 46 UTRTSC::SCHOLLAERT "Think before you shrink" 11 lines 27-FEB-1997 04:43 -< people is business, not software on itself >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Same thing happened during the Rdb -> Oracle move. >Moral of the story: when your business is sold, you're part of the >furnitur, no more. Wrong. You (people) are the business, not the software itself. Software on itself is useless. Jan ================================================================================ Note 5162.4 Letter to Mr. Palmer 4 of 46 2970::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/" 11 lines 27-FEB-1997 07:46 -< You always have recourse >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ...we were also told that if you decide not to accept BEA's > non-negotiable offer (and we were only given 9 days to decide > on this unexpected and unsolicited offer), then you are con- > sidered to have "voluntarily" resigned from Digital Of course, this is just Digital's *CLAIM*. A good labor attorney, familiar with the laws in your state, may have a different opinion. So might a judge hearing a legal action brought by aggrieved employees. Atlant ================================================================================ Note 5162.5 Letter to Mr. Palmer 5 of 46 2970::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/" 5 lines 27-FEB-1997 07:47 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, of course, if we employees once in a while worked together to face up to Management, this sort of "picking off employee's rights by attacking employees a few at a time" might not occur. Atlant ================================================================================ Note 5162.6 Letter to Mr. Palmer 6 of 46 BBRDGE::LOVELL "à l'eau; c'est l'heure" 16 lines 27-FEB-1997 08:13 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brave words Atlant but I can assure you - even in heavily unionised Europe, this approach of selling an identifiable business "lock, stock and barrel" is also the norm as Vincent's French example points out. Legally, this manoeuvre is known as a "transfer of undertaking" - it is well defined in the statutes of most industrialised countries - I sincerely doubt that a lawyer (even American!) could make a dent in it. It is of course regrettable that corporations can't operate with "common sense" in exceptional circumstances like that pointed out in .0 or the one of the employee who left for HP. In the end, both parties come out losers by applying the letter of the law. However "common sense" is an anathema to lawyers and any exceptional application of it would almost certainly open a company up to legal contests. /Chris/ ================================================================================ Note 5162.7 Letter to Mr. Palmer 7 of 46 24216::STEPHENS 6 lines 27-FEB-1997 08:46 -< Customer loyalty begins with employee loyalty. >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the strengths of DEC was the job mobility, which allowed an individual to make choices, to move into new, different areas, to grow and learn. It was a powerful incentive to remain loyal to the company, when there were choices for your future. This *was* one of the great things about working for DEC. ================================================================================ Note 5162.8 Letter to Mr. Palmer 8 of 46 nova05.vbo.dec.com::BERGER 8 lines 27-FEB-1997 08:52 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wrong. You (people) are the business, not the software itself. > Software on itself is useless. My reference to furniture didn't imply people don't have any value. It was a reference to the fact that furniture can't usually express its opinions ;-) Vincent ================================================================================ Note 5162.9 Letter to Mr. Palmer 9 of 46 MKOTS3::MITCHELL 16 lines 27-FEB-1997 09:05 -< what employee loyalty >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- digital's top management and the bod do not even know what the word " EMPLOYEE LOYALTY " is or means. They do not even want to know because the only thing that they care about is the almighty dollar. DEC had EMPLOYEE LOYALTY. digital killed off most of the employee loyalty when they brought on the hentchmen leaders and bd's to kill the employee loyalty. To bad it is also killing off one of former best technology companies that there was before the digital down fall started. Thank god that there are still other companies, new and old that care about employee and customer loyalty. To bad bp and the bod at digital could not hear the comments and have a chance to look in the trash cans to see what happened to the letter and nice plastic straight edges that we all got last week. They would then see what people working at digital have for loyalty to the company. I was surprised to hear and see for myself when we received them last week. I have found out that there is a very good life after digital and a life that meets the standards that are good for employees, customers and the owners like we had with DEC. ================================================================================ Note 5162.10 Letter to Mr. Palmer 10 of 46 WHTAIL::TALBOT 9 lines 27-FEB-1997 09:39 -< Holdin on..... >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally, I'm hoping that the business unit that I belong to WILL be sold off. Thats why I have been hangin on these last couple of years. I am stuck tween a rock and a hard place; there are few tech jobs in my area, and I know moving within DIGITAL is next to impossible. Just my .02 worth DT ================================================================================ Note 5162.11 Letter to Mr. Palmer 11 of 46 NETCAD::GENOVA 30 lines 27-FEB-1997 10:58 -< Come back as a Contractor for 2x your salary!! >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rep .0 If Bob "really" wants to stay at Digital, he should go to the new company, and then come back as a contractor for at least 2x his current pay. But if I was in his shoes, I wouldn't want to stay at this company, given the circumstances of the downsizing. About 9 years ago, I was in the Mid-Range range engineering group. Mariah was in the process of getting cancelled for the first time, and all of us Power engineers were told that we had to interview for our jobs, that there was 25 of us and only 16 or so jobs. What??? They knew our capibilities, etc, there was no way I was going to re-interview for a job that I had held for over a year. So I left the group for another group designing a logic board. But before I could leave I had to sign some forms saying I was voluntarily not re-interviewing. Management is a funny sort, they didn't have to re-interview for their jobs. As for the jobs out there, there are more jobs than people! This is the information age, lots and lots of opportunities!! /art (Who is also here temporarily, as "This to shall pass!".) ================================================================================ Note 5162.12 Letter to Mr. Palmer 12 of 46 STAR::DIPIRRO 17 lines 27-FEB-1997 10:59 -< But what's that sharp pain in my rear? >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey, wait just one minute here. Haven't any of you been reading your new laminated cards with the corporate strategy and Digital's core values? It says right there: Respect for the individual: We show respect for everyone by what we say and do and value our diverse global workforce. And don't forget: "We work together...energized by our collective talent." And also: "...plus OpenVMS for ultra-high availability." Sorry, had to throw that last humorous anecdote in there. Just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over. Can't you feel it? ================================================================================ Note 5162.13 Letter to Mr. Palmer 13 of 46 MKTCRV::KMANNERINGS 16 lines 27-FEB-1997 11:06 -< something is always better than nothing >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re .6 . Yes it is true that the company sold off bits in Europe. DITEC is an example. The company signed a contract with the union setting up DITEC as an employee owned company which is now doing a fine job selling Digital products and training people to use our products. Digital handed over the facility at Villingen-Swennigen to the employees. So even when the going gets rough, and in 1994 it was very rough, it pays to be organised. Nor does the employee organisation have to be a union. If the US colleagues were more comfortable with some kind of employee association, which could coordinate with those of us in Europe, that would be a big step along the way to putting a slow down on the chain saw. And, as the DITEC example shows, the bottom line of the Corporation can benefit as a result. ..Kevin.. ================================================================================ Note 5162.14 Letter to Mr. Palmer 14 of 46 axel.zko.dec.com::FOLEY "http://axel.zko.dec.com" 8 lines 27-FEB-1997 11:09 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>"We work together...energized by our collective talent." Where have a heard that before? Hmm?? "We are Borg. You will join the collective and be together with us. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. mike ================================================================================ Note 5162.15 Letter to Mr. Palmer 15 of 46 DECWET::LYON "Bob Lyon, DECmessageQ Engineering" 51 lines 27-FEB-1997 13:48 -< ... he speaks ... >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re: .1 > BTW, not only were we told we could not do an internal transfer > inside Digital, we were also told that if you decide not to > accept BEA's non-negotiable offer (and we were only given 9 > days to decide on this unexpected and unsolicited offer), then > you are considered to have "voluntarily" resigned from Digital > (ie. not layed off so you wouldn't even be able to collect > unemployment or any other benifits due layed off employees). Yeah, this is great. If we accept the position, we're considered to have voluntarily resigned; if we don't accept the position, we're considered to have voluntarily resigned. Why in God's name has DIGITAL spent a bazillion dollars TFSOing when it's far simpler and cheaper just to inform the faceless rabble "DIGITAL considers that you have voluntarily resigned"? re: .several - "legal options" I've considered and investigated my legal options. They are far from non-existent with respect to the forced "voluntary" resignation. I also have reason to believe the manner in which my transfer attempts were blocked is against applicable Washington state labor law. But I never have been interested in a legal "solution". I just wanted to transfer to something new and different, and was in the process of doing just that *before* I was informed of the DIGITAL/BEA agreement. The rest, as they say, is history. re: .11 > If Bob "really" wants to stay at Digital, he should go to the new > company, and then come back as a contractor for at least 2x his current > pay. > > But if I was in his shoes, I wouldn't want to stay at this company, > given the circumstances of the downsizing. Until this week I *did* really want to stay with DIGITAL. Numerous peers, managers, and (of all people) one of the principals in BEA (let's call him "A") have interceded on my behalf in the hope that sanity would prevail. To no end; stupidity reigns. I'm so numbed by the whole experience that, at this point, even if I could transfer I'm no longer interested. I cannot in good conscience do less of a job than I know I'm capable of doing, but I also can't imagine ever giving 100% to DIGITAL again. I sincerely thank and wish the best of luck to all those people who have been supportive of me. I could care less what happens to DIGITAL. Bob ================================================================================ Note 5162.16 Letter to Mr. Palmer 16 of 46 DECWET::FARLEE "Insufficient Virtual um...er...." 84 lines 27-FEB-1997 17:39 -< A second letter to Palmer... >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also have been requested (by peers) to post a copy of the mail that I sent to Palmer last night. This morning, I was contacted by Corporate Employee Relations to let me know that they were looking into it. I'll keep you posted. Kevin ========================================================================== Mr Palmer, Some time ago, you became aware of a large departure of senior engineering talent from the NT group here in Seattle. Your response was to send Sid Ferrales out to find out what was going on, and how to respond. Sid's response was to assure the engineering staff here that people are one of Digital's most important resources, and that the corporation will pay more attention to the personal side of the business deals that it makes in the future. As I recall, one of Sid's directives to management was, "Stop doing things that upset the employees!!" Unfortunately, the actions of the corporation have again contradicted that assurance. As one case in point, I ask you to consider the situation of Bob Lyon. He was a member of the DecMessageQ engineering team that was part of the sale to BEA. He is one of two engineers located here at ZSO in Bellevue, WA. Even before he was notified of the sale, he had been talking to two different groups at ZSO about transferring. It so happened that our group had an opening come up the very week that he was notified of the sale. Now, Bob does not wish to continue with DMQ as a career, so he will not be working for BEA long term whatever happens. We have a great need for an engineer with just Bob's talents. He would be a perfect fit. The problem is that a representative of Digital's HR, Leigh Bodington, has blocked all attempts to transfer Bob into either our group or the NT clusters group. Reasons given were vague references to "the contract" (which, conveniently, those impacted directly have never been allowed to see, even in censored form). Leigh also directly refused to put any of this into writing for Bob. Instead, he blocked the transfers in channels. Bob, and the rest of the group, was told that they have a choice: They can either sign the offer from BEA, which is considered a voluntary resignation from Digital, or they could not sign, which Digital will also take as voluntary resignation. It seems to me that if we can get away with telling a group of people that they have just voluntarily resigned, whether they want to or not, that we've been wasting millions of dollars on unnecessary TFSO payments over the years! Bob then went to BEA and talked to them. In conversations with one of the three founders, he was told that they would have no problem whatsoever with him staying with Digital under the circumstances. This person even went so far as to try to influence Digital on Bob's behalf. To no avail. So now, it seems that Digital has gone far out of its way to create a three-way lose-lose situation: Digital loses talent that we badly need; BEA will not retain Bob for long; Bob loses his career with Digital. There are also further effects: Many of the other engineers on this site who are not involved with the sale have witnessed Digital's treatment of our compatriot. This lowers our morale and makes it harder and harder to motivate ourselves. Trust in management takes another hit. My manager wonders why her reports do not implicitly trust that she will take their interests into account when conducting negotiations which affect our careers, and to which we are not privy. Digital's actions in this matter are in my view illogical, immoral, and possibly illegal. So, you (through the words of Sid Ferrales) have said that employee morale and loyalty are highly valued and important assets. And you (through the actions of Digital HR) have proved that employees are not considered important at all. Actions speak louder than words. Kevin Farlee Software Engineer Seattle, WA ================================================================================ Note 5162.17 Letter to Mr. Palmer 17 of 46 CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" 7 lines 27-FEB-1997 17:45 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to thank Han, Kevin and Bob, for making this public. Rest assured I am not the only employee wondering if loyalty goes both directions inside Digital. Please let us know with any updates, I think it is in every digital employee's interest to see how this one shakes out. Meg ================================================================================ Note 5162.18 Letter to Mr. Palmer 18 of 46 BBQ::WOODWARDC "...but words can break my heart" 17 lines 27-FEB-1997 19:56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- yet another nail in the coffin of DEC? {sigh} Yeah, I know that that sounds "negative". I really did _love_ this company. Years ago. Even now, I struggle to motivate myself to at least wish the company 'good' - not because of anything I've seen recently that is good, but for the company as it was. And yet, to see actions such as this... As mentioned, a 3-way lose-lose situation. Indeed, worse than '3-way', as many others will see this and be disheartened (again). dear oh dear, what hath we wrought? H ================================================================================ Note 5162.19 Letter to Mr. Palmer 19 of 46 ACISS1::ELARSON 57 lines 28-FEB-1997 00:28 -< reading list >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re. #14 :-} perhaps the powers that be forgot to read this one... TIPS FOR MANAGERS - January 24, 1997 ______________________________________________________________________ "An executive is a person who always decides; sometimes he or she decides correctly, but he or she always decides." -John H. Patterson ______________________________________________________________________ COMMUNICATING VALUES & BUILDING TRUST If leaders don't talk about and act on their values, they shouldn't expect those who work for them to act on theirs. Russ Walden, President of Ridgecrest Properties, expresses the following thoughts on the management process: o A person may be appointed to a high position, but never to leadership. Leaders are effective only through the authority conferred on them by those upon whom they depend for results. o Leaders produce consent; others seek consensus. o Manage a business by its economics, not by the accounting numbers. o It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong. o Ethics are non-negotiable. o The personal dignity of each individual is inviolate. A manager who often breaks this rule will eventually self-destruct, but I will probably get him or her first. o As a manager, ask yourself, "How would I like it if my boss treated me the way I treat those who work for me?" o Authority is not inherently useful, but you can greatly influence most of the things which you cannot directly control. A manager without influence is a contradiction of terms. o Create values and the earnings will follow. Never sacrifice tomorrow's values for today's reputable earnings. o A person has the right to know the significance of his/her work. o We will only do things of which we can be proud. If our people are ashamed of a project it will be a disaster. o If you aren't having fun in your work, fix the problem before it becomes serious; ask for help if you need it. If you can't fix it and won't ask for help, please go away before you spoil the fun for the rest of us. o Never let well enough alone. o Manners are the lubricating oil of organizations. "The President has kept all of the promises he intended to keep." -digital employee? ================================================================================ Note 5162.20 Letter to Mr. Palmer 20 of 46 CHEFS::KERRELLD "To infinity and beyond..." 9 lines 28-FEB-1997 04:09 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is no isolated case. Recent examples in the UK include new contracts for MCS employees which reduce their compensation significantly. This has driven the fasest unionisation of an organisation I've ever seen or heard of. The message "stop annoying employees" was not heard in the UK. The price for DIGITAL is a less "flexible" workforce in the future, which will increase costs and reduce revenue, and far outweigh the benefits of employee exploitation. Dave. ================================================================================ Note 5162.21 Letter to Mr. Palmer 21 of 46 NETCAD::CREEGAN 24 lines 28-FEB-1997 08:52 -< questions i ask myself... >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like working for a company that treats it's employees as an asset. Now the question is: "Am I working for a company that treats it's employees as an asset?" Hmm. My second question is: "Could the next employee this happen to be me?" (Do you just close your eyes and turn your head?) My third comment has to do with the IMPROVING MANAGEMENT SKILLS information that was emailed to me this week. A "QUICK TIP" in the notification was: People are more apt to follow you as a leader if they like you as a person, according to Dr. Lee G. Young, educational psychologist, University of Oregon. He found this factor to be more important than gender, personal appearance and social graces. After the previously explained treatment of another employee of this company, do I like the leader of this company as a person? ================================================================================ Note 5162.22 Letter to Mr. Palmer 22 of 46 UTROP1::utoras-198-48-145.uto.dec.com::olthof_h "Sp" 22 lines 1-MAR-1997 07:36 -< Many times before, you ARE the deal >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I know a few similar cases from the past. They seem to be normal practice though. If two companies agree on the transfer of a particular product, the buying company does not want an emply shell, but everything related to that product. So that also implies engineers, training and marketing materials etc. For that reason it is common that both companies agree that no job-transfers of the affected people in the selling company will be tolerated. Usually a specific date is agreed after which no transfers are allowed. Breaking the agreement could cause the entire transfer to be stopped. For the buying company this also is some kind of assurance that no similar business (or product) as the one part of the sale will be developed inside the selling company. Same things happened with the Rdb - Oracle, deal, the Polycenter - CA deal etc. Henny ================================================================================ Note 5162.23 Letter to Mr. Palmer 23 of 46 NETCAD::MORRISON "Bob M. LKG2-A/R5 226-7570" 8 lines 1-MAR-1997 12:41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re the statement that "Digital could save a lot of money on TFSOs": Digital has always had the right to lay people off without a pachage, just as many other U.S. companies have done. What is different about the case in this topic is that the person is considered to have "voluntarily" resigned and is therefore not elibigle (usually) for unemployment benefits. Also note that accepting the forced offer from the new employer is not quite the same as having resigned from Digital, in that one's seniority carries over to the new employer (or does it?). ================================================================================ Note 5162.24 Letter to Mr. Palmer 24 of 46 BBRDGE::LOVELL "à l'eau; c'est l'heure" 4 lines 1-MAR-1997 12:56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> in that one's seniority carries over to the new employer (or does it?). Yes - this is one of the normal conditions in a "transfer of undertaking" ================================================================================ Note 5162.25 Letter to Mr. Palmer 25 of 46 gemevn.zko.dec.com::GLOSSOP "Only the paranoid survi" 9 lines 1-MAR-1997 15:51 -< Actions speak pretty loudly... >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RE: .22 But it seems particularly absurd when the company acquiring the people *is* willing to let a particular individual stay. (I can see why a company would want a whole "package". I *cannot* understand why it would be in Digital's interest to act the way it did in this case.) Yet another strong message to employees about how the company behaves (and fairly contrary to "respect for the individual"...) ================================================================================ Note 5162.26 Letter to Mr. Palmer 26 of 46 RMULAC.DVO.DEC.COM::S_WATTUM "Scott Wattum - FTAM/V" 15 lines 2-MAR-1997 10:38 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re .22 >For that reason it is common that both >companies agree that no job-transfers of the affected people in the >selling company will be tolerated. This was not the case with the transfer of DECnet maintenance to EDS, or at least that's what we were told. Digital management repeatedly stressed that this was not a downsizing exercise, and that it was up to the individual to decide whether to go with EDS, stay with Digital or go to some other employer. Whether this was an actual reality though, I cannot say. It was also made clear to us that since it was not a downsizing exercise, no TFSO package would be available. --Scott ================================================================================ Note 5162.27 Letter to Mr. Palmer 27 of 46 NCMAIL::SMITHB 20 lines 2-MAR-1997 12:20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I have said before, your best defense is a good resume. Do you have marketable skills? If so, the then Bob should just take the job at BEA, and immediately start interviewing. Was this in Bob's plan? No, but you can't control everything. I work in NSIS, if they sell us to a bunch of jackals, I'm gone, it cuts both ways. Digital is still a much better place to work than most. I have heard so many 'war stories' from customers, I just assume stay till the bitter end. But if a surprise happens in between, I am as ready as can be to get another job. How do you tell if you are marketable? Read the Sunday job postings *every* weekend, and make sure you can find at least a dozen jobs you are quailified for. If not, start learning something new. Good Luck Bob! I am sorry you are a victim of stupid management, but it probably won't be the last time either... Brad. ================================================================================ Note 5162.28 Letter to Mr. Palmer 28 of 46 24216::STEPHENS 2 lines 2-MAR-1997 14:38 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, if anyone thinks that their employee file is confidential, as I did before this BEA deal, then I can assure you...it is NOT... ================================================================================ Note 5162.29 Letter to Mr. Palmer 29 of 46 hndymn.zko.dec.com::MCCARTHY "A Quinn Martin Product" 6 lines 2-MAR-1997 18:51 -< ...assume... says its all >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re: .28 I have heard this also - but I can't recall if it was related to the DECnet or DECwindows or RDB or Oracle or... bjm ================================================================================ Note 5162.30 Letter to Mr. Palmer 30 of 46 WMOIS::GIROUARD_C 3 lines 3-MAR-1997 05:55 -< A rose by any other name... >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re; employee file confidentiality, please define this. Chip ================================================================================ Note 5162.31 Letter to Mr. Palmer 31 of 46 hndymn.zko.dec.com::MCCARTHY "A Quinn Martin Produc" 27 lines 3-MAR-1997 06:07 -< anything in a Digital owned file that has my name on it >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re: .30: Its the morning, I'm a little more awake. It seems like a great number of people I've been talking to lately the subject of "what happened when I left Digital" comes up) but "we" had always been told that if someone was to call Digital and asked: "Could you tell me about Mr X, he applied for job with us and listed you as his current employer" The response from ANY DIGITAL EMPLOYEE should be: 1) If you are not personnel, transfer the person to the personnel office 2) The only information personnel will give out is: "Yes they are currently employed by Digital." This implied no salary information, no previous performance reviews, no nothing besides "they get a pay check every week". Don't confuse the above with people you have listed as references who you have hopefully talked to and will only give out the info you want them to. The specific issue I heard was "easy to obtain" by a perspective future employer was current salary base, and I think it had to do with an Oracle transfer (after the initial split). bjm ================================================================================ Note 5162.32 Letter to Mr. Palmer 32 of 46 RMULAC.DVO.DEC.COM::S_WATTUM "Scott Wattum - FTAM/V" 13 lines 3-MAR-1997 08:01 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >2) The only information personnel will give out is: "Yes they are currently > employed by Digital." For a normal employment verification, this is correct. However, in situations like EDS and presumably BEA (from note .28) more access is available. I know as a fact that EDS had access to my file, including current salary, salary history and salary planning (I wasn't even allowed to know what was being planned for me, but EDS was). Given the nature of the transfer with EDS though, I think this was to be expected, since EDS transfered all of my years that I had with Digital (I am vested in EDS's pension plan, and considered to have worked for EDS for 10 years, even though I've only worked for them for 5 months). --Scott ================================================================================ Note 5162.33 Letter to Mr. Palmer 33 of 46 DECWET::LYON "Bob Lyon, DECmessageQ Engineering" 7 lines 3-MAR-1997 13:13 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re: .22 > ... For that reason it is common that both >companies agree that no job-transfers of the affected people in the >selling company will be tolerated. ... This is against the law in Washington state. ================================================================================ Note 5162.34 Letter to Mr. Palmer 34 of 46 NETCAD::MORRISON "Bob M. LKG2-A/R5 226-7570" 4 lines 3-MAR-1997 17:58 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a transfer such as the BEA deal, the new company is supposed to match one's current salary. To do this, the new company would need to have access, in advance, to one's personnel records, at least the portions dealing with salary and length of service. ================================================================================ Note 5162.35 Letter to Mr. Palmer 35 of 46 SHRMSG::HOWARD "Whoever it takes" 21 lines 3-MAR-1997 18:49 -< Every deal is different >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When Quantum bought part of the disk business, people were told that they would likely be assigned to one job in one of the companies. They could look for something else in Digital but if they didn't find anything, and didn't want to work for Quantum, they would be gone with no compensation. The basic message was that you still had a job, so if you turned it down, you were quitting. The sale was announced in June but took effect October 1, so there was quite a lot of time for jockeying. I guess there were a few surprise assignments at the end on both sides, which led to some hard feelings. Our group was not part of the sale, but people were encouraged to send resumes to Quantum the following March. Those people cut their own deals on salary, vacation, etc. A couple of contractors got hired directly by Quantum. I imagine that every sale is negotiated differently. In the Quantum example, the people assigned to implement the sale were not the always the ones who negotiated it, so they were not given any freedom to bend the rules. The recent sales seems to be finalized very quickly. Ben ================================================================================ Note 5162.36 Letter to Mr. Palmer 36 of 46 SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ "Are you from away?" 5 lines 4-MAR-1997 07:30 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <- <<< Note 5162.30 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>> Chip, If my employer gave my SS number to anyone outside the IRS without my specific written consent, I believe I would have a valid lawsuit. mk ================================================================================ Note 5162.37 Letter to Mr. Palmer 37 of 46 WMOIS::GIROUARD_C 7 lines 4-MAR-1997 12:03 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm pretty sure your SS# isn't protected. i think it was what prompted the Ma Registry to provide an assignable license# instead of using your SS#. I agree, it does stink. Chip ================================================================================ Note 5162.38 Letter to Mr. Palmer 38 of 46 PCBUOA::KRAUSE 19 lines 4-MAR-1997 12:18 -< Quantum deal was not very different, actually >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re. .35 Actually, a large part (if not all) of the Quantum/ex-DEC workers were told that they *could not* transfer into another part of Digital, during the June (or whenever) to October 1, 1994 time period. The only way they would be allowed to do so (if I remember correctly) would be to quit Digital, and apply for the desired job - from outside of Digital. I was somewhat more risk-averse at that time, so I went to Quantum. For a short time. When I left Quantum to come back here, my then-manager suggested I not publicize that I was going to Digital. (He had no problem with the move, he just thought HR might get a little bent about it. He was right.) It's unfortunate to see that the same practice I detested in the Quantum deal is still in vogue. And, as I think was mentioned in an earlier reply: given the fairly-extensive layoffs which ensued at Quantum, you wonder if the corporations view the personnel as chattel. ================================================================================ Note 5162.39 Letter to Mr. Palmer 39 of 46 SCASS1::GALVIN "The Energizer Bunny's Trainer..." 11 lines 5-MAR-1997 01:05 -< good luck bob L...drive that VW Bus! >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All, I worked with Bob Lyons in Seattle many moons ago... just tried sending him Email and apparently his account has been disabled... Those of you that know him, please pass the word on that I said good luck... I started working for Stan, KO's brother in 1976. I doubt I would be where I am today if it wasn't for digital... sorry to see it go... /Mic ================================================================================ Note 5162.40 Letter to Mr. Palmer 40 of 46 SUBSYS::CARLETON "A paradigm shift without a clutch" 27 lines 5-MAR-1997 18:17 -< Critical Mass? >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: .16 > So now, it seems that Digital has gone far out of its way to create a > three-way lose-lose situation: Digital loses talent that we badly need; > BEA will not retain Bob for long; Bob loses his career with Digital. > There are also further effects: Many of the other engineers on this site > who are not involved with the sale have witnessed Digital's treatment of > our compatriot. This lowers our morale and makes it harder and harder > to motivate ourselves. Trust in management takes another hit. As a survivor of the POLYCENTER sell-off to CA I can add two more down-side effects for Digital. 1) Even though most all of the ex-Digital/Now CA engineers were looking for new work soon after moving over to CA, Digital was off their list for potential employers. My new group had req's that none my old comrades wanted to apply for. 2) Seeing the list of names of the products and people who are leaving, I'm beginning to question whether Digital will be able to maintain a 'critical mass' of software talent. My work gets harder when there aren't enough sharp people who have the answers. That's one of the benefits of working for a big company but, these days, there may be many smaller companies that retain more talent. It's clear that Digital is not dedicated to holding on to software talent. ================================================================================ Note 5162.41 Letter to Mr. Palmer 41 of 46 TRLIAN::GORDON 1 line 5-MAR-1997 18:31 -< re: .-1 cause we're NOT a software company...{;^) >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Note 5162.42 Letter to Mr. Palmer 42 of 46 DANGER::ARRIGHI "and miles to go before I sleep" 10 lines 6-MAR-1997 12:08 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A lot of you folks come across as software bigots. Did you somehow miss the last several years as hardware types have been slaughtered right along with you? You are much better off than "us". Have you counted the number of software employment ads relative to hardware? Care to venture a guess on how many hardware folks have switched to software or CAD or left engineering altogether? There are a few hot spots, like ASICs and analog, but not many. Tony ================================================================================ Note 5162.43 Letter to Mr. Palmer 43 of 46 KAOM25::WALL "DEC Is Digital" 5 lines 6-MAR-1997 12:38 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some years ago (around when Westfield was reduced/closed) the talk around here was that Digital was getting out of the hardware business and becoming a software company. ["here" being Kanata Mfg.] r ================================================================================ Note 5162.44 Letter to Mr. Palmer 44 of 46 SUBSYS::CARLETON "A paradigm shift without a clutch" 16 lines 6-MAR-1997 13:23 -< Software talent needed for growth >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Did you somehow miss the last several years as hardware types have > been slaughtered right along with you? You are much better off > than "us". I'm not interested in arguing whether one group of individuals have it better than another. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the experience of the hardware engineers. My note was not intended to draw sympathy for individuals from anyone. I'm interested in the question of what is good for Digital. It seems to me that Digital needs to retain and recruit software talent in order to succeed with it's 1-3-9 strategy for growth. The impact that the current sell-off/partner strategy has on Digital's software talent pool needs to be a concern for higher level management. The high number of software job choices for job seekers only makes the problem for Digital worse. ================================================================================ Note 5162.45 Letter to Mr. Palmer 45 of 46 STAR::KLEINSORGE "Frederick Kleinsorge" 19 lines 6-MAR-1997 15:46 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah, divide and conquer. Seems nobody gets it. The field is in a shamble from sales to support. Software engineering has been decimated. Hardware engineering has had it's hits as well. As I expect has manufacturing and everyone else down the line. More important than software talent, we need leadership at all levels (and note, that does not mean we need more VPs). We are a company in retreat, running as fast as we can to shed people and product to cope with declining revenue. Of course, we don't seem to have noticed that it's a loop. The more we throw out, the faster we lose customers and revenue. It's alot like being thrown into ice water, at first the shutdown of blood to to the extreamities is good, a life preserving measure, but soon it becomes the thing that kills you, even after you are removed from the ice water. And if you survive, you won't be the same from the damage caused. ================================================================================ Note 5162.46 Letter to Mr. Palmer 46 of 46 WHTAIL::TALBOT 4 lines 6-MAR-1997 17:15 -< You Got That Right! >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RE:.45 "Right on Bro.."