Conference 7.286::digital

    
re:    What would YOU do if you were the clerk?
    
	I'd weigh the relative risks / benefits    %^) .

	Actually this whole problem is symptomatic of Digital's
	stultifying pay system.  under this system, salaries
	aren't negotiated with new employees or transferees,
	it's a case of : "The job pays this...take it or leave it."

	Managers can't compensate employees for moving to 
	New York or San Francisco, for leaving a job where a car
	is supplied, or moving to a high-tax area.  The employee's
	pay plan moves with him.

	I'm STILL not compensated for the money I left in Field
	Service ( 2.5 years ago ) with car, overtime, no state
	income tax, lower overall tax climate.  I left the Field
	thinking that a salaried position was going to be a long-term
	"smart move."  Cash-money-dollars-wise, I'm not so sure now.

	It was macaroni and beans for about a year and a half there
	after moving to my current position.

	To become more competitive, Digital needs to dynamite some
	of these hidebound regulations about pay.  To start with,
	managers should be able to compensate someone for losses
	like I detailed above, and also ought to be able to
	advertise high wages for high-cost areas, in the hope of
	attracting folks to these currently hard-to-fill jobs (I've
	heard that Hardware Service folks in New York City are
	often trying to hire ).

	Until this changes, the results will be either the clerk in .0
	quitting (and an expensive replacement hired), or the same
	clerk knuckling under, and getting "used", and knowing it.

	The other effect is that you wind up with pools of folks idle
	in some areas, while there is serious understaffing in others.

	All because there's no "Free Market" of jobs in the company....

	Steve h

    
>    Management says no, you FIRST have to prove yourself, then your salary
>    and "promotion" have to be planned, and all this takes time, so
>    somewhere in the next 24 months,...we'll just have to see.
    
    For an employer to say, "We have enough confidence in your ability that
    we want you to take this job, but we don't have enough confidence in
    your ability that we want to *pay* you for it," is ridiculous.  
    
    Why don't they give the person a raise *now*, and if he doesn't prove
    himself, he can pay them back later.  ;-)
    
    - snopes
    
    

What would I do?
Well first of all, if I'm doing such a bang up job at being a clerk that
they would make me this offer, then I must be happy at my work.
So, I'd have to ask myself if I'd be happy continuing to be a clerk and
getting compensated accordingly. Then I'd ask myself if I'd be willing
to take on the new job and its associated risks, forgeting the pay issue.
If I'd be unhappy at the new job a pay raise aint gonna make it any better.
Now then, if I'm willing to take on the new job I'd ask for at least 5.00
per hour, if refused and I still want the experience I'd take the job, stick
it out for about a year and then shop myself around.

Now for those of you who would call me an ungrateful, money grabbing, ingrate
whos only looking out for myself! I'd first agree that I'm looking out for
me first and then ask what DEC was doing when they wanted me to "prove myself"
before planning a promotion or at least a raise when I first took the job?

- George

    re:.0
    I don't believe there is anything ethical or unethical about the 
    scenarios you paint, unless some one does not fulfill a commitment.
    If the raise comes as promised, the employee leaves because he has
    a better opportunity, etc. , it is unethical only if either side or
    both are not honest(in my book, there is no "grey" in honesty).
    
    re:.3
    This answer is about right.  I'd go or stay based on my evaluation.
    "No harm, No foul".
    
    re: general
    There are too many variables in this equation to get anything but a
    unique answer for each situation.  What are my needs for more money?
    My future goals, my education, my age,etc.  It goes the same for the
    company - lots of variables.  I may give the clerk the new
    responsibility because I have the time to closely supervise the task
    and if the clerk is successful, I'll give the raise and give less
    direct attention to the task.
    
    Daryl

    set mode=sarcastic/with_voice="naive"
    
    If I was the clerk, I'd ask the manager:
    
    	"I thought Digital had the following policies:
    
    		1.	Pay for Performance
    
    		2.	JEC to set job levels based on job
    			responsibility"
    
    -Barry-
    

    The "hypothetical" situation raised in the base note is alarmingly
    similar (read "identical") to the way things really work within
    Digital, at least what I have seen in 8+ years, and you can replace
    "clerk" with "software specialist", "sales rep", "sales support", etc.  
    
    Can VAXnotes handle 125,000 replies to this topic?
    
    Jon

    
    There's nothing unethical in .0 (no matter how slanted the author's
    presentation). There's nothing unethical in honestly trying to get the
    biggest bang for the bucks. Wasteful? Perhaps. Discouraging? Likely.
    But _not_ unethical.
    
    If you want to change current practice, you must show that its
    drawbacks (discouraging talented people from taking on more
    responsibility, paying more than necessary to attract outside help
    rather than an internal transfer) outweigh its benefits (preventing
    internal raiding, discouraging indiscriminate job hopping to increase
    salary). But _don't_ try to convince managers that they're committing
    a sin by supporting level transfers.
    

>       		2.	JEC to set job levels based on job
>   			responsibility"

    in our hypothetical example, JEC does not effect the clerks postion
    as JEC was only on Exempt position. (ie tough cookies) 

    REF: <<< Note 1065.7 by ESCROW::KILGORE "Wild Bill" >>>

    >><<There's nothing unethical in .0 (no matter how slanted the author's
    presentation). There's nothing unethical in honestly trying to get the
    biggest bang for the bucks>>
    
    So, according to your opinion, if a manager can get workers, by
    whatever means, to work 80 hours for the same pay as 40, then that
    manager is a GOOD manager and is definitely not unethical.
    
    How does this manager differ from "sweatshop" managers of 50 years ago,
    or still prevalent in other parts of the world, or even in the U.S.
    where illegal alien labor is employed who are desparate for work?  Is
    this manager also to be called a GOOD manager?
    
    Where is the line drawn?

    
    Let us try to remember that this is not a master/slave relationship. Last
    time I checked, I was free to walk away from this job at any time I
    felt I was not being sufficiently compensated. When this company calls
    in Pinkerton to put down an uprising of rebellious software engineers,
    I'll be happy to seriously entertain the "sweatshop" theory.
    

    What happened to empowerment???...If she/he feels they are not getting
    a fair shake TALK ABOUT IT...Tell your manger how you feel and why you 
    feel that way..You can't talk about what if they had to hire someone
    outside...If you want something, ask for it.If the answer isn't a fair
    one than elevate it...Simple as that!!!...Be straight with your boss,
    but remember there is no magic $ amount for any particular job. It's
    called a range, and the entire range is considered competitive..
    
    Almost everyone thinks they are worth more than they are...My advice
    is,if you think your not getting a fair shake and are not willing
    to talk to your manager or elevate then you should look for another
    place to work.
    

    Re .0,
    
    	Heck, they have to do it that way to make up for the times they
    almost double a persons salary for a 1 year temporary job ( lets say
    Sales Rep ) and then expect them to go back to their old job ( lets
    say clerk ) after the 1 year is up, but keeping their doubled salary.
    As Ripley said - Beleave It Or Not !
                                                         

I would go away, if I was the clerk.

The situation you described is quite common. Many people won't fight with
their company's administration and/or managers to get the dollars they're
either too shy or not combative enough to ask for (and they really worth it, 
though).
So, in the market-driven environment where we are (at least for software jobs)
if you don't mind to move, for better salary and/or better working conditions
you move.
That 's what I did previously when working with BURROUGHS (long time ago !) and
then with INDOSUEZ (french bank). And I'am not married with DEC either.

A manager offering  a job to an employee and not the corresponding salary, to
an employee who accepts the deal, is NOT a good manager. 
I think the attitude of both the manager and the employees is the result of 
MONEY driving our society, instead of ethics. 

                                             Christian-Luc
 

    Nothing wrong with .0 as far as it goes.  It is now up to you to
    protect yourself.  This move is obviously a Career Move, therefore
    You should ask for a Career Development Plan, in which an agreement
    is put on paper that lists the job requirements you must learn/
    accomplish for/by X amount of time to satisfy the needs of the 
    position (and, more importantly, what your boss expects of you), 
    which would result in a money/promotion review.  This would have to 
    be OKayed by his boss (at least) , so you have (at least) two 
    managers' signatures on paper.
    
    Unless there is a plant- or company-wide salary freeze, the terms
    of the agreement (read "contract") must be kept.  (You should at
    least get the promotion--if not, you'd better get a bad review.)
    If not, it is time to start up the Complaint Ladder until you
    reach a rung where power exists to make it right.  

    Again, it is up to you to protect yourself from being taken advantage
    of.
    
    							Don

    
    REF: .0 and .14
    
    In our hypothetical case, the job was in line with the clerk's desired
    and expressed career goal and as it happens, the clerk already had
    considerable years of experience in the higher level job functions,
    with the clerk perceiving that hiring someone from outside Digital with
    the same background would cost $6.00 to $7.50, at a minimum.  Thus, the
    clerk felt $5.00 was not out of order considering the magnitude of the
    job and potentially multi-millions of dollars in DIRECT, NEW revenue
    being generated by the clerk.
    
    Thus, in my opinion, the correct ethical action is to decline the
    position because the manager shows no confidence and the perception is
    that this manager saw this as an opportunity to get big bang for NO
    MORE BUCKS, making the offer ethically questionable -- at best.  If the
    clerk accepted, would the clerk not be unethical supporting this, for
    where does it stop?  Will the manager then offer someone from Timbuktu
    $2.00 to replace the clerk someday, saving even more money?  Personnel
    creates job codes and salary ranges that are meant to be applied
    equitably and fairly.
    
    Ethically, I believe the clerk, if believing that Digital is a good
    corporation, and believing there are and will be other opporunities
    with managers who recognize and compensate for value, then I argue the
    clerk should remain in the current job, continuing to do good work as a
    clerk.
    
    And if in refusing, the clerk "ticks off" the manager for not accepting
    the offer, then what?  I say assertively stand up for one's rights not
    to be abused for not being a corporate ladder player -- doing what's
    right means to me acting ethically and does NOT mean get results NO
    MATTER WHAT OR HOW, at the least possible cost!  The clerk should
    continue doing the best the clerk can and act ethically -- period, and
    wait for a new opportunity to emerge, even if it takes some time.
    

    The problem with this is that Digital expresses itself in one dimension
    as a family, a team, "let's all pull together", when it comes to
    imposing demands on its employees.  Just read any company-written
    propaganda, and you'll see what I mean.
    
    With total cynicism, some managers can't or won't balance the demands
    of the corporation with their ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO THEIR EMPLOYEES.
    
    In another dimension, it' "looking out for number 1", and asking if you
    can bring a tape recorder or a lawyer to a performance review meeting.
    
    What is that ethical obligation?  Well, I don't think you'll find it in
    the Orange Notebooks "Digital's Policies and Procedures", after all it
    was written to protect the immediate interests of the corporation.
    
    If, as .0 indicates, there's a threat associated with the surprise
    "offer", then it's time to put away notions that you and manager are
    cooperating in career development. (Well... maybe the manager is
    developing his advancing his career, or thinks he is.)  It's time to
    get it down in writing what you gotta do to get what you wanna get, and
    hold two or three levels of management to that agreement.
    
    Where there's little flexibility on salaries, understanding what
    compensation discretion managers _do_ have, is the key to getting an
    career agreement negotiated.

    
    Typical of what's been happening with me too.  You interview for
    jobs and they then downgrade to match your level.  Think they downgrade
    the responsibilities?  Yeah, sure ..... and the check is in ...!
    
    I feel this is a big problem forDEC.  Don't think the corporation is
    interested in fixing it either.  Tell me why I'd go through interviews
    for four different jobs (since this past January) the same level
    as mine!  Gee, it must be that I'm not concerned about advancing
    my career, and that I'd be happy staying in an entry level job at
    the same pay for the rest of my life!
    
    I've gotten offers for lateral moves at the same pay - I consider
    that an insult and a slap in the face!  The only way I'd take a
    lateral move was if I really hated where I am now (not the case
    BTW) and the group offering the lateral move could provide me with
    spectacular growth opportunities!  If a person is qualified to do
    the job, then he/she should receive the level and pay that is equated
    that position!
    
    DEC always preaches about advancement for its people, and people
    are our biggest resource, and that we need to develop our people,
    and that .... well I agree with those statements, but how can Digital
    expect people to do that?  Not on lateral moves for the same pay!
    
    Talking with others in different companies, and knowing what is
    being offered to college kids right out of school, I am finding
    that DEC is not competitive with others.  Someone please rationalize
    for me how a recent college graduate with no job experience can
    come into a company making more than someone who has three plus
    years job experience, plus the education!  Not just in DEC, but
    in any company!
    
    Now, I've heard the following statement time and time again, and
    quite frankly it is boring me:
    
    "Well perhaps you should look outside the company for those
    opportunities?"
    
    It's hard for me to even think about that statement!  I enjoy Digital
    Equipment Corporation and I work hard for it!  I want to continue
    to advance my career here, but I'm beginning to realize that it's
    darn near impossible.
    
    Here are some of my <personal> general statements about what's
    happening:
    
               - Downgrading reqs. to match levels is unfair
                 and discouraging toward career advancement
    
               - If someone qualifies for the job, they should
                 be given the title, pay, and level equated
    
               - Once you get placed in a salary range, you stay
                 there with little chance for promotion
    
               - Pay for performance is a myth
    
               - DEC is fast becoming non-competitive in the salary
                 market
    
    These are all tough situations - the base note and all that follow!
    Discouraging for me, and I'm sure discouraging for many, many more
    like us.  I have tossed and turned a lot at night over it.  My question
    is this:  what is corporate personnel doing to correct these issues?
    Or do they not want to?  Afterall, the one good thing about making
    only lateral moves is that it keeps people from frequent job changing.
    But on the other hand, as I stated earlier, it discourages people
    from wanting to progress ..... sooner or later something has to
    change, or a lot of good people will be gone.  Maybe the high
    percentage of people in Northboro who accepted the buyout have read
    this note?
    

    
    Let me address some of your concerns. As an engineering supervisor
    who gets to create job reqs I always create them at the Principal
    Software Engineer or Senior Software Engineering level. That way
    I get a wider pool of people to choose from. I can't use an SE II req
    to hire a PSE but I can use a PSE req to hire a SE II. So what I do
    is look for candidates who could make a good contribution to my group.
    
    The job that I'd offer would depend on the candidates experience and
    talents. If I find a good PSE then he gets a senior level job. On the
    other hand if I find a good SE II then I consider moving some of the
    responsibilities of the open PSE position to others already in my group
    and making an offer to the SE II to backfill the space freed up. I
    absolutely am not going to offer that SE II a PSE salary. The reason
    being is that the job is no longer a PSE job. What I can offer though
    is the promise of advancement if performance warrants it. Where do I
    get the money from you ask? Well the the answer is that in a large
    group (not in my group of course...) you find people that are overpaid,
    especially people that were recently hired from the outside (when you
    hire people from the outside you often have to overpay them so what
    happens is that they effectively get next years raise at hire time). Well
    since they're overpaid their part of the spend number pot comes in very
    useful to bring others up to their rightful position. Regarding your
    specific points:
    
>    Typical of what's been happening with me too.  You interview for
>    jobs and they then downgrade to match your level.  Think they downgrade
>    the responsibilities?  Yeah, sure ..... and the check is in ...!
    
Yes this is exactly what happens, see above.
    
    
>    as mine!  Gee, it must be that I'm not concerned about advancing
>    my career, and that I'd be happy staying in an entry level job at
>    the same pay for the rest of my life!
    
    At interview time find out what is required of you to get a promotion.
    Get it in writing. A decent manager will stick to his promises.
    
    
>    "Well perhaps you should look outside the company for those
>    opportunities?"
    
    Advancement is all about negotiation and doing a job that warrants
    a promotion. A successful manager has good people working for him
    because he treats them fairly (notice I said fairly not equally).
    
    
>               - Downgrading reqs. to match levels is unfair
>                 and discouraging toward career advancement
    
    You need to accept that those are the rules but that you can get
    committments from managers. If you're as good as you think you are
    you should have no trouble obtaining those committments.
        
    >           - If someone qualifies for the job, they should
    >             be given the title, pay, and level equated
    
    Exactly. But if you find a job that you are fully qualified for that is
    at a higher level than your current job then you and your current
    manager need to talk. You're obviously in the wrong job code.
    
>               - Once you get placed in a salary range, you stay
>                 there with little chance for promotion
    
    Bullshit. You only stay there if you are not good enough for the next
    higher level job or if you have an ineffective manager. If it is the
    latter then find a better manager.
    
>                  - Pay for performance is a myth
 
    I can only look at my own greater group and I can tell you that
    Performance was the number 1 thing used for salary planning last
    year.   
    
>               - DEC is fast becoming non-competitive in the salary
>                 market
    
    In summary don't lose hope. DEC needs good people and it is trying
    to nurture good people.
    
    Dave

    Re my last reply
    
    The editor cut off a bit. As far as DEC becoming non competitive
    in the salary market I don't know about that. All I do know is that
    yes you will find higher salaries at more riskier jobs. Just look at
    all the engineers that have been laid off from companies such as WANG,
    PRIME etc lately.
    
    Dave

    re:  .19
    
    I have to wonder at the ethics of opening a job requisition at a higher
    level than what is needed.  I know that it is a very common practice,
    in fact, that it is normal practice for a headhunter to advertise a job
    opening at it's highest possible salary point to "hook" people in. When
    you then apply for the job, you are told that the salary advertised was
    really for a person several notches higher than the job described.
    
    My point is this:  The job code, job description, and salary should be
    consistent for a req, because a req is *advertised* to the rest of the
    Digital community.  To me this walks the line of misrepresentation a 
    little to closely for comfort.
    
    How many times have I read a job requisition that is advertised as a
    "WaterWalker III" and the job description reads more like a "Junior
    MakeWorker I" ...
    
    Geoff
    

    Salary compression in large companies is hardly unique to Digital. The
    only employees at large companies who have no complaints about
    promotions and salary are the people who perform at "God-like" levels.
    For the rest of us, we must choose between settling down with a single
    company and accepting our fate, or risk a little a job hop. 
    
    As someone said earlier, people hired from the outside must generally
    be overpaid. That should tell you something.
    
    							JAH

	re .18:

	I agree strongly with everything you say. The reason seems to be
	simple enough: nobody in Digital is responsible for our most
	valuable resource.

	"Personnel", do you say? 

	Let's be serious. Is that the right level to place that
	responsibility? Do Personnel know that much about the
	knowledge which is our stock-in-trade as a company?

	NO WAY! In my experience, the best way to tell a Personnel
	person is that they will be acutely uncomfortable at any
	mention of software, hardware, computers, communications,
	networks, or anything else remotely "technical". Yet that is
	what we need to understand and communicate to our customers.

	When one of the real super-employees leaves the company, who
	stays awake at nights worrying why, worrying about the impact,
	worrying how to stop this happening?

	When you find out, let me know.

	/Tom

    In my 20+ years with DEC it has always been my observation
    that personnel is either poorly trained or don't care.
    They have always been a stumbling block to anything
    constructive to the employee. BTW; there are always some
    noteworthy exceptions. Most, however are simply resume
    referral service clerks. 
    
    You can aleays tell a DEC personnel rep. but you can't tell
    them much. 
    
    No sour grapes; just an observation

    re .19 Sounds like false advertising to me. Good for you,
    who gets a larger pool of applicants to play with. Not so
    good for the poor schmuck who really wants the job you *posted*.
    
    Why not open two reqs and fill *one*, then close the other ?

    re: -1
    
    Be real. Opening two reqs requires justifying both.  That's not always
    possible.
    
    If a person is really qualified for the higher position, then they will
    get it.  The only harm that I can see is that a person who only wants
    the higher position (and is presumably not qualified as evidenced by a
    lack of offers) will end up getting a few job offers at less than the
    advertised position instead of NO offers at all.
    
    No, it's not perfect, but I hardly think this is the perfidy some seem
    to believe it is.
    
    Al
    

Re: .26

>    If a person is really qualified for the higher position, then they will
>    get it.  The only harm that I can see is that a person who only wants
>    the higher position (and is presumably not qualified as evidenced by a
>    lack of offers) will end up getting a few job offers at less than the
>    advertised position instead of NO offers at all.
    
Another problem is that Software Engineer II's might be discouraged from
applying for the job.  That's a problem I faced when I was a SE II and was
browsing through the jobs database: all the interesting-looking jobs were for
Seniors or Principals.  Based on .19, I should have realized that it isn't
out of the question for a SE II to apply for a job that's advertised as being
for a Senior Software Engineer, but if I got the job I shouldn't expect to
get a promotion (at least not right away).

Is it possible to advertise a job as being for "Software Engineer II, Senior
Software Engineer or Principal Software Engineer; the responsibilities of
the job will depend on experience and ability"?

				-- Bob

    Actually there's an even more interesting problem: what happens when a
    Software Principal Engineer sees a great job going - but for a Senior
    Software Engineer?
    
    One thing I'm finding somewhat frustrating is that the pyramid
    principle applies, the higher one gets, the less chance of movement.
    
    
    						- andy

    Ask them if they can bump the req, Andy.  Quite often they'd be glad to
    get a Principal rather than a Senior.
    
    							=maggie