| ... policy. Not "law". Check the Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual
(aka "Orange Book", PP&P). You probably only need a VP's signature to
get an exemption from the 2-year limit. This should be quite easy these
days - what with the reduction of IC's and the recent VP population
explosion, you can't swing a cat without hitting two or three VP's :-)
Now, all you need to do is find out what your manager's *real* agenda
is, since he certainly knows this better than anyone.
|
| re: .0
<< P.S. In a "wild" coincidence, my boss asked me to come into his office
<< before I could hit the send button on this note, and told me he would not
<< prevent me from applying for another job because it looked like we were
<< going to be hit! Others may need the same latitude.
Despite the numerous postings here about unfeeling managers, my personal
experience has been that most of the managers I've ever worked for have been
sensitive to their employees. Your experience only confirms that so often it
boils down to the individual person - not "policy" - as to whether the "right
thing" is done.
/Marvin
|
| re .2
Right on! The last person I would want on my team is someone who
doesn't want to be there. I have hired folks and made mutual
agreements for them to go, folks have asked to leave and I have let
them (with no authority other than my own), and I have asked people to
leave who are not performing in my area but might be excellent
performers in other areas.
Policy is an easy excuse for not doing the right thing!
|
| re: .0,
First of all, the two year committment is *not* a rule. Like
everything else in this corporate loophole heaven, it is merely a
"guideline" for managers to follow (which is why your manager was
able to magically waive the two year committment like that).
Moreover, the two year committment *used* to actually mean that
both a hiring manager, as well as an employee could count on working
together for a minimum of two years (barring any unusual circumstances),
but with ongoing TFSO workforce reductions, however, the two year
"committment" of employment from management has been reduced to a
mere fairy tale, while the employee, on the other hand, is still
expected to abide by this "guideline" (when it suits the wishes of
mangagement, of course).
The two year committment has always been somewhat of a
raunchy deal for the individual employee by freezing their career
options within DEC for two years, but it has been endured in the name
of the "corporate good" since it supposedly helps to insure corporate
staffing needs. Here are some of the wonderful things the two year
committment has consistently produced for the "corporate good":
1. Limited selection of internal job candidates for hiring managers
of critical needs positions (note: this problem only worsens during
a "hiring freeze").
2. Poor worker morale during transition periods (especially in those
such as myself who have been raked over the coals by this "guideline"
when attempting to leave a dead-end position for a more fruitful one).
3. A binding glue to force employees to work for managers or with
other employees who might later turn out to be total jerks who
they would never ordinarily work with by choice (a little like
marriage without divorce for two years). Managers, on the other
hand, have always had plenty of ways of eliminating an employee
from their cost center prior to the two year committment, and
these past two years have seen a dramatic increase in even more
managerial options in this regard.
4. The most recent "feature" of the two year committment is the
potential for entrapment (as far as employment at DEC is concerned)
of employees into positions in which, due to market changes or whatever
the reason, are destined to be deemed redundant and whose employees
are then TFSO'ed out the door by default.
The two year committment is one leftover from the "Old Digital"
that DEC can truly do without. Supposedly there to insure the staffing
needs of the corporatation, in fact it only really benefits the empire
builders and would-be dictators who thrive on such power over their
employees.
The two year committment might have made sense back in the
early days of the industry when people and jobs were changing so
fast that some form of brakes were needed to help slow down the
world a bit, but these days DEC can no longer afford to slow down.
In fact, the two year committment is completely antithetical to
the new and supposedly entrepeneurial corporate structure.
If a legally-binding two-year contract was to be instituted
instead (fat chance), then that is one thing, but the "two year
committment" is for the birds. Ask around and listen to people from
other companies laugh when you tell them about this corporate
"guideline". Only at DEC! No wonder we have so many problems!
-davo
p.s. Also see note #1011.
|