Conference 7.286::digital

	I've heard that rumor as well. On the other hand I've also heard that
	the number of people taking SERP was running higher than expected. That
	I've heard from more places so I tend to believe that SERP will stay
	as it is because it's doing what they want it to.

			Alfred

    
    I have heard the same rumor. Also, I question whether the
    acceptablility of the package is accurate. Are "they" judging by orders
    on the Serp phone? I think the orders may be high, but it's the mail-in
    with signature that counts.
    
    

    Another way to make it more attractive is to make the alternative
    (i.e. potentially being layed off) much more of a possibility. And the
    announcements of more Q4 layoffs plus a new round of 10-15K starting in
    July (WSJ this AM) should certainly make some undecideds decide real
    quick.
    
    If they DID sweeten the pot, they'd have to do it real quick, as the
    SERPhone deadline is fast approaching, or they'd have to extend the
    deadline to give people some time to factor it into their plans.
    
    Bottom line is that I strongly doubt there will be any sweetening of
    the SERP pot, and I suspect nobody should wait too long before making
    their decision.
    
    But again, it's JMHO and I have NO inside info whatsoever..!
    
    FJK
    

    
    Could someone tell me if this is true?  People have until May 1st to 
    request the SERP paperwork but until May 22nd to make a decision.
    
    Also, is management basing there figure for people taking SERP on 
    those who have actually accepted the package or those who just ask
    for the paperwork.
    
    Thank you.
    

    I heard that Digital was going to reduce the age limitation from 50 to
    45 in order to get more people to take the SERP package.  It might not
    be true but it sure sounds good.
    
    TLA

    Re: dates
    
    May 1:	deadline to request the paperwork
    
    May 22:	deadline to send the completed paperwork in
    
    May 29:	deadline to back out

    It was reported here that the acceptances were running higher than
    expected.  This is bothersome.  Are the people accepting SERP the
    better performers?  It appears that they would be, since they are still
    here and not looking for an outside opportunity, until the SERP is
    offered.  They would seem to include those people with more knowledge
    of Digital, since they have been around.  Are we trying to get rid of
    the wrong people?
    
    Big Mac

    re .-1
    
    	> Are the people accepting SERP the better performers?
    
    Hell no - I'm taking it!
    
    Larry_who's_developing_a_tude_lately

    AAAAAAAAAAA not me..Haaaaaaaa

    re .7
    	I don't believe that any good measurement will exist regarding the
    SERP acceptance until after 5/22 (the postmark deadline for returning
    the SERP paperwork). Many eligible individuals are requesting the
    paperwork via the SERPPHONE in order to keep their options open. In
    fact, the procedure allows an eligible employee to decline as late as 
    5/29.
    	 Any evaluation based on either the number of requests for the
    paperwork or participation in the SERP notesfile has got to be both
    optimistic and invalid. The only reasonable conclusions that I see as
    currently available, are:
    	1. Some percentage of those that request the package will not take
    	   it.
        2. Some percentage of those that return the package will not take
    	   it.
    
    Regards,
    
    John

    The only good data as of May 1st will be:
    How many of those eligible did not avail themselves of the 5/22 option.
    At that point we know the Maximum acceptance possibility but not the
    actual.
    By the way, Good bye and Good Luck. I'm outa' here 5/29.
    
    Frank

    I just heard from a very good source that the age has been lowered to
    48......the source is credible enough that I'd bet money on it.
    
    Same source quotes Olsen as saying he doesn't care if the age is
    lowered to 20!!!   Just get the headcount down.

    
>    Same source quotes Olsen as saying he doesn't care if the age is
>    lowered to 20!!!   Just get the headcount down.

This is contradicted what was quoted on Tuesday's Boston Globe what Ken said:

"There's no wholesale of headcount in DEC"

Michael...

Re: .3
    
    >If they DID sweeten the pot, they'd have to do it real quick, as the
    >SERPhone deadline is fast approaching, or they'd have to extend the
    >deadline to give people some time to factor it into their plans.
    
    Not necessarily.  They could extend the age limit down from 50 to
    48/45/whatever and offer the same terms (5-5+26wks) without any
    problems or impact to the SERP I people, I think.  And no need to
    change the timeframe for SERP I either.  SERP II could just have
    different dates.
    

        Any truth to the rumor that the SERP pkg is being changed to
    
    7-7-1?
    

>        Any truth to the rumor that the SERP pkg is being changed to
>    
>    7-7-1?

	I don't know. Did you read it in LIVEWIRE or see it in print somewhere?
	If not, it's probably not true. Even if it's being talked about I would
	not call it truth until it's been announced.

			Alfred

    Furthermore, if it is to be changed, there is insufficient time for it
    to happen as part of the current SERPing, which ends 29-May and which
    had to have been selected by now.
    The speculation that it would go to 1 year conflicts with the
    precedent(?) that if a retirement package gets better, the company
    would be open to law suits from those who had opted for the inferior
    package.
    
    				herb

Re .17

>    The speculation that it would go to 1 year conflicts with the
>    precedent(?) that if a retirement package gets better, the company
>    would be open to law suits from those who had opted for the inferior
>    package.


This has been bothering me for a while....

Why is it okay for the company to reduce a package so they don't get sued,
but they don't have to worry about getting sued by people who got the reduced
package????

For example, those that went with TFSO 1 got 40 weeks plus. This was a chosen
list, nobody could volunteer. Yet with subsequent TFSO's, the offer package
was significantly reduced. Again, this was a chosen list, nobody could 
volunteer. 

Now if TFSO 2 was more than 40 weeks, the TFSO 1 bunch could sue. But the TFSO
2 bunch can't sue because their package was smaller than TFSO 1.

Where's the logic here??? What don't I understand???

Bob.

You can always sue.   You just won't win.   The paperwork that you have to sign 
to receive benefits from the TFSO package includes a waiver form.  Thus if you
accept the terms of the TFSO package, you will lose your lawsuit.  It means you
have to have some skin in the game if you want to sue for the better TFSO 1.

Bob

<Why is it okay for the company to reduce a package so they don't get sued,
<but they don't have to worry about getting sued by people who got the reduced
<package????
    
    
    I don't know
    
    				herb
    

re .18 and .20

   The company has no guarantees.  The formula was cooked up
   after IBM lost a suit that increased the benefits in a second
   phase.  The legal beagles are just doing their best to
   protect Digital.
   
fwiw,

   Dick

    It seems to me that there are no restrictions on the corporation
    regardless of what they do nor, in my opinion, should there be. 
    	If they (BOD)increase SERP they can be legally safe as long as they
    make it retroactive, and if they choose to not enhance the package
    they are ok too. 
    	Remember, DEC didn't have to authorize ANY packages at all and
    I think the company has done an admirable job of reconciling a moral
    vs. financial issue.
    	 This company, having decided to issue transition packages, will
    have to justify any future modifications financially and given our latest 
    quarterly results, I think it's unrealistic to expect the deal to
    get better. 
    	I think that future options will consist of transitions that are
    "voluntary" in that people will be able to apply for the packages,
    but I don't see the packages themselves improving.
    
    John Alston   

>         <<< Note 1868.21 by SGOUTL::BELDIN_R "All's well that ends" >>>

>   The company has no guarantees.  The formula was cooked up
>   after IBM lost a suit that increased the benefits in a second
>   phase.  The legal beagles are just doing their best to
>   protect Digital.

It all seems to come back to this IBM anecdote.
The part that gets included in this anecdote only rarely is the part
that explains that the people who took the earlier package were enticed
by the statement that later packages, if any, would not be as generous.
Allegedly, later packages were more generous, so members of the first
group sued for misrepresentation.
(This is all hearsay, but it makes sense to include some rationale for 
the "suing" statements.)

This whole situation is very much like a retail market.
You buy a sofa from a furniture store on sale for $600.
The next week they sell another just like it for $500.
I'd like to see somebody sue the store and win (even if the
ad for the $600 price included the statement "prices will NEVER be lower").

- tom]

PS:  Of course, it's not like a furniture store.  The company can let 
almost any of us go on short notice with little, if any, extra recompense.
The "goods for sale" in the buyout case is to get people to leave
on mutually beneficial terms.

    I don't know about $600 sofa's, but a young man sued one of the
    car companies (Chrysler or Chevrolet, or something) for advertising their 
    latest (but one) convertable as being the last convertable ever to be made
    by them.  He bought it, took great care of it as a collector item, then 
    some years later the car company came out with another convertible.
    
    He sued.  He won!

    How much?  One penny?

re Note 1868.23 by REGENT::POWERS:

> PS:  Of course, it's not like a furniture store.  The company can let 
> almost any of us go on short notice with little, if any, extra recompense.
> The "goods for sale" in the buyout case is to get people to leave
> on mutually beneficial terms.
  
        I have been led to believe that the reason why almost all
        companies offer some sort of severance package is to get you
        to sign a waiver preventing you from seeking damages.

        If they offered you nothing, you certainly wouldn't sign a
        waiver.  If they offer you a package, you will weigh the
        certainty of getting that package vs. the non-certainty of
        winning a bigger settlement in court.

        None of this says that the package has to be especially
        generous, it simply needs to be good enough to get you to
        sign away your rights (remember, you're facing unemployment
        -- it might not take all that much!).

        Bob

    The SERP package is voluntary.  If it were compulsory, then the "buyout
    of your right to sue" argument would have some weight.  But since the
    package is voluntary, I don't believe anybody is losing anything they
    would have a good case to sue over.

re Note 1868.27 by SSDEVO::EGGERS:

>     The SERP package is voluntary.  If it were compulsory, then the "buyout
>     of your right to sue" argument would have some weight.  But since the
>     package is voluntary, I don't believe anybody is losing anything they
>     would have a good case to sue over.

        Yes -- certainly.  I was thinking of the involuntary
        programs (i.e., getting fired).

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    Something that  was  mentioned  to me yesterday.  If you got terminated
    without  buying out your right to sue, then any settlement from a class
    action suit against DEC would be basically tax free in the US.

No taxes...maybe.

No lawyer's fees...NEVER!

8^)

headline: (WSJ): Digital To Announce 3,000 Accept Early Retirement
source: DJ International Economic News Wire


  NEW YORK -(AP-DJ)--Digital Equipment Corp. will announce Monday that about 
3,000 employees accepted an early retirement buy-out, company officials said, 
the Wall Street Journal reported Monday. 

  That's a larger-than-expected response to the buy-out, which was offered to 
7,000 employees over the age of 50. Management had hoped to get a third of 
those to accept. 

  Digital, which has worked to cut its payroll for two years in the face of 
losses and slow sales, had about 116,000 employees at the end of March. With 
the latest buy-out and other cuts, the total will be about 112,000 by June 30, 
when the company's fiscal year ends. 

  The cost-cutting and restructuring are far from complete. Digital executives 
have said they intend to cut at least another 10,000 jobs in the coming year 
and to post a charge of as much as 1 billion dlrs in the current quarter to 
pay for the cutbacks. 

  The early retirement program has cut deeply into Digital's executive ranks. 
A half-dozen vice presidents filed papers to accept the buy-out, including 
Albert E. Mullin, corporate relations; George A. Chamberlain, marketing 
finance; William J. Heffner, voice and video; Henry J. Crouse, strategic 
relations; and James Cudmore, operations. Robert C. Hughes, vice president for 
U.S. sales, announced earlier that he was leaving the company. 
- - 0406GMT

  Digital officials also said that Domenic J. LaCava, a corporate officer and 
vice president, won't be leaving the company. LaCava, one of Digital's 
better-known executives, had been expected to leave in the wake of a 
reorganization that reduced his responsibilities. 

  LaCava did file for early retirement, but he was persuaded to stay, a person 
familiar with the discussions said. 'His skills are valued. We mounted a 
full-court press to keep him,' the person said. 

  A spokeswoman said none of the executives was available for comment and 
declined to confirm that any of those named would be departing. 

  Digital also has lost one of its top system designers, Richard Witek, who 
along with Richard Sites is credited with designing the alpha-chip 
architecture that the company is counting on for its next generation of 
computers. Witek, a 15-year veteran of Digital, took a position with Apple 
Computer Inc. 

  The results of the early retirement effort are likely to be welcome news to 
analysts who have long criticized the company for moving too slowly in 
reducing its payroll. While Digital has managed to cut 20,000 jobs since its 
peak employment of 126,000 in December 1989, it added back 10,000 jobs from 
two European acquisitions last year. 
-0- 0407GMT
    

    SERP cut deeply into the ranks of the vice--presidents? A "half-dozen"
    doesn't sound like a deep cut to me!
    
    Ken

	I'm guessing that 6 VPs is somewhere around 3-4% of them. 4% of the
	total population of Digital would be over 4,000 people. That would be
	fairly deep no? 

			Alfred

If we're to take the WSJ's "half dozen" literally, the only one they didn't
mention by name would be Bill Keating.  Any others?

The seven VPs, were also "Officers" (not every VP is an Officer).

(The seven were Chamberlain, Crouse, Cudmore, Heffner, Hughes [sic], Mullin,
and Yen.)

Prior to those Officers retiring, there were 34 Officers of the Corporation.

    
    Exactly. There are various levels of VP. 

So what's the current VP count?

>  <<< Note 1868.37 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>
>So what's the current VP count?

... heads....

    
    Hey, I have one I want to pass by you fin folks.
    
    One of the departments that I work closely with is looking for a couple
    of temp secretaries. They asked whether or not a SERP'r that I knew was
    looking for work, and I replied that she was. I asked her about picking
    up a DEC job through Kelly services, and she told me that the "waiver"
    included a clause that she could not work for Digital for 1 YEAR (!)
    from date of SERP. 
    
    Does anyone know if this is true, and whether or not it can be "bent"?
    IMHO, it makes no sense for Digital to go out an hire temporary peoples
    that have no knowledge of systems, procedures, etc., when there are
    former Digital employees looking for work....
    
    Thanks,
    
    John

    ... but it requires a VP-level approval to override the waiver. I know
    of a couple of instances where the Sales organization has contracted with
    a SERPer so they could continue working a significant sales
    opportunity. It required a LOT of justification, but that probably
    varies depending on the VP and the management chain you have to go
    through to get there.
    
    Tom

    I'm currently working with a former manager who SERP'ed and came back
    as a consultant a couple of weeks later ... so it can be done.
    
    ... Bob
    

    I believe you can come back to DEC but not as a DEC employee (complete
    with DEC badge, benefits, etc).  You can return as a consultant as many
    have.  This secretary can probably return thru an agency (or even as
    her own agency).  Keep in mind there are two ways to return to DEC...
    one with a gray badge and another with a purple (contract) badge!
    
    -sandy
    

    
    This person would definitely go through an agency (Kelly, Manpower,
    etc.) I am speaking of a secretarial position that, while important,
    certainly does not qualify for "contractor" status.
    
    Does anyone have any hardcopy/online info on this? The SERP'er in
    question would like to come back to work (indirectly) for Digital, just
    not in the same organization.....
    
    Thanks again,
    
    John

    The SERPer should have the necessary paperwork with the rules and
    regulations.  I believe it was part of the package that was given to
    them to peruse before signing on the dotted line.
    
    Any manager of a SERPed employee should also know the scoop. 
    
    A secretary will/can have contract status.  Anyone working for an
    outside agency but for DEC for 90 days or more is entitled to a
    contract badge.
    
    -sandy (former contract secretary)
    

    Have her contact the Temp. Human Resources Group...I think
    they are still located in Maynard.

    Nope - they moved to Marlboro...