A friend of mine got notice today that NO ONE will be allowed to take vacation during Dec. 1999 or Jan. 2000 due to Y2K. (She works at a "major banking institution".) I had heard possibilities of this discussed before, but it was the first notice I have actually seen. People who plan to "escape" the cities in Jan. 2000 for a few weeks of vacation may lose their jobs to do so. Has anyone else encountered this?

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), September 14, 1998

Answers

Gayla,

This doesn't seem to make sense, since a bank's loan officers and tellers, for instance, have no ability to remediate the bank's Y2K problems, so there is no obvious reason for prohibiting their Dec. or Jan. vacations. Is the bank anticipating going heavily toward manual systems, which would require MORE people on duty during that time? Could you be more specific as to your information?

-- ParkTwain (ptwain@ibm.net), September 14, 1998.

ParkTwain, I have the Memorandum in front of me. This is what it says: "As you are all aware, the 'Year 2000' represents potential problems for computers, software, and the companies/individuals using them. As you know, ----- ---- Bank has been working on its preparedness plan for the 'Year 2000' and the problems it potentially brings. In this regard, and in conjunction with the bank's preparedness plan, we are all being asked to not schedule vacation time for the month of December 1999, or the month of January 2000. Your assistance in scheduling vacation time around these two months is important to the plan, and the bank, and is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call --------..." The memorandum does not give any further details. My friend just got the notice today, so maybe we will learn more later. I am surprised that they are issuing this notice so far in advance. Has anyone else had a similar experience?

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), September 14, 1998.

The only thing I can think of is that they anticipate, that a large number of employees will want to vaction at that time, and they dont want to have a big conflict over who does get vacation and who doesnt? Or maybe all the bosses plan to be on vacation and they need all the little people to stay and put up with the crap... :P

Vic

-- Vic (Light_Servant@yahoo.com), September 15, 1998.

Simple really.

Banks work on confidence. Who would be confident of a bank who's employee's have all run to the hills over a Y2K fear?

They figure that if it all appears gung ho and business as usual they might forstall part of the bank runs.

-- art welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), September 15, 1998.

It's a common management reaction to unknown or high risk situations to take action such as this. If you don't know what is going to happen, the theory goes that you have an "all hands on board" period so as to have all the skills your staff possses available to resolve whatever issues may arise. Then, you can have the maximim ability to solve whatever issues may come up.

If everyone is around and you have problems, you have the best chance of solving those problems. If everyone is around and you don't have problems, you can generally find a way to make it up to the people whose vacations you cancelled. Or so the theory goes.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 15, 1998.

It's possible that the bank expects to have to deal with a lot of nervous customers at that time, and wants everybody there to handle the long lines.

The next bulletin to employees may say, "Please bring a supply of pencils and paper, plus a candle or Coleman lantern with you when you come to work in January 2000. We suggest you purchase these items early as the demand may increase for such supplies as the new millenium approaches. The dress code is being changed to include mandatory long underwear, overcoats, scarves and gloves." <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>...

-- Dan Hunt (dhunt@hostscorp.com), September 15, 1998.

Hey Paul! I always think of you when I read about lawsuits since you posted that thread. Did you see that Produce Palace won it's suit?

http://www.detnews.com/1998/technology/9809/15/09150150.htm

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), September 15, 1998.

Gayla,

This goes along with something else I read recently. apparently, the legal eagles are collectively trying to determine when a reasonable cutoff period for Y2K suits might be. Before the date, systems are expected to be non-complient and after the date they should have been sold and istalled Y2K-ready. It would seem that 1995 is is the year being bandied about most. That would fit with the story you cited: A cash register system installed in 1995 was non-complient, the purchaser sued and won.

While we are on the subject, did you see that the Y2K class-action suit against Intuit has been dismissed?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 15, 1998.

Paul,

Yes, I saw that. I haven't heard about Andersen Consulting, though, have you?

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), September 15, 1998.

No. Anderson just filed their suit a couple of weeks ago, so we'll have to wait out the glacial pace of the Massachusetts court system to hear on that one.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 16, 1998.

Paul, here is one I hadn't heard before. Japanese insurers are adding clauses stipulating that GPS-related accidents will not be covered.

http://webserv.vnunet.com/www_user/plsql/pkg_vnu_comp.top_ten?p_story_id=63401&l_to_date=23-SEP-98

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), September 18, 1998.

Gayla,

I heard about the Japaneese insurers from two people today, you and someone at work. It's not surprising, since the GPS problems is simply another instance of large-scale rollover problem. Same general problem, same general reaction.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 18, 1998.