[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::dcu

Title:DCU
Notice:1996 BoD Election results in 1004
Moderator:CPEEDY::BRADLEY
Created:Sat Feb 07 1987
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1041
Total number of notes:18759

516.0. "DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale" by 11SRUS::SCONCE (Bill Sconce) Tue Mar 31 1992 14:10

I posted this in DIGITAL this morning.  Permission is granted to any DCU member
to repost or forward my open letter to other DCU members, or either of the
notes in which it appears.


            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.0        DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale         No replies
MLTVAX::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"                        300 lines  31-MAR-1992 08:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SCONCE "Bill Sconce"	Date: 31-Mar-92 08:29 AM
To: ICS::GLOVER
cc: CORA::SIMS,::KRUPINSKI,WECARE::FITZPATRICK,VIA::REALMUTO
Subject: DCU campaign, Digital, and management

Open letter / Open Door letter to Ron Glover,                    31 March 1992
Worldwide Personnel

Dear Ron --

I am one of the people who has been working to get information out about
candidates in the Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union election at ZKO.
Tom Krupinski sent me a courtesy copy of his recent mail to you, in which
he requested clarification of the communications which have led to Security
removing campaign literature from bulletin boards.  The unhappy position he
(and Personnel, and Security, and even branch staffers) have been put in
suggest that someone must write to you about the importance of employee
morale and management posture.

First, EVERYONE I know who has been involved in the campaign has been
absolutely fastidious about trying to completely adhere to Corporate Policy
and Procedure from the start.  We looked it up and analyzed P&P constraints
even before the first activity to gather signatures to call the Special
Meeting, back in November.  (By "we" I mean the campaigners at Spit Brook,
although I do not hesitate to extend my confidence to all of the Real Choice
workers throughout the company, and for that matter to the vast majority of
workers for other candidates.)

Second, every activity with which I have been involved has had the intent of
making available information on ALL candidates.  For instance, when we ran
a candidates' information table in the cafeteria we explicitly invited
platform statements from the entire field of candidates.  And I remain
committed to making available statements and information from any candidate
who wishes me to distribute them.  (I am, obviously, interested in seeing
Real Choice candidates elected, and that's why I've invested my own money
in having posters and handouts printed, and it's why I've invested my time.
But I have always promised to, and will, hand out and post materials from
ALL candidates, side by side, provided only that the materials meet P&P
standards.)

What motivates me, and I believe what motivates all campaigners, is that all
useful information be made available to the voting shareholders of our Credit
Union.  There isn't one of us who doesn't have the best interests of a healthy
Employees' Credit Union, and of a proud Digital, at heart.

And that's one reason why there has been so much emotion and confusion in
this campaign.  In what should be an open exchange of information, sponsored
and encouraged by Digital as a necessary prerequisite to the continuation
of an important employee benefit (as the Employees' Credit Union has been
described by Digital management), the Digital community has seen confusing
Corporate actions and disjointed, inaccurate application of Corporate policy.
The lack of straightforward communication has been heartbreakingly costly in
terms of employees' perception of top management.  In fact, the reason I'm
writing to you is that it's my sense that the damage that has been done, and
is being done, to employee morale is more critical than any possible outcome
of the election itself.  It's not the Credit Union which is suffering most.
It's the fabric of Digital.


What Employees Are Saying
-------------------------

The confusing situation which has developed with respect to the Corporation
and the Employees' Credit Union election has caused three major hypotheses to
be put forward by employees trying to understand what they've seen:

  1)  Digital, the Corporation, is campaigning.

      John Sims's memo was widely perceived as being intended to enhance
      the visibility of candidates nominated by Committee.  He drew special
      attention to the Nominating Committee's writeup on "qualifications",
      implying in the minds of many readers that he wished to convey an
      impression that anyone not selected by the Committee must not be
      "qualified".  Although this impression is contradicted by the published
      backgrounds of the candidates nominated by the membership (including
      at least one candidate who had been nominated by Committee in an
      earlier election), the implication is strenghthened by the "Vote for
      a QUALIFIED Board" campaign slogan.  (Emphasis added.)

      If the selection of "qualification" is a coincidence, that is if
      the "Qualified Board" slogan is unrelated to the John Sims's emphasis
      on the Nominating Committee's endorsement of its own selectivity,
      then John would do well to make that fact official.

      On the other hand, if Digital IS campaigning (and Digital is, after all,
      a member of the Employees' Credit Union, by Charter), then coming out
      with an above-board set of Corporate endorsements would let all
      participants know where they stand.

      For now, it appears to some that Digital is campaigning, both because
      of John's official Digital letter, sent at obvious expense to the
      Corporation, because of the Ilene Jacobs memo back before the old Board
      was voted out by the shareholders, and most importantly, because of the
      impression that the P&P have been and are being selectively re-
      interpreted to serve narrow interests.  (I believe this impression is
      incorrect;  what I've seen of your own memos seem to clearly stick to
      P&P.  But the lack of clear written communication THROUGHOUT Digital
      on the subject makes this continuing conjecture inevitable.)


  2)  It is Digital's management which is campaigning.

      This interpretation of what has been happening would be similar to 1),
      in that most of the candidates nominated by the Committee appear to
      be people familiar to Digital top management, whereas the candidates
      nominated by the shareholders appear to be drawn from a broad spectrum
      of the membership.  That is, the confusing things which have been
      happening would act as evidence to support either 1) or 2) about equally
      well.

      There would be nothing wrong with a "management" slate being nominated,
      or actively campaigning, at least in principle -- if it were announced
      as such.  But Digital management has not announced that it is
      campaigning.  (in the specific actuality of this election, there WOULD
      appear to be something wrong, because of the apparent Corporate interest
      in the election.)  Nevertheless, management's actions have given many
      members the impression that management "prefers" a "management slate".
      Again, the apparent selectivity in the way P&P have been administered
      (or communicated) seems to many employees to favor "the management
      candidates".

      I am not trying to make a case that there is such a management slate,
      but am only pointing out what you undoubtedly already know:  that the
      confusing events of recent weeks have left many Digital employees (and
      through John Sims's letter, many non-Digital employees) wondering about
      the possibility.

      Because either the existence of a "management slate" or an inadvertant
      preference for "management" candidates is damaging to Digital's image,
      I beg you to do SOMETHING to see that the record is set straight on
      clear Corporate and management positions.


  3)  Other than 1) and 2), members have conjectured a third possible
      explanation for what has been happening.  This is that Digital the
      Corporation has in fact been administering the Employees' Credit Union.
      The fact that the Employees' Credit Union Board members have
      historically been drawn from Digital management is thought to have
      perhaps been by design, and Digital wants the new Board to continue
      to have such a relationship to the Corporation.

      Digital has repeatedly described the Employees' Credit Union as a
      significant benefit.  (Which it undoubtedly is!)  Many members would
      have little problem with Digital's administering it.  But again, the
      issue is with whether such a relationship is declared aboveboard.

I'm not happy with any of these conjectures.  As I see it, any of them is
damaging to employee morale and management's image.  And I believe that none
of them is correct (please don't shoot the messenger).  But in matters of
morale and image, perception IS reality.  If people's perception is confused,
their reality is confused.

Although I'm sure you've heard all of this before, I'm not sure you're aware
of how deeply employees are concerned, or of the importance which employees
may attach to having a confusing, disheartening situation clarified and put
to rest.  Out here in the trenches you hear many conversations expressing
profound disappointment in Digital management.  Being the messenger is
uncomfortable, but I've worked for Digital and been loyal to "do the right
thing" for too many years to not feel obliged to alert those whose job it is
to watch over employee morale.  The relationship of employees to management,
and to P&P, may now be far more important than whether the "Real Choice" or
"Qualified" campaign prevails.


Experiences
-----------

I suggest that you contact anyone who has been interested in the Employees'
Credit Union election for more information.  But I should also offer concrete
details from my own experience.

Tom's surprise from ZKO Security is one example.  Via verbal communication,
Personnel and Security at various sites have been taking differing approaches
to "enhancing" and interpreting what is actually spelled out in black and
white in P&P.  As I said at the beginning, everyone with whom I am personally
acquainted has made every effort to comply with P&P, and has likewise made
every effort to obtain appropriate permissions.  But campaigning for an
election in an important employee benefit (a benefit sponsored by Digital
itself!) should be an activity welcomed and supported by Digital.  What
happened to Tom, though, was P&P had been "interpreted" to our security folks
as "prohibiting" things that P&P does not prohibit.  As this has not been in
writing, I imagine (as did Tom) that the misinterpretation was due to what
often happens with verbal communications.

(Latest information from Tom:  at this writing, Tom has heard that the ruling
for ZKO is going to be that "the only non-working areas are the cafeteria and
smoking room".  Again, this is verbal and not yet in writing, but see how
unsupportable this appears?  Such a  ruling wouldn't modify P&P, but it
would modify the English language.  Which areas are "working" or "non-working"
for application of P&P cannot depend on what issue P&P is being applied to.
It's this kind of thing which guarantees the kind of conjecture we've been
seeing about unspoken motivation on the part of management.)

Another example is a memo from Corporate Security memo which I saw in early
March suggesting that postings should be reviewed, and noting that specific
misdeeds had occurred with respect to the Employees' Credit Union logo.  I
don't know about the "misdeeds" (none of the Real Choices campaign materials,
at least, ever used the logo).  But the overall effect of the memo was to make
Security folks at various sites feel like they should "do something".  The
problem was that the "something" wasn't spelled out:  maintainance of
discipline was mentioned, but the memo was in fact so vague as to ensure
confusion and site-to-site variations.  In one breath it both suggested
following standard practice (whatever "standard practice" might mean -
something other than P&P?) and then made it clear that there is no practice
which is standard from site to site.  Most importantly, P&P was not quoted,
or even alluded to.  One would expect that P&P would be cited in EVERY memo
about the campaign.

One final example, and this one was what moved me to write to you.  A campaign
worker at a site other than ZKO asked the appropriate Personnel person for
permission.  The Personnel person said that permission was denied, because
THE EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION ISN'T FOR ALL DIGITAL EMPLOYEES.  Because only
certain people choose to have the Digital Employees' Credit Union for their
financial institution, it doesn't pertain to ALL Digital employees.  And since
the Employees' Credit Union election doesn't pertain to all Digital employees,
Personnel didn't feel that posting election information should be allowed.

Hearing this, another campaigner had this to say:  "in my opinion, this
reflects quite blatantly that Personnel has been given instructions from
"someone" favoring the status quo.  These folks [the Personnel folks involved]
are long time (7 yrs) co-workers of mine.  One of them I even regarded as a
'friend' - parties at home, etc.  They have retreated to a strange kind of
closet lately."

I do not believe any Personnel person could have taken such a position except
in response to a situation which had become so ambivalent as to appear
unresolvable.  That is, they have to have heard powerful "suggestions" that
they should be politically correct, but haven't been given clear guidance as
to what correct really means.

The Corporate Security memo I referred to earlier recommended against general
awareness memos, because the Employees' Credit Union matter is emotional, but
then suggested that each site should review its lobbies and bulletin boards.
This had to have left anyone reading it completely on their own as to how to
do the right thing, while clearly letting them know that the election is a hot
potato.  People at individual sites should never have been put in such a
position.  Long-standing friendships should never have been undermined because
of ambivalent or ambiguous management.


What Should Have Been Done?  What Should Yet Be Done?
-----------------------------------------------------

Please understand that I'm in no way trying to get anyone in trouble, but
only to point out that in the perception of the Digital community P&P 6.19
exists to establish the rules in black and white so that there IS a consistent
policy, and to alert you to the fact that chains of verbal re-interpretation
have done severe, widespread damage to employee morale.  Never in my years at
Digital have I seen anything to compare with this issue in terms of how
management is being perceived.

P&P is clear on what is not allowable.  (And so was your memo with Ted Sares
of February 6th, for that matter.)  There was no need for these problems to
have arisen.

There is no basis for re-interpreting P&P for the benefit of a singular case
(however emotional some aspects of the Employees' Credit Union election may
have been);  the price is far higher than allowing open dialogue could
possibly have been.  Bulletin boards have ads for friends who do home
improvement;  we all get canvassed for United Way;  fellow employees come
around during lunch soliciting for Walk-a-Thon sponsorship, or for their
daughters' Girl Scout cookies.  The policy works, and has been demonstrated
to work over the years.  I am completely unable to understand why the
Digital community has had to suffer loss of part of its soul over what should
have been the most constructive event in the history of the Employees'
Credit Union.

I urge you to straighten this out.  Please.  Come out into our world and
talk with ordinary folk;  see for yourself how damaging this has been.

  o  Please respond to the questions employees are asking about the
     relationship between the Employees' Credit Union, shareholders, and
     the Corporation.  Put 1) and 2) and 3) to rest (or confirm one).

  o  Please reaffirm that P&P mean what they say, that they do not prohibit
     what they do not prohibit;  that P&P are NOT to be used to "favor
     management", or indeed to favor anyone.  Please reaffirm what you said
     in your February 6th memo.

  o  Even better, take charge of presenting Digital as supportive of healthy
     employee involvement in activities clearly related to an important
     benefit like the Employees' Credit Union.  See to it that officially-
     supported campaign vehicles, such as "Election Bulletin Boards" and/or
     "handout stations", are made available in each site.  Officially approve
     the campaign as a Digital-encouraged employee activity.  It's the right
     thing, and by officially approving it you can keep it from running out
     of control as everyone involved has to interpret what appears to be vague
     official disapproval.

  o  Please make your statements definitive and universally available.  Give
     the folks at the sites, Security, Personnel, and interested Employees'
     Credit Union members alike, relief from the dilemma of having to be
     responsible for doing some politically-correct thing which has been
     hinted at but never delineated.

Please stop the destruction.

Respectfully,
Bill Sconce
ZKO
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
516.1Response to take a few days11SRUS::SCONCEBill SconceWed Apr 01 1992 18:4718
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.1        DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale             1 of 1
11SRUS::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"                         11 lines   1-APR-1992 17:45
                        -< Response to take a few days >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several people have asked me by mail if my letter has elicited any response
from Ron Glover.

Ron called me at lunchtime today.  He said he wanted to confirm receipt of
my letter, and to let me know that he expected preparation of a response
to take a day or two.

The conversation was friendly, if a little fast-paced (it's clear Ron's a
pretty busy fellow), and he expressed gratitude that I'd taken time to write.

I'll post an update as soon as I hear further.
516.2A kind of an answer to Tom Krupinski11SRUS::SCONCEBill SconceTue Apr 07 1992 19:3026
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.3        DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale             3 of 4
TOMK::KRUPINSKI "I'm voting for 'REAL CHOICES' cand" 20 lines   3-APR-1992 22:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Well, Bill, I think I have Ron's answer. Not directly, but in
	the form of a mail message from someone lower in the chain, which
	I of course can't post here, but would be happy to forward to you 
	or anyone else that cares to see it.

	It is, to my eyes, an odd message. It states that Ron, the author, 
	and another person have determined that the only places in the Spit 
	Brook facility that are not work areas are the cafeteria and attached 
	smoking room, and that any other area in the facility is a work area. 

	Which means then, that the lavatories, wellness center, DEFCU ATM,
	etc are all work areas. Which seems very strange to me because
	I often see folks working in the cafe, but can't remember
	ever seeing anyone working in the john.

	Why Ron would assist in such a determination, and what end is served 
	by such an unlikely application of logic I cannot fathom. But then, 
	ketchup *is* a vegetable.

					Tom_K
516.3My Open Door letter to Jack Smith11SRUS::SCONCEBill SconceTue Apr 07 1992 19:31140
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.5        DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale             5 of 5
11SRUS::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"                        133 lines   7-APR-1992 18:17
                      -< Open Door letter to Jack Smith >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SCONCE "Bill Sconce"	Date: 07-Apr-92 06:11 PM
To: MYTVAX::MRGATE::"MLOMTS::CORA::A1::SMITH.JACK"
cc: MYTVAX::MRGATE::"MLOMTS::CORA::A1::OLSEN.KEN",CORA::SIMS,ICS::GLOVER,::KRUPINSKI,WECARE::FITZPATRICK,VIA::REALMUTO
Subject: Digital, management, and employee morale

Dear Jack--

On 31 March I wrote to Ron Glover concerning certain questions employees
"out in the trenches" have been asking about relationships between the
Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union and Digital management, and about
puzzling management actions with respect to P&P which in my opinion have
been leading to corrosion of faith in management.  I was deeply disturbed
that management would apparently be willing to squander its prestige in
service of narrow ends;  I ended my letter to Ron with "Please stop the
destruction".

In that memo (of which I will attach a copy) I asked Ron Glover to clarify
management's positions, and most importantly, to reaffirm that P&P mean what
they say, for everyone at Digital.

Ron phoned me on 1 April, said that he'd received my letter, and indicated
that it would be a few days before he would be able to prepare a response.
That sounded reasonable to me, since I'd asked him to be clear about difficult
issues, and to publish the official Digital posture on them to put the ongoing
speculation to rest.


Developments
------------

Unfortunately, other actions have overtaken Ron's reply to my letter, and
I now find it necessary to write to you.

Before I wrote to Ron, an engineer here at Spit Brook had become involved in a
specific question about how P&P should be applied to the Employees' Credit
Union election.  The engineer, Tom Krupinski, had been active in distributing
election literature.  Tom has stated that he felt employee activity had been
specifically encouraged by John Sims's letter.  (You are probably aware of
this letter, in which John Sims urges members of the credit union to
familiarize themselves with the credentials of those standing for elections,
and recommending thoughtful and responsible participation in the election.
He specifically refers to the credit union as an important employee benefit.
Tom has stated that he felt the Sims letter specifically encouraged employee
activity such as the literature distribution he undertook.)


Tom's Experience
----------------

What happened to Tom should have been comical.  He discovered that election
literature was being removed and destroyed by Security.  Because Tom had been
conscientious from the start about following P&P and getting every appropriate
approval, he went to talk with the ZKO Security people, who told him that
Ron Glover claimed that "Real Choices" material violates P&P.

Ultimately, Tom received a memo from ZKO Security which stated that after
verbal consultation with Ron Glover, they were identifying the ZKO Cafeteria
and the adjacent smoking room as non-working areas, and that all other areas
throughout Spit Brook were to be considered working areas.  Therefore, under
P&P 6.19, election material could not be displayed anywhere other than the
cafeteria and smoking room -- specifically, not on the many bulletin boards
which commonly contain solicitations for all kinds of things employees might
be interested in, from babysitting to roof repair.

This seemed ludicrous to Tom (as it does to me).  Tom agreed to comply, of
course, but wrote a note to let others know of the ruling.  He observed,
perhaps a little irreverently, that Security had in effect ruled that rest
rooms are working areas at Spit Brook.

Admittedly, this is not really funny.  On the contrary, it's a manifestation
of the problem that I wrote to Ron about:  that P&P is being distorted by
chains of verbal re-interpretation, that the stature of Policy is eroding
under pursuit of ad-hoc expediency, and that management is destroying itself
in the eyes of employees.  It's not about restrooms, or even about the
Employees' Credit Union election.  Management is presenting an appearance
of being out of touch.


Harrassment
-----------

But the real problem is that this morning, Tom's cost center manager received
a memo from Ron Glover accusing Tom of posting a note which violated P&P.
Although it may have contained a questionable word, this note, posted almost
a month ago, had caused no comment (to my knowledge) from anyone -- until now.
And Ron went directly to Tom's boss's boss's boss, requesting appropriate
actions under Digital's Personnel Policy.  This is pretty severe, considering
that no mention is made of what in the note violated P&P.  (And in fact,
the conference moderators have, after initially hiding Tom's note, re-posted
it, saying

      "I have read and reread note 501.4, and I can't find anything wrong
      with it either.  It is absolutely clear it is a hypothetical statement
      that a hypothetical candidate might write, and it is part of a
      discussion of what motives the DCU nominating committee might
      reasonably approve of."

Tom feels that such a request to his manager is a result of his questioning
earlier interpretations of P&P, that he is being harrassed.  He has gotten
a number of mail messages from other employees who see this request as
intimidation.  (I will make the ones I've seen available to you upon request,
although I cannot reproduce them here in an open letter because of P&P.)


There's a lot of this going on
------------------------------

And that's why I'm writing to you:  because I continue to see and hear
employees who increasingly feel that management is out of touch and
damaging the spirit of the Company.  Every new effort seems to be making
matters worse -- and this at THE time when management and employees need
to be pulling together.

I'm strongly loyal to Digital, and believe in the esprit de corps which
we've always had, and which we need now more than ever.  Even (or especially)
at a time when something seems to be going wrong, a strong statement of
leadership can pull people back together.  Everyone out here wants to
believe in Digital.  Even a messy situation like this one presents an
opportunity!  If Digital management can step forward, proclaim that the
old values still obtain, and that we still believe in "do the right thing",
the Company will reap a groundswell of renewed enthusiasm.

I have made today a vacation day to put this letter together, and I'd like to
call your office early next week to see if you'll meet with me.  I want you to
know the kind of things that are being said out in the employee community, and
to see how widespread they are.  What's going on out here isn't Digital.

Sincerely,
Bill Sconce
ZKO


(attachment to follow)
516.4footnote11SRUS::SCONCEBill SconceTue Apr 07 1992 19:334
The "attachment to follow" refers, of course, to my original letter to
Ron Glover.

BTW, permission to extract or forward according to P&P is granted.
516.5DEC's policy regarding solicitationPATE::MACNEALruck `n&#039; rollWed Apr 15 1992 12:1536
    I came across this in VTX LIVEWIRE this morning:
    
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+TM                                                   ----------- 
|d|i|g|i|t|a|l|                     U.S. News                         LIVE WIRE
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                                     ----------- 

                     Digital's policy regarding solicitation 

  Over the last several weeks Corporate Personnel has received a number of 
  requests for clarification or interpretations of Personnel Policy 6.19, 
  Solicitations, in connection with the DCU election.  While it is impossible 
  to cover all of the issues that have arisen, the following information may 
  be helpful.

    1.  Employees may make literature available to their fellow employees, 
        as long as they limit their distribution activity to non-working 
        time (i.e. lunch and break periods) and non-working areas; in this 
        case cafeterias, smoking rooms, and other break rooms.

    2.  This distribution can not be disruptive, threatening, or annoying 
        to other employees.  For example, employees may set up a table in 
        the cafeteria to provide printed material to employees who are 
        interested in receiving it.  They may not block an entrance to a 
        building, cafeteria, or smoking room, or otherwise impede the 
        ability of other employees to enter or exit those facilities.

    3.  The distributed material may not be defamatory or otherwise 
        illegal and may not be abusive or derogatory.

    4.  With the exception of Employee Interest Notes Files, no other 
        company resources, computer systems, copying machines, electronic 
        or intra-company mail can be used to create, communicate, or 
        distribute this material.

  Further questions about this policy can be directed to your local 
  supervisor or local Personnel representatives.
516.6As usual, somebody didn't think this thru...SCAACT::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slowWed Apr 15 1992 12:4010
 >   4.  With the exception of Employee Interest Notes Files, no other 
 >       company resources, computer systems, copying machines, electronic 
 >       or intra-company mail can be used to create, communicate, or 
 >      distribute this material.

Now how do they expect us to get the material out of the Notes File to
distribute it if we can't use company resources?  I can think of other problems
with this statement, but they start getting into the splitting-hairs variety.

Bob
516.7Just don't solicit anything and there is no problemGUFFAW::GRANSEWICZREAL CHOICES for a real CU!Wed Apr 15 1992 13:1117
    
    RE: .5
    
    Just gotta love the timing.  Two days before the end of the election. 
    Guess if they would have issued this before the election Mr. Sims
    couldn't have spend over $20K of CORPORATE RESOURCES on a direct mailing
    dealing with the election.  But upon closer examination, it only
    appears that communications vehicles open to the unwashed masses are
    restricted.  Oh well, DCU members really don't need or require information
    when DCU (a division of DEC?) has already hand-picked the board.  Yes,
    no need to think or know, just do as we're expected.  Why do I feel
    like I'm in eastern Europe in 1950?
    
    But Digital envelopes and Digital sheets of paper seem to be OK to use.  
    Had we known we could have ordered up 88,000 of each to help mitigate 
    the cost of a mailing.  Live and learn.
516.8Check my Mail!XCUSME::LEVYWed Apr 15 1992 14:3710
    I suppose someone will come to read my VAXmail account, now, to
    make sure my mail is clean. I guess they "have a need to know".
    
    You know, they've made a mistake here. People do communicate......
    online, onsystem, verbally, or in a notesfile.
    
    Just MHO,
    
    Janet
516.9Oh NOOOOOoooooo...MLTVAX::SCONCEBill SconceWed Apr 15 1992 15:0320
>    1.  Employees may make literature available to their fellow employees, 
>        as long as they limit their distribution activity to non-working 
>        time (i.e. lunch and break periods) and non-working areas; in this 
>        case cafeterias, smoking rooms, and other break rooms.


Oh, no...  he did JUST the wrong thing.  After all the writing, he goes
and makes a policy of making special cases.  "In this case...".  Leave
aside that it appears silly to imply that restrooms or the Wellness
Center are working areas.  The problem is that the next "case" will presumably
have different rules.  This doesn't fix the problem, it perpetuates it.

I am very disappointed.

Following this I'll bring this thread up to date with DIGITAL 1831.*, where
my original letter to Ron Glover was posted.  I generally don't like cross-
posting, but this topic is some kind of exception.

Ironically, I was putting my response to Ron in the mail just as the VTX
interpretation appeared.  *sigh*
516.10Open letter to Jack Smith, from DIGITAL 1831.5MLTVAX::SCONCEBill SconceWed Apr 15 1992 15:08140
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.5        DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale            5 of 17
11SRUS::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"                        133 lines   7-APR-1992 18:17
                      -< Open Door letter to Jack Smith >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SCONCE "Bill Sconce"	Date: 07-Apr-92 06:11 PM
To: MYTVAX::MRGATE::"MLOMTS::CORA::A1::SMITH.JACK"
cc: MYTVAX::MRGATE::"MLOMTS::CORA::A1::OLSEN.KEN",CORA::SIMS,ICS::GLOVER,::KRUPINSKI,WECARE::FITZPATRICK,VIA::REALMUTO
Subject: Digital, management, and employee morale

Dear Jack--

On 31 March I wrote to Ron Glover concerning certain questions employees
"out in the trenches" have been asking about relationships between the
Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union and Digital management, and about
puzzling management actions with respect to P&P which in my opinion have
been leading to corrosion of faith in management.  I was deeply disturbed
that management would apparently be willing to squander its prestige in
service of narrow ends;  I ended my letter to Ron with "Please stop the
destruction".

In that memo (of which I will attach a copy) I asked Ron Glover to clarify
management's positions, and most importantly, to reaffirm that P&P mean what
they say, for everyone at Digital.

Ron phoned me on 1 April, said that he'd received my letter, and indicated
that it would be a few days before he would be able to prepare a response.
That sounded reasonable to me, since I'd asked him to be clear about difficult
issues, and to publish the official Digital posture on them to put the ongoing
speculation to rest.


Developments
------------

Unfortunately, other actions have overtaken Ron's reply to my letter, and
I now find it necessary to write to you.

Before I wrote to Ron, an engineer here at Spit Brook had become involved in a
specific question about how P&P should be applied to the Employees' Credit
Union election.  The engineer, Tom Krupinski, had been active in distributing
election literature.  Tom has stated that he felt employee activity had been
specifically encouraged by John Sims's letter.  (You are probably aware of
this letter, in which John Sims urges members of the credit union to
familiarize themselves with the credentials of those standing for elections,
and recommending thoughtful and responsible participation in the election.
He specifically refers to the credit union as an important employee benefit.
Tom has stated that he felt the Sims letter specifically encouraged employee
activity such as the literature distribution he undertook.)


Tom's Experience
----------------

What happened to Tom should have been comical.  He discovered that election
literature was being removed and destroyed by Security.  Because Tom had been
conscientious from the start about following P&P and getting every appropriate
approval, he went to talk with the ZKO Security people, who told him that
Ron Glover claimed that "Real Choices" material violates P&P.

Ultimately, Tom received a memo from ZKO Security which stated that after
verbal consultation with Ron Glover, they were identifying the ZKO Cafeteria
and the adjacent smoking room as non-working areas, and that all other areas
throughout Spit Brook were to be considered working areas.  Therefore, under
P&P 6.19, election material could not be displayed anywhere other than the
cafeteria and smoking room -- specifically, not on the many bulletin boards
which commonly contain solicitations for all kinds of things employees might
be interested in, from babysitting to roof repair.

This seemed ludicrous to Tom (as it does to me).  Tom agreed to comply, of
course, but wrote a note to let others know of the ruling.  He observed,
perhaps a little irreverently, that Security had in effect ruled that rest
rooms are working areas at Spit Brook.

Admittedly, this is not really funny.  On the contrary, it's a manifestation
of the problem that I wrote to Ron about:  that P&P is being distorted by
chains of verbal re-interpretation, that the stature of Policy is eroding
under pursuit of ad-hoc expediency, and that management is destroying itself
in the eyes of employees.  It's not about restrooms, or even about the
Employees' Credit Union election.  Management is presenting an appearance
of being out of touch.


Harrassment
-----------

But the real problem is that this morning, Tom's cost center manager received
a memo from Ron Glover accusing Tom of posting a note which violated P&P.
Although it may have contained a questionable word, this note, posted almost
a month ago, had caused no comment (to my knowledge) from anyone -- until now.
And Ron went directly to Tom's boss's boss's boss, requesting appropriate
actions under Digital's Personnel Policy.  This is pretty severe, considering
that no mention is made of what in the note violated P&P.  (And in fact,
the conference moderators have, after initially hiding Tom's note, re-posted
it, saying

      "I have read and reread note 501.4, and I can't find anything wrong
      with it either.  It is absolutely clear it is a hypothetical statement
      that a hypothetical candidate might write, and it is part of a
      discussion of what motives the DCU nominating committee might
      reasonably approve of."

Tom feels that such a request to his manager is a result of his questioning
earlier interpretations of P&P, that he is being harrassed.  He has gotten
a number of mail messages from other employees who see this request as
intimidation.  (I will make the ones I've seen available to you upon request,
although I cannot reproduce them here in an open letter because of P&P.)


There's a lot of this going on
------------------------------

And that's why I'm writing to you:  because I continue to see and hear
employees who increasingly feel that management is out of touch and
damaging the spirit of the Company.  Every new effort seems to be making
matters worse -- and this at THE time when management and employees need
to be pulling together.

I'm strongly loyal to Digital, and believe in the esprit de corps which
we've always had, and which we need now more than ever.  Even (or especially)
at a time when something seems to be going wrong, a strong statement of
leadership can pull people back together.  Everyone out here wants to
believe in Digital.  Even a messy situation like this one presents an
opportunity!  If Digital management can step forward, proclaim that the
old values still obtain, and that we still believe in "do the right thing",
the Company will reap a groundswell of renewed enthusiasm.

I have made today a vacation day to put this letter together, and I'd like to
call your office early next week to see if you'll meet with me.  I want you to
know the kind of things that are being said out in the employee community, and
to see how widespread they are.  What's going on out here isn't Digital.

Sincerely,
Bill Sconce
ZKO


(attachment to follow)
516.11Does .5 only apply to solicitations?RGB::SEILERLarry SeilerWed Apr 15 1992 15:0930
re .5:

This is a clearly stated set of guidelines on how "literature" may be
disseminated, but there is one crucial question that it does not address:

	WHAT kinds of LITERATURE does it cover?

Presumably, from context, it only covers "solicitation".  But what is the
line between making a solicitation and providing information?  

If a solicitation is something that contains an action verb, then I think
this is fairly reasonable (with one exception, noted below).  In that case, 
we can go on discussing the DCU in mail and notes -- we just can't solicit 
except in the specified ways.  

The one problem that I have with this is that it doesn't allow for sending
an email solicitation to someone who *requests* it, or who expresses 
interest in receiving it.  I don't feel that is reasonable.  Note, though,
that it does apply to email and normal mail equally, since both are use
of company resources.

However, the key question is: is this intended to apply to all statements
of fact or opinion relating to the DCU election, or just to solicitations?

Presumably, the Sims letter didn't violate this policy, and so is an
example of something that is not a solicitation.  But that still leaves me 
wondering what determines if something will be judged a solicitation.

	Enjoy,
	Larry
516.12DIGITAL 1831.6MLTVAX::SCONCEBill SconceWed Apr 15 1992 15:1011
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.6        DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale            6 of 17
11SRUS::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"                          4 lines   7-APR-1992 18:33
                                 -< footnote >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "attachment to follow" refers, of course, to my original letter to
Ron Glover.

BTW, permission to extract or forward according to P&P is granted.
516.13Additional thoughts, from DIGITAL 1831.8MLTVAX::SCONCEBill SconceWed Apr 15 1992 15:1092
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.8        DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale            8 of 17
11SRUS::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"                         85 lines   8-APR-1992 19:25
                -< I see hard work ahead, but I see great hope >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your comments, Andy.  I'm heartbroken, too, and although I'm not
enthusiastic about such tactics, in the end I just couldn't think of anything
else to do.

There is one point, though:  management is management, and is inescapably
responsible for setting direction and creating the tone of leadership in the
Company.  IF management isn't aware of what's going on out in the trenches,
they can't do that.  Ron Glover has stated to me on the phone, and again in
writing, that management finds parts of what's going really puzzling.
Although I don't fully understand them either, I felt many people would
think it important to know that management has at least been advised that
they ARE going on.  (What puzzles me, frankly, is why management hasn't
been proactive in trying to find out.)

I can't tell you how depressing I've found threads such as the "metrics"
discussion in this conference.  Negativism builds upon negativism as we
employees complain to one another about management's actions, but for the
most part we confine our complaints to exchanges unavailable to the levels
of management responsible for employee morale.  (I'm not for one minute
picking on those who share their feelings here!  Genuine feelings are the
truth from which morale is forged.)

So that's why I wrote.

That leaves the question of making the letters open, of posting them here.
Andy writes that this exposure is damaging to the Company.  I respect his
concern for the Company.  I share it.  It is my hope that making the
communication visible would offer management an opportunity to respond to
important issues clearly, and turn employees' genuine feelings and concerns
into renewed motivation.  For I'm confident that every employee who takes
time to worry about the Company is eager to put their energy to work, to
undertake positive efforts to make things better.  I believe the kind of
energy made available by employees sharing their thoughts and concern are
a unique resource, a competitive advantage which this Company can enjoy
unmatched in the history of organizations.  On the other hand, because of
the pressures associated with these admittedly tough times, it is a human
temptation for anyone in a management position to regard employee concern
as at least a nuisance, perhaps even a threat to survival.

Therefore we all have a unique opportunity, made possible by our unmatched
communications facilities.  We can all pull together and solve any of the
problems we've been writing about -- if all such communications are widely
shared.

Finally, I can't see that innocence is lost by trying to tell management
directly about something we have all been telling each other.  What has been
made more public by an open letter to those who may be able to do something?
The things I wrote are the things I hear in the hallway every day, in the
lunchroom every noon, in correspondence.  It was the Employees' Credit
Union election which triggered my letter to Ron Glover, but it was only
the trigger.  A friend whom I've known for fifteen years wrote,

    "Great note. I've been thinking for a long time that the DCU flap
    is being looked at inside-out.  The anger with DCU is being driven
    by anger with Digital's clumsy, foundering management, and not the
    other way around."

I know, and you know, that this feeling is widespread.  Is it a service to
the Company that no one should speak of it?  I don't know whether others may
have written private letters to management, but to me it seemed that making
the letter open offers management a ready-made facility with which to move
immediately to make things better.  Such was my hope, anyway.

And I do not want a response to me.  I'm not writing for any concern which is
uniquely mine.  Management's actions, management's perceived motivations,
and management's leadership message are of indispensable interest to us all.

A word about verbal communications.  As I wrote to Ron, I believe that verbal
communications are explicitly PART of the problem.  They are inevitably
distorted when repeated, and they are inevitably diluted when remembered.
I believe that well-meaning folks at all levels have been compromised and
damaged by (well-meaning) attempts to handle things verbally.  It is precisely
because of the unreliability of verbal communications that written Policies
and Procedures exist in the first place, and why they must take precedence
over ad hoc responses to sensitive situations.  It's the same with the U.S.
Constitution -- it's indispensable because it's written, and we allow it to
be re-interpreted only pursuant to the gravest deliberations.

Again, thank you, Andy.  My feelings are as yours -- I find this situation
very sad.  But I also see in this situation the possible seeds of a new
beginning.  I want to believe in management, and so does everyone who writes
here.  It's hard to imagine a greater resource being placed in any manager's
hands than the spirit and concern for the Company I see employees everywhere
expressing.  I hope management can realize their great good fortune, and turn
that resource to good use.
516.14Ron Glover's reply, from DIGITAL 1831.9MLTVAX::SCONCEBill SconceWed Apr 15 1992 15:1179
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.9        DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale            9 of 17
11SRUS::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"                         72 lines   8-APR-1992 19:31
                            -< Ron Glover's reply >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MLTVAX::ICS::ICS::MRGATE::"A1::GLOVER.RON"	Date: 08-Apr-92 12:52 PM
To: MLTVAX::SCONCE,CORA::SIMS,KRUPINSKI,WECARE::FITZPATRICK,VIA::REALMUTO
Subject: RE: DCU campaign, Digital, and management 1

From:	NAME: RON GLOVER                    
	FUNC: Corporate Employee Relations    
	TEL: 508-493-9569                     <GLOVER.RON AT A1 at ICS at PKO>
To:	NAME: VMSMail User SCONCE <SCONCE@MLTVAX@MRGATE>
CC:	SIMS@CORA@MRGATE,
	KRUPINSKI@@MRGATE,
	FITZPATRICK@WECARE@MRGATE,
	REALMUTO@VIA@MRGATE


    
    First, I want to thank you for taking the time to write to me.  I 
    found your memo well written and thoughtful.  
    
    Like you I have spent a significant amount of time trying to find 
    ways to enable all of the candidates to get their information out to 
    the members of the Digital community in efficient and non-disruptive 
    ways.  My efforts focused on working with some of the candidates from 
    both slates to develop a mutually agreeable process for distributing 
    information.  It was my hope that we could develop some common ground 
    between the different slates so that they could learn to speak to, 
    and work with one another.  Unfortunately those efforts were not 
    successful.  Some of the candidates decided that they would prefer 
    for me to strictly enforce policy on all parties involved.
    
    My second, and equally critical reason for attempting to define a 
    reasonable information distribution process is my belief that the 
    language in the current Solicitation Policy (which was written in 
    1982) does not provide sufficient detail to guide employees and their 
    managers in conducting this kind of nation wide, "electronic" 
    campaign.  As a consequence I, and my colleagues in Personnel have 
    been required to provide ongoing and repeated interpretation of the 
    policy in response to the myriad of questions presented by this 
    situation.   In order to avoid any further confusion about the policy 
    and what it requires, I will shortly post an interpretation on 
    LiveWire.  
    
    Your memo also indicates that some employees are speculating about 
    whether the Company is "administering" the DCU or campaigning in the 
    DCU election.  Neither speculation is true.  John Sims' memo was not 
    intended to campaign.  I have spoken with John.  He tells me that his 
    purposes in sending the memo were simple.  
    
    	o  To alert DCU members that an important election was about to 
           take place,
    	
    	o  to urge them to read all of the material (including the report 
           of the nominating committee, and the statements that the 
           candidates themselves provided), 
    
    	o to make a wise choice and 
    	
    	o most importantly to vote.  
    
    On its face, the letter neither says, nor does more than that.  It is 
    not clear to me why some employees read more than this into the 
    letter.  
    
    Given the facts that this credit union carries Digital's name, that 
    it got much of its initial funding from Digital, that it continues to 
    occupy space at Digital facilities, and most critically provides an 
    important service to a large number of Digital's U.S. employees, I 
    can not honestly say that John's decision to notify members of this 
    unique election was irresponsible or inappropriate.  
    
    I hope this is responsive to the concerns raised in your memo.  
    Please fell free to distribute it as you see fit.  The next time I'm 
    in ZKO I'll stop by for lunch so that we can continue our discussion.
516.15DIGITAL 1831.10MLTVAX::SCONCEBill SconceWed Apr 15 1992 15:1114
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.10       DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale           10 of 17
11SRUS::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"                          8 lines   8-APR-1992 19:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not happy with Ron's reply.  I'll write to him directly.

Comments from others, however, would be welcome and appropriate, especially
from those who may disagree with me.


Also:  I forgot again.  Permission to forward or re-post anything I've
written in this thread, according to P&P, is granted.
516.16Noting that I did respond to Ron Glover, from DIGITAL 1831.17MLTVAX::SCONCEBill SconceWed Apr 15 1992 15:1263
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1831.17       DCU campaign, Digital, management & morale           17 of 17
MLTVAX::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"                         56 lines  15-APR-1992 12:35
                         -< My answer to Ron's letter >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.10>  I am not happy with Ron's reply.  I'll write to him directly.

It took some time, but I've sent a response to Ron.  (To his letter in .9,
which in turn was a response to my .0).  I don't want to give the appearance
of desiring a back-and-forth argument with management in NOTES, so I'm not
going to post my letter here, since it tries to respond to Ron Glover's
letter point-by-point.  I will forward to a copy to anyone who requests one.
(I will NOT keep names, or any kind of distro list.)

A couple of things, though, not part of my point-by-point, I do think are
worth posting here.

------------------------------------------
     [...]
Digital employees care deeply for the Company, and a powerful esprit de corps
waits to be tapped by any gesture of real leadership.  It is precisely because
of this deep loyalty that morale suffers so much when management loses touch
with how it's coming across to employees.

Yesterday I received Delta Briefing #12, which John Sims introduces with,

    "Our belief in employee involvement is based on respect for the
    knowledge and skills our people have and how that knowledge and
    those skills translate into Digital's success.

    "When we say we're committed to employee involvement, we're not
    talking about a program or a department, we're talking about a way
    of doing business, about teamwork."

John's introduction, and the Q&A with Jack Smith which followed, are full of
healthy encouragement for Digital as a team.  

  [...observations that what we're seeing is the opposite of that spirit...]

[I told Ron that I couldn't begin to tell him] how many similar observations
are made in hallways, in lunchrooms, and at coffee stations.  But [Ron] should
know about one particular employee who stopped by my office yesterday.  So
should John Sims, and so should Jack Smith.

I don't even know this employee's name;  although I've seen him around ZKO, I
wouldn't have guessed that he knew mine.  Nevertheless, he found my office
to thank me for writing to you.  He said that he wanted me to know that "a lot
of people feel the same way, but they're afraid to say anything".  The really
poignant thing was that HE WAS WORRIED THAT HIS VOTE IN THE EMPLOYEES' CREDIT
UNION ELECTION WOULD BE USED AGAINST HIM!  He had agonized over sending in his
ballot, because he saw that his badge number was printed on it.  He said that
he didn't expect an instant reprisal, but he was going to worry that some
future job action, or lack of a job action, might result.  He is afraid that
his vote is going to be recorded and tracked!

That such fears can exist at Digital is a sad commentary, and one which would
once have unthinkable.

This morale and management-image problem cannot be adequately addressed by
statements which, in effect, say "trust us".  Lack of trust has BECOME the
problem.
516.17My response to Ron Glover also contained thisMLTVAX::SCONCEBill SconceWed Apr 15 1992 15:1614
  Because other recent events have appeared to employees to demonstrate that
  Policy will be created on the fly, an ad hoc approach will continue to do
  damage.  Employees are eager to follow reasonable policies;  they usually
  do a far better job of policing each other than management could ever find
  the time for.  (Similarly, employees will follow unreasonable policies,
  albeit not eagerly.  They WILL do what they're told.)

  The trouble is, if Policy is seen as an instrument for selective reprisals,
  employees will feel their only alternative is to avoid risks -- they'll
  try to "keep their heads down".  All the benefit of any number of Delta
  Briefings encouraging individual spirit and initiative is sabotaged by just
  one instance of perceived reprisal.  In fact, if management is perceived as
  less than genuine in its handling of Policy, even the best possible writing
  in Delta Briefings will begin to be seen as cynical and hypocritical.
516.18AOSG::GILLETTPetition candidate for DCU BoDWed Apr 15 1992 15:3310
So is it reasonable to assume that folks who solicit for girl
scout cookies, united way contributions, donations for the homeless,
and food for the poor via email will be handled per this 
clarified policy?

I'd bet the answer is "no."


Grumble, grumble, grumble....
./chris
516.19PATE::MACNEALruck `n&#039; rollWed Apr 15 1992 16:3413
�So is it reasonable to assume that folks who solicit for girl
�scout cookies, united way contributions, donations for the homeless,
�and food for the poor via email will be handled per this 
�clarified policy?
�
�I'd bet the answer is "no."
    
    Has anyone complained to Personnel about it?  Some of these are done
    under the sanction of DEC such as United Way so you'r right there; the
    answer would be no if someone brought it up.  I have noticed that
    materials deemed inappropriate per the soliciation policy have been
    removed from bulletin boards and notesfiles.  These have been primarily
    advertisements for services/businesses.
516.20GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZREAL CHOICES for a real CU!Wed Apr 15 1992 16:4410
    
    RE: .18
    
    Rest assured that all of the politically correct causes will be well
    protected even if they aren't aren't an "important employee benefit". 
    Guess DCU is going to have to get rid of the Bylaw section that allows
    elections and petition candidates.  The annual elections can be
    replaced with annual coronations.  DCU will save a lot of money too. 
    Come to think of it, didn't we *almost* just have one of these?  ;-)
516.21Yes, Personnel has been notified ...NOSNOW::GEORGEDo as I say do, not as I do do.Wed Apr 15 1992 16:4910
    A retirement party was to be held for an individual.  The party was
    advertised on a flyer distributed through our mail system.  The flyer
    solicited $10 donations to defray the cost of the rented ballroom.
    
    An individual here complained to Personnel about: 1. did Digital pay
    the cost of copying the flyer (ALF is a large facility), and 2. the P&P
    violation.  It turns out that two _senior_ managers were involved at
    some level.  The silence from Personnel is deafening.
    
    		Steve
516.22I won't even put up with sanctioned solicitation...EDWIN::WAYLAY::GORDONVP of InfoServer File SystemWed Apr 15 1992 18:455
	I invoke the harassment policies every year at United Way time.  It
cuts down significantly on the amount of electronic UW junk mail I receive.


					--Doug