Conference 7.286::dcu

I voted for the 3Gs and certainly hope that they get elected, so we can get
to the bottom of what's been going on.  It seems as if there is at least
grounds for suspicion, since the members at the special meeting 3 years back
ousted (in effect) several top managers at Digital from the BOD (i'm thinking
of VPs Dan Infante and Abbot Weiss), that Digital management may be exerting
some unsavory influence on DCU internal activities.  This seems most apparent
in the actions of Ron Glover and Jose Ramirez in the manner of the firing of
the 3Gs, which totally bypassed the normal process of getting the employees'
managers to place them on formal verbal warning and then written warning
prior to terminating them.

If the worst happens and this seeming interference sways the election against
the 3Gs, i'm wondering if there is a sufficient legal basis (and a sufficient
number of DCU members interested) for filing a class action suit that would
get the real information about what's been happening out on the table.  How
many people are needed for a class action suit anyway?  I still believe the
first priority is getting the 3Gs on the BOD, but this is a consideration if
the election proceeds to an outcome that appears suspicious or "tainted" (and
not by any actions of the ordinary members).
								- paul

In 1.15, Ron Glover outlaws "campaigning" from 25-Aug to 15-Sep, and says:
"We define `campaigning' as any activity by candidates or their supporters
within a public medium during an election, intended to support one or more
candidates."

When I read that, I was about to praise Ron Glover for providing a
reasonable definition of campaigning.  This definition even allows one to 
talk about the election process without violating his new policy.

But then I read 1.16, in which a moderator writes "After extensive
conversation with Corporate Employee Relations... [we will] immediately
hide any note or reply that refers directly or indirectly to any candidate
or group of candidates in the DCU election."

In other words, Glover's written definition of "campaigning" is NOT the
standard that is going to be applied.  ANYTHING relating to the candidates
may be considered to be "campaigning" by Employee Relations.  And we've
all seen that they can fire us for any grounds THEY think valid, regardless
of the objective definitions of the words used in a policy.

For a moment, it looked like things had changed from the days when Ron was
asked over and over again what he considered to be "solicitation".  He never
did tell us, and I never could guess -- in one case "implied solicitation"
was enough but in another case it wasn't.  The "campaigning" issue makes me
sure that we're still working for the same company, with the same Employee
Relations.  Ah, well.  Maybe we can change the DCU.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

Eric, did the NLRB say you could solicit for whatever you want?  Could you,
for example, solicit for Amway in employee-interest conferences?

    Re .3:
    
    The initial agreement communicated to me through the NLRB was that I
    would be allowed to solicit in employee-interest conferences, period. 
    The letter I received from Ron Glover recently only gives permission to
    solicit in regard to "protected activities".  When I have some time, I
    will be writing back to Glover to assert the full range of
    solicitation; I'm not going to allow Digital to change the terms after
    the fact.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

re: .4, Eric

> permission to solicit in regard to "protected activities"

That sounds sufficiently nebulous.

Was further clarification available?

-Jack

    Re .5:
    
    > Was further clarification available?
    
    That was the clarification.  "Protected activities" is a term defined
    in the National Labor Relations Act.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.