Conference 7.286::dcu

We appear to be considering expanding our field of membership to include TRW
employees in California.  I wonder why?

Bob

    It seems that we never read about the arguements against an issue.  It
    seems Phil votes against issues quite a bit, but we never know why.  I
    hope the new BoD allows desenting views to be included in the minutes.
    
    Mark

RE: Note 892.2 by SWAMPD::ZIMMERMANN

>    It seems that we never read about the arguements against an issue.  It
>    seems Phil votes against issues quite a bit, but we never know why.  I
>    hope the new BoD allows desenting views to be included in the minutes.

I know that Phil tried to get that allowed, but the Chairperson of the BOD
pushed through a change that basically did not allow such information to be
included.  I expect we will see more information about why and how decisions
are made in the future.

	-mark

    1)  One fairly obvious argument against expanding the field of membership 
    to contractors is that contractors have much less stable employment
    than regular employees -- even compared to Digital employees, I believe.
    So they may not have as stellar a loan repayment record as we have
    come to expect of DCU members.
    
    One obvious argument in favor is that we should expand the pool of
    potential members because the DCU's membership is shrinking as the
    number of Digital employees shrink.  Of course, there were other
    reasons as well why DCU membership shrank.  I'd really appreciate
    DCU minutes that make it clear if these issues were considered in
    reaching the decision that the Board reached.  It isn't necessary
    for minutes to say everything, but I think it's appropriate to 
    summary the main pros and cons of each decision.
    
    2)  One argument in favor of preferential rates for DCU employees is
    that most companies give preferential prices to employees who purchase
    the company's products.  I don't know if this should or shouldn't apply
    to a credit union;  but as above, I hope and trust that future minutes
    will state the arguments behind the significant decisions.  
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

	It's actually fairly common to give employees of financial institutions
a break on services as part of their compensation.  My sister, who works for a
commercial bank, gets free checking and free foreign ATM usage, neither of which
are free normally.  From talking to my sister, I would say that in general, the
banking industry is not known for great salaries on anything but the highest
levels.

						--Doug

    Of course, the other side of this is that Phil voted in favor of the
    Gainsharing plan.  Clearly, Phil is in favor of benefits for the DCU
    employees.  Personally, if given a choice between gainsharing at
    Digital and discounts on purchases, I'd go for the gainsharing in a
    second!  Yeah, it would be worth nothing now, but if I didn't think
    Digital was going to become profitable again, I wouln't be here now.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

Re: .4

    1)  One fairly obvious argument against expanding the field of membership 
    to contractors is that contractors have much less stable employment
    than regular employees -- even compared to Digital employees, I believe.
    So they may not have as stellar a loan repayment record as we have
    come to expect of DCU members.

Your attitude towards contractors is typical, but inaccurate.  Most contractors
I know (including my wife) are acutely aware that their income stream is
interruptable and are therefore financially conservative.  Many employees,
on the other hand, live from paycheck to paycheck and routinely overspend
their resources.

I do not think it appropriate to discriminate against contractors on the
basis of a perceived lack of financial stability.

The bias against contractors was brought home to me when my wife and I
refinanced our house last year.  I was required to provide only a copy of
my last year's W-2 statement and a current paystub.  My wife had to provide
copies of her complete tax return for the past three years.  Other than
the front page of form 1040, there's nothing a lender needed to see in the
rest of the return that wouldn't similarly apply to me.  But because I was
an employee, there was a presumption that my gross income was all that was
relevant.

					Steve