Conference 7.286::digital

The situation may be different in the US but judging by the UK experience,
unions don't protect their members from unemployment.    Why should I join
a union?   What's in it for me?  

Notice that the CWA is going for IBM first, instead of Wang/Computervision
etc.

Unions historically have been able to make improvements in the lot of
their members over the long term, only where the members in pre-union
days were severly repressed by their employers.       

High tech is a safe industry unlike shipbuilding.   The problem today is
that high tech has lost touch with the market place (see marketing notes
file) and too many organisations have jumped on the high tech boat, swamping
it. 

There will be a period of austerity while the industry gets back in touch
with the market and gets rid of the excess baggage and then it will ride
high again.    

Personally, I doubt that the union will get too far with IBM and because
of this I doubt it could happen here, but one never knows

Howard

I really don't know what a union could do for us.  It can not prevent layoffs
  Seniority in project, getting bumped off a project because a person has
more seniority (rather than brains) appeals to few engineers.  Its akin
to equal pay for equal jobs in the engineering field when you really want
equal pay for equal talent.
ed

   At Stone & Webster, an engineering-consulting compnay in Boston,
   the drafters and designers [tech. artsists] were unionized; the
   rest of the people (mostly professional) were not.  The unionized
   people were paid about 10% more than non-unionized people who did
   the same work for other engineering companies.  However, the
   unionized people (unlike everyone else) had to punch in and out,
   could only use pay telephones, and had all sorts of restrictive
   work rules.  To me, it seemed that the contractual agreement
   between the union and Stone & Webster management had created a
   distinctly non-professional environment for the unionized
   employees. 
   
   --Don

RE: .0	IBM is VERY good to its people. IBM ranks at or near to top of every
	list of top 10 places to work I have seen. If a union can sell itself
	there they can sell themself anywhere. That is why they are starting
	with IBM, according to the article. Personally I doubt that they
	will ever get IBM unionized. Also I see no benifit to any computer
	professional to join a union. Manufacturing is different but I still
	believe it will be a hard sell at IBM or DEC.

Alfred

Unions?

You've got to be kidding... Union membership peaked in the 50's.  Less than
1 out of 10 newly created jobs is a union job.

Unions throughout the United States are in decline.

The notion of IBM having a union is absurd.  IBM's concern for its employees
has always been strong.  Unions are a response to a lack of concern.

Pat Sweeney

RE: .3

Don, Stone & Webster (unaffectionately called Sweat & Worry) is a
**TOTALLY**  unprofessional environment for every employee. I worked 
there from 1976 to 1978 as an engineer and S&W had the following rules:

	- Written dress codes, specifically addressing jeans, hair 
	  length, socks, shoes, blouses, etc. (they were posted on 
	  bulletin boards)
	- We were restricted to 20 MESSAGE UNITS/MONTH on our phones!
	- All engineers were supposed to wear jackets and ties, jackets 
	  could be removed when you were at your desk, but had to be 
	  worn when you left your desk. [NO! We did not deal with 
	  "customers", it was just so we "looked professional".] 
	  (Unwritten rule, never saw it in writing.)
	- 1/3 of all employees averaged NO salary increase each year! 
	  Since I left, many "Professionals" have received $100.00 per
	  year raises. [This is factual info from current S&W 
	  employees, and no it is NOT a typo, that is less than $2.00 
	  per week!]
	- Security cameras were turned on at the entrance/exit after 
	  normal starting time and 15 minutes (or so) before quiting 
	  time to record those who came in late or left early.
	- Engineers sit in open "bull pens" with as  many as 50 desks 
	  in an open area, (so the supervisors could look out and see 
	  if you looked busy). I worked in two different groups and in 
	  each one I sat in 4-desk clusters, sitting across from one 
	  engineer and with another on the side of each of us.
	- Engineers who were aliens or of an obvious minority were paid 
	  considerably less than white American males. There were few 
	  to no female engineers. One of my managers was overheard 
	  saying that he would only hire a female for clerical work. 
	  [We had an opening for an engineer and a woman had applied,
	  this was his reaction to her resume.]
This was/is an environment of repression where unions seem to thrive.

Does anyone know what my rights as an employee are if a union should try to move
in at DEC? Can the union or DEC say "join or lose your job" after they have
taken hold of a company? If so, they better plan on delivering such ultimatums
on pink slips, as I would certainly look elsewhere for a job. Would such
a forced move qualify me for unemployment comp? 

Under certain circumstances ("closed shop") you can be forced to choose between
joining a union and losing your job.  I don't think it is likely that such
circumstances will ever prevail at Digital (but I could be wrong).  I doubt
that you could get unemployment compensation under such circumstances, since
you left "voluntarily".  Certainly the unions would not be happy about such
an interpretation of the unemployment benifits law, and they generally have
the ear of those charged with administering it.
    John Sauter

My first totle within DEC was programmer analyst in the Albuquerque Plant.
I had the occasion to talk with a number of direct labor/production floor
employees while I was supporting a shop floor tracking system.  A lot of
these people had previously worked at the GTE Plant across town. One gal
summed it up for me, and I'll quote as best I can remember...

'Unions? I used to be one of the biggest union supporters at GTE, and now
I'll have nothing to do with them.  I worked at a machine that ran eight
hours a day.  A little light on my supervisors board was green whenever
my machine was running, and a red one came on if I left it for a minute.
If the machine was broken, I had to flip a switch that turned on another
light on the supervisors console, informing him that my machine needed
maintenance. This was a totally union shop.  At DEC, there's nothing like
the GTE plant.  We are treated very well at Digital, with supervisors that
walk by and say Hi how are things going....rather than watching lights on
a board.  The union folks come by once in awhile and try to hand out leaflets
at the parking lot entrance. I tell them to get lost.'

This was about two years ago, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
One other comment....remember the Antitrust suit against IBM? I grant
you the unions are powerful, but against IBM?  DEC has lawyers, but IBM has
fought the Justice department, who gave up after a couple of years.

This business of 'getting into IBM' sounds like a 'make-work' project for
a union Fat cat.

This would be a good place for someone to summarize some of the laws
on collective barganing, etc.  Even the some of the basics might bear
repeating.  For instance, I believe that a group of employees
can only have one union representing them, so the voting on whether
or not to have a union also determines which one people must join.

I was once told that DEC spends more than the average for unionized
jobs (whatever that means) on its employees so that they will be content,
and not threaten the company with the costs of imposing a union structure.
(Consider horror stories like the EEs at Raytheon who can't carry an
instrument from one room to another without waiting 20 minutes
for a union "millwright" to appear and handle the job).

[Excuse me if you are feeling underfunded at the moment; I am only
relating what I was told.]

The "no-layoffs" plan at DEC must partially be an investment against unions.
I suppose that if unions are sniffing around the industry, this is
a factor that may keep it in place.

There is an excellent article in Communications of the ACM which
discusses the AFL-CIO's avowed plans to unionize programmers.  Among
other things, they figure that making higher-level data-entry personnell
walk off the job during a strike will keep even the payroll for
the scabs, and accounts payable, from running.  I believe it is also
pointed out that the threat of sabotage of hardware and software make
effective barganing tools.

An important issue goes like this.  Tradesmen can be forced into unions
by votes for representation and so forth, but "professionals" can always
choose not to join a union.  Well, remember that bug in your code last
month?  Didn't look too professional, did it?  If you were a doctor,
and your code was a patient, he'd be dead by now.  If you were a lawyer
and your code was a client, he'd have pulled 7-10 in Walpole.  Hmmm.
Maybe programming ISN'T a profession.  Lord knows there are all sorts
of industry conferences on software engineering titled "How can we
make this into a Real Profession folks?".  There have even been some
NLRB legal decisions which said that some programmers at specific
companies weren't professionals, and they were bound by union contracts.

I'll get the reference to the article.
				/AHM/THX

re: .10

It doesn't seem reasonable to require that you must be perfect to be a
"professional".  A golf or tennis "pro", for example, does not have to win
every game.  A doctor is permitted to lose a patient, and a lawyer to lose
a case.

I don't know the legal definition of professional versus non-professional
in the labor laws, but I can't believe that it requires perfection.
    John Sauter

    RE all:

    Years ago, there was a paragraph in the Policy and Procedures manual 
    that supervisors get telling people in a management position what
    to do if they heard of any discussion of unionizing activities in
    DEC.

    The paragraph urged care on the supervisor's part, because some non-
    obvious errors on the part of DEC management could get DEC into legal
    trouble, but the gist of the article was that news of the existence
    of such discussions should go up the management chain.

    I don't know if this policy has been modified, but noters here
    should be aware of the potential that their communications will reach
    management, and that this is a touchy issue for evryone in DEC,
    management included.

    Dave

Re .11:

I didn't say that perfection was a requirement for a profession.
However, the absence of universally recognized self-certification
and standards of competence in software engineering has an effect
on claims that it is a profession.

In fact, the CACM article says that programmers have been consistently
denied professional status by the Department of Labor since 1972,
and that this may compel programmers to be included in collective
bargaining units, and force them to accept a union as their
exclusive bargaining agent.

The article is "Unionization of Professionals in Data Processing:
An Assessment of Recent Trends", by Theodor D. Sterling of Simon
Fraser University.  It is on pp 807-816 in Nov-82 CACM, Vol 25, #11.
The abstract reads:

"
The needs of management, unions, employees and computer professionals
combined with existing practices of Labor Relations Boards and the various
divisions in the Departments of Labor have combined to create a
unique array of social conflicts.  At the root are management's interest
in keeping many skills in data processing and computing out of bargaining
units and the union's interest in including as many of these skills
as possible.  There is also conflict between past strategies guiding
labor relations and the structure and function of professional work in
modern organizations.  Two recent developments are analyzed: (1) The
FAA's success in keeping airports operational with the help of
computer-controlled airflow procedures; (2) Management's successful
bids to exclude professional engineers working in data processing
jobs from bargaining units.  At the same time, the National Labor and
Mediation Boards have rejected attempts to define data processing
jobs including highly skilled systems analysts as a separate craft or
class for representation purposes while granting such status to
engineers in similar employment situations.  If this principle of
exclusion from unions of licensed and certified professionals who are
doing DP work is established in North America, it may lead to increased
labor unrest in many highly automated and data processing industries.
"
				/AHM

BTW, there are unionized doctors in this country. Some of them have also
gone out on strike. I don't see any point to DP as professional vrs. 
non-profesional as a way to rule unions in or out.

Alfred

The above article basically says that if you are a professional, then
you can join a union or not at your own discretion.  But if you are not
a professional, then if the majority of the people in your organization
("collective barganing unit") decide they want a union, then the union
becomes your EXCLUSIVE barganing agent, regardless of what you want.
				/AHM

RE: labor laws

A union gets established in a workplace by getting some percentage of the
employees (I think it's 30%) to sign a petition asking that a vote on
unionization take place.  If the union gets the required signatures, the
vote is taken of all affected employees.  The vote is monitored by the National
Labor Relations Board.  If a majority (2/3) of the employees vote to unionize,
then the union is in.  There is no absolute requirement that you join the
union, but you MUST pay dues to it whether you belong or not.  The dues are
considered the fee for having the union do collective bargaining for you.
It is in fact illegal to have a "closed shop," where you are required to
join the union to work there.  However, most unions find ways to make it
very uncomfortable to be a non-union worker in a union shop, even if you
do pay the dues.  From a practical standpoint, a "union shop" and a "closed
shop" are nearly identical.

I don't think the CWA will have much luck either with DEC or with IBM.  Both
companies have a very good track record for treating their employees well.

--PSW

Yes, 30% is the correct number for requesting the union vote.

Thank you for posting the other facts.  Somewhere between 8th grade
and now I forgot what the distinction between closed shop and union shop
is, though I knew there was one.
				/AHM/THX

You MUST pay dues to it whether you belong or not? Why? Who gets my money if I
don't join? What is the difference between paying the dues, and actually
joining? Doesn't a company have to have my permission to deduct anything from my
check? I guess I am ignorant of all laws relating to unions, as I have never had
any dealing with them (and would like to keep things that way). 

Whether or not all "eligible" employees have to pay union dues it usuallya
part of the labor contract.  The "reasoning" for it is that those who don't
want to join the union don't have too - but they are receiving benefits from
having joined the union (higher wages, seniority provisions, work rules,
facilities and other benefits -- so the argument goes).  So that they are
expected to pay union dues for these benefits.

What is interesting is that there have been some recent decsions (within
the past two years) in this country, and the amount of dues paid by non-members
is reduced by some amount reflecting the non-union activities of the union
(e.g., political contributions, political action committees, lobbying, etc.)
The courts have ruled that non-members can be made to pay union dues for
union benefits, but cannot be forced to pay union dues for non-union activities.

John

The closed shop is outlawed in the UK.   I find it incredible that it is
actually legally enforceable in the bastion of capitalism.   

Howard

AT&T is laying off 24,000 people, appraently many of them union employees.

For a good dose of irony, go read the .0 note again.  I love the part
where the CWA president says that computer workers need CWA to
protect them against massive layoffs.  Watta maroon.
				/AHM

I said as much in .1.   Unions cannot prevent layoffs, in fact invariably
they cause them since in good times their activities lead to overmanning
due to restrictive practices, demarcation disputes.    Overmanned organisations
eventually make massive layoffs or go under when times are hard.    
Furthermore, the union will HELP the company in making the layoffs, since
it believes that by doing that it can protect the jobs of its members remaining.
What fools.
Howard

Re .17, .20:  There is a difference between a closed shop and union shop.  A
closed shop requires you join the union before you start work.  They are
illegal in the U.S.  A union shop requires you to join the union (or at least
pay dues), but you can start work before joining.  If I remember right,
you can work a month before you join (but you still pay dues).  My brother
quit a job once because he refused to work a week for $-8.56 or something.
(Initiation fee nuked his salary and then some - he saw no benefit of remaining
with that job when union was included.)

-Mike

    Code of Ethics for Engineers
    	National Society of Professional Engineers
    
    Section 1: The Engineer will be guided in all his/her professional
         relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in
         professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent
         or trustee.
         :     
         :
         e. He will not actively participate in strikes, picket lines,
            or other collective coercive action.
    
    Section 2, part a: He will regard his duty to the public welfare
         as paramount.
    
    
    This means that engineers should not be in unions because money
    considerations should not be more important than the work that
    engineers do in pursuit of their profession, especially work that
    affect the public welfare.
    
    Imagine some bio-engineers going on strike for higher pay; meanwhile
    they stop doing research and some breakthrough in science will not
    be found that could save millions of lives.
    
    Unions work too hard to protect dead wood. REAL engineers are judged
    by the quality of their work, not their seniority.
    
    
    The Mad Chinaman
    

        REAL engineers are treated with respect by their employers. They
        are not subjected to arbitrary and capricious acts of anonymous
        "managers". 
        
        Tom

    Hi,
        This file is obviously not a popular one. But I might as well add a
    bit to the debate. Yes, I suppose it is very rarely that a union of
    employees can stave off unemployement - If the company is losing money.
    However the quest for bigger profits is the usual reason.  There has
    been a bit of discussion elsewhere [in VNS etc] that the problem isn't
    with Capitalism, just the values it propogates. As people have
    correctly pointed out that DEC is good to its employees, and despite a
    certain amount of cyncism about preventing unions organising, I believe
    that it does this from a recognition that pure unadulterated capitalism
    is not a pleasant situation to be in. (Ken Olsen, I believe, is a
    Quaker ?).
    
    Unions originated (in Britain) as Craft (Professionel!) Guilds very small
    and intended to protect their members from cruel(???) bosses. Now I
    know that the idea of a struggle between workers and bosses is hard to
    visualise in the present day except in heavy industries, but there is a
    surplus which the boss/shareholders expropriates on the basis that they
    control the factory/mine etc. It's the same in DEC, IBM,General Motors
    etc etc, whether you like it or not. Most behave in a reasonable
    manner, but at the crunch they have the say. Say for instance that a
    company has investments in South Africa, and you want something done
    about it ( In Britain, ICL is in this situation) What do you do - write
    a letter to your boss ???? At best you would be told "If we don't
    someone else will "! At worst well ODP backwards ... 
      
    Something else to chew on - As it is you contribute ($4000) dollars to
    the value of DEC products which is NET profit (IE after devaluation of
    equipment etc etc). Now it is NOT true that Ken Olsen pockets that, and
    it is TRUE that he reinvests in DEC.) However he now owns that part of
    it (51% of it I guess anyway), where as you created that value. Don't
    say it's his reward - He gets an adequate salary for the work he does.
    So why not give every employee that $4000 dollars (or a scaled value
    depending on JPR etc) of shares? The condition would be that they could
    only be sold ON leaving DEC. 
    
              I'm sure someone will say this is not workable - But do
    you see what I'm saying ? That way we as employees would have a lot
    more power over the open door policy, especially if we had monthly
    workers meetings to ensure our managers are behaving correctly (see
    note 111.*) If we own the means of production 
             Coming back to the original question about unions, Yes they
    are basically bureaucratic structures, with little or no use in the
    tradition way they operate (Closed shops etc) However they were useful
    once to our forefathers/foremothers, and there is no reason why a loose
    Union concerned with "workplace political" matters, provided it is run
    by the members for the members should be a backward step. I would again
    refer to Note 111.* as this shows the little power we as indivduals
    have against managers who we diagree with. 
    
                 Yours
                    Winton Davies 
    
    P.S. Free feel to report me to the FBI or Security...
      
    
    
    
                   

    Ken owns less then 6% of DEC.
    
    You have given no reason why a union would be a step forward.
    
    		Alfred

    The point is that we (and like wise our predecessors) do the work that
     creates the "wealth" that is Digital.  Now WEALTH = POWER, but
    you have to be able to control that wealth, to be able to make use
    of its power. As I keep pointing we do not control that wealth we
    create, (have you got figures of employees share of DEC ?), It is
    the anonymous faces that make up our ruling class. I know and
    understand that the States, are a 'model' of the Free Market, but
    I understand that you have around 3% unemployement and 7 million is
    a lot of people ! Also the wealth is distributed very unevenly.
       In Britain the figure is 7% control 84% of the total wealth of
    the country. A better example is the position of Women. They control
    something like 5-10% of the wealth in the world and make up over 50%
    of the population. I don't think I have to elaborate on why they
    and the working class have little control over their lives.                 
        But why a Union ? Well most of the nastier side of living (no
    I don't mean getting up in the morning) can be atributed to a Ruling
    Elite (or Class) who have their power in either Economic / Military
    power. In the west it tends to be purely economic, but look how
    they responded to strikes in Chicago and other places. 
    
      Events like Falklands,Chile, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and Libya could have
    been avoided, If there were other values than the Search or protection
    of markets and profits. 
     
       However, the only class that can do something about this is the
    workers. The ruling class isn't and won't give up what its sees
    as its natural right or its privilges!
       
       As I tried to point out, a Union is not neccessarily socialist
  - In fact its pretty hard to find one that is, even in Britain. They
    are a capitalist institution - Monopoly Labour over monopoly capital.
    I know you have anti-monopoly laws, but  inside a company, management
    is a monopoly position, they control everything. 

           However what they are useful for positively is ascerting rights
    of fair and just treatment of empolyees/workers against the people
    who control a company - usually through management. That is why
    they would be a step forward. Again I would say that management
    is usually just - but look at note 111 - things aren't perfect.
    A union is just a collective organisation that can exercise its
    power in a united way, which as we all know is the most powerful
    way. There are good and bad unions ( I don't mean in the way Maggie
    Thathcher means it). A good Union is one in which its members control
    it, not the bureaucrats ! 
    
    
           Also do you agree with -.2 about near total employee ownership.
    Now that wouldn't be given to us without pressure.
     
            Sorry about the digression - but it's not really !
     
                              Cheers
                                  Winton
      
      
    
    

     re .28 et al:
     
     You are absolutely correct in one sense: we, the employees, do
     the work that [fundamentally] creates the wealth that is Digital.
     
     The essential fact that you omit, however, is that we the employees
     made the wealth that is Digital through creativity, personal
     enterprise, and professional risk-taking.  Unions, by their very
     nature, stifle each of these.  In a unionized environment, there is
     not nearly the incentive to create, invent, and take risks -- the
     rewards for success in a union environment just are not there. You
     need only look at the performance of unionized organizations to see
     this -- the eastern bloc countries, the UK industries, the US
     auto/steel industries, and on and on -- each of these has been
     outperformed by non-union competition.  And the reason, plain and
     simple, is that unions stifle creativity and productivity.  
     
     --Don 

    re -.28
    
    The 7/84 figures referred to Scotland, not Britain.
    
    In the average country, each "Wealth" owner supports 3 or 4 non-wealth
    owners, eg. children, spouses, etc....
    
    30% own 84% of the wealth doesn't sound quite so impressive, does
    it?
    
    A red herring really
    
    MFG

        As I was coming in to work yesterday morning, I heard a report
        on the radio about the status of the threatened Amtrak strike.
        For our readers outside the US, Amtrak is a major rail carrier,
        particularly in the heavily-travelled East Coast corridor.
        
        Apparently the sticking point is a dispute between two unions
        over which has jurisdiction over the operation of a railroad
        repair crane.  This is petty bullshit, yet over this dispute
        (which really boils down to which union collects dues from
        the person who operates the crane, not protecting the workers),
        they (the unions) are threatening to shut down a major rail
        service, and thereby penalize thousands of travellers.  Dare
        I compare this action to "terrorism"?
        
        The basic premise behind labor unions is that the laborers
        are so many completely equivalent links in a chain or cogs
        on a gear-wheel.  As Mr. Topaz has pointed out, it simply isn't
        that way at Digital, at least in most parts of the company.
        The lack of union success in the parts of the company where
        it _might_ make sense (e.g., manufacturing) is certainly due
        to the perception on the part of the employees that a union
        would not provide benefits that would offset its costs.
        
        I don't want a union representing me to management, thank you.
        
        Tom

    re: .29
    
    > Industries with union have been outperformed by non-union
    > competitors. (Auto and steel)
    
    What?  Although I am not sure about the situation in West Germany,
    at least in Japan, those industries have been heavily unionized.
    They just don't go on strike as often as American counterparts due
    to more cooperative relationship with their management.
    
    > Union stifles creativity and productivity.
    
    Where is your logic?  It may be true for those declining industries
    in the States where bitter labor disputes are rampant, certainly
    over generalization is dangerous.   Again, in Japan where the growth
    in productivity in the past 20 years or so is nothing but remarkable,
    the industries are unionized.  
    
    Makoto
    
    

    re: -.*  (;-))
    
     regards the red herring (was that a pun !) - Your calculations
    are a bit awry : 
       What about the "non wealth owning" relations of the 93% ? Huh
    I also assume if you put these people in the group owning the rest
    of the wealth (less likely) You have to remove that wealth from
    the 16% shared out between the 93%. You can't ignore facts. Make
    sure you don't mix up your units so to speak.     

    I'll take your word for it that the figures for Scotland. But I think
    the current percentage of GB share ownership is 6%, and land ownership
    is concentrated massively amongst the Royal family.
    
    With regards  to Dr. Tom  , I think the point has been made that
    these unions that you see as stifling creativity are those which
    are in old/heavy/transport industries where management aren't as
    pleasant as those we have in DEC. In fact if a boss came to
    squeeze some your standards of  living (which I guess is pretty
    HIGH) down to those of say a coal miner, you would try and do
    something about it - (don't say you'd get another job because in
    this hypothetical situation every company would be cutting into
    pay and conditions.) 
           But a union gives you collective power - How you as a Union
    wish to exercise that power is a matter for yourself. There are
    in Britain Managerial and professional unions - They don't negotiaite
    pay (except where it is wanted -say by lower clerical staff) - What
    they do provide is a base for the workers to stand on, instead of
    as a fragmented group. They will pay legal fees, represent you in
    industrial tribunals over unfair dismal, cases of harrasment etc.
        
    
       The strike is the last weapon of our class, to be used when
    all else fails in this situation, but you have to stand together.
    At the moment times are good for us. One day It might not be so.
        Also you seem to agree with me, partially - so I'll return the
    favour. Yes I agree that self-enterprise(in the workplace) and
    creativity are wealth creating - But  a capitalist taking
    risks with where HE'll put HIS  profits that YOU  created does not create 
    USE-VALUE.  Yes It creates more money for him -or may be less - but it is
    not useful WORK. He needs us but we don't need him, we just need
    to share together the Wealth created by past generations of workers. 
       
       This is the very common myth that Communism destroys freedom.
    Yes this is true - but the terms of reference are the USSR and the
    eastern block/Cuba - which if compared to a country like Turkey
    or El Salvador/Paraguay are not much different -yet in your
    eyes are paragons of FREEDOM. Think about it.   
       I would say that socialism actually gives you true freedom -
    not the sham we have of economic/political power of an elite. I've
    digressed (YET AGAIN !!) but unless you understand the base you
    get a different idea of the superstructure (markets,unions etc)
         
         Re -1 Yes It's refreshing to hear a Japanese  actually
    describing the truth of Japan , rather than Thatcher and the bosses
    saying the Japanese workforce is perfect (an aside - Nissan were
    forced to withdraw an advert in the UK - because they insinuated
    they had never had a strike - In fact they had a very long bitter one
    in Japan). 
       

    

	Unions? Thank you no.. I'll trust Ken not to lay me off and in turn
	he'll get more out of me than any union employee..

	Unions are not Digital. Digital is not Unions. Digital is people.

	Unions in Japan? You should have watched the report on tv here..
	Seems that the MINORITY of Japanese workers are in unions.. A
	very small percentage indeed.. Most of Japanese labour is done
	in sweatshops for very little pay or by family shops.. The unionized
	auto-workers of Japan are only something like 3% of the workforce..
	It's not all rosy and ducky over there..

	I don't mind discussing unions in other industries but as far as
	a union in DEC I am going to stop here.. I don't like the idea at
	all and want nothing to do with them. Thank you.

							mike

	This seems to be digressing into a general discussion on
	socialism/capitalism and unions in general - that discussion
	would be more appropriate in FORUM (hit SELECT/KP7, etc.). The
	only aspect of this topic that is relevant to this conference
	would be "should there be a union at DEC". 
	
	For the record, I don't believe having a union at DEC would in
	anyway improve "the worker's lot", and would very likely hurt
	the company. If you ("Wanton") have any *specific* ideas on how
	a union could make things any better at DEC, go ahead and share
	them here. But general issues of unionism and socialism are more
	appropriate in FORUM.
	
	Mike

    My management text (and my own practical experience) list several
    sources of power:
    
    	1)   Brute strength.		2)   Money.
    	3)   Knowledge.			4)   Personality.
    	5)   Authority.			6)   Persuasiveness.

    	(Experience suggests another - prayer.)

    How does this power work?  Everyone has the potential for some degree
    of power, no matter how oppressive his society.  This power can be used
    either to do something useful, or to gain more power (and perhaps
    different kinds of power.)
    
    I have to reject the whole economism behind both the capitalist
    and socialist doctrines.  They both assume that the primary goal
    in life is to become fabulously wealthy and powerful and build an
    empire.  The first wants this for one person; the second wants this
    for a "class" of people.  Both capitalism and socialism have a certain
    ugly clawing grabbiness about them.  
    
    My goals are a little different.  I would like to produce something
    good, perhaps something new, something the world hasn't seen before. My
    goals relate to what I do, not what clutter I accumulate by doing it.
    Doing it may make me wealthy, it may make me poor, even dead, but that
    hardly matters. 
    
    Both when I have been hungry and now when I am not, I have found that
    the joys in life come from (1) sharing love and caring and (2) doing
    the very best thing that my hand can find to do.  The rest is window-
    dressing, and if you focus on it, no matter how much or how little you
    have, your life will be miserable. 
    
    					Peace in Christ,
    
    					    Ralph

  re .35:

  Thanks, Mike, for the reminder about FORUM being the usual place for this 
  kind of discussion.  Please try to keep discussions in this conference
  relevant to the theme of "the Digital way of working" as much as you can.
  FORUM is for general discussion about politics, philosophy, religion, etc.

--Simon

    Unions are usually needed in industries where working conditions
    are bad and management is unresponsive. Could 'flex time' survive
    in a union shop?, I think not. DEC has a lot of benefits and
    provides their workers with a lot of freedoms. The computer
    industry is extremely competetive in sales and worker satisfaction.
    This is what modulates working conditions and benefits. If you
    want to attract good people, you have to offer good benefits and
    good working conditions. A union at DEC might mean that some new
    projects wouldn't ship on time because the union specifies that
    certain people cannot perform certain tasks because those tasks
    are 'not their job'. Look at the problems that Fld Svc installers
    have in GB, need to have a union electrician's card so that they
    can plug the system into the wall. Hogwash!
    
    Bob Mc
    

     
          Back around the turn of the century, unions did serve
    a purpose. In the unsafe coal mines of Penn. or the sweat
    shops and fire traps of the garment industry in New York the
    workers needed someone to arbitrate their differences with
    management. These conditions certainly don't exist to my
    knowledge at Digital. That go-between, workers (dl) and
    management (il), is not needed here.
    
    Cary...         

      re: the last couple of reply's,
            
      Yes I'm in agreement with Mike Ryan in that there is not a lot
    that can be done at DEC for conditions -the very fact that  this
    conference exists is quite a good tribute (long may it stay that
    way).                       
    
       I'm also in agreement with  the one about the success of the
    industry which allows us to have these, because there is a shortage
    of skilled people. This boom (or should it be gradual rise) will
    hopefuly be longed lived. But all industries hit recession at some
    point - by our very nature we are attempting to put people out of
    work - including ourselves to a certain extent - but there is still
    along way to go yet. In DEC I would say a union would more be a
    last resort for handling cases of unfair treatment, and should not
    be used  for wage bargaining. It can also have a general political
    role - and act as a force to make sure the values we hold true are
    as strong as possible (eg a decent standard of living for all perhaps)
    rather than petty selfish wage increases.
    
        To the Christian - Great values - but what about the deaths and
    injuries in   Nicaragua, Paraguay, Chile, South Africa, Afganistan,
    Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Ethiopia  and the bombing of Libya. There are more
    forces than good or bad in this world, ones that cannot be overcome by
    prayer. As for your comment equating Socialism to the USSR - think
    of Russia as USSR Ltd with the bosses being the CP (one of the most
    reactionary parties in the world considering their 'declared socialist
    nature'): and reconsider your ideas of what socialists stand for.
     (PS if you're interested mail me to get on a conference on the
     subject)
        
       And finally to retire ....
            
               Bowing out
     
                   Winton Davies

    Alright, I'll throw in my 2�.  Many of us are "spoiled" working
    at DEC.  Some of us are "spoiled" being in New England during a
    time when this is one of the economic boom spots of the world.
    We need a union here the way a bear needs diapers.
    
    Some of our neighboring high-tech companies are unionized.  Raytheon
    has a very different management philosophy -- all workers are
    temporary, to be laid off when the job is over.  Some get rehired
    into other jobs, but it's not nearly automatic.  Raytheon also has
    unions.  General Electric also has unions.  I wouldn't want to work
    for either.  But if I found myself at either, I'd be happy to join
    the union -- I'd need it!
    
    Americans aren't familiar with "management unions", which Wanton
    referred to.  There are also "guilds", which predate unions but
    are more professionally-inclined.  They aren't there to confront
    "management" per se, or to negotiate fixed wage scales, but to handle
    things like pension plans (which Digital does for us).  Of course,
    they also are a form of recourse for grievances.
    
    Before condemning all unions out of hand for the sins of a few, think
    about the sweatshops that still exist in the garment industry, etc.
    Digital's management philosophy (long may it wave!) is (sadly) not
    the norm in America.  Maybe if others notice how well we're doing,
    things will improve.  But I'm not holding my breath.

    Re .28:
    
    S'funny, Winton, but in your list of events that could have been
    avoided (presumably by Socialism etc) I failed to notice Poland,
    Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia... Or is it only the West that
    is naughty?
    
    Also, nothing would prevent Libyan activity other than the removal
    of the loon running it.
    
    Gavin

          re -1
          Being selective doesn't necessarily negate the point.

    Some unions are very sucessful just look at doctors and lawyers!!!
    They have the largest unions of all!!!
    

Unionization is incompatible with the Digital Way of Working.

Consider Raytheon.  Were I working there, I could not carry a terminal or
a large box from one office to another (Porter's Union does that).  I could
not plug my terminal into the wall or into its computer line drop (Electrician's
Union must do that).  If my job is covered by a Union contract, I must come
to work exactly at the hour specified (no sooner) and must leave at the
hour specified (no later).  I am not allowed to work on weekends and take a
weekday off instead if I want to.  My raises occur at fixed times based solely
on seniority, not job performance.  If I am twice as productive as the guy
in the next cubicle, well, tough luck for me--he makes more just because he's
been in that cubicle a year longer.

My experience with unions is that they are more concerned with turf issues
and regimentation than with the welfare of the individual employee.

Now, some companies DESERVE unions.  Raytheon, which lays people off at the drop
of a hat, is an example.  Is Digital?  I think not.

The day I am forced to join a union is the day I leave.

--PSW

    
    We have a "union" here. Its called a monthly unit meeting which
    except in case of death or urgent revenue generating business it
    is mandatory to attend. We, the 'workers' made a rule amongst ourselves
    that it was mandatory to attend. Two recent cases of worker power
    were highlighted. Our 'boss' wanted to impose a rota system of standby
    person ready to serve any customer (internal customers) who came
    along with a request. We resisted by debate and the system was dropped
    with the result that our customers now plan _there_ time better
    to give _us_ more time to react to urgent requests, which are now
    fewer. The result of our mildly resistive action was twofold. One
    it made our customers realise that we were not at their beck and
    call to bail them out and secondly the 'management' found that debate
    rather than imposition worked better. The second case came when
    there was an office reorganisation (a physical one). I wont bore
    you with the details but it ended up two people were moved to new
    positions in the office instead of the whole office being disrupted
    incurring costs of rewiring telephones, data lines, facilities dept
    etc etc. In the latter case we politely pointed out the folly of
    the major move to our 'boss' and he concurred. The result of our
    action is that 80% of our office did not have to move and the other
    two who did felt better because they were involved in the decision
    re moving.
    The point I am making is Why do we need any form of union when the
    system in place works perfectly.
    
    Regarding .33, I have resisted Wanton but he has touched on a subject
    I cannot ignore - Royalty. Winston, better the Royal Family own
    the land - which is our heritage - than some union pension fund
    building another office block on it - you only have to look at Reading
    to see what I mean.
    
    Regarding OPD(Backwards). I worked for Systime previously and I
    was one of the enlightened few who could see the way the company
    was going. I excercised OPD(Backwards) voluntarily and got out before
    I was ejected. If you dont like K.O. or the Digital Way of Working
    its simple aint it - OPD(Backwards).
    
    David.

    Hi,
    
    Re: -1
     It's got to be good ! And I couldn't agree with you more over the
    building of office blocks by Union pension fund or anyone else -
    Especially as only ONE council house has been built in Reading this
    last year !  Still better  the land should be under common ownership,
    and put the royal family in a museum (they could still be a tourist
    attraction !!!!). The Cornish and a lot of other people might find it a
    lot cheaper, than paying rent to someone who tried to plant a tree with
    a HAMMER ??? 
      
                      Cheers
    
                           Winton
    
     I did say I wasn't going to say anything else but I have, so tough
    

    
    Your forgiven, I knew you couldnt resist it if I put in my
    two pennyth. (Is that how you spell it).
    
    The point is that worker power does exist in this company if it
    is consistent, honest, legal and truthful. When I see what is happening
    to the labour party, that supports unions, having kangeroo courts
    to expell militants I wonder if they and unions are really democratic
    in their due processes. Management, here anyway, has been made to
    understand that decisions made, no matter how high they are made,
    will be questioned and debated untill we have satisfactory reasons
    for there being. At one time things got so bad viz a viz
    employee/manager relations in our department that the
    managers-managers-manager called an urgent meeting of all staff
    and told us all, in front of our manager, that HE NEVER EVER EXPECTED
    TO HAVE COME TO A SIMILAR MEETING IN THE FUTURE, which was an
    indictment of how badly his managers were managing. Things are better
    by a million per cent. And no, its not a closed shop. We debate
    and there are opposing views but common sense prevails.
    
    David.
    

    Why have a union represent me when I can represent myself?
    
    My bias comes from seeing American unions at work.   As I see it,
    an elite few (the union 'leadership') negotiates with management.
    They reach an agreement and the union members vote.  If I happen
    to agree with the majority, then great.  If not, I loose.
    
    I don't have the same problems when I represent myself.
    
    If I couldn't represent myself, then I'd be racing PSW to the exit inteview.

    Unions seem to be a way to coerce a company's management to do
    something they would rather not do.   That concept just doesn't
    apply here.   Most Digital managers used to be contributors, just
    like me.  From that, they have the same corporate culture that I believe
    in.   If my management makes a decision that is not in my best
    interest, then maybe my interests are not consistent with the Digital
    culture.
    
    As things stand, I can (and do) talk to my management.  A union
    just wouldn't fit in here.
    
    	KC

I was at WBZ-TV Channel 4 in Boston one Friday night watching them broadcast 
the 11:00 pm news. At some point after the news started, Bruce Schwoegler 
(Weatherman) came in. He was wearing a wireless microphone. Just prior to the 
weather forcast, he walked over to a cameraman who reached over and turned on 
the wireless mic that was hanging on Bruce's belt. I could not believe it.
Unions really have gone too far in this country....

jim

    The Light side:  I read in yesterday's Herald that the Employee
    Relations Manager at the Cumberland Farms Corp is named Patricia
    Firing.  Really

    Well, it's an ancient note, but I just couldn't resist:
    
    At a previous company there was a move to get a union, the IBEW I
    think, and while they promised that the first thing they would do was
    to get our wages raised by the amount nessesary to pay our dues, our
    whole group (Electronic Maintainance) told our supervisor (with whom we
    got along really well) to tell TPTB that unless we were made exempt
    from the union (assuming it got it), he would have to find replacements
    for each and every one of us.  Since he felt the same way, he managed
    to get our group made exempt.  The mind boggles at what we would have
    had to go through, we had parts handlers that used electronics,
    computer hardware and software, pneumatics, hydraulics, plumbing,
    mechanical and electrical stuff, and on and on.  I kept telling people
    that I already belonged to a union and couldn't possibly join another,
    but they didn't believe in The International Brotherhood Of Those Who
    Wish To Be Left Alone.  :+)
    
    I'd say the same thing in response to a union here, and while it (a
    union) is a scary thought, it's really such a remote possibility that
    it's not really worth worrying about.  I'm just a lowly tech, but I
    chat with my cost center manager occasionally, get along with all my
    bosses really well, and basically represent myself... 
    
    Willie
    

    Hi out there, You'll have to forgive the late entry but I only
    started reading this file recently. Reading through some of these
    replies ( BTW, my name is Derek O'Mahoney DTN 830-3812) I couldn't
    help but notice the subtle finger pointing "That if any part of
    DEC needed a union it would probably be manufacturing".
    
  << FLAME ON >>
    
    What the hell do you mean maybe manufacturing might need IF 
    anybody. Mnfg aren't another company - they are as much a
    part of DEC as any other function.
    
    << FLAME OFF >>
    
    You'll have to forgive me I sometimes get emotional. I worked in
    manufacturing for 5 1/2 years in the Galway plant, first as a
    module test tech and then in Telecoms support. From my experience
    MNFG do NOT want a union - any union - because we have seen just
    what benefits they provide (restrictive practices,demarcation lines
    etc....).These comments are from an Irish and UK viewpoint . My
    main point here is that nobody I know within DEC want or would be
    willing to see a union within the company, this is of course based
    on the current style of management philsophy ODP.
    
    I know this reply when I read it back will probably look a right
    cockup but it is written on the spur of the moment and also for
    a reason.
    
    The Paddy	-	Derek.