Conference 7.286::digital

  If it's company policy, then it's policy.  The company can make what
  policies it wants to make.  It doesn't bother me personally, since I'm
  not one who drinks.  I can understand that the company doesn't want to
  buy the drinks, but it seems counter-intuitive that the employee can't
  buy the drink out-of-pocket.  Is there some imposition of morality here?
  Or is the company simply limiting its liability?

  I wonder if this policy applies to business trips, or entertaining of
  customers?

  (Please, put flames in Soapbox or Forum.  Sober discussions only here.)

--Simon

What function?  More  to  the point, what kind of function, and where? I can
see  it  if it's something on company property, and I can understand DEC not
paying  for booze at a function, but at an off-site DEC-sponsored function I
see  no  reason  people  can't  drink  whatever  they like if it isn't being
charged to DEC.

Mike

  What function?  The base note was extracted from a memo regarding an
  employee anniversary luncheon at a local restaurant.

Perhaps DEC thinks that if something happened (drunk driver killed when driving
back to work or whatever), and if they (DEC) were connected, then they might
be held legally responsible. At the least, it might make DEC look bad. There
has been a lot of negative publicity about drinking and driving in
Massachusetts lately. Perhaps this memo is a result of that. 

Jack

I heard of this polisy a couple of years ago and asked about it then.
I seem to remember being told that in fact there had been a case where
drinks were served at a DEC "sponsered" function and someone held DEC
responsible for an acident afterwards.

I'll see if I still have any info on this case. 

I suspect that the policy is for this reason, rather than trying to impose
morality on us.
/tb/

  re .0

  It turns out that the person who sent out the memo was being overly
  conservative.  Whether or not it is to be official policy that the company
  should not pay for alcoholic beverages, any such policy could not bar
  individuals from buying their own drinks before or after the function.

--Simon

In the context of anniversary meetings, the policy has been approved
formally. There is no option on the manager's part. The policy applies
to all invitees at the function. The question is not one of paying. The
question has to do with the legal liabilities that may result.

I don't know what DEC's reason for tea totaling is but I can speak from 
experience in an other CO.  The company drunk got sloshed at a company 
sponsored "Hooray for us" party. He fell down a fire escape, broke his 
ankle and sued.  Six months later he was still "on the dole" so I can
understand digitals reluctance to endorse company drinking. It can be very
expensive.  In fact, if I were a lawyer, I would love to have such a case 
against digital (the second largest computer company in the world) !

Ahh Gi'day...

    Here (Australia),  this  is  NOT policy, and the opposite appears to be
    the  case.  My recent Five Year Award dinner served alcohol, as well as
    pre-dinner  drinks.  In fact, quite a few of the offices have drinks on
    Friday after work, and Digital often picks up the tab.

    Friday drinks are seen as ESSENTIAL to maintain morale in some parts of
    the  subsidiary,  and to try and develop team approaches in some of the
    more pressured working environments (support centres for instance). The
    building  I work in (SNH) usually has drinks for anyone in the building
    that  wants  to  come.  Digital  pays,  (probably in lieu of some other
    benefits we don't receive).

	    - Dennis.

Re:.10

If memory serves... When I was visiting a friend working in the Valbonne
office, there was beer in the vending machine in the 'lunch room'.

The cafe across the street is, however, what I chose!

-Lee-

Hi from OZ,

	Can only agree Dennis, although I'm not sure that it is NOT the
	policy. The chances of this policy being enforced within Digital
	Australia is near impossible, Ozzies are renown for their like
	of FOSTERS.

	The Friday night drinks within Digital are a great device for
	getting to know other people outside your department. My
	department does not hold drinks (budget to low?) but a number
	of my group visit others. Through this I now know many people in
	consulting, TSC, marketing, etc, etc.....even some people in SNH.

	Although all this seems a very relaxed attitude to drink
	it still goes, not at work during work hours, after?


				Barry

re:.11

This must have been a "mistake". Probably they were short on "root-beer"
by the time you visited the office. Alcoholic beverages are not be served
in offices,plants...except when served with regular meals. (this even true
for France). Munich (Bavaria) might be an exception as far as beer is
concerned.
 I recall having observed two genuine bavarians working on a hot summer day on
a churche's roof at least a 50 feet above street level. Sharp noon they
climed down, headed for the closest beer garden (where I was sitting), injected
two "MASSES" (= 1 US gallon) of beer in their throats, then climbed up as
quick again on the roof and continued working (whithout faaling from the
roof). Well, it's all a matter of education, ain't it ?

 Fred, a convinced beer-drinker.

	In the late 70's, in northern Germany (Hannover), people 
routinely brought beer to work which was consumed on premises.
Digital (GmbH) supplied free juices and coffee ... sigh.

	I remember when KO was visiting the Hannover fair (the world's
biggest industrial fair), the offices were all cleaned up for fear
KO would tour and discover this German Digital culture.

							Bruce

Yes, .0 is the policy for all company sponsored events and gatherings, such
as employee anniversary lunches.  The reason is very simple.  There have
been several liability suits lately where a drunk damaged himself or others,
the injured party sued the host of the function where the alcohol was consumed,
and the injured party won the case.  In particular, this seems to be the
vogue lately in Massachusetts.  Therefore, Digital is merely protecting
itself against possible lawsuits.

Sigh, whatever happened to the concept of an individual being responsible
for his own actions?

--PSW

Re .0,.-1:

Can you find this policy in the Personnel Policies and Procedures manual?

I can't.

There is a draft policy posted outside my supervisor's office which implies
this, but it is at least the second draft.  It may still be undergoing review.

I'm pretty sure it will be formally enacted eventually, and I assume it can
be declared to be in force before that for things like employee luncheons
by the proper authorities (KO, VP of Personnel, local management, etc.). 
However, I had seen an earlier draft ages ago, and had assumed it must have been
adopted by now until I watched this discussion start.  I wonder what's
taking so long?

(My group already follows the draft policy.  We tend to hit the Royal
Mandarin for a lot of people's birthdays and for going-away luncheons.  (You
can imagine how many going-away luncheons the PDP-10 software engineering
group must be having).  We always have rank-and-file engineers make the
arrangements instead of department secretaries, so that the rules do not
apply.  Besides, our secretaries have better things to do than "making
luncheon reservations for the gang".)
				/AHM

(I'll leave out any incriminating references in this response...)

I just attended a xxxxx organization's training session in xxx xxxx, XX
on Friday (11/22/85). During the evening dinner and entertainment, there
was champagne, wine and beer in the lobby, and a bottle of Rose' and white
wine on every table.  Managers were present, Dec paid for it, and I don't
believe that there are any lawsuits pending. Also, I didn't hear a single
murmur about company policy. 

As previous responses said, it's DRAFT policy at the moment. The rumor mill
churns onward.

Cheers and a toast to a profitable year!
  .
  o .
 .  o  
\_____/
 \   /
  \ /
   |
   |
  ---
     

Gil   8')

Draft or not, there are many cost centers that are following as 'law'!
(perhaps with the policy itself, it should be referred to as a 'draft'
but a 'first pass'.  :-)  )

-Joe

On Novemeber 20th I attended my 10th anniversary dinner.  I noticed that
while the punch was clearly nonalcoholic, there were several decanters
of red and white stuff at each dinner table.  People made a lot of jokes
about vinegar and oil.  I drank a little of the red stuff.

Whatever it was, it didn't have any alcohol in it (no warmth to the tongue)
yet it did taste somewhat like red wine.  Isn't technology amazing?  

Pat Hardy
PCSG

I also had my 10th anniversary dinner on November 20th.  I was
surprised when I was offered wine, and I turned it down.  It
never occurred to me that it might be non-alcoholic.
    John Sauter

I was there on the 20th of Nov also.  I tried the 'red stuff', even though
I rarely drink.  it was bad!  But that was the only thing bad about the night.
Its suprisinbg what a great time you can have and not have to be served
drinks!  My complements to Digital for being a responcible citizen and caring
about its employees.
Ed Badger

EXTRACT TT:
================================================================================
 HUMAN::CONKLIN              The DEC way of working           13-DEC-1985 17:38 
 Note 62.22                    -< Teetotaling >-                       22 of 22 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<(A)0[?4h[?5l









    lqqqqqqqqqwwwqqqqqqqqqk                sssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
    xMerry Chrxxxmas * Merx                \                           /
    xry Christxxx * Merry x                 pr                       rp
    xChristmasxxxMerry Chrx                   oqrs               srqo
    xistmas * xxxry Christx                       ooppqqwqwqqppoo
    tqqqqqqqqqjxmqqqqqqqqqu                             x x
    tqqqqqqqqqq`qqqqqqqqqqu                             x x
    tqqqqqqqqqkxlqqqqqqqqqu                             x x
    xry Christxxx * Merry x                             x x
    xChristmasxxxMerry Chrx                             x x
    xistmas * xxxry Christx                             x x
    xmas * MerxxxChristmasx                         srqqj mqqrs
    mqqqqqqqqqvvvqqqqqqqqqj                     rqpo           opqr 
lmxx
lqmqx x
lqwmqvx xx x
lqwqmqvqx x x x
lqwqmqvqx x x x
lqwqmqvqx x x x
lqwqmqvqx x x x
lqwqmqvqx x x x
lqwqmqvqx x x x
lqwqmqvqx x x x
//
//
//  / /
//  / ///
//  ////
//  //// //
/  //// / /
 // / //
// /  // /
//s/ // 
sssssssssss
/ / //  // /
ss
 / //  //  //
rrrrrrrrrrr
/ /s //  //
qqqqqqqqq
//  //  //
srqqqqqqqqqrs
  //  ///
srrs
//  //// //
rrqqqqrr
/  //// / /
ppppppp
 // / //
rrqqrr
// /  // /
rqppppqr
//s/ // 

rqpppooooooopppqr
/ / //  // /
qppoooooooooooppq
 / //  //  //



sssssssooo       ooo. o f

/ /s //  //.f

ssss  .f

//  //  //       f

ssssrrrrqqqqqrrrrsssss               s

  //  ///.    .      .

sssrrrrqqqqqqqqqrrrrsssf    f  .   f

//  //// /        f .

rrrqqqqpppppppppqqqqrss.    . o f

/  //// / /f   .f

qqqppppooooooooopppqrss   .f       .

s// / // f        f

sssssssssqppoooo         oopqrss.o      .

// /  // /f       f.    .    
  .

ssrrrrrrrrrsqpooo            opqrssf f    f  .   f

//s/ // f  o      o        f .

ssssssrrrrssssss            f     o           o  ..    . o f

s/ //  /   .         o o      ff   .f

srrrrrrqqqqqqqqqqqqqqrrssrqf  o    o     .        .f       .

/ //  /  mqvqqqqqq lqwqqqqqq x x x x .     o      f
[14;55Hf        f

rqqqqqqppppppppppppppq mqvqqqqq lqwqqqqq x x x xf   .o      . o

/s /  mqvqqqq lqwqqqq x x x x    f       f  [14;51
H.    .      .

qppppppoooooooooooooo mqvqqq lqwqqq x x x xf    .f    f  .   f

s /  mqvqq lqwqq x x x x.   o f  o      o f        f 
.

poooooo              mqvq lqwq x x x x  o    o      of     o           o  .
[14;52H.    . o f

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr                mqv lqw x x x xo   
  o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
 mq lq x  x        .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
 m l x x.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
    f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
#3 Cheers!
#4 Cheers! 

  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o

  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o

  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o

  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o

  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o

  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o

  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
#5
#5
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
       /ooooooooooooooo\
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
      /   sss     sss   \
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
      x  (sOs)   (sOs)  x
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
      x        `        x
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
       \  \sssssssss/  /
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
        \             /
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
         \sssssssssss/
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
          ooppqqrrsss
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
          ooppqqrrsss
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
          ooppqqrrsss
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
          ooppqqrrsss
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
          ooppqqrrsss
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
          ooppqqrrsss
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
          ooppqqrrsss  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
M      x        `        x
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
M      x  (sOs)   (sOs)  x
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
M      /   sss     sss   \
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
M       /ooooooooooooooo\
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
M
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
M
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
M
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
M
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
        \             /
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
         \sssssssssss/
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
          ooppqqrrsss
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
          ooppqqrrsss
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
          ooppqqrrsss
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
          ooppqqrrsss
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
          ooppqqrrsssf          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
M      /   sss     sss   \
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
M       /ooooooooooooooo\
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
M
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
M
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
          ooppqqrrsss
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
          ooppqqrrsss
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
          ooppqqrrsss
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
          ooppqqrrsssf          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
M       /ooooooooooooooo\
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
M
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
M
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
M
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
         \sssssssssss/
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
          ooppqqrrsss
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
          ooppqqrrsss
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o

Jin
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
gle
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .  
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f    
Bells,
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o          
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .  
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f    
Jin
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
gle
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o          
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
Bells,
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .  
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f    
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o          
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
Jin
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .  
gle
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f    
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
all
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o          
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .  
the
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f    
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
way,
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o          
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .  
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f    
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
Oh!
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o          
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .  
What
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f    
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
fun
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o          
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .  
it
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
is
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
to
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
ride,
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
On
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
a
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
one-
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
horse
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
op
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
en
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
sleigh.
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff    f

  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff   .f
       .    o o      of  o    o     .        .f       .
.   o  o f  o        .   . .     o      ff        f
f          o      o  f . ff   .o      . o
  .  o    o    .   o   f      f       f  .    .      .
f .    o  .  f o     ff    .f    f  .   f
  f       f  f        .   o f  o      o f        f .
  o    o      of     o           o  ..    . o f
o     o           o  .         o o      ff    f

            o o      of  o    o           
.   o  o    o                            
f          o      o                                


That is against company policy, of course.  Unless that's soda-pop!

:-)

- M

But, then, I understand that the "company policy" is not yet policy. Last
rumor I heard was that the newest draft allows beer and wine at certain
recognition functions. But I have not seen this draft.

    	There is still beer in the slot machines in Valbonne and Munich,
    and in Geneva EHQ beer and wine is available throughout the day
    in the cafeteria. And currently Europe is accounting for about half
    of DEC's revenue. It is just a matter of different cultures.

    Effective March 24, 1986. Memo from Geoff Sackman, Corporate Personnel.
    
    USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES - U.S. ONLY
    --------------------------------------
    
    POLICY
    
    While the Company recognizes the right of its employees to make
    personal choices about the use of alcoholic beverages, it is also
    committed to the health and welfare of its employees, and to
    maintaining an environment that encourages respect for fellow
    employees, customers and others. The Company believes the misuse
    of alcohol in the business context can result in behavior that is
    not in line with these values and policies. It is, therefore, the
    policy of Digital to refrain from practices which support or encourage
    the abuse of alcohol. More specifically, the Company will not give,
    serve, provide or pay for alcoholic beverages except as outlined
    in the Practice Section below.
    
    PRACTICE
    
    Company-Sponsored Employee Functions or Activities
    
    Digital managers will not serve, provide or pay for alcohol at
    Company-sponsored employee functions or activities except as otherwise
    provided for by this policy. Company-sponsored employee function
    or activity is meant to include events like:
    
    o business meetings with employees,
    
    o gatherings which are paid for with Company funds (e.g., Decathlon),
    
    o gatherings where employee attendance is either required, expected,
      or encouraged by management (i.e., post-conference meetings or
      get-togethers which are scheduled by the managers),
      
    o gatherings which are planned, managed or paid for by the Company
      for purposes such as; improving employee relations, rewarding and
      recognizing employee contributions, improving efficiency (e.g.,
      Service Award Banquets, employee outings, picnics or other recreational
      activities, retirement or promotion parties, etc.).
    
    The above list is not intended to be all inclusive.
    
    The serving of wine in conjunction with a Company-sponsored meal
    or banquet is an allowable exception to the provisions above.
    
    Company-Sponsored Customer or Supplier Functions
    
    This policy is not meant to prohibit the purchase or use of alcoholic
    beverages for off-site functions with our customers or suppliers,
    nor is it intended to license or encourage the use of alcohol at
    such functions. In those circumstances where it is traditional and
    appropriate to serve alcoholic beverages to customers and suppliers
    (i.e., Trade Shows, Hospitality Suites, meals with customers, etc.),
    our employees may do so in accordance with the Business Expense
    Policy. Employees who elect to serve or permit the use of alcoholic
    beverages under this section are expected to exercise discretion
    and to take reasonable measures to prevent abuse.
    
    Manager and Employee Responsibilities
    
    Managers who elect to serve or permit the use of alcoholic beverages
    under these circumstances are expected to exercise discretion and
    to take reasonable measures to prevent abuse.
    
    Employees who choose to use alcoholic beverages are expected to
    act reasonably and to comply with the Company's policies and
    expectations regarding employee conduct and behavior at all times.
    See Policy 6.24, Employee Conduct, Policy 6.03 Harassment, etc.
    In addition, the use or possession of alcohol on Company or customer
    property is strictly prohibited.  

Ahhh Gi'day...

    Unlucky, people!!  I  like  the  way  that memo jumps from USE to ABUSE
    without  drawing  breath. Yet another case of the American legal system
    encroaching on the domain of personal freedoms.

		{dennis{{{ -- With a bottla booze on my desk.

    While conceding that consumption of beverages that have been around
    for centuries doesn't in itself constitute abuse, the statement
    of the policy seems to ignore its own preface.
    
    Dennis, I'm not sure what "legal" system you're talking about. 
    The policy doesn't violate any laws that I know of.  Employees who
    disagree with this policy and all the usual methods of attempting
    change, such as the open door policy, shareholder resolutions, and
    ultimately resigning in protest.
    
    Digital isn't democracy.  It's a corporation where employees, officers,
    and directors are agents of the owners, ie shareholders.  The
    association between Digital and its employees may be voluntarily
    terminated at any time by either party.

RE: .28

I think Dennis was referring to the U. S. legal system, under which Digital
can be held financially responsible for accidents caused by drunk employees
leaving a company function where alcohol was served.  I agree with him.

--PSW

Ahh Gi'day...

    RE: .29

    Exactly!! I  really  hold  some  trepidation for the future of personal
    liberty,  not  at the hands of authoritarian government, but at an over
    litigatious  public, spurned on by an ever greedy legal sector.

    Currently, this problem seems worse in the US than elsewhere, but I get
    the  feeling that we (Australia) will probably inherit it as well (just
    look  at  our  Third  Party  Insurance  Damages awards over the last 10
    years).

	       {dennis{{{ -- What happened to SELF-DISCIPLINE?

I'm sorry, but I cannot fathom how we here in the U.S. must abide by such a 
restrictive policy, while our counterparts in other parts of the world get 
served alcoholic beverages in the company cafeteria!

Is it acceptable for Digital employees in Europe to exhibit the "behavior" 
mentioned in the policy or is their tolerance to alcohol greater? I don't buy 
the "cultural differences" line.

I would like to see a bit more consistency in our company policies than this....

jim

    Being a US employee who spent most of last summer in the Geneva
    office, I wanted to respond.  Call is naive, but I was very surprised
    to see beer/wine served in the DEC cafeteria there.  But one thing
    I did notice: is that over there it's NOT a novelty as it would
    be in the US.  Therefore (like almost anything else) people don't
    abuse the privilege/benefit.  They are responsible professionals
    for whom a glass of wine with lunch is as normal as a glass of OJ
    for breakfast for us.  With over 12 weeks in Europe, I never saw
    the privilege abused even once.  (Although like any privilege, I'm
    sure it happens.)
    
    Jon

    I'm not much of a drinker (I do like to have a good brew or two
    now and then, but not often), so I'm not particularly biased in
    this regard. I do think it's rather hypocritical, on one hand, to
    not allow employees to consume alcohol at company-sponsored events,
    while, on the other hand, providing alcohol to customers at other
    company-sponsored events. I see the business relations reasoning
    behind the latter, but I still think the former is hypocritical
    in the face of the latter.
    
    --- jerry

    The difference in policy between the U.S and Digital sites
    where alcohol is available on site might be explained by:

    o	Liability insurance premiums. Court decisions in the U.S.
        have put the responsibility onto the provider of the alcohol,
        rather than the drinker. An example of Digital's caution in
        these matters was DECworld '86 where only outside bartenders
        were allowed to serve alcohol and I think they were given
        instructions to refuse people who had had too much. 

    o	In countries such as France, drinking wine with a meal is
	traditional. In the U.S. some Prohibition attitudes still
	remain. (You cannot purchase alcohol on a Sunday in Mass.)

    Introducing alcohol to sites in the U.S. would not solve any
    problems, so it does not motivate anyone to change the policy.

The all-encompassing nature of the U.S. policy is dictated by the preposterous
court decisions that have been handed down recently regarding third-party
liability in drunk driving claims.

As for alcohol in the workplace, I am against it in general.  Alcohol is a
depressant drug.  People do not think as clearly or work as well under its
influence as when sober.  I do not think alcohol has any place in the
office or factory.

--PSW

Several breweries in Milwaukee have *free* beer for their employees,
in the cafeterias, and in the 'break' rooms.

In *this* state, you need a liquor license to serve alcohol, and in
order to get a liquor license, you must serve food.  Could it be that
some of DEC's cafeterias don't qualify?  :^)

    SOME OF THOSE BREWERIES HAVE SINCE SCRATCHED THE FREE BEER POLICIES,
    AT LEAST ON-SITE.  I THINK THERE'S STILL LIBERAL TAKE-HOME POLICIES,
    WHICH MEANS, OF COURSE, THAT THE JOB GETS DONE, BUT THE EMPLOYEE
    DOESN'T MAKE IT TO WORK THE NEXT DAY.....

    A friend of mine worked at the Natick Carlings brewery before Prime
    bought it.  Kegs of beer were always available for employee use during
    breaks and lunch.
    
    I don't believe the requirement to serve food applies to them, as they
    did not sell bear to the employees.  It was a benefit. 
    
    Phil

    Re: -.1
    
    "did not sell BEAR to the employees"???
    
    Damn well hope not - who wants a grizzlyburger?   :-)
    
    Gavin

    Re: .1 and all others that this may reflect on.
    
    Due to the many deaths latly caused by the abuse of alcohol, people
    are losing sight of who is really responsible. The drunk whom may
    or may not have been a responsible drinker is showing the first
    signs of having a potential problem. If he continues drinking 
    in this manner then he is no longer in charge of the situation
    and the drink controls the person. The person has very little
    choice if he can not recognize his problem.
    
    I personally think that Digital, looking out for its own interests
    due to the increasing preasure from the public against drunk driving,
    are at the same time looking out for the interest of its employee's.
    
    I myself could not for the life of me believe that a good time could
    be had at a social gathering unless I had a drink in my hand. After
    numerous problems with alchol, I was lucky enough to get the help
    I needed and stoped drinking a little over a year ago.
    
    I don't condem anyone that drinks for obvious reasons. I do however
    remember the feeling of unjustified isolition wondering what people
    might think of me if I decided to have a coke instead. I won't get
    into my dark past, but will say that peer preasure is still evident
    after school is long past. I am no longer uncomfortable with obstaining
    while others consume, but you may be in company with people who
    are.
    
    I feel that Digital is providing an atmosphere where people can
    enjoy themselves and realize that enjoyment can be had without
    the influence of alchol. I am no way insinuating that anyone in
    this note other than myself ( and am long past the feelings of 
    embarrasment, and don't expect to be treated differently than
    anyone else) has a drinking problem. I do however think that if
    drinking at company gatherings including anniversaries is that
    important, than one should take a look at his/her patern.
    
    (European's have long been known for thier usage of the spirits
    and take acception its abuse, as I understand it anyway. Not sure
    about the Austrialians though.)
    
    I'm sorry if I unintentialy hurt anyones feelings, but I realize
    how lucky I am today and how unlucky many others may be for years
    to come. For them it could be a living hell!!
    
    dennis " with his two cents worth " 
    

    I agree that because the courts have created an anti-alcohol climate
    lately, Digital is almost obligated to restrict the use of alcohol at
    company-sponsored events.  I disagree with the stand the courts are
    taking, and certainly I'm not thrilled with the new alcohol policy. But
    as a stockholder, I don't want Digital to have to pay out lots of money
    because a drunk employee hurts himself or someone else. 
    
    I do, however, vigorously, VEHEMENTLY defend my right to purchase and
    consume whatever alcohol I choose when not involved in a
    Digital-sponsored function.  Believe it or not, this very thing has
    come up recently.  I won't go into details, but there seems to be some
    question about management's authority to address employees' drinking
    and (legal) behavior at a purely social event, where the Digital
    employees were a minute minority of the total attendees and where
    Digital in no way sponsored or contributed to anything related to the
    event. There I draw the line. 
    
    					(^:	Positive Pat	:^)

Ahh Gi'day...

    It really  is  getting  to  the stage where you sell your soul when you
    start to work for somebody :-)

    It would  be  nice  if Digital promoted an alcohol free environment for
    those  people  that  have  a drinking problem (I sympathise with them).
    However, they would be better off starting off on the smoking question,
    where people are DIRECTLY affected as a result of anothers smoking.

    Drinking in Australia is a way of life, but loss of control is shunned,
    unless  everybody is getting drunk. Aussies have a trait of encouraging
    intake  of  large  quantities  of  alcohol,  but  doing  so without the
    subsequent loss of control is a skill I haven't fully acquired :-)

    But then  again  attitudes  are  changing,  drunken driving (as well as
    being enforced by Random Breath Testing in most states) is now regarded
    as socially unacceptable in most ("intellectually elevated") circles.

	The big problem with alcohol, is that unless you have a chauffeur,
    you can't ALL pile into the car and drive down to the bars (and/or parties)
    for a night on the town without endangering everyone else's lives in the
    process (unless a person is available to act as a "designated driver").

	I don't suppose it used to be as big of a problem in the old days
    before the automobile: then you could get as smashed as you liked (or
    disliked) and rely on your horse(s) to get you home.

	Until we figure out an idiot-proof form of transportation, we will
    always be forced to identify the lowest-common-denominator on the
    highway (the drunk) and, in the process, the rest of us end up losing
    our rights to privacy, etc.

	My wife and I had the unpleasant experience recently of wandering
    right into a gigantic road-block on route 9 (in Westboro, Mass.).  They
    come running up to you with TV-cameras, bright lights, guns, etc.  I
    could of sworn we had accidentally travelled across the Russian border!
	
	If this sort of infringement on human rights is going to be the way
    of the "New Order", then I'm going to be the first to trade-in my Buick
    for a trusty horse (I don't care if I am allergic to the damn things!).

							-DAV0

    re: .41
        Management at times has a habit of over stepping thier bounds.
        However, if there were to be a social gathering and the people
        were not attending in representing Digital, than they (being
        Digital) really have no right in the control of that person 
        or persons behavior. 
        
        The only time a Company should get involved, is when the use
        or abuse becomes directly related to the affairs of the Corp
        including Company sponcered events. The other time is when
        the persons outside behavior begins to effect that persons
        performance on the job. We as Digital Employee's are lucky
        to be working for a company that takes an interest in us.
        In other companies, if an employee is having problems and 
        it is effecting his/her performance they would rather get
        rid of the employee and not be bothered with trying to help
        them solve it.
    
        Here we can say,(in most cases not all) that our management
        will at least extend a helping hand. We are lucky to have
        some of the resources we have at our disposal.
    
        As for as the rat patrols, (concerning the road blocks) it looks
        like that is going to be a standard for sometime to come. I
        feel that other measures should taken and road blocks infringe
        on everyones freedom. I don't believe in drunk related 
        road blocks and think they should be banned. But "we the people
        MADD etc" have been screaming bloody murder to have something
        done and this is a direct result.
           
        We " The good old USA " as a nation, are becoming more and more
        like the people we've fought against rather than preserving
        the freedom we've fought for, for hundreds of years.
    
        Also, individuals should be held responsible for thier own
        actions and no one else. If someone else was allways taking
        the blame for something you did, would that give you any
        kind of motivation to change your way's? Of course not.
    
        dennis

    Why are we making such a big deal over drunk driving?  Your best
    senators and congressman have a history of drunk driving.
    
    - Vikas

     
    
    SHOULD THE COMPANY CONTROL WHAT YOU DO AFTER HOURS? No! Unless it
    affects what you do during working hours. That is if you are capable
    of making it to work. I don't want to have to depend on some drunk
    to fix anything that I may have to use and I darn sure don't want
    some drunk helping me if it is going to be dropping things or otherwise
    disrupting the normal flow of a given operation.
    
    SHOULD THE COMPANY CONTROL WHAT GOES ON AT COMPANY FUNCTIONS? Yes!
    Especially if the company is picking up the tab. Even when the company
    is not picking up the tab but the company name is involved there
    should be some control. I personally think twice about doing business
    with a bunch of drunks or druggies.
    
    In the public domain:
    
    SHOULD THERE BE DRUNK DRIVING ROAD BLOCKS? I think that is going
    just a little bit too far because I don't drink and I would be terribly
    upset to get stopped by one, but I do believe that there must be
    a stricter enforcement of the drunk driving laws. WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.
    
    Thanks to a drunk driver I lost 2 years of work  and came very close
    to losing one of my children. The drunk crossed the divider and
    started going south in the north bound lane of a divided high way
    and hit me head on. 
    
    PERSONAL OPINION:
    
    The key is actually USE vs. ABUSE.  A cold beer on a hot day or
    wine with dinner or a drink with friends is fine but a case of beer
    during a ball game or a gallon of wine with dinner or s fifth of
    scotch at a party is too much.
     
    The only difference between a drunk and an alcoholic is the one
    does not have to attend the meetings. It may only be beer but beer
    is still an alcoholic beverage and you can get just as drunk on
    beer as you can with whiskey and wine. If a person cannot control
    themselves then they should try to get help. If they don't realize
    they have a problem it should be pointed out to them and the help
    offered to them. If they refuse the help, then steps must be taken
    to protect the people around this drunk.

    re: .46--I don't think drunk driving roadblocks are going too far.
    I was only stopped by a roadblock once, and I was not at all upset.
        John Sauter

    I'm just rejoining this conference after a hiatus so pardon me if
    this was already mentioned in an earlier reply which I might've
    overlooked...
    
    I was quite impressed at the "reception" (read party) following
    the closing buffet for DECWORLD volunteers that when the band went
    home and the party closed at 2am or thereabouts, the DECWORLD organizer
    responsible for the event made an announcement that anyone still
    there who wasn't already staying in the hotel should see him for
    a room, because the company did not want late-stayers driving home.
    Yes, it might've been concern over potential liability exposure
    in case of a drunk driver, but it would've been easy to look the
    other way...  I considered it another example of "doing the right
    thing" (and then left, with someone who had *not* been drinking!).

    as for the drunk-driving roadblocks, I consider them a necessary
    if undesirable evil - the hassle they represent is less to me than
    the risk of sharing the road with drunks.  The only time I encountered
    one, on Route 62 in Acton coming east out of Maynard I was concerned
    about the volume of traffic turning down a small side road just
    before the roadblock, after it was visible.  I only hoped that they
    had been smart enough to set up the *real* roadblock down there!

    re:.40
    
    Resist peer pressure! I don't drink (What, never?! No, never. What,
    never?! Well, hardly ever.) and have no qualms about having something
    non-alcoholic at a party or whatever. If someone thinks you're weird
    for not wanting a beer or liquor, that's *their* problem. It's not
    that I have anything *against* alcohol. I just don't understand
    why people feel the need to drink *it* as opposed to anything else.
    
    On roadblocks:
    
    I haven't been stopped by one yet. Since I don't drink, I have
    nothing to fear from one, and do not have any objections. They are
    sufficiently random enough that I don't feel they are an abridgment
    of my personal freedoms.
    
    On a topic not covered here:
    
    *If* (and I mean *if* --- I'm not *that* paranoid) the government
    ever decided that regular drug-testing was desired, I'd scream
    like bloody murder.
    
    --- jerry

    RE: .49
    
    Why?  I mean you don't do drugs so you have nothing to fear about
    (using your own logic), am I right?
    
    - Vikas

        Re: .49
        
        I am upset by road blocks to check for drunk driving -- because
        I have never been stopped by one.  Something needs to be done
        about the death rate caused by drunk drivers, and it doesn't
        seem like much is done. 
        
        Re: .50
        
        Like Jerry, I would be upset at regular drug tests, even though
        the tests would not show anything (if they are accurate). I do
        not find that this belief conflicts with my opinion of drunk
        driving road blocks. 
        
        When a person drives drunk they are endangering other people.
        The ability to drive on public roads is not a right, it is a
        privilege granted by society, and only granted for use when you
        are not drunk.  Society needs to enforce the use of this
        privilege (or change the granting of the privilege, but I would
        not want it changed to allow people to drive drunk). 
        
        Drug test, on the other hand, do not test to see if you are a
        danger to others.  They test to see what you did in the past,
        and they can't tell if you were endangering someone at any time
        in the past.  As has been pointed out in another discussion in
        this conference, drug tests can not even tell if you have
        violated the law because there are places where it is not
        illegal to use marijuana.  They are just an intrusion into a
        person's private life, the tool of a new inquisition.
        
        
        The distinction between drunk driver road blocks and drug tests
        are not as clear cut as portrayed above.  Road blocks can be
        used in discriminatory ways and to intimidate people.  I would
        rather that other solutions could be find to drunk driving.  But
        I do feel that road blocks can be beneficial (if the drunks
        don't just switch to another road before the road block). 
        
        						B.J.

    I don't do drugs either, except for alcohol, but if someone tried
    to impose a mandatory drug test on me I also would scream bloody
    murder, probably to the ACLU.  I am generally a conservative,
    Republican Reagan supporter, but on that one point I disagree
    vehemently, violently, with him.
    
    						Pat

    re:.50
    
    No, I have nothing to fear from drug tests, since I don't use
    drugs. There is, however, a difference between drug tests and
    road blocks. Drug tests suggest to me an attitude that one is
    guilty until proven innocent, which is in opposition to the
    attitude upon which our legal system is based. It's a violation
    of our privacy without probable cause. In essence, a drug test
    is the same as a search of my property without a warrant. A road
    block is not the same. *In theory* (since I haven't been stopped
    by one, I don't know the practice), in a road block, they do not
    search the car or issue a breathalyzer test or whatever --- just
    a cursory glance to see if there are any beer cans in the back
    footwells, or if the driver's voice sounds slurred or he has
    (to coin a term) "alcoholitosis".
    
    --- jerry

    re: .53--My one experience with a roadblock was exactly as described--a
    quick glance at me and at the easily-visible contents of the car.
    I didn't even come to a full stop.  I am not sure if they were looking
    for drunk drivers or for a fugitive.
        John Sauter

    I should move to Mass.  The drunk-driver roadblocks in NJ check
    your papers (license, regist., insurance), and hand you a bunch of
    fliers on how much is legal, and the penalties.
    
    	...diane

    re .49/.50/.53 about drug testing...
    
.50>    I mean you don't do drugs so you have nothing to fear about
.50>    (using your own logic), am I right?
    
    something that is not usually mentioned in the context of drug testing
    is a phenomenon known as "false positives" - means that the test shows
    positive even if there has been no drug use.  As I understand, there
    *is* some possibility of false positives in almost any biological test,
    the specifics depend on the particular test (for AIDS, I believe that
    both false positive and false negative rates are rumored to run as high
    as a couple of percent).  I'm not sure about specific examples although
    I think I recall that quinine (contained in tonic water) can cause
    a false positive on some urine drug tests - so that Gin-and-Tonic
    the company won't let you consume might save you from Ronnie's
    variation on the post-1984 world :-|
    
    good thing that breathalysers are pretty reliable, although I have
    heard of diabetics suffering diabetic shock being apprehended as
    drunks... (seems there is a breath odor that is similar, and
    disorientation etc. produced)

    re -1
    
    > good thing that breathalysers are pretty reliable, although I have
    > heard of diabetics suffering diabetic shock being apprehended as
    > drunks... (seems there is a breath odor that is similar, and
    > disorientation etc. produced)                                         
      
    It isn't similar breath odor, it's alcohol.  The way I heard it
    (not being a diabetic), one of the symptoms of diabetic shock is
    the fermentation of sugar into alcohol.  This is picked up by the
    Breathalyser.  
    
    					andrew

    re .56
    
    ...and then you have also heard of the false positives in drug
    testings which were the result of having recently ingested some
    poppy seed cake/muffins??  I will try and track down the article,
    but it was mentioned on the local CBS radio earlier this week..
    
    so much for a sweet tooth only damaging the waist!
    
    ih

re .55:

    Diane, they don't always ask for license, registration, etc. in NJ.

    I was stopped at a DWI roadblock in New Jersey (Route 31 between Ewing
    and Pennington, down near Trenton) and was NOT asked for any
    papers.  I stopped, the officer asked me through my open window,
    "Is everything all right, sir?"  I answered, "Yup."  He handed me the
    leaflet and I said thank you.  He told me to go ahead.

    I guess he got a glimpse of the interior of my car, but I don't think
    he even had a flashlight.

    Must've been because it was a DECmobile :-)


Bob Leigh

Ahh Gi'day...

    In most Australian states the random breath tests are that, random (not
    a total road block) and you are always tested, no matter what the smell
    or  the time of the morning. You are also tested after any infringement
    or accident (or should be).

	I cannot believe what I have been reading here !   Are you all so
	willing to give up your rights under the Constitution for the sake
	of getting a few Drunks off the road ?   

	I am in favor of getting Drunks off the road also but NOT thru the
	use of un-constitutional road blocks !  

	Constitutionally,  you can not be detained or apprehended unless 
	there is PROBABLE CAUSE !   Being stopped by a police officer IS
	being detained. 

	Constitutionally,  you have a right to travel freely.  Driving a car
	is NOT a societal priviledge it is a Constitutional right.

	Besides there is too much power granted to Police as it is, this is
	NOT the USSR !  

	Chuck

    Driving a car is not a Constitutional right; driving a car is not
    a right at all.  I believe this point has been covered elsewhere.
    
    For the record, I personally feel the added protection is worth
    the minor inconvenience.  It's pretty scary watching a drunk approach
    you at 100+ MPH at night weaving across lanes or, worse yet, watching
    one close in on you at 120-150 MPH as he drives the wrong way on
    the interstate.  I'll gladly trade a few minutes for the rest of
    my life.

Shouldn't we discuss the non-DEC-related aspects of this in FORUM or SOAPBOX?

/john

    Agreed.  Does anyone remember where this was discussed before?