Conference 7.286::digital

    
    Vindicative? The author of this posting was not so?
    
    I find my working conditions here at DEC to be the finest I have
    experienced anywhere. If someone has a problem with local management,
    the place to air it is in personnel or further up the management
    chain, not on the world-wide net.
    
    An anonymous posting takes no guts at all.
    

    I found this in the USENET today also, extracted it, and sent it
    to a colleague who worked on Venus at MRO.  He thought that it was
    an expression of exasperation with a desparate situation at MRO.
    
    Apparently the amount of work remaining there, at least in respect
    to the 8600 line, is getting leaner and leaner, with no prospect
    for future projects.
    
    I disagree with .1 though, if there is a vindictive supervisor there,
    then I can understand the author's desire for anonymity.  Saying
    that he/she had no guts is just an emotional reaction.  If your
    job were on the line, then "coming out" would be a precarious exercise
    at best.
    
    Yeh, before I came to DEC I worked as a contractor, working at several
    companies, thus I got a pretty good outlook on the industry as a
    whole.  In comparison with other companies, DEC measures up very
    well in terms of the working atmosphere.  But this doesn't guarantee
    that every supervisor in the company is a perfect altruist.  They
    are still individuals, and as we are all aware, individuals bring
    their own "set of baggage" with them.
    
    My only complaint with the writer was why he/she had to take it
    outside the company, this notesfile could have possibly been the
    better forum.
    
    David Cherson

.2>    My only complaint with the writer was why he/she had to take it
.2>    outside the company, this notesfile could have possibly been the
.2>    better forum.

	You are right about that! That's what this person did that was
	really wrong. I would be hard pressed to blame 'management' if
	they tracked this person done and fired them. Done with in the
	context of this file or a talk with personnel this note may
	actually be justified but deliberately hurting DEC in a public
	forum is not excusable for a DEC employee.

	The message sent to the USENET was done to hurt DEC (which
	means you and me and everyone else who works here).

	It is also potentially libelous. If the work in 8650 land is
	winding down then there may very well have been sound business
	reasons for closing contractors contracts. It's hard to believe
	a supervisor would (or could) get rid of people he/she needs
	just to spite their boss. Also the slam against the quality of
	the 8650 in particular and DEC product in general is a low blow
	if true and libelous if not.

			Alfred

    
    	I have been made of this note which orignated from my system.
    I have no idea as to why this person knew this account password
    since this person has no businees on my system. The person has
    been tracked done to a contractor who was fired or let go.
    
    	I have changed the password due to this person being a 
    production person and having no business to this account.
    
    	I understand this note and my complaint is that he sent this
    note off AFTER he was let go. Apparently he has a modem at home.
    
    							My applologies.
    
    							Al butler
    							system mgr.
    

    I had been a contractor for MANY years (by choice) before being
    taken in by the DEC `mystique`.
    
    In my year and a half here I have seen as much if not more management
    by intimidation than anywhere else.
    
    My replies to other notes have caused strong responses,but I calls
    them like I sees them.
    					Jack Previdi
                                        WOO/D80
    					

    RE: .4
    
    I'd like to see your explanation posted to net.jobs, Al.
    
    =ss

    
    	RE:-1
    
    	Have you ever been a system manager? When your full time job
    is something else? Your response is knee jerk. Have you never made
    a mistake?
    
    
    	If I have misinterpreted, my apologies are here in advance!
    
    	Cool Out!
    	-John

    RE:-1
         
    Yup, you're way off base.  I'm not faulting Al, just thought it
    would be nice to tell the Usenet community the whole story about
    this fellow.  The computer access goof up doesn't feel that important
    to me.
         
    =ss

    re -the last couple
    
    yes, I am a system manager (actually, 1/2 of a cluster manager)
    who has a "real job" totally unrelated to such activities...
    
    I think that it would be appropriate for Al to post USENET explaining
    that the original author had been identified as a *former* contractor
    who had used unauthorized access to one of our systems in order
    to post the slanderous material in .0 - and pointing out that
    disgruntled former employees (or contractors) are not reliable sources.
    Since Al does work in the area, his contradiction might carry some
    weight in correcting the misleading impression.  He might also consider
    getting some number of employees in the area to co-sign, if that
    might help the credibility.  I wouldn't see it as necessary or
    appropriate to offer any details about the system access used for
    the original posting, in fact I think any mention of that should
    be carefully considered for security implications.
    
    And from Al's posting in this discussion, I'd say we need some concern
    about our net security.  Has Corporate Security been involved in
    that situation?  If not, they should be....
    

I think Al would have to be smack out of his mind to jeopardize his
job by unilaterally trying to correct this situation with a follow-up
Usenet posting, instead of following written policy and letting the
P.R. department do the right thing (which would probably be to make no
attempt to issue any statement whatsoever).  To get a lot of colleagues in
trouble by collecting supporting signatures is even worse.  (And that
supposes that the situation is not as the author of the anonymous letter
alleges, which Al wisely did not address in .4).

Re .9:

"Slander is Spoken".  I think you meant to use the word "libelous",
though you would be better off not using any such words at all.
				/AHM

    	Has there been any answer to this on the USENET yet? I'm
    uncomfortable with completely ignoring it, but I don't really
    understand the legal implications. Still, psychological impressions
    on a large number of customers seem awfully important. If I were
    them, I would EXPECT Digital, at least in some more-or-less official
    way, to tell me what I want to believe, that the actual situation
    hardly resembles what was described, that 8650's work just fine,
    thank you, and that the 'anonymous' employee is, in fact, not an
    employee at all.
    
    	Ed

	You mean TALK to the outside world?  You must be crazy!  This
    is DEC:  we don't advertise, we don't relate to the press, we don't
    talk to anyone about anything before clearing it with public relations.
    In short: we don't exist (at least to a large segment of society who
    can certainly tell you who IBM, HP, Data General, are by there T.V.
    ads alone).

						-DAV0

    p.s.   This is probably better suited in the maketing notes file,
	but how about using a Buster Keaton look-alike as an answer to
	IBM's Charlie Chaplin look-alike.  After all, Buster was alot
	funnier than Charlie in many ways, and his character always
	portrayed the hard-working honest man, as opposed to Chaplin's
	happy-go-lucky cheat-em-and-run attitude.  I feel myself slipping
	into one of my college term papers on Buster Keaton - better
	go to bed.

Usenet tends to be, how should I say it, a hotbed of nonsense.
The best thing to do with something like this is to ignore it --
the readers will have forgotten it in a week or two.

Martin.

    Two issues: 1, is the contractor's description of the work environment
    accurate?  2, did the contractor do something wrong by using someones
    account after his contract was terminated, etc. etc?
    
    I don't know the definition of libel, but I think that everyone is
    entitled to his opinion.  Ed, how do you know that the contractor's
    description of the 8650 work environment is incorrect?  Hmmmmm??
    Consider that it took a considerable amount of thought to post that
    message.  Where there is smoke, there is usually at least a little
    fire. 
    
    Issue 2 is easy.  The contractor was wrong to use the account.
    
    A bunch of people posting something to usenet would be dumb.  "Me doth
    think you protest too much" would be my first reaction as a reader.