Conference 7.286::digital

    For some positions within DIGITAL, physical appearance may indeed
    be a contributor to the ability to do the job properly.  In Sales,
    for example, you sell yourself first, the company second, and the
    solution third...  the person with a nice appearance has an edge.
    
    For most positions, however, appearance should not be a consideration.
    I'm curious whether the reference was applicants for all positions
    or certain positions.
    
    grins,
    Marge
    

    Tread Carefully here:
    
    Some people don't like blacks, women, handicapped, etc.
    Digital hiring managers, our customers etc.
    
    If one's obesity constituted a handicap, then, at least to me it
    seems illegal discrimination to me.
    
    If one were careless about their appearance: hair uncombed, clothes
    not pressed, etc. then that would show poor judgement on their part.
    
    Weight in itself is not job related, at least in the jobs that I'm
    familiar with. 

>   If one's obesity constituted a handicap, then, at least to me it
>   seems illegal discrimination to me.

Remember that Germany may not have the same laws that we have in the U.S.
And even if illegal, German society is also not as litigious.  Though it
may be illegal, I know of at least one case (not at DEC) where a single
woman applying for a job in Munich was asked if she was sexually active
and if she was taking birth control measures.

/john

Another quotation by chairman H.W. (the same issue of the same magazine):

"I'm not sure whether an employee can really get old with dignity in
Digital. One cannot work here for 20 years without physical and mental damage."

    

    re: .4--The person who occupies the office next to mine has a 3-digit
    badge number, which means she's been here longer than 20 years.
    Although she may be damaged, it certainly isn't evident to her
    co-workers.
    
    I wonder what K.O. would think of the chairman's remark.  He has also
    been here longer than 20 years.
    
    This guy sounds like a bigot.  I'm glad I don't work for him.
        John Sauter

From material distributed in the Central Engineering Development
Program's Basic Interviewing Skills Workshop:

"
Laws and regulations affecting employment policies and decisions.

. . .  The following is a partial overview of the framework of laws,
regulations, and enforcement agencies which govern staffing policies and
decisions of an employer, in effect at the time of publication of
this text. [The publication date is unknown to me].
. . .
EEO/AA Lawful and Unlawful Inquiries

Subject		Lawful Inquiries	Unlawful
. . .
23. Height	[None listed]		a.  Any inquiry into height
and Weight				    or weight of applicant
					    unless based upon
					    valid job-related
					    reasons.
"

Note that since this information is based on U.S. laws, it may not apply to
Digital within Germany.  However, readers involved in the interview and
hiring process would be ill-advised to follow Herman Wagner's lead without
talking to someone knowledgeable in EEO issues in Personnel.
				/AHM

re: .6 - can you publish the article from which that was taken
or tell us how to get a copy - I do a lot of interviewing and it 
sounds useful./j

Re .7:

That section is 8 pages long, so I don't have the time to type it in to
this conference.

I'll send a copy to you in the mail.
				/AHM

    
    
    Hmmmm...I can't help wondering if Herr Wagner would rather prefer
    applicants to be so called "Aryans" too.
    
    Disgusting business!
    Bo

What will happen if i meet a customer who isn't slim? 

Will my body translate the "negative" statements in a sensible bodylanguage ???

What are "not slim" customers thinking now?

	....Ludwig

    A couple of clarifications from Munich:
    
    - it is not a joke, and H.W. is the personnel manager of DEC Germany
      (close to 3000 employees currently)
    
    - my dictionary translates 'Betriesrat' to 'works committee'.
      In Germany, it is a legally mandatory committee (size depending
      on # of employees, 15 for DEC Germany) that is elected by the employees.

    According to the magazine (which is internal use only) the text
    is from a book called 'Die Kunst fit und nicht fett zu sein'
    ('The art of being fit and not fat') by S. Fahrenkamp, published by 
    Goldmann-Verlag.

    

    I've no doubt that it is genuine.  I used to work for DEC in Germany
    and Wagner was the Personnel Manager then.  
    
    
    	/Dermot

    re .7: YES YES YES
    I just wonder if that sort of stupid crap has been noticed elswhere
    yet in DEC-world !
    
    Fred_who_dislikes_sports_and_will_be_mentally/physically_insane_by_1990
    

As an American working in Munich, I would like to say a few things.  First,
this is no joke.  This is very much how personnel thinks here at DEC.  This is
not the only policy that would shock most Americans.  But remember, this is
not the United States.  German law and German social values are different.
Very different from ours.  This applies to many aspects of German society
such as housing...they have no equal opportunity laws here like in the U.S.

This policy sucks.  That's all there is to it.  However, I would be very
surprised if it changed...I know of many other problems with German personnel
that have been taken to Corporate Personnel with no results.  Basically,
German law shelters many of these problems.  However, to compare this to
Hitler and Nazism is too extreme;  Every German I know here felt this
was a stupid comment and do not like the policy.  Remember, there are more
Americans who are Nazis (or who support that type of philosophy) now than
Germans...it's wrong to compare the bigoted comments of one man to a whole
people.

You can flame in this note all you want...in the end this is a different
country with different laws and different social ideas.  I must admit, I am
embarrassed to work for a company that has this as a stated policy.

Kent Anderson
European CIM Center
Munich, West Germany

        Re:< Note 233.15 by ECCGY4::ANDERSON >

                I hope  this  isn't  a  joke.   I just forwarded the note
        sequence to John  Sims  (VP Personnel) and Carol Burke (Corporate
        Personnel Manager).
        
        Anker

	Would comparisons to Nazism have come up here if it weren't a
	German manager?
	
	Mike

    I have started a parallel discussion on this in SOAPBOX (topic 419),
    because I think it deserves a wider audience (and Soapbox is there
    for flaming too :-)  ).
    

    When TV programmes (at least those on French and UK TV) want to
    show a successful German businessman, they invariably show a very
    corpulent person in their fifties. What would Mr Wagner make of
    that. :-)
    
    Gavin

	Talk about matters of personal conviction appearing on DEC computers,
	this one's a real land mine.  I shutter to think of the field day
	someone could have with it in an EEO case where `a senior manager
	in DIGITAL' is quoted so blatantly violating the law.  Maybe just
	posting it here (in the USA) is illegal.

	I am torn between thinking the interview text be deleted (hidden)
	to limit its dissemination to people that might actually try to
	implement it and hoping this topic remains open so we can all
	condemn the words and bring it to more reasonable people in senior
	management.

	What do you others think?

		Bob L.

>... We would rather leave a position vacant for six months and wait until both
>technical competence and the personal 'match' come along.  By personal 'match'
>I mean both the physiognomy, that is, the bodily appearance, and the character.

I found this statement very suprising, coming from a contempory German.

Irregardless of whether this discrimination is lawful in Germany, it should
also be judged against the Digital Corporate policy which, I believe,
does not condone this attitude.

Even the premise seems false -- I know of at least one 300 pound
beer-bellied individual who runs the Boston Marathon (in around 4 hours).

Martin.

    Is it related to the word 'obelisk' (though obelisks have always
    looked sort of skinny to me)?  Is it somehow related to 'obese'?

     
     I share Mike Ryan's concern about the continuing references to Nazism;
     they're inappropriate, inflammatory, and can only serve to divert
     attention from the issue at hand. 
     
     Cultural differences can create some major misunderstandings -- that
     which sounds perfectly normal in one culture can sound twisted and
     bizarre from the perspective of another culture.  For example, some
     recent statements by Japanese P.M. Nakasone were perfectly reasonable
     for a Japanese audience, but an outrage to many Americans.
     
     There are a couple of questions here.  First, is Wagner's statement
     reasonable from a German perspective?  Second, how should DEC
     determine policy when local customs conflict with corporate policies?
     
     --Don 

    RE: .5
    
    Not only has K.O. been with DEC more than 20 years, he is also not
    noticebly svelte either.
    
    Elliott_who_could_be_svelter

Two comments:

1. Obelix is a character in one version of "Asterix the Gaul"; I've read 'em
in English, French and German, and I'm afraid I can't remember which version
had which name! He is a very large, very fat, very strong (and not very
bright) individual.

2. I must protest VERY STRONGLY about the continued analogies between the 
current German government and either the Nazis or the RSA. Such comments
add nothing to this discussion save to demonstrate the ignorance and pre-
judice of those making such remarks.  If you want to be ignorant and
prejudiced, then go ramble in the Soapbox (wherever it is these days).

My Opinion:

 This policy (if it is indeed real, and not a "spoof" of some kind) is a
little unusual, and might not stand up under German law if someone chose
to fight it. But to question its legality under AMERICAN law is at best 
moot (in the legal sense). American law does not apply anywhere except in 
America. American law does not represent some axiomatic "univeral set of
laws" for the world, and people who make such assumptions show a very poor
understanding of the diversity of societies and nationalities in the world.
(The British tried a similar set of "universal laws" back in the days of the
Empire, and that didn't work either!!!).
 PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND that people of many nationalities read these notes-
files; and EVERY country has its own set of laws, which this policy may or
may not break. 

		Nigel

    To bring the issue of bias to an American context:
    
    Have you people never spoken to an employment agency?  Have you never
    been on a job interview?  Do you think that there is no conscious
    or unconscious bias against (in no particular order)
    
    	Overweight people
    	Short people
    	Old people
    	Women
    	Minorities
    	Sloppily dressed people
    
    in hiring practices?  Come on now!
    
    No one says it's right.  Some of it is explicitly illegal.  
    But it happens all the time in the US.
    
    REFERENCE:
    
    Hiring prejudice against minorities, women, and the aged is illegal.
    Hiring prejudice against short people is described in "The Height
    of Your Life," by Ralph Keyes (Boston:  Little, Brown and Company,
    1980).  The liner notes point out: "One study of men's annual salaries
    found an apparent $500-per-inch height bonus in the range between
    5'6" and 6'3".")  I found the book hilarious, and right on target.
    
                                   

        Re:< Note 233.27 by DEREP::JONG "Steve Jong/NaC Pubs" >

                Asterix And  Obelix  are  cartoon characters developed by
        Goschinny (or something  like  that).    They  live  in  the only
        village that hasn't been  occupoied by the Romans due to a potion
        that  their  Druid  cooks  up  that  gives  you  incredible,  but
        temporary strength.  Obelix fell into  the cauldron as a baby and
        doesn't need to replenish his strength.   I  have all the Asterix
        stories (most in Danish, one in French and  one  English).   They
        are great fun.
        
                As  I  mentioned  earlier  I have referred the matter  to
        Corporate Personnel (minus the more strongly worded opinions)
        
        Anker

    
    
    
    	Garbage is garbage whether it's German or American.
    
    
    	C.

        A couple of observations:
        
        1) Having been called both a Fascist and a Nazi for my
        involvement in active moderating of notes files, I can say that
        accusations of Naziism are definitely *not* reserved for Germans
        in our net. This kind of over-blown rhetoric is thrown around
        with fair abandon.
        
        2) I have been told on a number of times that my waist-length
        hair is a liability when interviewing. Is that discrimination?
        How different from being fat is it? It happens here in the US
        today. 

I think many of us missed the following note from Ora:

>    According to the magazine (which is internal use only) the text
>    is from a book called 'Die Kunst fit und nicht fett zu sein'
>    ('The art of being fit and not fat') by S. Fahrenkamp, published by 
>    Goldmann-Verlag.

This interview originally appeared in this book?!?!!!  The worry expressed
elsewhere in this note about Digital's reputation should this "leak" to the
press appears to be moot.

So what is the general attitude (outside DEC) in Germany about this book?
What other companies' personnel managers are interviewed?

/john

     I also forwarded a copy of this  Note to someone in Corp.  Personnel
     earlier this week.  Yesterday evening I received  a  reply, thanking
     me  for  the  info  and  word that the issue  would  be  dealt  with
     appropriately.
     
     Regardless of local customs or  laws, the opinions expressed in this
     interview is at odds with Digital's CORPORATE Philosophy.  It was on
     this basis that I forwarded this Note to Corp. Personnel.
     
     Time will tell!

The following information comes from the weighty tome "Employment
Discrimination Law" by Schlei and Grossman.  However:

1.  It was copyrighted in 1976, and the book explicitly states, "No effort
has been made to include all cases decided subsequent to July 1, 1976".
Indeed, I got the book at a library sale where the price was "$1.00 per
shopping bag full of books". So the age and discarded state of the book
imply that any or all of the following information could have been
overturned or repealed in the following decade.

2.  The book concentrates on Federal Law.  State or local statutes could
easily modify any or all of the following information.  And I have no
idea what the laws of other countries have to say about these issues.

3.  I am not a lawyer, and this is not intended to constitute legal advice.
If someone reading this wishes to use the following information, I urge
them to seek competent legal aid, rather than relying on it.

Re .30:

>        2) I have been told on a number of times that my waist-length
>        hair is a liability when interviewing. Is that discrimination?

It very well might not be discrimination as far as the law is concerned.

"
The vast majority of cases decided in the sex-plus[1] area have involved
appearance requirements for men.  After a period of indecision on the
part of the lower courts, the appellate courts have concluded that different
appearance standards for male and female employees, particularly those
involving hair length for men, do not constitute sex discrimination
under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964].

The hair cases are important because they find that disparate treatment
of a subclass of a protected class [of people of a particular race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin] may under certain circumstances not
be violative of Title VII, and, therefore, these cases must be closely
examined to determine where and how one may draw the line separating
permissible from proscribed disparate treatment of a subclass.
"

[1] Definition of "sex-plus" cases:

"
At times an employer does not discriminate against a protected class
as a whole, but rather disparately treats a subclass within a protected
class.  Disparate treatment of a male or female subclass has come to
be denominated "sex plus."  An example is Phillips v. Martin Marietta.
Although the employer hired 75 to 80 percent women in the position for
which the plaintiff applied, it refused to consider women with
pre-school-age children while considering and hiring men with
pre-school-age children.  Thus, a sex-plus problem arises whenever an
employer adds a criterion or factor for one sex which is not added for
the other sex.

There are two overriding legal issues with respect to "sex-plus":

(1) whether, under any circumstances, if an employer did not discriminate
against all males or females, but only against those males or females
who had the additional factor, sex discrimination in violation of Title
VII could be found; and

(2) what types of additional factors imposed upon one sex would be found
to constitute sex discrimination within Title VII.

Phillips answered the first question, holding that disparate treatment
with respect to a subclass of one sex can be sex discrimination within
the meaning of Title VII.  With respect to the second question, which
factors in addition to sex will be held to constitute sex discrimination,
the courts have generally held that only those factors which fall within
the following three categories will lead to a finding of sex
discrimination: (1) "Immutable" characteristics; (2) characteristics
which while mutable involve fundamental rights such as the right to
have children or to marry; and (3) characteristics which although mutable
significantly affect the employment opportunities afforded one sex in
relation to the other.
"

Note however that while finding fault with long hair may not be sex
discrimination, that is not the only way to analyze the situation:

"
Since section 701(j) [of Title VII] defined religious beliefs to include
observances and practices, religious beliefs which dictate specific
dress or grooming practices might be protected under the reasonable
accommodation theory. (*)

(*) See EEOC v. Rollins, Inc., 8 FEP 492, 497 (N.D. Ga. 1974) [court
relied on subsequently reversed Willingham panel decision to find that
female Black Muslim religious practice of wearing ankle-length skirts
may be protected practice under Title VII.] . . .
"

So the above seems to me to imply that a person who subscribes to the
beliefs of a religion which mandates or encourages males to wear their hair
longer, might be protected by Title VII.


>       How different from being fat is it?

Well, here is something which seems relevant from the same book:

"
Minimum height and weight requirements have been found to impact
disparately on Hispanics and Asians as well as on women.  Such limitations,
therefore, may be illegal under Title VII in the absence of business
necessity.
"

It seems that the weight requirements in question were that job applicants
had to weigh *at least* a certain amount.  It is conceivable that one could
successfully argue that rejecting applicants which were *over* a certain
weight for reasons not provably job-related would discriminate against
Whites, Blacks and males.  However, I could find no examples in the book
which relate to this angle, and I'm not a lawyer.


BTW, Jim, I do not mean to criticize you or your appearance by this
posting.  I merely thought it might be enlightening for the readers in
this conference to see the law has had to say on this issue in the past.
I am certain that I would have posted this answer if you had phrased
your note in a hypothetical manner, rather than using yourself as an
example, or if a bald person had written the note instead.

Neither do I mean by this posting to endorse acts or attitudes which are
intolerant, yet might be debatably legal in some places.  I've often
wondered at the similarity between Digital's "Valuing Differences"
philosophy and the "IDIC" belief attributed in Star Trek to Vulcans which
states that "the greatest joy in all creation is in the infinite ways that
infinitely diverse things can join together to create meaning and beauty."
				/AHM/THX

        Alan (may I call you Alan?),
        
        I wouldn't think of taking your note as either criticism of me
        or support of such criticism. (Let's face it, you don't wear
        waist-length hair in this culture, even today, unless you are
        either used to or looking for criticism.) I mentioned the issue
        of long hair and the fact that it *had* affected me because I
        wanted to show that bias based on physical appearence is not
        uniquely German nor applied solely to the obese. It is something
        we all have the oportunity to experience.
        
        I don't mean to condone intolerant behavior or statements, but I
        do want to make sure that we don't just adopt another form of
        intolerence in our zeal to speak out against the example at
        hand. Several peopel acted as if intolerance were uniquely
        German or European or "anybody but us enlightened types". 
        
        Both of my examples, the fact that the overzealous are willing
        to label anything that smacks of being even a little freedom
        inhibiting as "Fascist" and "Nazi" regardless of the national
        origins of the offender was meant to indicate that those of
        German heritage needn't feel singled out. My mention of the long
        hair was by way of an example with which I have first hand
        knowledge of similar kinds of prejudice, right here in River
        City, and intended to indicate to the over-zealous that they
        might pause just a tad before flinging the old first stone. 
        
        JimB.

    A few comments from the scene of events:
    
    - As John pointed out, the interview appeared in a (paperback) book,
      so this information is available to anyone (at least in Germany;
      though I've been told the selection of German books available
      in US is usually small, theoretically and potentially the text
      might be available over there too). I don't have the book (yet)
      so I cannot comment on its contents otherwise.
    
    - I'm not an expert in German laws (neither in US laws) but I have
      the impression that they are not as strict regarding various arts
      of discrimination, especially outside working life. At least they
      don't seem to be enforced in such a strict manner. Referring to
      US laws is somewhat besides the point though; Digital in Germany
      operates according to German laws. But obviously, there's nothing
      that prevents Digital from setting *higher* standards than required
      by the German laws; so referrences to corporate policies (if any
      exist on this very subject) seem relevant,

    I thought this would be needless to say but I might be mistaken:
    The interview is *the* talk of the day at DEC here; most people
    I've been talking to are shocked and the general feeling is similar
    to the replies here, though possibly express with other words.
    

Let's not let Mr. Wagner off the hook here.  Comments aimed in a
general direction at any group (incl. the Soapbox) are not
appropriate; however comments on Mr. Wagner's audacity should be
loud and forceful. His comments are at the very least insulting
to a significant number of Digital employees.  The posting of 
these comments in an international forum such as this notesfile, 
is to be welcomed in that it gives Digital employees worldwide 
the opportunity to express solidarity with their colleagues in 
West Germany.  The international echo to his remarks should give 
Mr. Wagner something about.

			/Dermot

.35> But obviously, there's nothing
.35> that prevents Digital from setting *higher* standards than required
.35> by the German laws; so referrences to corporate policies (if any
.35> exist on this very subject) seem relevant,

	This is so true.  The issue has nothing to do with the laws of
    any one country -- it has to do with "doing what's right".  And
    what Herr Wagner advocates is, in my opinion, *not* right.  One
    of the Corporate Philosophies which comes to mind is "Valuing
    Differences."

Frank

    Being that I weigh in at over 300 pounds might bias me on this issue,
    however I find Mr. Wagner's comments to be insulting to everybody.
    
    One should not have to conform to a pre-defined image to get a job.
    
    If a person comes to an interview with his hair a mess, shirt tails
    out, in general a mess, you know that person does not hold grooming
    to be very important.
    
    If you are hiring an engineer to hack far away from customers, this
    should not matter (Einstein was not known for being neat).
    
    If you are hiring a person for sales, SWS, etc... Then you know
    that they will not work out in a position of customer contact, and
    should possibly be told so.
    
    Weight has nothing to do with it! I wear neatly pressed suits, ties,
    shirts and keep a good appearance because I deal with customers on
    a day to day basis. The fact that I am "FAT" only means that consume
    more space, it has nothing to do with my attitude, or my ability
    to do the job.   
    
    I do however accept the fact that I cannot take a job where my size
    would be a PHYSICAL problem. Such as fitting behind the wheel of
    a DC-10, tight-rope walking :-), etc...
    
    							--- Neal

    I find myself brushing the dust off things I studied so long ago...
    
    Back when I studied law, I seem to recall that the issue of weight
    came up, and that _maximum_ weight limits (as opposed to _minimum_
    weight limits) could be imposed, even if they were not directly
    relevant to a job requirement, since there isn't much corelation
    to being overweight and being a member of a protected class.  So
    unless there has been some major change in the law of late Wagner's
    policy would be legal even in the US.
    
    Stupid, but legal.
    
    john

    
    RE: .36
    
    I agree that this should not rest, however, as I stated in .15,
    it would suprise me if anything more than a few tempers were raised
    over this.  German law not only protects this but it is next to
    impossible to fire an employee in Germany.  To do so is a very lengthy
    issue and usually requires more than one "violation".
    
    However, I would suggest that people not complain within notesfiles
    but directly to corporate personnel...it might help add a little
    more heat...
    
    (I would love to have corporate personnel prove me wrong on the
    above statement...)
    
    kent
    

    	Yup, this is probably but a minor glitch.  And the glitch of
    course being one organization finding out something (they think)
    strange in another organization!
    
    	Remember Chappaquiddick???  And, he was re-elected.  It's all
    relative!  Have a nice time...when in Roma...partake...and all that.
    
    	Contrary to popular opinion (desire) things are not the same
    throughout the world as they are deep in the Assabet Valley!!
    
    KMP

        
        RE: .40
        
        As H.W. is a special kind of employee, named 'leitender
        Angestellter' he is not protected by the 'works committee'
        and therefore can be fired without any difficulties, if 
        top-management decides to do so.
        
        Claudia
        
        

    
    	One shouldn't wave off mr. Wagner's statements as a local German
    	folklore, the fact ( proven by many visits to Loewbrauhouse
    	and Hoffbrauhaus in Munich) is that many German gentelmen are
    	extremly well fed and happy. Mr W. is probably in minority in
    	his own country. I would really like to see him preach his ideas
    	at Hoffbrauhouse on a Saturday evening !!! .-)))

    	What's more serious, his ideas , if widely known , could be
    	damaging to DECs  bussines in Germany.Would you like to talk
    	to customer , a king size one, knowing that he thinks we find
    	his physical appearence "outside norm" and him as"not in control
    	of himself " ? Selling is based on confidence between the parties,
    	isn't it ?
    
    	Would you like to be interviewed or dependent on mr. W.'s other,
    	less obviously grotesque ideas ?
    	
    	Would be nice if he tried to get a next job in a company thinking
    	that fat guys radiate confidence and meet countrie's standards,
    	besides only 'greens' and 'ecolos' jogg all the time !
    
    
    				have a nice holidays,
    
    							wlodek
    	
    	

    The issue of weight as an indicator of "being in control" is an
    interesting one, regardless of whether you think weight or "image"
    should be a criterion for hiring. 
    
    I weigh in at 250 lb at 6'1", about 70 lb over, or so the coin-op scale
    at the mall tells me, so I'm not claiming any virtue here. However, I
    do notice that I write my best code and do my best design during the
    times when I am being careful of the other aspects of my life, like
    watching my weight, sticking to a schedule, limiting my noting, etc.
    Have others noticed the same correlation?  
        
    Yet I know of a number of people who are somewhat larger than I who
    seem more "in control" of things.  Is the fellow simply extrapolating
    a relative observation he's discovered in his own life into a general
    rule about people?  (BTW, how much does the man weigh? :-)) 

    					I will get to lunch...really!
    
    					    Ralph

    RE: .40
    
    Instead of firing him, have him moved into a position popular in DEC
    called "Special Projects".
    
    I'm 5' tall and up until 8 yrs ago weighted 260lbs. 
    
    marie  

    This whole incident raises another question for me.
    
    How many people at DEC fully agree with Wagner's statements, but
    simply know better than to ever say so?  Would we actually receive
    different treatment from them than from him?  Has his cultural
    environment simply given him permission to articulate something
    that the cultural environment in the US would not support?   (At
    least not while on the job.)
    
    I certainly don't think his remarks are appropriate.  I hope the
    people who have the power to decide such things make it clear to
    him that speaking that way as a representative of Digital will not
    be tolerated.
    
    The old adage "just because you have silenced a man doesn't mean
    you have converted him" could apply here.  [Hope I quoted that right!]
                                
    Personal note--
    I lost sixty pounds during my first year at Digital.  I felt better,
    and felt that I fit in better, and was taken *MUCH* more seriously.
    I think I will say the same thing after I lose the  rest of the
    weight I need to lose.
    
    At the same time, I want to be judged on my effectiveness, not on
    my body size.  In general I found that the larger I was, I had to
    perform twice as effectively to be taken half as seriously.
    That hurt, and I made the personal decision to lose weight to better
    meet all my goals.  At the same time, I would not have wanted
    to be required to make that decision to be treated respectfully!
                 
    It has also been true for me that I have to pay meticulous attention
    to dress and clothing in order to be taken seriously.  I love simple,
    comfortable clothes, but feel that I usually have to pay a double
    amount of attention to dress, or people ascribe all the stereotypes
    to me (fat = sloppy = doesn't take care of herself = unclean = unambitious).
    That still hurts.   With all the talk about valuing differences,
    it sometimes seems that body size/shape differences never even get
    on the list.  

>   I lost sixty pounds during my first year at Digital.  I felt better,
>   and felt that I fit in better, and was taken *MUCH* more seriously.
>   I think I will say the same thing after I lose the  rest of the
>   weight I need to lose.

    Depending on how you operate, it is sometimes an advantage *not* to be
    taken too seriously.  I don't see it as a prerequisite for
    effectiveness, although it may be a prerequisite for recognition. 

    The desire for recognition is among the more dangerous forces in the
    human psyche.  Still, if you want to be recognized, you need to be
    effective when someone is noticing.  If you are always effective, this
    one comes as a side-benefit -- *provided* someone already happens to be
    looking.  Aahh, there's the rub.
    
    I haven't found that my weight has been a problem with my management,
    but then I'm not particularly concerned with how I am recognized by my
    manager or not.  I agree with the direction he is heading; if I didn't,
    I would find another job.  I work, not for recognition, but for the
    task itself.  When the job is done, unless there's something else worth
    doing, it's time to find another dragon to slay. 
    
>    How many people at DEC fully agree with Wagner's statements, but
>    simply know better than to ever say so?  

    I hear what you are saying; some people at DEC do notice people's work
    more when they are physically attractive, particularly male managers in
    regard to women.  (I find the opposite; I find attractiveness in women
    embarrassing and distracting, and get irritated at myself for noticing.) 
    In either case, something irrational gets in the way of the task. This 
    is a seperate topic. 

    What I found most surprising is that Wagner was explicitly referring to
    the appearance of men.  I scarcely notice the appearance of a man, only
    his words and demeanor, and assume that most men find the same.  So I
    have to assume that his using weight as a parameter was a dispassion-
    ate measure based on some assumed correlation and not an emotional
    reaction.  The only issue here is the accuracy of the correlation. 
    
    						Single-mindedly,
    
						    Ralph

    [Re: .46]:  From what I've read and observed, hiring agents, at
    least, DO react to your physical and cultural presentation.  It's
    not usually conscious, but it's easily measurable.
    
    Take copies of your resume and attach two pictures of yourself: one with you
    neatly dressed, one with you casually dressed.  Send copies to the
    world.  Which does better?  Or attach a photo of a white person
    on half, and a black person on half.  Or thin/fat, or man/woman.
    Who gets more interviews and job offers?  Why, just who you'd expect.
    These experiments have been done by professionals, and they get
    the results I've stated.  I may be projecting, but I think in job
    situations, after you're hired, you're still subject to bias in
    your treatment by the boss.
    
    (By these experiments, one would expect that Nell Carter would be
    unemployable.  Fortunately, talent still has its place :^)
    
    I do not endorse or condone hiring and managerial biases; I just
    report the facts.
    

Re .48:

Here's more material from the Basic Interviewing Skills Workshop's booklet,
this time about photographs, resum�s and interviews.  I realize that
this is only tangentially related to what you were discussing, but I
thought it would be of interest to readers:

"
Laws and regulations affecting employment policies and decisions.

. . .  The following is a partial overview of the framework of laws,
regulations, and enforcement agencies which govern staffing policies and
decisions of an employer, in effect at the time of publication of
this text. [The publication date is unknown to me].
. . .
EEO/AA Lawful and Unlawful Inquiries

Subject		Lawful Inquiries	Unlawful
. . .
7. Photograph	a.  May require after	a.  Request photograph before
		    hiring for		    hiring.
		    identification.
					b.  Requirement that applicant
					    affix a photograph to his
					    application.

					c.  Request that applicant,
					    at his option, submit photograph.

					d.  Requirement of photograph
					    after interview but before
					    hiring.
"

Note that since this information is based on U.S. laws, it may not apply to
Digital elsewhere in the world.  However, readers involved in the interview
and hiring process would be ill-advised to make any requests for
photographs without talking to someone knowledgeable in EEO issues in
Personnel.
				/AHM

    I really wonder how Ken Olson would think about this discussion.
    Do you think his being quite overweight ever effected his ability
    to advance the interests of Digital? 
    My only feeling about Ken's weight is concern for his health. We
    need him at the top for as long as possible.
    Is Wagner aware of just how fat Ken is?
    
    

    I am deeply impressed and heartened by this discussion. It really
    affirms my faith in the possibilities opened up by this notes 
    technology.
    
    I would like to add something about superstitions. Superstitions
    have a lot of power. Here in the U.S. people were burned at the
    stake because they WERE witches. Now I think it would be hard to
    find anyone who would be willing to do this. The reason for this
    is because superstitions are only powerful when they are not
    superstitions. That is when black cat REALLY ARE dangerous, when
    fat people REALLY ARE slovenly and unambitious. But when it becomes
    a superstition (or when it is realized to be so) another possibility
    opens up that gives us the choice about whether or not we are USED
    by the superstitution or not. If it is not a superstitution we have
    no choice, but if it is, we can say "gee, that's just a superstitution"
    and we open up for ourselves the possibility of other avenues of 
    action. 
    
    So it would be foolish for us to say that this superstition about
    overweight people doesn't exist, but it is just that, A SUPERSTITUTION.
    And in that realization there opens the possibility of moving against
    it rather than having it dictate our actions. 

    Re .51:
    
    Minor pedantic point --
    
    > ... Here in the U.S. people were burned at the
    >stake because they WERE witches. ...
    
    Sorry; here in the U.S., they were hanged (or imprisoned; one was
    crushed to death).  In the U.K., they were usually drowned; on the
    Continent, they were usually burned.
    
    One item of the U.K. witch trials fits here, though: one way of
    "trying" witches used to put the accused, encumbered some way, in
    a large body of water (pond, lake).  If she or he _didn't_ drown,
    that person was "proven" to be a witch; if he or she drowned, that
    person was cleared of the charge. [!]
    
    An early Catch 22.  Can you think of any modern ones? :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

        In Scotland it was normal  to  put  the 'witch' into a spiked
        barrel and roll it (and her)  down  a  hill,  which drove the
        spikes as it went, then burning the  barrel.  In England they
        drowned or burnt them at the stake.
        
        Andy
        

    Yet another tangent...
    
    "Obelix" the cartoon character mentioned in the title of this note can
    be found in books sold at the Forbidden Planet bookstores.

    It is interesting to see that Witches used to be executed (in the
    minds of many people). Wheras in most societies they are described
    as insane, unwilling or ladies who just happened to upset someone.
    
    To comment on the Catch 22: In the hireing area, If you are WASP
    and Slim you send a photo and get to interview, If not you thefore
    have something to hide - send no photo and then get no interview.

    In reviewing the entries for this topic I've been surprised at one
    obvious (I thought) point that has been overlooked, despite the
    passing mention of the original quote's source:  obesity is undeniably
    linked to health problems.  I think I recall that the quote was
    identified as being from a book titled something like "The art of
    being fit not fat" which certainly fits.
    
    First, to clarify:  
    - I do not agree with Herr Wagner's statements.  On the other hand, 
      I do consider physical appearance in forming initial impressions (I
      also make it a point to try to remain open-minded about constantly 
      revising those intial opinions).  
    - With my height of 6'4" it took many years before I learned to be 
      comfortable around people who are much shorter, but that never 
      affected my opinion regarding their personal competance.
    - I still find myself wondering about the meaning of gross obesity
      in people I meet, as it reflects their personality, physical health
      and overall personal condition.  I do make it a point to try to
      seperate such subjective impressions from my objective dealings
      with them, but I cannot negate my own convictions that most if
      not all examples of gross obesity are associated with other problems.
    
    And that last point is where Herr Wagner's attitude makes some sense to
    me even if I reject it for other reasons.  I don't want to consider
    personality issues, that is too nebulous, but it seems that the
    consideration of maximum weight could be justified on grounds of
    personal health and performance.  
    
    In a hiring situation, is it appropriate to consider potential health
    problems?  (Note that I am not asking about the legality of this.) 
    
    It seems to me that in the interest of safeguarding corporate interests
    there should be a preference for selecting the most effective,
    productive employees.  All else being equal, an employee with health
    problems will not be as effective and productive as one who is healthy
    (that's the justification for things like the ZKO Wellness Center).
    Thus, the consideration of *overweight* conditions seems to have some
    objective validity in hiring (as would a bias against smokers, or
    seatbelt non-users, but not tall or short people).  The real problem is
    how to keep judgements on such issues objective, and the simplistic
    solution is to legislate against the reality of such concerns.  As a
    side comment, it seems to me that such legislation might be placing
    irresponsible individual behavior (unhealthful self-indulgence) ahead
    of valid corporate concerns (employee productivity), but that's
    getting away from Digital's corporate environment.
    
    Back to that, reconsidering some of Herr Wagner's comments will show
    that his rationale includes points that *are* corporate priorities:  he
    speaks of fitness and health, and of control of stress.  Not being able
    to read the original German version, nor being familar enough with the
    culture to differentiate between the expression of ideas and the
    ideas themselves, that makes me less quick to judge (isn't that
    really the objectionable trait, being judgemental, based on weight
    or appearance?) Herr Wagner as being in conflict with the corporate
    philosophy.  
    
    Please note, this doesn't make me an apologist for Herr Wagner either,
    just that the earlier admonitions about "glass houses" seem to have
    been overlooked :-) 
    

    thinking about it a little more I decided that there were a couple
    of things about my last response that should be clarified.
    
    - I'm not really comfortable with how much my own present weight
    exceeds my perceived optimum (thanks goodness I'm tall enough to
    hide it), so I can't be too harsh on others.  I also know how quickly
    I can notice the improved efficiency when I start working on my condition,
    and how quickly I backslide when sloth sets in...
    
    - in .-1 I was specifically commenting on how I form first impressions,
    and I should reiterate that they are not necessarily lasting
    impressions.  There are several people whom I've met in the course of
    working here who superficially might fit the description (ie, they come
    wrapped in a large package :-) that I have developed a very positive
    regard for, and for whom my sole present awareness of their weight is
    a friendly concern over the possible deleterious effects on their
    health.  
    
    there, hopefully that will save a few people the trouble of flaming
    at me :-)

        re .-1
        
            
>    there, hopefully that will save a few people the trouble of flaming
>    at me :-)

 
        Or eating you out of house and home...   :-)
        
        q
        

re .56:

	Not all larger than average people are unhealthy. Some good extreme
examples are Chinese martial arts masters and the competitors in "The worlds
strongest man contest".

Dave.

Barbara Walker (Corporate Valuing Differences Manager (not certain of her exact
title)) left for Germany yesterday.  One of the things she brought with her was
Note #233.0 and its 59 responses.  It was not her reason for going to Germany,
but I'm sure it will be one of the issues she works.  Barbara promised to
get back to me when she returns.

Mark

The following inter-office memo arrived on the desks of employees in Munich
today:  (Translation by me; original appended after the FF)

TO: All employees					Date: 27.01.1987
							From: Hermann Wagner
							Phone: 4505
							Dept: Pers MGMT
							Loc: RTO

Subject: No Obelix at Digital?
	 The Workers Committee keeps you informed, Issue 12, December 1986

Dear employees,

Under the above title extracts of an interview which I had given in April of
last year (originally published in the paper back book "The Art of Being Fit
and not Fat," Goldmann Press) were printed.  The book is intended to encourage
full-bodied people to take up diet plans and sports activities.

The contents released a wave of anger among many of you -- rightfully, I may
add.  Every worker makes mistakes, thus even every Personnel Manager, thus
myself as well.  My mistake was to have faith that the common courtesies
between interviewee and journalist would be observed.  That was unfortunately
not the case.

The interview does not contain my basic thoughts nor my guidelines with respect
to the current general social trends regarding the desire for fitness and trim
bodies.  Painfully, which of the comments I made in the name of the company
Digital, which ones are purely personal in nature, and which ones I gave from
my best experience as a personnel manager was not indicated in the article.
In addition the article contains "small talk" commentary which truly clouds
the picture:  My indication that no devaluation of the ability, intelligence,
cordiality, readiness or ability to work, and the like of "fatsos" is connected
with my comments did not make it into the interview.

In short, the situation went as badly as could have been possible.  For that
I am responsible.  I thus apologize to you all.  I am sorry!

With friendly greetings,

	Hermann Wagner


							Date: 27.01.1987
							From: Hermann Wagner
							Phone: 4505
							Dept: Pers MGMT
							Loc: RTO


Subject: OBELIX NICHT BEI DIGITAL ?
	Der Betriebsrat informiert, Heft Nr 12, Dez 1986

TO: Alle Mitarbbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter

Liebe Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter,

unter dem obigen Titel wurde auszugsweise ein Interview von mir abgedruckt,
das ich im April des vergangenen Jahres gegeben habe (ver�ffentlicht in
dem paper back Buch "Die Kunst fit und nicht fett zu sein, Goldmann Verlag).
Das Buch will wohlbeleibte Menschen zu Di�tkuren und sportlichen Aktivit�ten
ermuntern.

Der Inhalt hat bei vielen von Ihnen eine Woge der Entr�stung ausgel�st -
zurecht, wie ich hinzuf�gen m�chte. Jeder Berufst�tige macht Fehler, also
auch jeder Personalchef, also auch ich. Mein fehler war es, darauf zu 
vertrauen, da� die allegemeinen Gepflogenheiten zwischen Interviewgeber
und dem Journalisten eingehalten werden. Dem war leider nicht so.

Das Interview enth�lt nicht meine grunds�tzlichen Gedanken und nicht meine
Ausf�hrungen zu den allgemeinen derzeitigen gesellschaftlichen Trends in
Sachen Fitne� und Schlankheitsfaible. Fatalerweise kommt auch nicht zum
Ausdruck, welche der Aussagen ich stellvertretend f�r die Firma Digital
Equipment gemacht habe, welche rein pers�nlicher Natur sind, und welche
ich allgemein aus der Erfahrung als Personalchef zum Besten gegeben habe.
Dar�ber hinaus enth�lt das Interview "small talk"-Kommentare, die das Bild
erst recht verzerren: Meine Hinweise, da� keinerlei Bewertung hinsichtlich
K�nnen, Intelligenz, Herzlichkeit, Leistungsbereitschaft und Leistungsf�higkeit,
und dergleichen von "Dicken" damit verbunden ist, sind nicht in das Interview
eingeflossen.

Kurzum, die Sache ist so schiefgelaufen, wie sie nur schieflaufen konnte.
Daf�r bin ich verantwortlich. Ich entschuldige mich daher bei Ihnen allen.
Es tut mir leid!

Mit freundlichem Gru�
                   
	Hermann Wagner

    Re .61:
    
    Points up two things.
    
    1)  There's really no such thing as "off the record" when speaking
    to journalists or equivalent writers.
    
    2)  Effectiveness of Notes as a communication alternative.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.