Conference 7.286::digital

    A Piece Of Advice:
    
    Once they have made the rules clear, NEVER try to get the person
    enforcing the rule to change the rule; instead, tell them you
    understand the rule and would like to speak to the person who makes
    the rules, "please".  Continue on up the chain of command until
    an understanding can be reached.
    
    rmm
    

    I'll lay you odds that the person you were working against was a
    rent-a-cop who had been on duty for a very short time.   I can
    sympathize with both of you.

    I agree with .1:  once you've heard what the rule is, find out who
    else you can get involved.  Then do so... not at 2:30 am, but the
    next morning.
    
    I went through a hassle regarding property passes.  By politely
    insisting that there had to be a way to solve the problem (without
    breaking rules), I was able to work with the security folks involved
    and get someone in authority to find a solution.

    I don't know the layout of your facility offhand, but why don't you go
    through the main entrance?  The guard can then readily see you're
    carrying soda and not Molotov cocktails. 

RE .4

My office is at the far end of this rather long building.  The distance
from the best parking lot to through either staffed entrance, day or
night, to my office is considerable.  I did it once when I was forced by
snow to park elsewhere.  That 35 lb box of soda is no fun over that
distance.

In any case, the problem has been resolved quite satisfactorily.

I've gotten the suggestion from a number of people that the Security
person involved was a rent-a-cop, and that suggestion was right.  I got
called down to the security office today in response to the complaint I
filed (same one as in this NOTES file) and got an apology and a set of
procedures to follow (start by asking for the lead Security officer) and a
name to drop if all else fails.

According to the guy at the Security office they want to reserve the
right to inspect incoming packages (*VERY* understandable), but the
people staffing the doors DO have discretion which they SHOULD use
intelligently, and specifically in my case they SHOULD be able to
allow a case of soda in.  !!  One small victory for reason!

I walked out of the Security office without a guarantee that it wouldn't
happen again but feeling quite satisfied.  If the rent-a-cop can't handle
things and the lead officer won't, then the Security Office (in MR at
least) is willing to educate people.  I hope that Corporate Security in
general is as reasonable elsewhere as it is here.  End of story.  (?)

Jeff

>< Note 383.5 by HPSCAD::QBARRY "Jeff Barry, 297-6756. Scan ATPG guru, EMACS abuser, caver." >
>                           -< Situation resolved... >-
>
>                               I hope that Corporate Security in
>general is as reasonable elsewhere as it is here.  End of story.  (?)
>
>Jeff
>

                
                I have found over 14 years that Security, in general, is
        willing to be reasonable if the other person is. There is
        usually a way to get around (legitimately) any snag that crops
        up. It just might take a call or visit to a guards superior, but
        usually you and Security can work out a comprimise that works
        for all. It also helps to be on speaking terms (You know, say
        Hi, how are you in the morning, stop and chat for a minute if
        you and they aren't too busy, etc.) with those same Security
        people so that they at least know that you "belong" in the area!
                
                /s/     Bob

        Since I work in the same general facility (MRO) and have done
        similar things (carry in soda at off hours) in the past, I
        can understand your chagrin at running into someone who was
        being unreasonable, but I must say that my first reaction to
        your topic note was that you had a major chip on your shoulder.
        I'm pleased to learn that this wasn't just a case of someone
        finally enforcing what had been the rules all along (and, quite
        frankly, I think it would be a good idea if incoming as well
        as outgoing packages WERE inspected).  And I'm pleased for
        you that the person to whom you sent your complaint reacted
        to it as a legitimate beef, not just someone being a pain in
        the posterior.  I'm not sure that if I had been in the position
        of having to respond that I would have gotten beyond the tone
        to the substance.
        
        Tom
        
        PS:  I'm not always as diplomatic as I should be, either..

While we're on the subject of security.....

One area where I believe is the wrong place to use contract employees is 
security. It burns me to see a non-DEC person telling me what the rules are,
and in my own experience, it has happened several times that they don't know.

I think when the company is really *serious* about corporate security, they
will put in a full-time, well-trained, curteous security staff that knows
Digital, it's employees, and how we work. It simply doesn't make sense to me
to hire contract employees to protect the companys' interest. 

I know the contract security people are supposedly well-trained, professional,
security from a reputable agency, but a few encounters such as the one in
.1 will tell you it simply doesn't work.

-BAP

RE .7

>>  ... but I must say that my first reaction to your topic note was that you
>>  had a major chip on your shoulder.

Yup.  Mindlessness is one of my hot buttons, a fact which I'll freely admit and
not apologize for.

RE .8

>>  I know the contract security people are supposedly well-trained, professional,
>>  security from a reputable agency, but ...

According to the guy in Security whom I talked to, the rent-a-cops are NOT well
trained.  Most try to do a good job but are lacking in a number of ways.  That
is one reason why I felt so good after my chat with security.  They DO seem to
want to train these people because they are well aware of their general lack of
training as they come from the security agencies.  That seems to fit with the
well developed training atmosphere that exists within this company, ie take
the people you have and make them better rather than discarding them.

While I have to admit I got pretty hot at the time, I gotta admit, too, that
Digital DOES work hard to take care of its people, even the ret-a-cops.

And that's good.

Jeff

    Re: .6
    
>        	...It also helps to be on speaking terms (You know, say
>        Hi, how are you in the morning, stop and chat for a minute if
>        you and they aren't too busy, etc.) with those same Security
>        people so that they at least know that you "belong" in the area!

    But if you're regularly using a non-manned entrance such as in this
    case, its not too easy.  Have you ever tried chatting and saying "Hi,
    how are you" to the TV camera?  If anything, that should arouse the
    suspicion of the security folks  :-) 
    
    -  David

Re: .8

All the guards here in England are from some outside company.  Over the
years at least one of these guards was jailed for stealing employees
property and one allegedly tried to set a fire in a computer room which
badly damaged a lot of equipment.

I tend to agree with .8 that DEC should employ its own guards.  Several
years ago all the guards in the US facilities I regularly visited were DEC
employees, whereas there have never been any DEC-employee guards in England.

jb

    Work with us not against us......  
    Badge please.... Sir.... SIR!!!!!
    Jes.. Chr... effin dope guards.... blankety blankety blank....
    sound familliar???
    This is the type of respect we get for protecting YOUR interrests...
    Lets try to work together...huh? 
    
                                               security

I should like to thank the author's of .12 and .13 for sharing this
information with us.  Frankly,  I find the security people at DEC
to be pleasant, helpful, and unobtrusive, and it _is_ their job to
occassionally be a bit of an annoying reminder of the unpleasant realities
of life.

At least this is true at ZK, and to the extent I visit other plants,
generally true at all DEC sites.

I know that DEC is staffed with a large number of people who have worked
at few other companies (often zero), and who do not appreciate how
different things can be.

- greg

    Thank you .14.  We as security must be the type that can take a
    little "guff" from time to time.  But its a great feeling when someone
    understands that it is our job. NOT TO HASSEL, BUT TO HELP.  Sometime
    a person has a bad day and the first person he/she sees is the ol
    guard. A lot of the problem is communication, ie. sir/maam, could
    i see your badge? I use this example for a reason, I'm sure that
    there are a few other guards out there that have gotten a lot of
    guff for asking a person to "tear of their limb and give it to them".
    People just do not understand that it is POLICY to wear a badge
    at ALL TIMES. We understand that we make freinds with spacific people
    in the facility, but it is still POLICY! When a guard waves a person
    through because he/she knows him/her, that guard is wrong!
    As for the guard on duty for .0, i would have to hear more about
    the situation.  Yes it could have been a guard having a bad day
    or a "rent a cop" but there is still something missing from the
    story.  Just my .02's worth.                  al

  The guard's 'friend' could have left the company yesterday. I
haven't heard any stories about a just-resigned employee getting
into a plant this way but I'm sure it happened at DEC or else-
where.

    re: the "bad day" syndrome
    
    It's one thing for your average Joe on the street to have a "bad
    day" and be rude and uncooperative, since the only result is that
    Joe loses the respect and goodwill of those exposed to him during
    that time.  It's an entirely different situation for a person in
    "authority" to behave in such a fashion.  The effects of such
    behavior can turn respect into fear and resentment, not only against
    the security person who is misbehaving, but against anyone else
    who wears the same uniform or does the same job.
    
    Most people are not really aware of just how many rights and privileges
    that they are giving up working for a large corporation, nor do they
    like to be reminded of that fact.  Security is often the most visible
    aspect of these restrictions, and attracts all of the adverse reactions
    anyway, so that even minor slip-ups can draw major bad publicity.
    
    Geoff
    

    Most visible.... yes!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    LEAST RESPECTED....... YES!!!!!!!

    Last evening, as I left TTB, everyone leaving the building was asked
    (politely) to open their pocketbooks and briefcases, whatever they
    were carrying, to the security guard who was posted at the doorway.
    
    On inquiring this morning, I learned that there had been a theft
    reported in the building yesterday and that, while this was an
    exceptional situation, it could reoccur.
    
    I was told that permission for the search was obtained by the Security
    Chief Bob McWhirter from Henry Ancona, Vice President and facility
    manager, and from Leigh Bodington, Personnel manager at the facility. 
    
    Not knowing the nature of the theft, I'm unsure of how to react
    to this.  At what point does one's right to privacy take a back
    seat to the security of property?
    
    no flames,
    Marge

RE: .19
    
    It certainly seems reasonable to me that the search occurred. First
    of all, EVERYONE was searched. (Not just the fill_in_the_blank
    subset of people in the building.)
    
    Secondly, there was a REASON for the search. That's self-evident.
    
    It's good to hear it was politely done and that the facility mgr
    was consulted before the security folks did their thing.
    
    K.

    You agreed to it when you signed the employee agreement.  I've only
    been searched ONCE (in Colorado Springs) and it was on the way *in*.
    I still don't know what they were looking for.   They were also
    searching everyone.

                There is also usually a sign at the entrance to the
        effect that any packages (which can include briefcases and
        pocketbooks) are subject to inspection (i.e. search) upon
        entering or leaving. I personally believe that this is a very
        reasonable attitude for a company to take provided that it is
        done in a polite and consistent (i.e don't single out
        individuals without DAMN good reason) manner.
                
                I really don't see any reason here to get upset at all.
        In fact, given the explanation presented here of what went on, I
        think the parties involved did all the right things in a
        proffesional manner.
                
                /s/     Bob

    The policy of DEC being allowed to search briefcases, etc.,
    on entering and leaving has been around as long as I have,
    ie circa 1964. I think Digital is within its rights.
    
    As far as searching your person is concerned, there are other legal
    issues. Digital can ask, but I don't think you are obliged to comply;
    and I don't think Digital can give you any hassle (like job
    termination) for refusing. (BUT I'M NOT SURE. DON'T TRUST YOUR JOB TO
    MY OPINION!) I hope I'm never asked. I suspect that I will cause a
    polite hassle in return if I am asked because I will regard it as an
    invasion of privacy. If DEC has a search warrant, I will comply and
    merely grumble a lot.

	For those of you who have had a chance to work or visit the DEC 
	plants in Puerto Rico (San German - SGO, Aguadilla - AGO) can 
	recall that it is standard procedure to search your breifcase 
	upon entering or leaving the buildings.  This policy is in effect
	at all times and anyone not allowing the search will not be admitted
	in.

	However, security does not searches ladies purses and many times as you
	become more and more familiar to them (they see your face and know your
	responsibilities) they tend to ignore this or just scan the
	breifcase.

                Re .24 - Boy, things sure have changed in Puerto Rico
        since I used to visit! (It has been about 9 years.) I'm not
        saying that Security was lax, just that it wasn't THAT fussy
        then. In fact, it was tighter than in Maynard! Example: In
        Maynard it was commonplace to carry RK05 disk packs around from
        building to building without property passes. In P.R., no
        property pass, it didn't get out of the building!
                
                /s/     Bob

    Over the last 12 years I have had an inordinate amount of contact
    with the DuPont company.  Much of that contact was at a place they
    call "The Experimental Station".  (it sounds like something Amtrak
    should have)  Some of the other field service guys and software
    residents were resident there and had drive through passes.  I,
    on the other hand, had different contacts pretty much each day.
    Because of this nobody would sign for me to have a "drive through
    pass".  I had to sign in each day with the security guards.  If
    I came in twice in one day or more I still had to sign in on the
    successive trips.  If I came in I had to have a new joke and usually
    got to hear one in return.
    
    This familairity brought an interresting turn of events...when the
    cars were being frisked on their way out, the guards hardly troubled
    to check my car.  I had to insist on it so that they would not get
    into any hassels with their management.  If there was a "new" gut,
    I ususally went through a little bit of trouble until he realized
    that it would take about 3 hours to inventory all of the test equipment
    and manuals and tapes in my car.  
    
    I was allways surprised that DEC security never even checked for
    possible pilferage.  They usually can tell when they ask to see
    your case if you have something to hide.  They don't know what it
    is but a perpetrator will sometimes give himself away.