Conference 7.286::digital

    I've never heard of such a thing at DEC before. Shocking to
    me. My management judges me mostly on how much work I get done
    and not how much time I spend in the building. In fact, many in
    my group, including the manager, regularly work from home.

    BTW, you may also want to bring this up in the UK specific
    brother conference to this one. It is at:

Digital in the UK		MARVIN::UK_DIGITAL			 1240

    Use KP7 or Select to add.

    		Regards,
    			Alfred

I think there is an issue here appropriate to this conference. (which
means Tom won't agree :-) ) 

When I worked for I*M, all access was by automated doors using a
magnetic stripe on your badge.  The same process got you in and out of
labs, etc.  We often talked about the 'big brother' aspect of this -
that Mgt. could have a very good record of when you were around, where
you were, etc. 

I think this sends the wrong message to the employee, and is counter
to the "DIGITAL way of working". 

Unfortunately, computers are here.  And I can see the efficiency
reasons why such a system may eventually be instituted at DIGITAL. I
would propose that the only way for Mgt. to show the right respect for
employees in this circumstance is for the computer program to be
changed to NOT RECORD time information.  Just produce a list of who is
"currently" in the building.  If information exists, someone will 
access it.

Just my $.02.
/j

Well, you can blame Ronald Reagan for the card key systems in the U.K.

Or so they tell me.

Funny, we don't have them here.

Anytime anyone even looks funny at me about arriving late or leaving early,
they'll get the same statement...

"I'll punch a clock anytime you say...everything over 40 is time-and-a-half!"

	A couple of times I've received second-hand furtive whines
	about working hours.  My reply is "Anyone who has a complaint
	can come to my office to speak to me personally.  Come armed."

	Are we spoiled?  Maybe.  But to the extent that the job requires
	creativity and flexibility, the job must pursue the employee's
	talents.

	Regards, Robert.  (who now returns to reading manuals, while
	                   everyone else revels... So congratulate me.)

    
    Thanks for those comments.
    
    I think the real issue that most concerns me, is that although we
    are told (in the UK) that we have to put in so-&-so hours, the reality
    of the situation is that we (in my area `Software') put in so much
    time that it is taken for granted.  So when I turn up at 10:30am
    , and a few eyebrows are raised, people tend to forget that I was
    here until 3:00am the previous night - and so think I'm slacking.
    
    This really get's up my nose.  Programming & graphics really do
    require `SPACE', and without it I'm suffocated! 
                                                    
    Finally there's the money issue, how many times I would have liked
    to have been `clocked-IN-&-OUT' and claimed it!!!!!!!!! I could
    have retired :)
    
    Best,
    
    	Andrew
    
    
 

        Actually, I do agree that this is relevant.
        
        In many facilities in the U.S., we have "NCS" or similar access
        control systems for building entries, labs, and so forth, so
        it is certainly possible to confirm that you seemed to be in
        the building during certain hours.  However, in most faciities,
        access during most working hours, at least for the main entrance
        to most facilities, is not controlled by these systems.
        
        If your management informed you that the system in place was
        to be used *ONLY* for controlling access, and to be able to
        tell who was apparently in the facility in the event of an
        emergency, and then your management used the system for some
        other purpose (such as to harass people who appeared to be
        working unusual hours, or less than the official total amount
        of time), and further ignored reasonable explanations of why
        the data should be suspect when used for a different purpose
        from that for which it was designed, then you have got a problem
        about *trust* that needs to be addressed.  It is a two-fold
        problem.  One part is the evident lack of trust that your
        management is placing in you, and the other part is the issue
        of whether you can trust your management.
        
        How was the "policy" about how the access system's data would
        be used communicated to the employees?
        
        Did you address the questions of trust with your manager, and
        make it clear that the problem wasn't this specific instance,
        but the bigger picture?
        
        Tom

I tend to sympathise with the author as well. I work about 10.30am to 7pm
because this allows me to either lie in, or go shopping in the morning.
However, the main reason is that the air conditioning in the building
I work in (the same one as the author of .0) is a disaster. It's just had
to be upgraded after 2 years of insufficient capacity, and it's still
blowing hot and cold in various parts of the building. In addition, 
there's no humidity control and I find the atmosphere there stuffy and 
tiring to work in during the day. As a result, I would prefer to come
in late and then work in the evening when the building is quieter and
cooler when the air conditioning can cope.

	Craig.

    I wonder if one could use their card to get in and then find a
    way out without the card. Use a lost card gambit to get in once
    or twice. Then use the card to get out. Showing 72 straight hours
    once a week for a month should get management off your back or
    destroy their confidence in the system enough to stop using it
    to check your activity.

    		Alfred

    
    
    In regards to both security and accuracy, the cardkey systems are
    a terrible failure.  It is not uncommon for employeees to hold the
    door, as it were, for others either entering or leaving by a common
    site entrance, thus skewering the integrity of the system.

    

    re .11

    With the systems used in the U.K., at least REO, that would only appear
    to work for *real* skinny (and friendly) people. 

RE:< Note 692.12 by STAR::BECK "Paul Beck" >
�    With the systems used in the U.K., at least REO, that would only appear
�    to work for *real* skinny (and friendly) people. 

        What Paul refers to is the presence of 7ft high turnstiles that
        just about allow a single person carrying no equipment, sports
        gear (or too much extra weight!-) through at a time. These are
        in use at each of the three entrances to the building (a total
        of five of these doors). 

        There are larger, bypass doors for bulky deliveries or for those
        who are unable to manage the turnstiles but these require
        intervention from security personel. These are also open
        (automatically in this case) in emergencies for more rapid
        egress. 

        I also remember some disquiet at the time of the installation of
        the turnstiles and reassurances that they were there for
        security reasons and the recorded logs were for emergency
        purposes. 

	John

    The new DEC Munich building in Unterf�hring has a card key system,
    which is not in use yet - just because of the reason described in .0.
    The Betriebsrat (works council) has expressed some concern of possible
    misuse; I'm not sure in what state the negotiations are at the moment.
    
    I'm a bit skeptical about this kind of systems - as someone said
    in an earlier reply, "if the data is there, it's going to be used..."
    or something like that.
    
    Similar to most modern telephone systems where your management could
    find out what numbers you called from your office phone... none
    of their business.

    
    Employees should be measured on results - what they achieve - not
    how many hours they put in and/or when they choose to work them.
    
    This is particularly true of persons whose jobs require creativity,
    concentration and production of tangible results - computer software,
    research papers, etc. as opposed to being available for interaction
    with others on an as-required basis (secretaries, managers, etc.).
    
    Like the person who rolls in at 10:30 a.m. but had worked till 3
    a.m. the night before, I, too, have found flexible hours work best.
    Often, I am most productive OUTSIDE of normal business hours -
    typically after most have left the office for the day. Furthermore,
    during normal business hours, I tend to be more productive when
    telecommuting (read: working from home) than when I'm in the office.
    This is due largely to the relative absense of time-killers (read:
    unnecessary interruptions by peers, etc.) and background noise which
    make it difficult, at least for me, to really concentrate and work
    productively.
    
    If I were measured by the hours that I keep - particularly in the
    office - some eyebrows would certainly be raised. I'd make out a
    lot better being measured on system clocking measures - connect
    time, CPU usage, I/O, etc. 
    
    Neither measurement, however, does anything to measure PERFORMANCE.
    A person HAS to be judged on deliverables - did he/she deliver what
    was expected on-time, within budget and in a quality and professional
    fashion? For as long as creative and productive people are measured
    in this way, we - and therefore Digital - will continue to be
    successful. Should the day ever come when "clocking in" is a major
    criteria for creative 'knowledge-workers', "cashing in" on any Digital 
    shares held may be indicated...
    
    Bob

    Re.15>  Hi Bob,
    
    	Yep I'd strongly agree with that.  One quote which often springs
    to my mine is:
    
    	"If one person takes a day to solve a problem, and another can
    solve the same problem over breakfast, which is the better ?"
    
    	I'd have to say that this really sums up my feelings to `creative
    work'.   How many times I've woken up in the morning with the problem
    solved and the definition defined is not possibly measurable in real
    time - but the effective answer stays the same.
    
    Regards,
    
    	Andrew
                                   
    
    

    re: the "turnstiles"
    
    Are there any DEC facilities using these in the US?  I have never
    been in one; in fact, most of the major facilities I've been in
    don't even have cardkeys for most areas, just guards/receptionists.
    
    I've been in a number of government "secure" installations where
    they use single-person "airlocks" to control access, but most of
    these are installed for high-security reasons, not time-keeping.
    And I've been to chemical plants where you use a card to check
    into and out of each building on site, but that information is
    used exclusively for emergency planning in case of a disaster.
    Government agencies and contractors often have "office check"
    procedures, where the manager strolls by at 8:00 and keeps tabs
    on who is at work and who isn't, but I've never run across such
    a thing at DEC!
    
    The only time my manager has ever made a comment about my working
    time has been to tell me not to overexert myself.  And the same
    can be said about every other person in my group.  I've rarely
    met *anyone* at DEC who wasn't motivated or challenged enough
    to put in extra hours, and if management hasn't realised this,
    then maybe we *should* go to some sort of time-reporting system
    to make them aware of it!
    
    Geoff Unland

The turnstiles in REO can be defeated easily enough.

I watched one of my former managers do the following:

1. Exit through the turnstile.

2. Zip his card through the outside reader.

3. Push the turnstile so the security system thought he had entered again.

4. Sent his card in in the pocket of another person.  (Or maybe he just
   handed it through the turnstile.)

5. The person wishing to exit without making an exit entry now used the
   manager's card to get out.

/john

    The whole issue of security/accountability is stupid at DEC.  I'm
    a "consultant" by definition, a long term contractor at ZKO.  I
    sign in and out evrey day and turn in my picture badge each evening
    unless I have an off-site meeting next morning.  What time I write
    into the log entering or exiting is not checked, so I round to the
    easiest 10 minutes.  I could just as easily make up some totally
    fictional time frame, at least for exiting.  (Time in would be framed
    by the people before and after me, so that's harder.)
    "Real" employees march directly in without badges all the time,
    or using other people's badges as a "joke", or flashing a driver's
    license instead.  I never saw anyone get stopped.
    
    I was told that the ocntractor system is partly to be sure a security
    guard/receptionist actually checks each badge each day, as though
    we contractors are a greater security risk than employees! (HA!)
    I have also *assumed* that if anything happened after normal hours,
    the suspects would largely be taken from that list.  But I also
    know very well that anyone who wanted to could check that log against
    my time card.  (I have off site meetings and can do work at home
    as well, although I refuse to do work not paid for since I function
    as an hourly under contract.  When I get salary and benefits, DEC
    gets "free" overtime!!!)
    
    I wouldn't mind any of this if it were even handed.  A company has
    the right to keep an eye on expenses, and (re -.3-or-so) the phone
    bill IS something management should check.  100,000+ employees with
    discretionary access to long-distance for personal calls can rack
    up a very expensive bill!  It's not one of the perquisites I was
    told about!  But I guess I don't see much of the activities I know
    about at DEC being worthy of security at the level some are
    experiencing.  If the site's work IS sensitive and in jeopardy,
    then the security clearance (and training) of employees at that
    site should be equally high.  *I* suspect that there are just some
    security and facilities people who LIKE this stuff, and everybody
    else has to live with it.
    
    Morita of Sony was on TV last night.  He said that American management
    fails to respect it's workers, that employees have become just tools
    to effect the earnings of the companies.  That is shown in the lack
    of trust and respect we are given, and in our expendibility in a
    crisis.  Morita thinks Japan will continue to edge the US out in
    technology and development as long as that attitude is common. 
    Maybe it's something DEC management should think more about.  (And
    to think it's GOOD at DEC compared to lots of other places!!!)
    
    Sherry

    re .19
    
    Hang on a minute, Sherry...
    
    I understand your point, and I completely agree with the .0 author.
    The bone-heads that tried to use the security system to monitor
    the person's hours in the office were just plain stupid and wrong.
    
    If the .0 base note is correct, there's no question - it was wrong
    to try and do that kind of monitoring.
    
    But, I take issue with your tone about all of DEC management.  You
    yourself said, there's 100,000 people that work for DEC.  That means
    there must be a few thousand managers.  I guess it really doesn't
    surprise me that we have one bone-head out of a population that
    size.  But I don't think it reflects on DEC management in general.
    And I know that attitude is not typical of what I've seen first-hand
    in 7 plus years at DEC.
    
    I can't honestly agree that I agree with everything DEC management
    has done, but in general, the management people I deal with are
    of high quality.  They seem to show the good traits Morita talked
    about last night.
    
    - Greg Scott (I'm the one from Minneapolis)
    

I have to agree that Digital management is very accomodating compared to 
other large companies I've worked for.

After all, Sherry... Digital is contracting for your services by the hour,
and you're reading Notes, and nobody's bothering you about it because you
get your work done, right?   

Sounds like pretty progressive management to me... I like it!  8-)

Bob

>< Note 692.18 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >

>The turnstiles in REO can be defeated easily enough.
Not so!

1. Exit through the turnstile.
2. Zip his card through the outside reader.
3. Push the turnstile so the security system thought he had entered again.
4. Sent his card in in the pocket of another person.  (Or maybe he just
   handed it through the turnstile.)
5. The person wishing to exit without making an exit entry now used the
   manager's card to get out.

This method does *not* work at REO, although I've heard it did in the past.
There is a timer to prevent someone reusing a turnstile within about 2 mins.
This may seem intelligent, but the system is still fairly stupid. I passed
my card through the machine to exit the building one day, and someone called
me from over a cube, so I stayed in the building to talk to them instead of
passing through the turnstile. Even though the door had not moved, the system
thought I had left the building. I had to call security to change my status
back to 'in' so that I could leave the building. It's also possible to get
two (slim) people through the turnstile at the same time.

  Another point, the list of people in the building which is maintained by
this system isn't of much use in the event of a fire. I attended the fire
and bomb course, and we were told to use the traditional method of counting
heads to make sure everyone got out the building ok. The cardkey list we
were told took to long to make up and print off to be of any real use in
an emergency, and encourages complacency 'oh, I don't need to look out for
so and so, the cardkey system will know if they're in the building'

	Craig

The solution to the problem you had (which also occurred to the same group of
people during a visit), was to hand the badge out to someone, who then used
it to create an "in" transaction with no body in the door, and then come back
out.

The presence of the timer will not prevent any of the above from happening; it
just makes it necessary to wait.

I think the timer applies in the case you mentioned but doesn't if you actually
do go out and then want to come back in.  I never had a problem going out,
realizing I forgot something, coming back in immediately, and then leaving as
soon as I picked up what I forgot.

/john

.23�I think the timer applies in the case you mentioned but doesn't if you actually
.23�do go out and then want to come back in.  
    
    Sorry John, it does now. It didn't use to, but I recently tried
    to re-enter REO as I had forgotten something, and had to wait around
    two minutes before I was allowed back in.
    
    Keith

>
>>The turnstiles in REO can be defeated easily enough.
>Not so!
>
>1. Exit through the turnstile.
>2. Zip his card through the outside reader.
>3. Push the turnstile so the security system thought he had entered again.
>4. Sent his card in in the pocket of another person.  (Or maybe he just
>   handed it through the turnstile.)
>5. The person wishing to exit without making an exit entry now used the
>   manager's card to get out.
>
>This method does *not* work at REO, although I've heard it did in the past.


	When it did work in the past, security used to monitor 
	short-duration stays in the building. On more than one
	occasion, employees have been pursued by managers and
	accused of abusing the access system because the difference
	between their exit and entry times was too small.

	Tim

    I have a few times gone out and in again very quickly,  usually
    because I went out to the car to fetch something, or I remembered
    something I didn't do and had to go back straight away.  I would
    think this was quite common.....
    
    diana

    and then again of course in REO every time you need a bus ticket
    you go out and in again.  It is quite busy in reception because
    of this..

        re: .25 -- Don't managers have anything more important to do?
        
        In some ways, this is incredibly amusing, and in some ways,
        it's incredibly pathetic.  Apparently the *goal* was to have
        an automated system to eliminate the need for guards to watch
        every entrance/exit.  The result seems to be a system that
        (a) doesn't work particularly well, (b) collects data that
        can be used out of context to harass employees, (c) is prone
        to error, and (d) isn't terribly efficient.
        
        At least no one has been killed by this system (yet); consider
        the attached:
        
RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest  Sunday 8 January 1989   Volume 8 : Issue 3
 
        FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS 
   ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 89 15:27:28 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject: Computer-related accidental death
 
COMPUTER-RELATED ACCIDENT RESULTS IN WOMAN'S DEATH
 
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA, 1988 DEC 28 (NB) -- According to the Associated
Press, a South African woman was killed Tuesday in a freak computer-room
accident. The death occurred when 1 1/2-ton steel doors closed on Renata Espach
as she stood in their path but out of sight of optical sensors intended to
detect obstructions. The accident took place at the computer facilities of
Liberty Life in Johannesburg as the 23-year-old woman was handing a document to
a colleague in the course of her employment.
 
found on usa today distribution bbs fido104/555 303-973-4222
 1/7/89 by anonymous guest (no replies pls)
 
------------------------------
        
        Tom

    .17:
    
    The main machine room at PK1 has a pair of turnstiles.  Some time ago,
    when I was a computer operator (KL-1090s running 6.03, I'm not afraid
    to date myself ;-) a couple of collegues wondered aloud if the two
    of them could fit through the turnstile together, despite the fact
    that both were of average weight.
    
    Turned out that all three of us made it through at the same time,
    although it was a bit crowded).
    
    Dick

    
    
         Here at WDC (USIS) we have 7x24 guards plus the NCS system.
         This system is used on the front doors and the computer room
         door. However, employees are only required to sign in or out
         during off hours. I have heard of the NCS data being used to
         harass one of my fellow workers; however, we are both wage
         class 2s who are supposed to be here during set hours. The
         NCS printouts seem to be retained for a long time... I have
         also heard of an employee, who was being "spoken to" about
         the length of his lunch periods, "losing" his NCS card and
         borrowing a co-worker's card. 

             I understand that K. O. is very opposed to the idea of 
         punching a clock...? Anybody know for sure?
    
    
                                          Warren Young
    
    

    It turns out that there is a national labor organization of some
    sort that is trying to gather information about the use and abuse
    of computers as a time-keeping/efficiency-measurement tool, often
    without telling the employee about it beforehand.  I didn't have
    time to jot their number down this morning (I heard it on the car
    radio), but I will see if I can dig it up out of the morning paper
    (where the local radio station gets 90% of its news).
    
    This group is evidently advocating some sort of legislation to prevent
    employers from using computer logs and other information for purposes
    for which they were never intended.  They went on to tell horror
    stories about how an employer could tell how much time you spent
    typing a single letter, how many orders you processed, even how
    many times you went to the bathroom!  Obviously, this is a rather
    far-fetched example, but after seeing some of the notes in this
    notesfile, maybe not ...
    
    If anyone feels that Big Brother is watching from behind their video
    screen, there *is* someone to call ...
    
    Geoff

Re .31:

Topic 10 of ECADJR::ACM_IEEE (q.v.) contains announcements for the monthly
meetings of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.  They have had
at least one speaker on this topic in the past.

Was that the organization you heard of?  Or was it "9 to 5"?
				/AHM/THX

    I have been in situations were I have to sign in/out. Luckily not
    at DIGITAL.
    I don't believe anyone reads these logs, so 90% of the time I sign 
    "Mickey Mouse". 
    This is my personal protest in response to signing for the sake
    of signing.
    
    I don't suggest people do this where they work or at sites they
    frequent on a regular basis, but if noone checks your ID ..... :-)

    My wife would be better at answering this, but here goes...
    
    re .31
    
    "9 to 5" (which I believe is a union of primarily clerical workers)
    has expressed significant concern about what they consider the abusive
    use of computer monitoring.  My wife, a graduate student, did a
    large paper about this subject (which I edited, and edited, and
    edited...).  The horror stories, and examples were very interesting.
    They showed monitoring systems that enabled employers to evaluate
    the quantity and quality of workers, even one that flashed messages
    on the screen comparing your output to that of your co-workers...
    For example, the system might say
    
        "Mary, John is processing 20% more claims than you"
    
    Suposedly, it even gave names (John) and the percentage of difference.
    Among the research she did, there were dozens of examples, large
    and small, of the encroachment of computer monitoring into the
    workplace.  It made for some rather chilling reading...
    How would you like to have your boss looking over your shoulder
    determining that your output as measured in lines of code, was
    insufficient today?

    D

    I once worked for a company that had a large machine shop.  Since
    I worked closely with one of the shop foreman, I posed this question
    to him as he was looking over the latest stats from the accounting
    dept.
    "John, I would bet that those printouts show that your best machinist
    is your worst producer and that your worst machinist and worst goof-off
    are your best producers?"
    
    He was surprised that I would know that this was truly the case.
    The reason that it was true was that the toughest jobs were the
    ones that were given to his most talented worker and the easiest
    jobs to the workers in whom he had no confidence.  The goof-offs
    always figure out how to make themselves appear busy on paper while
    doing as little work as possible.
    
    This was fifteen years ago and I do not think that the world has
    changed.

    Hello again,
    
    	Well we've certainly seen some response to my initial note.
    It all makes very interesting reading, and by the sounds of it we all
    have a view on this `tentative' subject that rings a bell close
    to our hearts (at digital at-least.)
    
    	So what conclusions could we draw from all this ?  
    
    In my opinion it sounds as if the majority of us are pretty well
    pleased with the `digital way of working'.  I know I am, even with
    my `encounter' I detailed in note .0.   Although though my experience
    was isolated in some sense, it did open my eyes to the real possibility
    of data abuse in the work place.   I now feel though that there
    are an awful lot of us `caring' types who are sure to uphold those
    values in digital which make the company what it is.
    
    After all ... we're only human and the day I start getting treated
    like a robot is the day I quit.
    
    Thank you all for sharing your experiences,
    
    	Andrew D. Forkes
     
                                                                         

    Re .36
    
    Don't worry Andy. I've seen no suugestion in your case of Marvinitis.
    (Brain the size of a Planet).
    
    -)
    
    Mike Day