Conference 7.286::digital

        
>         - If two DEC employees are involved in a traffic accident
>           anywhere in the world and one is hurt, the injured employee
>           could go to DEC and ask for disciplinary action to be taken
>           against the other driver/employee, even before any legal
>           assignment of responsibility for the accident has been made.
>           (Assume that the offender was drunk, or perhaps that the victim
>           just thought so.) 
        
        O.K., I'll assume that the injured employee thought that the
        driver was drunk.  The injured employee complains to Digital,
        Digital fires the driver, and then it is determined that the
        driver wasn't legally drunk and is not held responsible for the
        accident (for whatever reason). 
        
        In this hypothetical situation, Digital could be in big trouble.
        
        The same problems occur in your other examples.  Digital could
        respond to these situations, but in legal situations Digital
        shouldn't respond faster than the police or courts, or else
        Digital would be placed in legal risk. 
        
>         1. Either DEC must budget significant resources to serve as judge
>            and jury in attempting to fairly adjudicate the conflicts, 
>	     or else not not make the necessary investment, and UNFAIRLY
>            adjudicate the conflicts. 
        
        Digital has a third option:  let the conflict be resolved by a
        real judge and jury (in a regular civil or criminal trial), and
        then perform any disciplinary actions (if any are required)
        after a verdict has been returned. 
        
        This option also eliminates problems 2, 3, and 4 from your list.
        
        					B.J.

        There seem to be several things at issue here.
        
        One is the question of how Digital employees should conduct
        themselves, both inside and outside the workplace.  I don't
        think the topic note is questioning the validity of the policy
        on employee conduct as a good guideline for relationships both
        at work and in the world outside.
        
        A second question is how a supervisor, manager, or other Digital
        party (such as a personnel or health services employee) could
        act if a conflict involving two employees outside the workplace
        were brought to their attention.  Clearly, people are people,
        and it's possible that they would get involved in such a matter.
        
        A third question is how they *should* act.  In my opinion,
        if the matter is *entirely* outside the workplace, and does
        not have repurcussions inside the workplace, then they should
        not get involved.  (This relates to basic privacy issues.)
        On the other hand, if the problem *does* impact relationships
        in the workplace (because, e.g., one employee starts engaging
        in harassing behaviors against the other), then the supervisor,
        manager, or whoever *should* get involved.
        
        Last, but perhaps not least, is how supervisors, managers, or
        whoever actually *do* act in interpreting this policy.  I've
        never heard of a case where an employee tried to get Digital
        to "punish" another employee because of something that happened
        outside the workplace on the employee's own time.  Unless there
        are such cases, then we're dealing with a purely hypothetical
        question.
        
        Tom
        

    a case in point:
    
    I know of a DEC employee (in Ma) who, on a his own time, off of
    digital property, got into an argument and struck another DEC employee.
    
    The police were not involved, in fact, there was no official record
    of the altercation.
                    
    the next week.....                     
    The "victem" complained to the "victor's" supervisor. The supervisor
    involved personnel, warned his employee, and made written mention
    of the event (in order to document the warning) in the employee's
    file.
    
    NOTE that there was no actual proof, no documentation that the
    incident ever occurred. 
                  
    The message here is clear: Digital will usually try to be fair
    to an employee, but it is not bound by the checks and balances
    inherent in our legal system (I was once threatened by a neighbor
    and when I called the police they said that if he hit me with his
    hand and there were no witnesses, they could do NOTHING. If he used
    his shod foot, however, that becomes assault with a weapon and
    they CAN take action. This is meant as an example of how in some
    cases Digital has more flexibility in the interpretation of their
    policy than the police do in their interpretation of the laws.)
    
    What Im driving at is that a manager's interpretation of policy
    drives his decisions, and if an employee feels a manager has been
    arbitrary or just WRONG, the employee should escalate the matter.
                    
    The employee above did not complain; he allowed his manager to
    "punish" him with no protest. I believe that he had a number
    of options, some within Digital, some within the legal system,
    that he could have pursued. I believe that this IS a case of
    overt intrusion into an employees private life, and I find it
    VERY disturbing. But not at all surprising; this is a corporation,
    NOT a Democracy. 
                      
    

That story is more confusing than scary.  Why all the discussion
about proof; did the employee deny the event took place, or any
of the substative details?  Such an admission is all anyone needs,
including the cops you discussed.

Either you've heard something by rumour, in which case we can't
trust your facts, or you are knowledgeable about it which means
you can't/shouldn't tell us enough to form a judgement.

Or you know one of the parties personally, and may have a distorted
one-sided story.

What if they were discussing work?  Or perhaps even each other's
work.

While I do not much endorse DEC or any other company getting
involved in your personal life, there are exceptions.  But it's
nigh impossible to judge without a complete set of facts.

- greg

    I would concur with .4, with a couple exceptions.
    
    An assault (and in this case, we have a battery as well) is a form
    of harassment.  I don't see how the company, given it's well known
    policy on harassment, can turn a blind eye to incidents simply because
    they didn't occur on "company time" (and one could have a long discussion
    exploring the depths of what *that* means...).  A victim of off-hours
    sexual harassment by a fellow employee, for example, has every right 
    to expect the company to take action against the offender.  Since
    the company has an interest in preventing *all* types of harassment
    from occuring on its property and time because (if nothing else) 
    it affects performance and the work environment, it seems logical to
    me that should include any harassment incidents at any time between 
    employees which might have a detrimental affect on the company's
    interests.

    As far as the written warning in the perpetrators file goes, it
    sounds like the corrective action procedure was followed.  The warning
    would not stay in the file forever, but only for some predetermined
    period of time, at the end of which it would be removed. I don't have 
    my PP&P handy to look it up, but probably 180 days would be
    appropriate for this sort of incident.  Personnel can suggest limits, 
    but it's mainly up to the manager involved.
    
    All in all, it sounds like the proper thing was done.
    
    Al
    

Re: .5

>    A victim of off-hours
>    sexual harassment by a fellow employee, for example, has every right 
>    to expect the company to take action against the offender.

If it happens on company property then I agree; otherwise I don't.

>    it affects performance and the work environment, it seems logical to
>    me that should include any harassment incidents at any time between 
>    employees which might have a detrimental affect on the company's
>    interests.

That's one way to look at it.  The other way to look it is that if DEC starts
poking its nose into my personal life, then my job satisfaction will start to
drop dramatically.

				-- Bob

    If the two people involved had some business relationship at Digital,
    then I think I agree Digital should take some action. The assault and
    battery would affect the business relationship. 
    
    But what if one of the people lived in California, for example, and the
    other in Massachusetts, and they had never seen each other before so
    that it was only coincidence that they both worked for Digital? Then I
    see no reason for Digital to take any action.

>    But what if one of the people lived in California, for example, and the
>    other in Massachusetts, and they had never seen each other before so
>    that it was only coincidence that they both worked for Digital? Then I
>    see no reason for Digital to take any action.
    
    Considering the strength of Digital in networking, I think this
    view is little short-sighted.
    
    - Vikas

>    of harassment.  I don't see how the company, given it's well known
>    policy on harassment, can turn a blind eye to incidents simply because
>    they didn't occur on "company time" (and one could have a long discussion

Probably because it is none of the company's business!  If they start poking
into things happening on your own time, then 'company time' becomes 24 hours
a day.  Is that what you really want?  Not me.

>    exploring the depths of what *that* means...).  A victim of off-hours
>   sexual harassment by a fellow employee, for example, has every right 
>   to expect the company to take action against the offender.  

Why?  Especially if action is taken just on the say so of one person.  Want
revenge for something against somebody?  Just make up a false claim of <xxx>
and report it to the company.  Let Digital do the dirty work of getting even.

> Since the company has an interest in preventing *all* types of harassment
>    from occuring on its property and time because (if nothing else) 
>    it affects performance and the work environment, it seems logical to
>    me that should include any harassment incidents at any time between 
>    employees which might have a detrimental affect on the company's
>    interests.

Huh?  Re-read your words... 'on its property and time'.  How in the world
do you justify intrusion into a person's private life based on that?  Oh,
of course, Digital's time is 24 hours a day.  Does this mean we all get
raises (3 x 8 hours) to cover this?

>    As far as the written warning in the perpetrators file goes, it
>    sounds like the corrective action procedure was followed.  The warning
>    would not stay in the file forever, but only for some predetermined
>    period of time, at the end of which it would be removed. 

Just on someone's say so.  What ever happened to fairness?
    
>    All in all, it sounds like the proper thing was done.

No, it does not sound like the proper thing to do.  Digital has no business
interferring in employees lives off company property and off Digital time.
A potential case where there could be interesting consequences exists if
both a husband and wife work for Digital.  A marital spat (all right, a
known-down drag out argument of monumental proportions) can then be reported
to Digital management (given the logic above) since such is bound to have an
affect on each employee's work (for a while).  The loser of the argument
could then use this path to get even.  Sorry, but there has to be a line drawn
somewhere.  I don't agree with where you drew yours :-).

-Joe

If Digital are going to be judge and jury on everything involving the lives 
of it's employees then we had better start fighting for the right to elect
it's officers!

A complaint involving one employee acting illegaly towards/against another 
should be handled by the correct government authority and not by Digital.
Digital could help employees who have a pending complaint by ensuring that
an embarrassing situation at work does not arise but no way should it go on 
record until properly dealt with by the local legal system (the only 
exception maybe if both parties approach Digital and agree a Digital 
internal solution, even so there may be legal implications to having the 
illegal act on record at Digital).

Dave.

    Since every thing some thing does some where affects every thing
    (if you think about it hard), any thing any body does could be
    construed as offensive to you in relation to you work.  There is 
    no way that Digital could and should can be involved in personal
    things done not on Digital property or time.

    RE: .9 and others
    
    First of all, the "unsubstantiated charge" is a straw man.  No one
    has claimed in the example given that the incident never happened.
    No one has claimed that Digital takes action without substantiation 
    as a matter of routine. In any corrective action, corroboration of 
    the errant behavior is part of the policy.  
    
    The same holds true for a chance encounter of two employees.  The 
    assumption here is that the incident is relevent to the normal 
    working relationships of the parties involved.
    
    Second, if employeee A can harass employee B without repercussions
    as long as it's done off company property and time, then I say lets
    do away with the policy.  It serves no useful purpose.  Personally,
    I don't believe we should retain people who assault other employees, 
    no matter when or where they choose to do it.  Especially if they
    whine about privacy when the victim understandably feels threatened by 
    the assaulters proximity at work on a daily basis.
    
    But I could be wrong...
    
    Al
    

        As far as I know, I'm an employee of Digital Equipment Corporation
        24 hours a day, 365 days a year, until and unless such time as
        that relationship is terminated.  I don't turn in my badge at the
        door when I go home.  I don't punch a clock when I come in.  I
        like it this way.  I am treated with respect, and I give respect
        in return. 
        
        Given that I'm an employee, Digital's policy on "Employee Conduct"
        applies to me, as I expect it to apply to all other employees. The
        scope of the policy is world-wide.  While some aspects of the
        policy are explicitly limited to "in the workplace", others are
        clearly not.  One aspect that's clearly not limited to the
        workplace is the prohibition on fighting with or physically
        abusing fellow employees. 
        
        The gist of the policy is simple:  Be a good citizen, do the right
        thing, don't embarass yourself or the corporation.  There isn't a
        single thing mentioned in the employee conduct policy that isn't a
        good guideline for living your life, either "at work" or not.
        
        Tom
        
Employee Conduct                                   Effective: 04-FEB-85
                                                     Section: 6.24     

 SCOPE:  WORLDWIDE

 Digital strives to create and maintain a positive work environment.
 To achieve this, the Company encourages courteous and respectful
 behavior, a responsible attitude toward work and respect for
 employee and Company property.

 The Company feels strongly about this and has developed this
 Employee Conduct Statement to help clarify differences in judgment.
 This statement outlines general principles on which employees are
 expected to base their behavior and cites examples of unacceptable
 conduct; the examples are not meant to be all-inclusive.


 IN GENERAL, EMPLOYEES CAN ANTICIPATE THAT ACTIONS HARMFUL TO
 ANOTHER EMPLOYEE OR TO THE COMPANY ARE CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY
 PROCEDURES OR POSSIBLE DISMISSAL.  SPECIFICALLY, EMPLOYEES ARE
 EXPECTED TO BE AT THEIR WORK SITES AND ATTEND TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES.


 EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO RESPECT THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY
 OF OTHERS.

 For example, they will not:

      o Discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age, religion or
        ethnic background.

      o Fight with or physically abuse coworkers or the employees of
        vendors or customers.

      o Behave in a manner offensive to others.

      o Solicit from others on working time.


 EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO RESPECT THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS.

 For example, they will not:

      o Destroy, deface or damage property belonging to Digital, its
        customers, vendors or employees.

      o Misuse or misappropriate Company assets or steal from the
        Company, its employees, vendors or customers.

      o Help anyone gain unauthorized entrance to or exit from
        Company facilities.

      o Use Company equipment or property without authorization.


 EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO TREAT INFORMATION APPROPRIATELY.

 For example, they will not:

      o Misrepresent or intentionally omit facts to obtain
        employment or falsify employment, medical or security records.

      o Disclose to any unauthorized person any Company Confidential
        or government classified information or material.

      o Intentionally falsify any Company record or report.

      o Access computer files or give information to others to
        access computer files when not properly authorized.

      o Possess or use on Company or customer premises any photo-
        graphic equipment which hasn't been properly authorized by
        security.


 EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO HELP MAINTAIN A SAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT.

 For example, they will not:

      o Possess or use on Company or customer premises any weapons,
        firearms or explosive devices.

      o Work under the influence of, possess or use intoxicants or
        illegal drugs on Company or customer premises.

      o Participate in any form of illegal gaming or gambling on
        Company or customer property.

 Interpretations for some of these general principles may be subject
 to legal and cultural mores in countries where Digital has
 facilities.  If you have questions, please talk with your supervisor.

    Well, reply .13 was certainly edifying, however it doesn't help in this
    topic. There is no *explicit* indication one way or the other that two
    employees who get into a tiff, but have no business relationship
    (including electronic), can expect Digital to take an interest. 
    
    My opinion is that Digital doesn't (and shouldn't!) have an interest in
    that case. Your opinion may vary; I am sure some will.

> Digital strives to create and maintain a positive work environment.
> To achieve this, the Company encourages courteous and respectful
> behavior, a responsible attitude toward work and respect for
> employee and Company property.

Seems the intent of the policy is as stated in line one; create a
positive work environment.  
         ----


>      o Fight with or physically abuse coworkers or the employees of
>        vendors or customers.

Not only do you have to know every Digital employee by sight, but all the
customer employees as well :-).

>      o Behave in a manner offensive to others.

So, if I see a Digital employee run a red light, I can complain to that person's
management based on the fact that I consider failure to obey traffic laws to be
rather offensive.


Whether the ideals set forth in the policies are good things to live by is for
another discussion.  Digital should not be in the business of regulating
people's lives on their own time etc.  It seems the effort is better spent
competing in the marketplace.

-Joe

Re: .13

Ah yes, a nice way to become angry on a Friday afternoon: read Digital's
Personnel Policies.

The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that if Personnel Policies are
enforced in a way that I don't like, and sufficiently reduce my job
satisfaction to the point that I no longer enjoy working here, then I'll leave.
It's as simple as that.  There's no point in getting angry about it unless
it happens.

>        As far as I know, I'm an employee of Digital Equipment Corporation
>        24 hours a day, 365 days a year, until and unless such time as
>        that relationship is terminated.

What do you think the responsibilities of an employee are (a) legally and
(b) morally?

>        Given that I'm an employee, Digital's policy on "Employee Conduct"
>        applies to me, as I expect it to apply to all other employees.

The policy "applies" to me only to the extent that it indicates penalties
that Digital might apply against me if a certain set of circumstances come
about.  The Personnel Policies manual is *not* my Bible.

In the case cited earlier where one employee alledgedly assaulted another,
the actions of the manager may have been "correct" as far as the policy goes,
but they may have hurt morale among (a) the employee who was disciplined, (b)
other employees (such as me) who heard about the story afterwards.  Not every
managerial action that is correct/legal is also prudent.

				-- Bob

        Look at it another way:  should Digital seek to employ people
        who believe that the guidelines in the employee conduct policy
        simply don't apply outside of the 9 to 5 grind?  Are we trying
        to suggest that it's OK to assault your fellow employees as
        long as you don't do it in the workplace or during normal work
        hours?  
        
        Tom

Re: .17

>        Look at it another way:  should Digital seek to employ people
>        who believe that the guidelines in the employee conduct policy
>        simply don't apply outside of the 9 to 5 grind? 

It should be an irrelevant consideration -- my *beliefs* have nothing to do
with my value as an employee.  What should count is my job performance.

>	 Are we trying
>        to suggest that it's OK to assault your fellow employees as
>        long as you don't do it in the workplace or during normal work
>        hours?  
        
Of course not.  I'm suggesting that it's outside Digital's jurisdiction -- or
should be.  (An assault that took place on Digital property after hours *would*
be something Digital should look into, though.)

I admit that there could be cases where it would make sense for Digital to take
some action, such as where the assault was directly related to a something that
was going on in the workplace; it depends on the situation.  In general,
though, if Digital intrudes into my personal life it had better have a very
good reason if it wants to keep me as a loyal employee.

				-- Bob

    The core issue is that an assault of one employee by another occured
    Time and place are secondary concerns at best, and probably irrelevent.
    
    What is Digital's interest?  If it is with the assault, the fact
    that two of it's employees are the principles, and all of the
    ramifications therein, then when it happens is immaterial.
    
    If, on the other hand, Digital's interest lies primarily with the
    time and place (i.e. we care about fighting only if it happens on our
    property), then the harassment policy is unnecessary. Let's not
    pretend that it means something and expunge it from the corporation.  
    The suggestion that an off-site incident might warrant Digital
    intervention only if that argument was work-related illustrates,
    I think, how silly this line of reasoning is.
    
    We are talking about an assault and battery here.  Not a fictitious
    matrimonial argument or traffic infraction or trivial behavior which 
    _might_ be construed as offensive by some mythical one, some mythical 
    where.  It doesn't take a whole lotta smarts to figure out the 
    relative significance.
    
    Also, the company has an unambiguous interest in many activities
    which which you might participate in on "your" time.  I hardly think
    it would be looked opun with kindness if you were moonlighting as
    a design engineer with one of our competitors, for example. That
    is not germaine to the topic, so I won't go off on a tangent here. I
    mention it only to show that the dividing line is not as clear
    as some would suggest.

    Al
    

Re: .19

>    What is Digital's interest?

Making money.  Part of making money is to ensure that your money makers
(employees) are happy and productive.  If employees are being assaulted they
won't be happy, and if they are being treated unfairly by their managers or
by Personnel they won't be happy.  "Unfairly" in this case means "unfairly as
perceived by the individual employee".

There's a trade-off here: what makes one employee happy might make another
employee unhappy.  What policy will produce the best results in the long run?
When should Digital step in and when should it let its employees work things
out between themselves?  I'm suggesting that one place to draw the line is at
the company property boundary; in general, Digital management and Personnel are
more likely to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the facts surrounding an
incident that happens in the workplace than about one that happens outside the
workplace.  I've also acknowledged that there can be exceptional cases where
Digital should step in even when the incident does occur outside the workplace;
each case needs to be judged on its own merits.

>  If it is with the assault, the fact
>    that two of it's employees are the principles, and all of the
>    ramifications therein, then when it happens is immaterial.
    
The law already takes care of the situation where one person assaults another.
How does it help Digital to duplicate a function of the court system?  I don't
think Digital's interest is in punishing people for the crime of assault.

>    If, on the other hand, Digital's interest lies primarily with the
>    time and place (i.e. we care about fighting only if it happens on our
>    property), then the harassment policy is unnecessary.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic, but that may be because I'm not
completely familiar with the harassment policy.  Could you explain this a
little more?

>    The suggestion that an off-site incident might warrant Digital
>    intervention only if that argument was work-related illustrates,
>    I think, how silly this line of reasoning is.
    
My point was this:  I agree that if one employee harasses another in the
workplace that Digital needs to become involved, assuming that the harm done
to the harassed employee (= lost productivity) outweighs the harm Digital
will do to the harassing employee.  If the harassment is simply moved outside
the workplace (analogous to the school bully waiting for you just outside
the school gates), it's still a work-related incident.  It may seem silly
to you, but as I said earlier, "fairness" means fairness as perceived by
the employees involved.  If a number of employees feel that Digital shouldn't
intrude on their personal lives, then that becomes a very real factor in
determining the over-all benefit of working here (tangible advantages, i.e.
wages, stock etc., plus intangible advantages minus intangible disadvantages).

>    We are talking about an assault and battery here.

That may be what you're talking about, but it's not what I'm reacting to.
I'm reacting to a lot of unstated concerns like mandatory drug testing,
smoking policies, and the general (hopefully short term) trend toward reduced
individual rights.  In other words, I'm not just concerned about the specific
assault case we were talking about but about the underlying principle.  Tom
Blinn seemed to be saying that the underlying principle is that we are owned
body and soul by Digital 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that's when I
started to get angry.

>    I hardly think
>    it would be looked opun with kindness if you were moonlighting as
>    a design engineer with one of our competitors, for example.

Not to get too far off the topic, but moonlighting isn't just a case of Digital
owning you so you can't work somewhere else on your own time.  Digital has a
legitimate (but not absolute) interest in protecting its proprietary
information.

>    I mention it only to show that the dividing line is not as clear
>    as some would suggest.

I agree that it's hard to draw a clear line, but that doesn't mean that
employees have no right to privacy.

Maybe I should bow out of this discussion; it's turning into a Soapbox-style
flame war (at least we haven't called each other jerks yet).

				-- Bob

Here is the personnel employee relations policy on harassment.  It seems to
address a number of concerns expressed in this topic.
				/AHM

Harassment                                          Effective: 5-JUL-82
                                                    Section: 6.03

 It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation that all our
 employees should be able to enjoy a work environment free of
 discrimination and harassment.

 Harassment refers to behavior which is personally offensive,
 impairs morale and interferes with the work effectiveness of
 employees.  Any harassment of employees by other employees will not
 be permitted, regardless of their working relationship.

 This policy refers to, but is not limited to, harassment in the
 following areas:  (1)age, (2)race, (3)color, (4)national origin,
 (5)religion, (6)sex, (7)handicap and (8)veteran status.  Such
 harassment includes unsolicited remarks, gestures or physical
 contact; display or circulation of written materials or pictures
 degrading to either gender or to racial, ethnic, or religious
 groups; and verbal abuse or insults directed at or made in the
 presence of members of a racial, ethnic or minority group.

 Sexual harassment includes unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for
 sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct that is both
 sexual and offensive in nature.  Sexual harassment undermines the
 employment relationship by creating an intimidating, hostile or
 offensive work environment.

 In determining whether alleged conduct is sexual harassment, the
 nature of the sexual advances and the context in which they
 supposedly occurred must be examined.

 Individuals who believe they have been subjected to harassment from
 either a coworker or a supervisor should make it clear that such
 behavior is offensive to them.  If the behavior continues, they
 should bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate manager
 and/or their Personnel Representative.  (See Open Door Policy, 6.02.)

 In fulfilling their obligation to maintain a positive and pro-
 ductive work environment, managers and supervisors are expected to
 halt any harassment of which they become aware by restating the
 Company Policy and, when necessary, by more direct disciplinary
 action.  (See Corrective Action and Discipline Policy, 6.21.)

    I think there is enough ambiguity in the harassment policy (see .21)
    that we can continue arguing for a hundred notes. But here is how I
    interpret some parts of it; I fully expect some other people to differ,
    and their differences may also be reasonable. Also, there is a real
    risk of over interpreting Digital policies. 

	It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation that all our
	employees should be able to enjoy a work environment free of
	discrimination and harassment.

    This first paragraph states Digital's goal. If some tiff between two
    employees does NOT carry over into the work environment, then one might
    infer (not conclude) from the policy that Digital is not interested. 

    On the other hand, this sentence might be read to argue the other way: 

	Any harassment of employees by other employees will not
	be permitted, regardless of their working relationship.

    I find an ambiguity here. Does the sentence require that some working
    relationship actually exist? Or does the sentence include the case of
    no working relationship at all? I don't know, and I wouldn't be too
    certain that the people who wrote the policy and approved it actually
    considered the case. 

	Sexual harassment undermines the employment relationship by
	creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

    This sentence seems to indicate that the behavior, or at least the
    personalitites, must carry over into the work environment. If I got
    into a tiff of some sort with a person I'd never heard of, who happened
    to work for Digital 3000 miles away, I find it hard to believe the tiff
    would undermine my working environment. It would affect me, of course,
    but not my working environment which might very well be a stabilizing
    factor in a world perceived to be hostile. Maybe the sentence applies
    only to "sexual" harassment. 

	Individuals who believe they have been subjected to harassment from
	either a coworker or a supervisor should make it clear that such
	behavior is offensive to them. If the behavior continues, they
	should bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate manager
	and/or their Personnel Representative. 

    The word "coworker" implies to me that a personal working relationship
    of some sort must exist. I suppose that another Digital person 3000
    miles away I had never heard of might be described as a "coworker", but
    I find that a bit thin. My dictionary's definition as "a fellow worker"
    doesn't help much. 

    Again, I think there is real risk of over interpreting Digital
    policies.

    Dr. B:  Where Digital employees are married to one another, but have no
    direct business relationship, what would be the interest Digital should
    take in any domestic dispute resulting in a charge of battery?
    
    Marge

re .17 and others
    
>            Look at it another way:  should Digital seek to employ people
>        who believe that the guidelines in the employee conduct policy
>        simply don't apply outside of the 9 to 5 grind?  
    
         Yes as long as they can follow the guidelines while representing
    Digital. Do all of Digital's guidelines apply to me when I'm not 
    representing Digital.  I hope not, as long as I obey the law of were
    ever I happen to be I shouldn't have to worry about how Digital feels
    about my activities.  
    
>         Are we trying
>        to suggest that it's OK to assault your fellow employees as
>        long as you don't do it in the workplace or during normal work
>        hours?  

         I don't think anyone is trying to say it's OK to ever assault 
    someone.  But I don't thinks it's Digitals responsibility to judge 
    and sentence someone for non-work related activities.
        
         The only reason I see for Digital to step in is if these two
    employees work together(as in in the same group) then the problem
    between the two employees could interfere with there work.
    
         
    

>         The only reason I see for Digital to step in is if these two
>    employees work together(as in in the same group) then the problem
>    between the two employees could interfere with there work.

Then at the very least action should not be taken UNTIL AFTER any such
interference!  Punish for a deed done, not what might be done.

-Joe

    After reading .3 and, assuming the majority of the replies are/were
    directed to it's content to some degree, I would like to make the
    following comments: 
    
    * I did not see anywhere in .3 any mention of the term harrassment.  
      That topic was created somewhere along the way on the assumption
      that it was an underlying reason for the altercation.
    
    * If there had been a scuffle (the author used the terms "victem"(sp)
      and "victor") and the "victem" had won the altercation, do you think 
      he would have had the other individual's supervisor involved?  This 
      lends itself to becoming retaliation to an incident where the apparent 
      victim decided, if he couldn't beat him physically, he could get him 
      thru his job. 
    
    * It wasn't mentioned, but what if the "victor" had been defending
      himself?  Would this still be subject to the same interpretation?
    
    * If the "victem" had not been a Digital employee, would it be safe
      to assume the events following the altercation (victim complains
      to the employee's supervisor) would have the same effect?  More?
      Less?

    While I do not endorse assault/battery by any form or means, I feel
    it is not justified to use Digital as a mechanism for punishment
    of an individual merely because he is in it's employment.  While
    I agree that, if job harrassment is involved, it should be subject
    to discussion between all parties involved and appropriate management/
    personnel, I didn't see reference to this in .3.

-Andy

    Hold on a minute, please think of the implications before voicing
    your opinions.
    
    Digital will not even CONSIDER compensating an employee when his car is
    broken into in its own parking lot where the security is supposed to
    keep a watch.  Digital flatly tells the employee to take his complaint
    to local law enforcement authority and washes off its hands from the
    whole affair. 
    
    And you think Digital has ANY rights to act as a jury, judge and
    enforcer just because someone CLAIMS that the party which caused
    damage is another Digital employee??
    
- Vikas

    To take the hypothetical case of a married, two-DECcie couple
    (a "double-DECker?") in another direction:
    
    DEC-spouse:	    "Not tonight dear.  I have a headache."
    
    DEC-spouse-2:   "Awwww, come on.  Pleeeeeease?"
    
    DEC-spouse:      "That's it.  Unwelcome sexual advance -- I'm taking
    		      you to personnel!"

    Absurd, yes.   But sometimes it takes an absurd example to see how
    absurd the discussion is getting.
    
    I'd say that interpretation of the almighty policies and procedures
    has to be done on a case by case basis.   There is no clear line
    drawn at the boundaries of DEC property.   I could get angry at
    someone for showing me up in a business meeting, and decide to hunt
    him down and beat the poop out of him at his favorite bar.  Clearly,
    this _would_ have implications for Digital, even though it is outside
    the physical boundaries, and outside of work hours.  On the other
    hand, I could be playing in a rugby match somewhere, take offense
    to an unsportsmanlike gesture on the field, and decide to whale
    the livin' tar out of some poor soul, only to find out later that
    the guy just happens to work for DEC.   Clearly, this has absolutely
    no implications for DEC, and is therefore well out of DEC's
    jurisdiction.   Not only that, but if DEC did poke its nose into
    the matter, and my career or earnings suffered because of it, I'd
    probably have a pretty good case for taking legal action.

    What does it all mean?   It means that interpretation of _any_ policy
    must rely on the two most useful words in management:  "It depends."
    
    -Don-

    Re: .26
    
    Yes, note .3 didn't use the term "harassment". That issue was brought
    up, I believe, as the closest Digital policy anybody could find to the
    issue .3 presented. I think the harassment policy is relevant to
    consider here, although I certainly don't believe it answers all the
    questions pertaining to possible specific circumstances. 

    RE: .3 (my reply to this topic)
              
    what follows is MY OPINION only and does not necessarily represent
    the views of Digital Equipment Corporation:
    
    The incident did indeed happen. I cannot /will not release any more
    details, that would not be proper. But that is not even the point
    here; the point is that a number of "P&P-managerially-worded" replies
    to .3 have strongly expressed approval of this action.  
    
    The point I was trying to make is that Digital is a CORPORATION.
    Digital is a great place to work. I love it. But it IS a corporation,
    not a Country, and we are employees, NOT citizens. In the context
    of that, assumptions about the concept of "RIGHTS" may not always
    apply.
    
    In some cases, a corporation may count on the likelyhood that
    we as employees will tend to passively waive our legal rights
    as citizens of a given country,in order to keep the paychecks rolling
    in. That is not a pleasant thought, but it appears to be the
    way of the world.
    
    A manager here at DEC has a LOT of lattitude in his decision making,
    and is not bound by the inherent checks and balances in the legal
    systems of some countries. All such decisions are calculated risks,
    with the underlying assumption being that a manager  will not undermine
    his own career in an arbitrary fashion by making such decisions.
    I think that is a dangerous assumption.
    
    Please dont get me wrong: I am not in favor of people asaulting,
    insulting, or otherwise bothering each other. I do not approve
    of any kind of violence. But the fact remains that ANY of the above
    are *criminal* matters, and should be decided by a properly qualified
    judge or magistrate.
    
    If some managers interpret the policy as the manager in .3 did,
    they are perfectly within their......(the word "rights" does not
    apply here)...MANDATE...to do so. Apparently, a number of managemant-
    knowledgeable people agree with that decision. They are "betting
    the farm" that the employee will not risk permanently damaging his
    own career by making it a legal issue. 
                        
    That is probably what bothers me the most. Not the one incident,
    but the fact that the decision has been applauded as correct by
    a number of respondants to this note. By the same token, I am
    cheered by the respondants that find it as offensive as I do.
    I recognize some of the names, and find it somewhat amusing that
    not one of the ones I recognize is a manager.  ;^)
                     
    I truly appreciate the learning opportunity in the replies to this
    note. Reality is not always pleasant, but being aware of it is
    essential.
    

    I agree with .31 100%.

    Digital does not 'own' me when I am not working for them.  If a
    person is a Digital 'resource' 24 hrs x 7  days  (as  has  been
    suggested)  then  I'm  sure  that  many  P&P sections are being
    violated,  not just the one cited.  I am quite alarmed  that  a
    problem between two individuals that occurs after hours and not
    on Digital property can be worked through Digital management.

    If this is the precedent being set  then  what  will  be  next?
    Will employee 'A' be telling management that employee  'B'  was
    seen doing <insert illegal act here> after hours and  that  the
    observed activity could have an impact on Digital?
    
    Let's get real here folkes.   Digital  is  an employer, and you
    perform a job for Digital in exchange for compensation.  That's
    all.
    
    Lee

        For the record:  (1) I am not a manager or supervisor.  I am
        an individual contributor.  Nothing I write here is anything
        more than a possibly informed opinion, *unless* I clearly say
        that it's a copy of some official policy, and (2) contrary
        to an assertion in an earlier reply, I *never* said that Digital
        owns anyone, body and soul, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
        
        Tom

Re: .33 Tom

>        (2) contrary
>        to an assertion in an earlier reply, I *never* said that Digital
>        owns anyone, body and soul, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
        
In that case could you clarify what you meant in .13 and answer the questions I
asked in .16?

				-- Bob

	What I wrote in Note 767.13, verbatim:

>        As far as I know, I'm an employee of Digital Equipment Corporation
>        24 hours a day, 365 days a year, until and unless such time as
>        that relationship is terminated.  I don't turn in my badge at the
>        door when I go home.  I don't punch a clock when I come in.  I
>        like it this way.  I am treated with respect, and I give respect
>        in return. 
        
        There was more.  You can go back and read it at your leisure. I'm
        not in the habit of deleting notes.  Nowhere in the note did I use
        the word "own".  If *you* have the attitude that the employer --
        employee relationship involves one party owning the other, that's
        a problem you have with your perception, in my opinion. 
        
        The tone of your .16 was so challenging (hostile?) that I didn't
        really feel obligated to respond to it, but since you seem to want
        confrontation, here's more grist for the mill. 
        
        As for your "questions" in Note 767.16, I assume you're referring
        to this:
        
>What do you think the responsibilities of an employee are (a) legally and
>(b) morally?
        
        Beyond the "legal" responsibilities I may have as a citizen (for
        example, not bludgeoning you with a stick), I believe my "legal"
        responsibilities are those spelled out in any contract between me
        and Digital.  But I don't view this as a major problem.  As far as
        I can tell, Digital hasn't asked me to do anything illegal, and if
        someone claiming to represent Digital did do so, I'd ignore them
        (and report them). 
        
        I think Digital's various policy statements on employee conduct
        and related matters provide a pretty reasonable set of "moral"
        guidelines.  But I suppose it all comes down to "Do what's right". 
        
        Tom 

Re: .35
        
>        There was more.  You can go back and read it at your leisure. I'm
>        not in the habit of deleting notes.  Nowhere in the note did I use
>        the word "own".

Yes, Tom, I know what you wrote.  If you go back and read what *I* wrote
you'll see that I never said you used the word "own".  I said that you seemed
to be saying that DEC owns us body and soul -- that was simply my impression
based on the context in which you said that you are a DEC employee 24 hours
a day.  In reply .16 I asked for clarification -- what point were you trying
to make?

>  If *you* have the attitude that the employer --
>        employee relationship involves one party owning the other, that's
>        a problem you have with your perception, in my opinion. 
        
No, I don't think that.  I may have misinterpreted your remark; that's why
I'm giving you a chance to explain what you meant.

>        As for your "questions" in Note 767.16, I assume you're referring
>        to this:

They're not "questions", they're questions.  I really wanted to hear your
answers; I was trying to figure out what you meant by your "24 hours"
remark.
        
>        I think Digital's various policy statements on employee conduct
>        and related matters provide a pretty reasonable set of "moral"
>        guidelines.  But I suppose it all comes down to "Do what's right". 
        
I agree with the idea that we should "do what's right".  The "do what's right"
philosophy applies to management as well as to "individual contributers".
Doing what's right in this case does *not* mean becoming unduly intrusive
into the personal lives of employees -- but the word "unduly" is open to
a lot of interpretation.

				-- Bob

.32> I am quite alarmed  that  a
.32> problem between two individuals that occurs after hours and not
.32> on Digital property can be worked through Digital management.

    Well, it happens.  I've been there:  After hours dinner, too much
    discussion on 'Nam - I stood up for the United States and he took
    *serious* offense at some things I said....I ended up on a written
    warning for a year.  As a direct result of this I have consciously
    avoided any after hours association with DEC employees for the last
    four years.

    "Never fight a battle when nothing is to be gained from winning".      
    (General George S. Patton, Jr.)
    
>    Let's get real here folkes.   Digital  is  an employer, and you
>    perform a job for Digital in exchange for compensation.  That's
>    all.

    I hear you. I respect your position.  For *me* the USMC was an
    "employer". I did a job in exchange for compensation.  I ate three
    square meals a day, got plenty of exercise, sufficient sleep, good
    working hours, good benefits, etc....
    
    I couldn't tell you the last time within the last month I've had
    three good meals in a day.  I don't get 1/2 the sleep that I got
    while I was in the USMC.  Working hours run anywhere between 6:00
    AM and 11:00 PM, sometimes later.  Exercise is limited for the most
    part to pounding a keyboard and turning pages, etc....but...
    you know what?  I *love* DEC...I intend to retire from DEC...I chose
    not to stay with the USMC.

    No...to me DEC is much more than an "employer"...
    
    Jerry

>< Note 767.37 by ABACUS::BEELER "Somewhere in time..." >
>    Well, it happens.  I've been there:  After hours dinner, too much
>    discussion on 'Nam - I stood up for the United States and he took
>    *serious* offense at some things I said....I ended up on a written
>    warning for a year.  

	Jerry,

		Without going into details you may not wish to reveal, is there
more to this incident than what you relate here?  If these are all the facts of
the case, the implications are staggering.  Taking "serious offense" to some-
one's opinions on non-job related issues, off job premises, should not be 
addressed through job disciplinary proceedures.  Was this really all there was 
to it?  If so, did you attempt any appeals?

							--Mike

    A somewhat related story:
    
    	Two men go to work as laborers on the railroad.  Years later
    	they meet by chance.  One of them is still a laborer, the other
    	is president of the railroad.  The laborer asks the president:
    	"We were both quite alike, what's the difference between you
    	and me?"  The president replies: "You went to work for two bucks
    	an hour.  I went to work for the railroad."
    
    Al
    

    I experienced something similar, though certainly not as serious as
    what happened to Jerry. 

    Picture the Memphis in May BBQ Cookoff:  300,000 people on the banks of
    the Mississippi River drinking beer and eating BBQ and generally having
    a rowdy good time.  A Digital employee and her non-Digital husband
    have a "booth" -- that is, an area rented with a little wooden fence
    around it (about 8 inches high) and a canopy overhead where a cooker
    can be set up and a whole pig cooked.  This was entirely private -- not
    sponsored by Digital in any way. 

    Myself and about 20 other people, most of them Digital employees,
    attended this big party.  On the above person's invitation, we used the
    "booth" as a meeting place/hangout.  All of us brought coolers of beer,
    most of us in those backpacks that you sling over your shoulder that
    hold a 6-pack. 

    There were a *lot* of drunks there.  It was a big party, and one and
    all were had by a good time.  I personally saw a total stranger sit on
    the fence in the above person's "booth" and break it.  He was very
    drunk.  I had never seen him before in my life, and he certainly was
    not part of our group.  While some of our contingent was feeling no
    pain, I saw no one even remotely out of line.  We had a large group of
    very happy-go-lucky partiers, and no one did any damage or said
    anything that should have offended anyone. 

    The next Monday, the above person complained to Digital management that
    we had (a) torn up her booth, and (b) stolen 10 cases of beer.  Digital
    management (specifically the district team) wrote a very harsh letter
    to *all* Digital employees named by the above individual (some of whom
    *WEREN'T EVEN THERE*), without investigating the validity of her
    complaint in any way or even asking anyone else to corroborate her
    story.  In my 11-year Digital career, I have never seen a larger,
    madder group of Digital employees in my life than the day those letters
    arrived. 

    We went en masse to Personnel, who of course refused to lift a finger. 

    To this day I don't understand the above person's motivation for doing
    what she did, unless she thought it would be a good way to get Digital
    to finance some of her expenses with the booth, BBQ, pig, etc.  And I
    will have hard feelings about it forever, as will the others who
    received the letter.  To this day I bristle when I think about it. 

    							Pat 
    

re .39:

>	Two men go to work as laborers on the railroad.  Years later
>    	they meet by chance.  One of them is still a laborer, the other
>    	is president of the railroad.  The laborer asks the president:
>    	"We were both quite alike, what's the difference between you
>    	and me?"  The president replies: "You went to work for two bucks
>    	an hour.  I went to work for the railroad."

This reminds me of a similar but significantly different story about the Red
Army (from one of Viktor Suvorov's books, probably "Inside The Red Army").
This is how I remember it:

	Two boys grew up together as firm friends. As young men, they joined
	the army and went their separate ways. Many years later, they met by
	chance, but while one was still a Lieutenant, the other had become a
	General. After reminiscing for a while, the Lieutenant grew thoughtful
	and asked "How does it happen that you have become a General, while I
	am still a junior officer". The General thought for a moment, then
	replied "Pick up that unexploded grenade lying at your feet and dispose
	of it, don't you realise that's dangerous?" The Lieutenant replied in
	bewilderment "But it's not a grenade, it's only a rock".

	"Now you can see why you are still a Lieutenant", said his friend.
	A General tells you something, and you contradict him!"

There is probably some truth in both stories. Obviously the balance varies from
one organisation to another. If you honestly believe that a story about the
Red Army can have no relevance to life at Digital, though, you may have
difficulty understanding some of the things that happen to and around you.

--Tom

    Re: .39 and .41
    
    Try modernizing the RR story a bit, perhaps...
    
    Four friends go to work for a computer company as software folks
    (any sort of job will do...).  Years later they meet at a school
    reunion and find they all still work for the same company - in
    differing postions, of course...
    
    One guy is still a software developer, and is personally responsible
    for the technical excellence of one of the company's best selling
    products:  He went to work as a software person, and put his excellence
    into his work.  He, of course, is about 4 out of 10 in the corporate
    value scale.
    
    Mr. Two has just made it into management after 15 years.  He went
    to work for the company.  He is about a 5.
    
    Ms. Three is still on an hourly wage, but the highest the company
    has to offer.  She has *lots* of outside investments and really
    doens't need the job, but can't resist the cash and overtime.  She
    is also a 4 on the combined value scale, but that's done by being
    a 6 on the pay scale and a 2 on everything else.  She went to work
    for the $$$$.
    
    Mr. Four is, of course, a vice-president.  Well placed in the head
    office organization, he is a much feared individual and many corporate
    lesser lights wonder why he's where he is, as he has no particular
    personal achievements or obvious qualifications.  He went to work
    for himself, using each position as a springboard to the next with
    regard only for how he will look in the eyes of whoever will promote
    him next.
    
    Maybe there are more friends we could inject, but look around you.
     Check the mirror if you want.  Aren't they all accounted for? 
    Examine other places you have worked.  This is not a Digital-only
    malaise.
     

So what can we do to get the achievements of Mr. One recognized
and rewarded?   (a rhetorical question, probably).   After all, 
DEC is an engineering-driven company.  Right??

    
Note 767.43 by MU::PORTER "gonzo engineering"
    

> After all, DEC is an engineering-driven company.  Right??
    
    	HA! I wish. It used to be. But those were the old daze.
    
    	/prc

    re: .43
    
    You see, each has a reward.
    
    Just so you'll understand this is not something you want to set
    about changing, by the way, try:  "For where your treasure is, there
    will your heart be also." both ways.  Then reflect on the age of
    the source - Matthew 6.21
    
    The goal for most of what Digital seems to attract as employees
    should not be the power, the money nor even the amusing combination
    of the two.  Rather the acceptance of ourselves and our inner workings
    which have led us to this company, to the interaction with one another,
    to the social style and values Digital represents.  Accept our reward
    is what it is and will be different from that offered by a Sun or
    a consulting firm, or a car dealership or whatever.
    
    The other goal should be to build in ourselves sufficient self-worth
    to weather the inevitable retirement of the boss and his principles
    - and the resulting rule by the Mr & Ms Fours of our world.
                
    Don

    >You see, each has a reward.
    
    Not necessarily what it ought to be, however.
    
    
    >Just so you'll understand this is not something you want to set
    >about changing, by the way, try:  "For where your treasure is, there
    >will your heart be also." both ways.  Then reflect on the age of
    >the source - Matthew 6.21
    
    What???  
    
    
   >Rather the acceptance of ourselves and our inner workings
   >which have led us to this company.
    
    Seeking the One True Way of engineering eh?  Personally speaking,
    I'm not working here for the good of my soul (although I did use
    to think that struggling against the 4Kw code-and-data limit
    for an RSX Comm/Exec process built character).
    
    OK, so this isn't Soapbox, and so I shouldn't be rude, but really -
    this doesn't sound much like the DEC way of working to me.
    

    Perhaps "God helps those who help themselves" fits the DEC way of
    working somewhat better. 

    Re: .46
    
    What I was trying to let you know is that people are motivated by
    different things.  Many of us are not here for the money (I have
    yet to figure out who IS, and how he/she got it).  The reward(s)
    we strive for differ from person to person.  The quote was not designed
    to turn the conversation religious, rather to show that the different
    drums are part of the human condition and have been for some time.
    
    As to the rewards not being what they ought...  What kind of a raise
    would you want to lose all NOTES that aren't strictly business?
    How much for working for a less ethical company?  What value is
    there, in your perception, to working with those you do?  What about
    a company which asks you to punch a clock?
    
    Don

    I feel this discussion has strayed.
    
    Ive been following this note (as both a moderator AND a concerned
    employee who feels strongly about some of the points raised here)
    
    In order to get it back on track (If that is possible  ;^)  )
    Ill restate what I saw as the major question in the basenote
    and try to break it down a bit:
    
    DOES THE DIGITAL WAY OF WORKING EXTEND TO THE PERSONAL LIVES
    OF DIGITAL EMPLOYEES? 
    
    IS IT THE RESULT OF A CONSCIOUSLY DESIGNED POLICY, OR IS IT AN
    UNOFFICIAL ASPECT OF OUR "CULTURE" THAT EVOLVED NATURALLY?
              
    IF SO, DO WE AS EMPLOYEES FEEL THIS IS A GOOD THING, OR DOES IT
    BOTHER US?
                     
    
    
    

    re: .50
    
>    DOES THE DIGITAL WAY OF WORKING EXTEND TO THE PERSONAL LIVES
>    OF DIGITAL EMPLOYEES? 
    
    I've heard that some psychologist/counselors in Massachussetts say that
    large proportion of their customers (up to 80%) are Digital employees
    or dependents. I've seen some groups where almost all the software
    developers are divorced. So, maybe it has some impact on personal
    lives. I say maybe, because it might be occupational hazzard -- high
    tech competitive stress, changing market conditions creating economic
    stress.
    
>    IS IT THE RESULT OF A CONSCIOUSLY DESIGNED POLICY, OR IS IT AN
>    UNOFFICIAL ASPECT OF OUR "CULTURE" THAT EVOLVED NATURALLY?
    
    "Culture" is an adaptation to an environment. The market environment
    (both product market and job market) is changing quickly, and it is
    creating large changes in our company culture. 
    
>    IF SO, DO WE AS EMPLOYEES FEEL THIS IS A GOOD THING, OR DOES IT
>    BOTHER US?
    
    It's neither good nor bad. It just is. Change is a fact of life that we
    have to cope with as best we can. There's a large shift in Digital from
    a engineering with a little sales and marketing force to a sales force
    with a little marketing and engineering -- volunteer for the "All hands
    on DEC" program to "temporarily" help a sales group can mean you don't
    have job to return to. Still I hate to see the huge, unofficial layoffs
    in Digital -- many groups being canceled or "re-organized" where people
    can't move to other groups because of head count freeze. They're
    being subtely pushed out of the company. 
    
    -George

>    I've heard that some psychologist/counselors in Massachussetts say that
>    large proportion of their customers (up to 80%) are Digital employees
>    or dependents.

Might this be related to the generosity of Digital's health insurance?
Perhaps those counselors are on the EAP's list.

I think working at Digital is less stressful than working at Wang, Prime,
DG, etc. where you don't know if you'll have a job next month.

My supervisor came to Digital from Sun, and he says there's a very high
burnout rate there.

    I do not wish to be a heavy handed moderator, but the basenote (767)
    raised some excellent questions, which are being completely ignored
    by a number of the more recent replies.
    
    This topic is NOT a discussion of employee burnout, or of the
    results of job related stress. (These topics are appropriate for
    HUMAN::DIGITAL, but not as replies to this note) It is a discussion
    of how we as employees feel about a specific Digital policy (see
    below) and how that policy has effected us.
    
    I have reposted the key portions of 767.0 here. Please try to
    address the key issue below:
    
    [extracted copy follows, shortened somewhat]
    ================================================================================
Note 767.0                    A DEC way of living ?                   51 replies
NISSAN::STIMSON "Thomas"                            119 lines  30-MAR-1989 18:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         
         Does a DEC Way of Working imply a DEC Way of Living ?
               
				OR

	 	How far into one's personal life does 
         	DEC's influence and control extend ?
         

         In response to a discussion in Note 725 about how DEC
         Security does or should react to things like parking lot
         accidents, one reply cited the following passage from the
         Orangebook: (6.24 - Employee Conduct Guide)
         
         "IN GENERAL EMPLOYEES CAN ANTICIPATE THAT ACTIONS HARMFUL TO 
          ANOTHER EMPLOYEE ... ARE CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES OR
          POSSIBLE DISMISSAL
    
         This at first seems like a reasonable standard of conduct. 
	 But on closer consideration it does not explicitly limit DEC's
         concern for its employees to the workplace. If this passage
         were to be interpreted literally, the implications would be
         profound. 
         
        

    With regard to the example quoted of the two employees fighting
    out of company time, I agree with others that although the manager
    should be made aware of the personal friction if the two work together,
    there is NO WAY it should be the subject of inter-company discipline.
    
    The manager sets himself up as judge, jury and God if he thinks
    he has the right to a) take action on alleged injury b) interfere
    in other employees personal lives.
    
    Once I walk out the door in the evening (unless I'm on call), I'm
    my own person.  If I break the law of my country and am caught then
    Digital have the right to decide they no longer want to be connected
    with me, but I don't see any other justification for interference
    in my private life.
    
    Kate 
    UK Noter

I haven't (yet) read all of these, but I've seen some situations where the rules
have been applied different ways, and for good reasons:

Incident 1:	Two employees got in an argument during a Digital sponsored 
sporting event.  One employee shoved the other.  The employee who was shoved 
demanded through employee activities that personel be involved.  Personel said
no, that this was an outside activity.  

Incident 2:	A male employee starts to harass a female employee at work, 
and this then travels over to their 'off work' time.  Personel is involved and 
rules that the off-work harassment is related to the on-work harassment and 
includes this in the male employee's records. 


In both cases, I believe that the personel people did the `right thing'.



Here's a scenerio for those of you who believe that any incident between Digital
employees is Digital's business.


I meet a woman in a bar tonight.  We go on a date, but I never find that she's 
a DEC employee.  After one date, she finds that I'm a jerk, and doesn't want to
hear from me again, but I don't want to give up.  I call her, send her letters
(at home), and generally bug her about it.  She finds out that I'm a DEC employee.

Does that give her the right to complain to Digital personnel?   I say not. 
(it does give her the right to complain to the local police)

    There are probably hundreds of examples and certainly several real
    cases of emloyee relational incidences outside work hours or off
    Digital premises.
    One couldn't really expect DIGITAL to take any official position
    in either....
    However,
    If I would be the manager of person guilty of such an offense, I'd
    still like to know. It would be hard to believe that someone who
    behaves unethically (to DEC standards) in his private live would
    change completely when at work.
    What would I do ?
    The "right thing" of course. (every case would need to be looked at
    very carefully, tactfully and independently)
    Fred

    I feel that Digital is definitely entitled to look askance at
    employees who commit felonies.  I believe Digital even reserves
    the right to fire someone for committing a felony.  I presume
    that means upon conviction, but does anyone know for sure?
    
    						Ann B.

The following is from the Orangebook - Employee Conduct Guide
    
There are two major themes. Firstly, the arrest or conviction must
impact an employee's "fitness, qualification, or availability for 
work." This allows wide discretion, but must be a consideration 
to protect DEC from legal action which is possible if an employee
is discharged for something that is completely unrelated to his
or her job. 
                                                                 
Secondly, Disciplinary action must not come before "final judicial 
resolution". Again, important from a legal perspective. If an 
employee were fired and later found not guilty of the subject
offense, DEC would have legal exposure.                 
                                   
The disturbing ambiguity cited in the basenote persists here, however,
in the phrase, "affects DEC or its employees", perhape intended to mean
while they are at work, but could be interpreted more generally.                           
               
Sometimes laws and rules come to be used in ways not intended by their
authors. Example 1: RICO  Example 2:  Early Papal bulls (circa 1484)
on heresy lead eventually to the murder of more than 200,000 "witches",
including 19 at Salem Village. Those hanged at Salem had been falsely
and maliciously accused of bewitchment by teenagers who did so 
to relieve their boredom.                       

    
        
=============================================================================    
    
    		EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ARRESTED

  Policy 

 It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation to limit
 instances where employment decisions are made because of an
 employee's arrest or conviction to those cases where an arrest or
 conviction impacts on the employee's fitness, qualification or
 availability for work.

  Practice 

 If an employee is arrested during working hours, or on Company
 premises they are required to notify their supervisor or manager of
 their arrest as soon thereafter as possible.  For those arrests
 which do not occur on Company time or Company premises, employees
 are only required to promptly notify their supervisor or manager if
 their arrest will impact their availability, fitness or
 qualification for employment.  Managers and supervisors should
 adhere to the following procedure when notified of an employee's
 arrest or conviction:

  Employee Arrested 

 Employee Available for Work - The employee would normally be
 allowed to return to work.  However, if the employee is accused of
 a serious crime, and it is believed the employee would not be able
 to properly function or that the employee's return would have an
 adverse effect on the employing organization, the employee may be
 suspended with pay pending a final judicial resolution.  If the
 employee is accused of a crime that involves Digital or its
 employees directly, a decision should first be made whether
 Corrective Action and Discipline in accordance with Personnel
 Policy 6.21 is appropriate.

 Employee Unavailable for Work - The employee may elect to use
 vacation/personal holiday, or may be suspended without pay, unless
 Corrective Action and Discipline is appropriate as outlined above.

  Final Judicial Resolution 

 Employee Found Not Guilty and Available for Work - If the crime did
 not involve Digital or its employees, and the employee is available
 for work, he or she would normally be allowed to return to work,
 however, they would not be compensated for any lost time.  If the
 crime did involve Digital or its employees the employee's manager
 should first determine whether reinstatement is appropriate under
 Company policy and given all of the available information.

 Other Judicial Determinations/Resolutions - Whenever the criminal
 charge(es) against an employee are resolved by anything other than
 Not Guilty findings (e.g., conviction, continuations without
 findings, plea bargaining, no-contest pleas, convictions with
 suspended sentences or probation, etc.), the employee's manager with
 the assistance of Personnel should first determine the employee's
 availability for work.  Employees who are unavailable should be
 terminated unless they have sufficient vacation to cover the period
 of their unavailability.  The termination record should indicate
 the employee was terminated because he or she was unavailable for
 work.  Under no circumstances would the employee be given a leave
 of absence.

 If the employee is available for work, the manager with the
 assistance of personnel, should review the facts and the outcome of
 the case to determine the employee's fitness for continued
 employment.  Termination should be considered where the record when
 taken as a whole is sufficient to demonstrate the employee has
 engaged in behavior that significantly impairs their fitness,
 qualification or ability to fully perform their assigned respon-
 sibilities, when viewed in the light of other Company policies.