Conference 7.286::digital

I don't see how we can comment on this without a real explanation of
what he was doing that got him fired.

If he insisted on putting religious slogans on business mail, or if he
tried to tell fellow workers that they would go to hell if they didn't
believe in his particular brand of fundamental Christianity, and refused
to stop when his management told him to stop, then he deserves to be
fired for not valuing others differences.

/john

    While I agree with .1 that it is impossible to judge the merits of this
    situation without knowing the details of what happened, I have heard
    that some people in Personnel are much more concerned with not
    offending employees than with employee's liberty.
        John Sauter

re: .0:

I feel a few comments are in order, and apologize if my reply is both angry
and overlong.

================================================================================
Note 190.0           WHEN CHRISTIANITY IS OUT-DATED AT DEC            38 replies
WLDWST::R_GARCIA                                     80 lines  19-OCT-1990 01:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    not to mention the blatant violation of
    Constitutional civil rights.

You do not have the "Constitutional civil right" of free speech on
company property.  See the U.S. Supreme Court judgement of Koch vs.
Henry for details.  (That, in fact, went beyond "on company property"
in upholding the firing of a university professor who wrote a letter
to the editor of a local newspaper.  Although he wrote as an individual, the
paper identified him as "professor of biology" and the university fired him.
    
    I, and, and other similarly violated believers and NON-believers
    wondered, "What happened to the supposed Christian foundation this Company
    had as its roots?  Where did it turn from humanitarian to humanist? 

There are many forms of Christianity, perhaps the founder's is one
you are unfamiliar with.

    How was it let to get so out of hand?"  Is not the evidence so clear
    just by looking at the available NOTES CONFERENCES such as New Age,
    Lesbianism, Homosexuality, Nudism and more, that it brings upon itself
    a curse of doom?

You forgot Bagels.

    Could the current slide in profitability, stock drops
    and other calamities simply be a matter of certain judgement befalling DEC?

It could indeed, Richard.  If the company recovers after firing you, we
will have learned something extremely interesting.

More seriously, the suggestion that a company that tolerates new age,
lesbianism, homosexuality, and nudism may be cursed for that tolerance
is completely contrary to my understanding of Digital's philosophy, as
expressed in its personnel policies.
    
Martin.

    I agree. Without details, this is a ridiculous topic to discuss.
    
    One can equally hypothecate circumstances that would merit the
    dismissal of the employee or the dismissal of the employee's personnel
    manager or both or none.

    I agree we need more detail, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I've
    seen it all before.  It's necessary to understand that these guys truly
    believe they have to save the rest of us.  Sad, very sad.  He'll go to
    his next job, and the same thing will happen, and it'll still be
    someone else's fault.  If he's ordained, I don't understand why he
    doesn't open a full time church.
    
    I feel moderately qualified to comment as I have a mid-fifties brother-
    in-law, an engineer and MBA, who has been fired more than ten times
    in his career for the same kind of rock-headed intolerance.  What's
    amazing to me is that he still thinks he's right.

I'd suggest reading topic 190 and topic 201 in GOLF::CHRISTIAN.

It seems that at least two people in that conference have spoken directly
to Ken Olsen about Richard's case.

The first conversation took place at a conference on Christianity and
Business at Lake Winnepesauke, where Ken was given a copy of the note.

The second occured later.  Ken said that he was not going to pursue the
matter, because it did not appear to be religious discrimination.

In topic "201", Richard refers to "being out on disability" and "submitting
his forced resignation letter".

It is not clear that we have anywhere near all the facts.

/john

    Sounds like this guy, rapt in his vision of a 'Christian company',
    and deeply appreciative of having a Notes forum wherein to discuss
    his own beliefs, has no idea that _many_ 'Christians', and most
    other employees, have no quarrel with open discussions of New Age,
    Lesbianism, Homosexuality, etc. Most, including the highest levels
    of this company, are willing to accept that others are equally 
    entitled to their own beliefs, and to safely discuss their beliefs.
    The author has no right to publicly blame the state of the company 
    on others who don't share his particular brand of 'Christianity'.
    
    It sounds to me like this guy was openly dis-valuing the differences
    of fellow employees, and sorry, his religious convictions do *not*
    give him the right to do so in this company.

    Exscuse me but it seems that he has the right to speak what he believes
    just as everyone else in the company does.  Just because you might
    disagree with what he says, does not mean that he does not still have
    the right.
    
    You know, valuing differences has always bothered me and now I know
    why.  Whereas it looks good on paper, it is another term which can be,
    and is used to try and devalue someone elses opinion.  
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

Clearly, we don't have all the facts (or even a representative sample)
about the case brought to our attention in the base note.  Yet I have
observed inconsistencies in the way policies are applied that end up
causing confusion and bad feelings.

I have been told by personnel staff that at Digital, "We don't dicuss
religion or politics or any other topic that is controversial or
potentially offensive to any employee."  My interpretation of the discussion
I had with personnel is that they believe that one of their main jobs
is to protect Digital from lawsuits that might be filed by employees who
have been offended.  So, they have to make sure that employees don't do
anything that might offend other employees.  But, they can't wait for
an employee to complain about something being offensive.  They have to
get rid of "potenially" offensive behaviour/things whenever they notice
them, even if no employees have complained.

I think this policy is inconsistent because I have seen oodles of "potentially
offensive" topics being discussed in numerous notes conferences.  The
author of the base note seems to have found things to be offended by.  Yet
these notes are sactioned by the company, and the feeling seems to be that
exchange of ideas and opnions on non-work related topics is a worthwhile
thing.  But an employee can be repremanded for expressing in another forum
the same idea that was expessed in a note.

I find it disturbing that personnel has put itself in the role of "thought
police," with a duty to stamp out everything potentially offensive.  Not
only is it an impossible task, but attempts to carry it out have great
potential for harm.  I don't know if this problem applies to the case
mentioned in the base note.  But I think a policy that allowed individuals
who have differences to work them out between themselves, with mediation,
if required, is much better than a policy that makes the company responsible
for supressing those differences.


Mac

P.S.  The incident that precipitated my discussion with personnel happend
when one of the personnel staff members accused me of doing something that
"contribued to an atmosphere that might encourage sexual harassment."  Maybe
I should start a note about that.

P.P.S.  I probably disagree in almost every respect with the religous
outlook of the author of the base note.

	... why don't we let this have a cooling-off period and see if more facts
come to light on GOLF:: that can be re-posted here.  According to the originator,
he has until next Tuesday on the network, maybe he'll see fit to fill that conference
in on "details" during this week.

    Why is it that Christians are omitted from the "Valuing Differences"
    umbrella?  Is "Valuing Differences" a double-standard?
    
    Mike

    I was feeling neutral up until the latter 1/3 of his note.  Someone
    doesn't get booted for a 'couple' of 'unsolicited' conversations about
    theology.. and he wants us to believe that he's being persecuted over
    what he does AWAY from work.  It's true that we don't have all the
    facts.  But there are times like this when I don't WANT to understand 
    all the nuances of someone else's reality.  The statement about DEC's 
    tolerance of notesfiles on new age, nudism, alternative lifestyles, etc., 
    being a possible cause of our stock price drop shows dramatically just
    how personally sensitive and politically aware he is.
    
    karl

    Like other postings have said, we may not have all of the facts-
    but I'm very uneasy about Digital personnel becoming involved in
    matters that occur after business hours and off Digital property
    (I think other discussions in this conference have touched on
    this).
    
    Digital personnel is not the police, not "mommy" or "daddy". If
    harassment (real or perceived) is occuring outside the
    workplace/worktime then it's none of Digital's affair. Period.
    Let people that have been affected seek whatever recourse they
    would if the other person were not a Digital employee.

    It is to Digital's shame if the person mentioned in .0 is being
    released due to activities that occured outside of Digitals'
    hours/walls.
    
    Lee Roth

    Without knowledge of the facts of the case, none of us should venture
    any opinion.  On the other hand, we can never beat the "valuing
    differences" topic to death, only because it is a cornerstone of the
    way we do business.  It is important that we discuss this Digital value
    so thoroughly that none of us is confused about it.
    
    I, for one, am confused.  
    
    Using an old-fashioned word for the same concept, must I tolerate
    the intolerance of a co-worker for the sake of "valuing differences"?
    
    I believe that there is a fundamental logical problem (commonly called
    paradox) showing its head.  Until we have a more precise formula than
    "valuing differences", this paradox cannot be resolved.  On the other
    hand, because the paradox stimulates discussion, it may teach some
    humility to those (like me) who always want everything logical and
    neat.
    
    Could it be that the paradox is really a clever scheme to keep us
    thinking?
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick

    Dick,  good try but I don't believe that Digital's paradoxes are
    "clever scheme(s) to keep us thinking."  I think they don't even go
    that deep.
    
    However, I see these paradoxes as annoyances which drain our collective
    energies without addressing root problems.  Too many of these paradoxes
    exist in Digital to permit enough resources leftover to address real, 
    root issues.  
    
    Herein lies severe danger for DEC - the counter-productivity of it all.  
    Even if you do your best to avoid these energy-sucking situations, they 
    seem to find you out.  Then your job becomes protecting your back (or 
    some other part of your anatomy) instead of doing your job for the 
    company.  Disgusting, isn't it?!?!

Doesn't this discussion belong in the Dave_Barry conference?  After all,
it's 100% fact-free.

    If the author has indeed been "forced to resign", why does he still
    have access to the network.  Sounds like a serious security violation
    to me.  

    re -1....I don't think he's being literally "forced" to resign.  I
    can't find anything in the personnel orange book about forced resigna-
    tions.  I believe that .0 feels he has no choice but to resign
    voluntarily because of what he sees around him.  IMNSHO.

The following reply is being entered on behalf of a noter who wishes to remain
anonymous.
					Steve


re .18 "forced resignation"

Be not misled, it happens, and Digital has lost a lot of good people
that way.  In my situation, I was an expert in DECmumble.  However, since
we didn't having any current needs for DECmumble expertise, I was sold
to a customer as an expert in DECfoobar.  It did not matter that I didn't
know diddly about the foobar industry, nor that I could even correctly
spell "DECfoobar" 2 times out of 3.  My directive was to "snow" the 
customer and keep them happy.  "After all, a senior level person doesn't
get to BE a senior level person without having learned to successfully BS".

I was able to successfully snow the customer for 2-3 weeks, getting those
CLAR's signed off in short order.  However, the customer soon discovered
(as *real* knowledge of the foobar industry was being required) that I was
NOT a foobar expert.  I was accused of sabotage, and asked to resign.

This was forced resignation.  The management was being "good guys" by
allowing me to resign instead of firing me.  They had the termination
papers all filled out, and if I cooperated by adding my signature, they
could see it in the goodness of their hearts NOT to check the little
box that says "do not rehire".

I used ODP and eventually things worked out.  But the point here is that
"forced resignation", while it comes in many flavors, does exist and is
being used.

re .19

Yes, but was it used in .0's case, or did .0 just decide that DEC was
not the kind of Christian company he thinks he needs to work for, and
resigned because "the devil made him do it?"

    re .18...sounds familiar, now that you bring it up.  Your management
    at that time didn't happen to come from the Ill-fated Target Sales
    Force per chance??  They tried similar crap.

    Half on the replies start with " without more facts, further discussion
    is not possible" and then go on with speculations.
    I have no idea what to think about base note and have frankly nothing to 
    say, so, this is just to let you all 100000 ( + or -) know about it.


    					

    Yea, those New Age Lesbian Nudists will do it to ya every time.
    
    I would have expected that most Christian sects would consider sins of
    factual omissions (i.e. half-truths) to be just another form of
    deception.  How about dropping the subject unless someone out there
    actually has some first hand knowledge of this.
    
    Hope this guy gets some help.  Sounds like he could use some.
    
    tim
    

    A random thought...
    
    The New Agers, Lesbians, Homosexuals, et al... have one key element
    that seperates them from the Christians...
    
    Of all of the "groups" one talks about, I have never had the New Agers,
    Lesbians, whatevers try to convert me.  
    
    When a fundamental tenent of you belief is that you have to
    aggressively educate others, there is no way to avoid crossing the line
    of Valuing Differences.
    
    
    

    I have no problem with people who have a common interest grabbing a
    conference room to discuss a common interest.  I don't see how the
    company has the right to discriminate between a yoga class and a
    religious discussion or anything else as long as no one is pressured
    into going and the topic of the discussion is not illegal or immoral by
    any mentally healthy person's definition.
    
    I do have an objection when I am told that I can't hold a discussion
    with other people having the same interests given that people are truly
    present of their own free will and the disucssion won't result in
    illegal or immoral activities.
    
    I consider myself to be a more than normally (whatever that is)
    religious person and am involved in some religious
    organizations/activities.  But, I practice my religion in the work
    place by being who I am and treating other people with respect and
    care.  If something pertaining to my faith life comes up naturally in
    conversation, I'll talk about it if it is obvious to me that the other
    party(ies) are interested.  But, I refuse to get involved with overtly
    pushing my views on other people.  I also resent being accosted by
    workplace evangelistic preachers.
    
    Now, I don't know any more details than anyone else here about what is
    described in .0.  But, I would be very surprised if people sitting in a
    conference room at lunch time voluntarily participating in a religious
    discussion were told that they couldn't be there.  I know that at various
    times there have been Bible study groups in my facility.
    

        This topic has been temporarily write-locked, pending
        discussion among the moderators as to the purpose and
        direction of this discussion.
        
        Jim Stratton, co-moderator, DIGITAL conference