Conference 7.286::digital

RE: .0

>    I propose that for
>    Digital to be healthy, we have to form a comprehensive
>    department responsible for very-long-range planning, design,
>    management, and integration with human and natural
>    communities.

Sorry, but I must strongly disagree.  One of the things that's very wrong with
this company these days is that whenever a problem is identified, the first
reaction is to establish a department or form a committee to look into the
problem.  It's unfortunately far easier to set up committees than it is to
actually make decisions or take actions.

The LAST thing this company needs is another department!

--PSW

    re: .1
    `The LAST thing this company needs is another department!'
    
    To say that the human body (or any organic body) is a complete
    unity does not mean that all its organs are kidneys. 
    The DEC organism has kidneys; you are right in saying it
    does not need another kidney. I think a second eye, for
    perspective and distance, is a good idea.
    
    Alan
    

    I agree with .1.  We do not need another department.  We pay
    state and federal taxes to clean up the environment.  To create
    another department to do something that is already supposedly being
    done is overkill and another example of democratic politics in
    inaction in Mass. If the elected officials of this state and
    country are not fulfilling their stated objectives relative to the
    environment, then vote em out tomorrow. 

        Re: .3

        We don't want to clean up the environment, we want Digital (and
        everyone else) to maintain the environment.  And consider the
        costs of the following two scenarios:
        
        A.  Digital has the choice of two ways to perform an action,
            virtually the same except for the effect on the environment. 
            Digital considers the environment and takes the one that is
            better for the environment.  The environment is left in
            better shape and there is no cost.
        
        B.  Digital has the choice of two ways to perform an action,
            virtually the same except for the effect on the environment. 
            Digital doesn't consider the environment, arbitrarily
            chooses the one that negatively effects the environment. 
            Eventually someone notices, the government becomes aware of
            the situation, the situation is studied (costing taxpayers
            money), regulations are passed, Digital finds out about the
            regulations and changes the way it operates (costing Digital
            money).  Then either Digital cleans up the effect of
            previous operations (costing Digital money), the government
            cleans up (costing taxpayers money), or the environment is
            left damaged.

        Not all situations will be this clean cut, but as a general rule
        it is much less expensive to keep the environment clean than to
        clean up the environment and reverse the effects after the
        environment is damaged.  It is also less expensive to handle a
        situation without government intervention.

        That is why I feel that Digital (and other companies and
        individuals) should consider the environment in their actions. 
        However, there is no need for a new department in Digital.  The
        responsibility to consider the environment falls on every
        Digital employee, and if they don't know what the best thing to
        do in a situation is then they should contact the experts in
        various existing Digital departments.  From the departmental
        listing of the Digital Telephone Directory:

        ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
        Corporate Environmental Manager		CFO2-1/F40	251-1885
        ...

        ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
        Hudson (HLO)				HLO1-1/D03	225-4616

        HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSPORT
        US Area
           Administration
           Hotline

        RECYCLED MATERIALS OPERATION (RMO)
        Business Development Manager		NSO		285-2824

        Plus all of the people responsible for Plant Engineering
        (especially those with a title of Safety Engineer), Product
        Safety, and corporate planning.

						B.J.

        After skimming the text of the proposal, I think that the
        proposal should be broken into multiple simple suggestions and
        submitted to DELTA_IDEAS and the existing department that would
        be responsible for implementing the suggestion.  Any further
        environmental ideas should be handled in the same manner.

        					B.J.

    
    re: .0
    
    There are already people who handle this. All we need is more
    redundancy, another department, cost center, and more management.
    
    /prc

I travel the company a fair amount in my job.  What I generally see
is no focus for either the philosophy or implementation of recycling
or waste reduction.  In most cases, it does not happen.  In all 
cases, it happens with only haphazard results at best.

We have multiple opportunities to help the environment: to make a
public statement (which is good for our image as well as the
corporation and the planet), and to save money.  Government action
mirrors what the private sector does -- it must be our
responsibility first. 

Without a person or group whose evaluated responsibility it is to
provide this leadership, focus and implementation, I don't believe
it can happen in any significant or sustained manner.

	~Mike

    
    Here in MRO1, we have done away with polystyrene plates and trays. I
    assume this was a decision by facilities. Facility managers report
    under one person eventually and I would think most issues would be up
    to them. 
    
    What I agree that's needed is communication and a party line as to what
    is done when, where, and how.
    
    /prc

I clipped an article from Digital This Week from about a year 
ago announcing the appointment of Cary Gherman to the position
of Corporate Waste Management Consultant Engineer, reporting
to David Barrett, Corporate Manager, Environmental Health
& Saftey, and John Caulfield, Corporate manager, Waste Management.

The article says, "Cary is interested in your ideas for 
minimizing waste. Contact him @ CFO."

I would imagine that any of these people can be found in
ELF if they still work here.

Sam

Too often citizenship in a nation or membership in a
corporation means abandoning responsibility on the
assumption that others are managing things (and too
often the government or management assumes the
responsibility without adequate knowledge). I am
surprised by the number of replies in favor of
leaving all responsibility to individuals (.4),
state and federal governments (.3), or just 
others (.6).

In fact, each level, from individual to government,
has its own responsibilities, that should never be
given away. For one example, as an individual, I am
responsible for minimizing my use of paper; my
department is responsible for deciding how much
to use and how to use it (printers, copiers);
the company is responsible for buying from "green"
companies and recycling; the state (and federal)
government is responsible for controlling and taxing
logging, manufacture, pollution, cleanup. Of course,
there's overlap: I can choose not to copy if the
copier uses trinitroflouronones; or the department
can recycle independently.

Although in our industrial society we tend to reorganize
under stress--and to mistake the reorganization for
progress--it's a poor argument for not organizing
a department that could earn and save money by design,
that would ensure appropriate responsibilities are met.
DEC has no other way of addressing social and
environmental issues.

AEW