Conference 7.286::digital

    Re .0 (edp):
    
    >I heard this idea around the office:  Software engineers (as the
    >proposal went) should form a union.  The union would demand:
    
    Unions are usually formed for job protection.
    
        >Software engineers who failed to perform acceptably must be
    	>terminated.
        
    That's the antithesis of what unions are all about.  The idea of any
    union is "collective bargaining"; this hits individuals./
    
        >Measurable software engineering performance measurements
    	>be established.
        
    But who determines what's "acceptable"?  What takes precedence in
    case of ties?
    
    >I would add some other items, such as requiring Digital to hire college
    >graduates continually ....
    
    Currently, we're laying people off.  Do we get rid of a certain
    percentage of current engineers to make room for the newcomers?
    
    Doesn't vsound like a well thought-out plan.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I thought the U word was a no-no 'round here? 
    
    Sdp

    Re: union's function - 
           
    To defend employees against the behaviour of employers who can be
    regarded as having overweighted bargaining power - especially in
    periods of uemployment.
           
    That can mean a lot of things. 
      
    certainly with a lot of things I've been reading in here about CMI, 
    behaviour on right-sizing, lack of Personnel protection against
    harrasment etc, are not simply money/job protection - lack of a clear
    strategy is hardly conducive to us employees.
                                                
     Winton                                     

	More likely, a union would mean that productivity would
	plummet BELOW what we currently see from engineering ( 4
	year lead time on new products, etc. ).

	It would also mean timeclocks for "professionals",
	mandated 15 minute breaks, hosts of restrictions on
	both sides that have NOTHING to do with getting the
	job done.

	To illustrate this last, my wife went to visit a companion
	organization's programming operation that is unionized.
	She nearly caused a scandal when she ( horrors ! ) went to
	get a soft drink outside of the mandated break at 10 AM !
	I am talking about a union incident !

	At this paragon of a workplace, the bathrooms were LOCKED,
	except during lunch and the mandatory break times.

	Programmers did not have any kind of data entry device....
	they coded on paper coding forms, then handed them to
	data entry clerks who keyed in the text.  If they touched a
	terminal, this could cause a major incident.....as in the
	unionized TV and motion picture industries.  There, if
	a cameraman moves a cable or light fixture, grievances
	may be filed, and productions stop while battle lines are
	drawn and shop stewards square off.

	Read the union label.

	Steve H

    The formation of unions with Digital would certainly ease the
    right-sizing, as there would be a lot of people who would voluntarily
    leave based on their view of the need to have a union here...
    
    Jon

    Re .4  (Steve):
    
        > ....... this could cause a major incident.....as in the
	>unionized TV and motion picture industries.  There, if
	>a cameraman moves a cable or light fixture, grievances
	>may be filed, and productions stop while battle lines are
	>drawn and shop stewards square off.
         
    The idea of unionization is at best a court-of-last-resort for rank-        
    and-file workers.  I'm philosophically opposed to them outside of a
    19th-Century sweatshop situation.
    
    However, the quote above reminds me of something that happened a
    lifetime ago.  I was presenting a paper at a space conference in Los
    Angeles (which is highly unionized).  I had slides and a short film
    clip; I was assigned a coop engineering student to man the projectors.  
    Anyway, I wanted to have a practice run before  the presentation.  He
    and I went into the conference hall, and he went to the rear where the
    projectors were; I went to the lectern.  I saw a microphone with a
    lavalier cord, donned it, and plugged it into the wall socket.
    
    Then I asked, "Can you hear me?"
    
    Almost like magic, a denimed person appeared at my side.
    
    "You shouldn't have done that," he said.
    
    "Done what?" I asked, genuinely ;puzzled.
    
    "It's the sound technician's job to connect microphones."  He unplugged
    the microphone, disappeared briefly, came back with a microphone-cord
    extension, plugged the mike into the extension and the extension into
    the wall.
    
    The union was well served.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

re: .0, Eric

Please take your union idea to Detroit. You might enjoy building cars.

Thankyou,
-Jack

This industry doesn't need any unions.  What it needs are people who are
simply willing to work an hour and get paid for an hour.  You work a 32
hour week and you get paid for a 32 hour week.  You work a 50 hour week and 
you get paid for a 50 hour week.  You are loyal to your company because you
want the work.  The company is loyal to you because you do good work and
if the company doesn't keep you busy a competitor will.

Federal and state laws cover the health and safety issues.  Your good work
guarantees your employment.

-Vin

     I saw David Stone give a speech in the uK, in which he said software
    was becoming a commodity business.
                             
    The implications of this is that we will become the 1990s equivalent of
    blue collar workers anyway.     
                              
    -.1 who says that  "The company is loyal to you because you do good work and
    if the company doesn't keep you busy a competitor will." obviously    
    hasn't been keeping up with what's been going on in the job markets of
    late, nor 101 of competition.                                         
                              
    Why is CMI behaving like it is ? Why do Europeans get a better package
    than the US ?             
                              
    Sure unions won't do a bundle for the company, but don't expect the
    company to give you any favours for not unionizing. European laws on
    packages are far more generous, partly as a result of TUs forcing
    state laws.               
                              
    As an employee at the end of the day, you have to look after your
    interests     - now you can decide whether those are better fed
    by giving up all benefits of working, including pay, or by not letting
    the company take a mile, when it needs simply better management/strategy. 
    I guess at the end of the day, without a union, YOU as an individual
    employee has NO say to what the company hierarchy does in 'corporate'
    or 'managerial' interests 
                             
     Winton                                               

An interesting aspect of these discussions is normally that once several
astute points have been made as to the negative repercussions of a union
presence, the supporters of the idea respond with things like "Oh, heavens
no. _Those_ things could never happen _here_! It would be _controlled_!"

What a crock!

The interesting part of it is that they have often deluded themselves to
believe that it really _could_ be controlled - that they really _could_
have some influence over the outcome once organized cri_ - I mean, labor -
gets their foot in the door. A clue follows:

    You won't get to control nothin'.

Union-less is perfectly fine. I found the door in and I can find the door
out. If I don't like it, then it's time for me to leave.

-Jack

RE: WDavies
  What has been happening in the job markets - besides lack of jobs - that
I don't know about?  Are you saying a company should keep an employee who
'doesn't add value' simply because they'll have a tough time finding a job
elsewhere?  And what did I miss in '101 of competition'?  If I ran a software
house and was hiring I'd be interested in hiring a competitor's employee.
They might provide some insight into the competition that I couldn't get
elsewhere.
-Vin

    There may be a  slight perception difference here between US and
    Europer - and FWI, Digital  in Germany is unionised to a degree, and 
    does not suffer from the scare stories of not being able to do things
    yourself. In France, working conditions have largely been determined by
    union negotiations. In the UK ICL is unionised - and again, I believe
    you can change a light bulb youself..
                                      
    -.1 saying organised cri.. labor, shows a distinctly US, jaundiced
    view of unions - but lets us say, um, one not discouraged by those
    who have a real reason to dislike unions - Management and Wall Street.

    Winton 

    "Sorry, Mac.  Can't fix your VMS problem.  I work on DCL.  Call
    dispatch and tell 'em you want a VMS guru.  It ain't my job."
    
    Wouldn't THAT be wonderful.  There are people in this company today
    that ACT like they are in a union, and they are in little danger of
    being fired (or whatever).  
    
    don  (How many DEC specialists does it take to install workstation - 5,
    	  you gotta problem with that?)

    Ok, take a 50% cut in pay....
    
    sure you'll walk, IFF, there are jobs around. If there aren't then
    you'll stay.
    
    Ok, work a 12 hour day, and do 2 peoples work as well.... again you'll
    walk...unless..
    
    Oh, by the way, we're withdrawing you medical benefits - if you snuff
    it, we can always get someone else.. again unless...
    
    You may ask, does the company need all this extra work to restore
    profitability ? Maybe it does or doesn't and is just going OTT, but as
    far as you are concerned, if walking is not a viable option - then it
    is irrevelvalent, the company can screw you until you could get more by
    flipping burgers.
                                               
                     
    Winton

>   <<< Note 2026.13 by IOSG::WDAVIES "There can only be one ALL-IN-1 Mail" >>>
>
>    There may be a  slight perception difference here between US and
>    Europer - and FWI, Digital  in Germany is unionised to a degree, and 
>>    does not suffer from the scare stories of not being able to do things
>>   yourself.

	Yeah, as long as you don't want to work past quitting time,
	on days designated "holiday", etc.  Security makes sweeps
	through the buildings there to make sure no one is
	working past mandated work hours.

	Can you say "cattle call" ?

	Steve H

	P.S.  I don't want to work *anywhere* if the individual's
		contribution is minimzed by a collective.  We ain't
		manufacturing toothpaste or paper or autos here.

    Too often the Union is good for the Union, (or Union Boss), not for
    the company or the worker.  We see and experience examples of this
    every day.
    
    Unions obviously have been a necessary and positive thing in many
    cases.  In our industry it doesn't seem to make sense.
    
    I can remember being constricted, confined, limited, under-productive,
    and *well paid* when last I worked in a Union shop.
    
    FWIW

    re .9
    
	>Your good work guarantees your employment.
    
    I don't understand whether you believe this quote or wish it were true?
    
    If you believe it, I feel sad that you have been deceived.  
    
    If you wish for it, I feel sad that you will not get your wish.
    
    Nothing will guarantee your employment!  Ever!  Never!
    
    
    Dick

I don't know if I agree with the idea of a union for software engineers, but,
I do know that no one would really know what things would be like after the
formation of that union unless that union was formed.

We've all seen the results of unions run rampant, and we all have anecdotal
examples of bad unions.  As a matter of fact, I'll concede that it may well
be difficult to find a "good" union in the US.  It might also be true that
there are good ones, but since they don't participate in all that crazy 
behaviors that the "bad" ones do, you simply don't hear about them.

A union is what the membership makes it at first, then if the membership loses
control, it's what the leadership of the union makes it.  If a union of 
software engineers was formed, and the majority of those engineers didn't want
to create the systemic abuse detailed in the previous replies, it'd be fairly
certain that those abuses would have a hard time happening.

The problem is that when you mention the "U" word, people react emotionally, 
just like mentioning "Communist" in the McCarthy era.

If a bunch of DIGITAL.NOTE readers got really upset about a new corporate
policy, and decided to get together to do something about it, whether that's
just signing a petition, packing a VP's office full of disgruntled people, or
participating in some sort of protest action, that's the formation of a 
temporary union, even if you don't call it that.  I can easily see this 
happening if DIGITAL decided to cancel our health benefits, and I wouldn't
be surprised to see it happen if the benefits got any worse.

Unions are not formed with the intention of reducing productivity, nor are they
formed with the intention of being obstacles for everyone to work around.  Yes,
those things definitely happen.  It isn't the union's fault though, it's the
fault of the union leadership, the rank and file members of the union, and the
management of the companies that sign the contracts with the union.

Personally, I'm not interested in discussing the merits of the idea expressed 
in .0, simply because it's not a subject that would interest me right now.  I
would say, though, that all this bashing of the idea of a union rather misses
the intent of the discussion being attempted in .0.  Either answer the
gentleman on his own subject, or start a separate union bashing note.

And, if it would make you feel better, how about calling it a "coalition of
concerned software engineers".  Maybe if we don't use the "U" word, we'll be
able to have a conversation on the proposed topic, instead of a collection of
knee-jerk responses to the "U" word.

    Re .1:
    
    > Unions are usually formed for job protection.
    
    And some people believe that job protection comes from ensuring the
    company is doing the right thing (Digital isn't) and ensuring a good
    job is done (Digital doesn't do that).
    
    At least you read the note; all other responses look like the authors
    read only the title and nothing else.  Because of the differences
    between what I described and most other unions, another person called
    it a guild.
    
    The idea here is not that Digital is treating employees so badly that a
    union must be formed, but that Digital is screwing up so badly that
    employees have to tell it what the right thing is -- management seems
    to have lost that.  If Digital had to fire the bad engineers first,
    then we wouldn't be getting rid of productive veterans while complete
    morons remain on the job.  For that matter, if the bad engineers had
    been fired years ago, the company might still be productive, and we
    wouldn't be getting rid of anybody.
    
    If management can't do the job, it's time somebody else did.
    
    
    				-- edp

I have negotiated collective bargaining agreements with both professional and
"blue collar" workers. In a blue collar setting you spend lots of time defining
such things as have been described in previous replies. Who does what when. How
much time for breaks. All that tediuos nonsense. With professionals they usually
are looking for only 2 things. Fair and just professional salaries and good
benefits. I don't think the employees of Digital are quite to the point where
we require unionization. However, I think we have, over the last year or more,
seen an erosion of benefits as we have attempted to cut costs. What one needs
to do before you start screaming though is examine the industry as a whole. DEC
is still one of the best companies in the industry to work for. Are there 
better? Probably a few. Are there worse? read some of the earlier replies here
and talk to your friends and you'll get a number of horror stories. There are
lots of good folks here who over the years have had opportunities to leave and
chosen this environment over the other.

    Actually edp , you're talking about workers' control.... and that
    should bring a much bigger ton of worms down on your head! :-)
                                                                  
    Winton

    Why are reactions to the word "Union" so extreme? I am a software
    engineer who has been a member of a union. The original reason for
    having an active union there was that the organisation was (when I
    joined it) owned by the (British) goverment.  As a result there was a 
    need for a channel to goverment ministers that bypassed civil servants 
    (so that we could tell ministers what "their" civil servants were
    actually doing).  The union helped provide such a channel.
    
    Within the organization the union was very moderate (sufficiently
    so that it had regular arguments with the national organization
    of the union).  It saw its main roles as:
    
    	To act as a channel for representing staff views to management.
    
    	To warn management early if they seemed to be about to do 
    	something silly (e.g. change the sick pay system without working
    	out the consequences).    
    
    We never had any of the traditional union arguments, such as
    demarcation disputes,  and that organization had far less of an us and 
    them (i.e. workers and management) attitude than anywhere else I have 
    ever worked (including Digital).
    
    When the organization was privatized the union continued. Its main
    value then became to provide an alternative channel to management
    that some people (especially those who had been mistreated) felt 
    happier with than going through their direct managers or personnel.
    
    This experience may not be typical but it illustates that unions need
    not be totally destructive.  If there was a software engineers' union
    in Digital I would want to know a lot about its attitudes before
    deciding whether to join it but would not reject it outright.
    
    	Anthony

    I'm against a UNION is its current state, especially if one looks at
    what is happening in Pittsburgh right now.   The time for needing
    UNIONS is long gone...
    
    Nonetheless I do believe that we, the professional labor force, must
    re-evaluate and compare against our European counterparts.  How come we
    have 2 weeks of vacation for the first 4 years of service (in most US
    companies, assuming you're not in upper management which will have its
    own separate package of goodies), compared with our European
    counterpart?  Ironically German (West German then) workers have much
    higher productivity than US workers with 40+hr/week.  By the way I seldom 
    meet professionals who only put in 40 hours/wk anyway, but the pay
    stops at 40 right?
    
    I'm also curious how come a French DECie has 6-8(?) weeks to seek other
    work, compared to ONE week for the US worker (as of the lastest
    package)?
    
    I'd rather think all this hasn't been truly the benefits of having 
    unionized, if not how did European labor laws be the way they are today?

	I have worked in the UK for 5 companies before Digital. 4 were
	unionised and one wasn't.

	My experiences of "protection" by unions was non existent, especially
	through one lot of redundancies - government minimum, 1 week for every
	year with a max per-week, and re-sign to a union which was even worse.
	Control was everywhere.

	I would not have joined Digital if it was unionised.

	Heather

re: .13, Winton

>    -.1 saying organised cri.. labor, shows a distinctly US, jaundiced
>    view of unions

You'd be more correct to say "a distinctly realistic view of US unions".
I can't comment on unions in Europe other than to say that I've heard they
are of a much higher caliber than the ones in the States are. I can
specifically comment on the ones in the States - they, er, inhale. I
worked in ITU shops for many years before joining DEC and have a very keen
understanding of why organized American labor is substandard in comparison to
much of the rest of the world. Any union/guild/coalition instituted would in
short order become closely affiliated with the existing organized labor
institution in the States. Guaranteed.

re: .15, Winton

"Sure you'll walk - unless", etc.

To my way of thinking, that's the whole point. I will be perfectly happy
to take "all I can stands till I can't stands no more" (Popeye). There
is nothing unreasonable in my mind about that. If I can't contribute
to change, and I can't be content with the status quo, then I'll leave
and I won't care about whatever effects that may have. That's my God-given
right. I didn't educate myself and build my career so I could let some
silly self-indulgent organization (DEC _OR_ a Union) decide what it was
going to do "for" me. _I_ decide what I'll put up with. I don't expect any
organization to put limits on what can be done to or for me in my job.

re: 20, Eric

The concept of a coalition/guild/union "straightening things out" at
DEC is a fairy tale at best. There have been several reasons brought
out in this discussion. If you still believe that's an "answer" to
what's happening, you are deluding yourself. If you still believe
that the poorer performers are characteristically being retained
at the expense of better performers being layed off, you are not
seeing more than a limited amount of the picture, and you should realize
that there are anomalies and exceptions which occur which don't represent
the situation in its entirety. I'll not argue with you that "where we
are" is largely the fault of past management. But I'm willing to see
whether or not new management can modify that behavior. And if it can't,
then I'd personally much prefer to be rid of this place than see a formally
organized workforce.

Now, of course, as has been said, neither side of this issue is proveable
on paper. Only execution can demonstrate what would transpire. The difference
is, if you are right and the coalition is a success, it has no effect on me
'cause I'll be gone anyway. If I am right and it's oppressive, you'll be the
one to suffer while you live with it, but I'll still be unaffected and gone.

-Jack

>You'd be more correct to say "a distinctly realistic view of US unions".
>I can't comment on unions in Europe other than to say that I've heard they
>are of a much higher caliber than the ones in the States are. I can

	I haven't come across unions in the states, but I didn't think it was 
	possible to be worse than the ones in the UK.

	Heather

================================================================================
Note 2026.20                          Union                             20 of 27
BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."          26 lines  29-JUL-1992 11:30
    
    <all other responses look like the authors read only the title and
    <nothing else. 
    
    my cut at that would be that the authors read only the title and the
    author's name

>	I haven't come across unions in the states, but I didn't think it was 
>	possible to be worse than the ones in the UK.
>
>	Heather

	I dunno.  In the UK do striking workers discharge firearms at folks
	who cross the picket lines to do their jobs ?

	( Recall the bus drivers' strike  ~ 1 year ago. )

	Steve H

    Unions served their purpose many many years ago.  Unsafe working
    conditions have disappeared (for the most part), and benfit packages
    are standard with most professional employment and are basically
    equivalent in each industry.
    
    NOW, unions cause unproductive labor to remain unproductive.  They
    cause inflation - for example, if you are an assembly line worker, are
    you going to be any better at your job for the raise the union
    negotiated for you?  NO!  But the company stil has to pay you more.
    It is impossible to get any better at an assembly line job.  Those of 
    us in non-unionized jobs get more money and are expected to outperform 
    our last measured peformance in return for that raise.  
    
    Unions are equivalent to socialism - they try to make everything equal
    for everybody.  Socialism has been a miserable failure (as well it
    should have been).
    
    PFD

>	I dunno.  In the UK do striking workers discharge firearms at folks
>	who cross the picket lines to do their jobs ?

	Not firearms.........not so available in the UK,

	But trucks, and iron bars, and fists, and threaten to "get you" at home

   	I worked in an office for SWEB (head office of the south west 
	electricity board) during the miners strikes and the 3-day weeks, and 
        being young and easily swayed by very rough looking blokes much larger 
        than myself, and who had attacked people infront of me, I gave in to 
        the union pickets out of fear for my life, and those of my family.

	After this, the union enforced a closed shop, and I had to join or
	loose my job.

	They did not protect me - they threatened my life, then they threatened
	me with loosing my job if I did not fund them.

	NEVER AGAIN

	Heather

One criticism of software development, in general, is that such development 
is seen by the developers themselves as an art or craft.

Valid or not, that opinion drives "non-developers" crazzzy.  

So let's perpetuate that view with a "software engineering guild" 8^)

Seriously, between unions and corporate wide testing "systems", the LAST thing
this corporation needs is more process and overhead.

		Bob Cohen

    For lots of reasons, some already stated and others left unsaid, I see
    no need for a union of any kind here at DEC.
    
    Taking what I believe to be the real reason behind the base note, I
    would agree that it may be beneficial if the company had some sort of
    employee board that served in an advisory capasity to management. 
    Worker involvement in the decision making process could be an important
    part of reviving Digital's bottom line and restoring employee morale.
    
    Workers, whether blue or white collar, are closest to the work, know
    their job better than the boss and would be able to advise management
    on the merits of a plan to change/improve process, improve quality or
    any number of other issues.
    
    If the motive is to *assist* management in speeding Digital's recovery,
    then I support a move to do so.  However, unionizing is not the answer. 
    Digital's employees and managers must work as a team with common goals
    and not have a wedge driven between them.
    
    All, of course, IMHO,
    
    Marv                 
    

    .0�    I would add some other items, such as requiring Digital to hire college
    .0�    graduates continually, to keep new ideas coming into the company,
    
    	So who are going to build these boards for Digital?  Lord knows we
    don't have enough college grads willing to work for $7 bucks an hour!
    
    Heve Ho the Unions!
    
    Pay the dues and get the bluz!
    
    B.A.

    A company gets the union it deserves.  Thanks to generally enlightened
    personnel policies at Digital, there hasn't been a need for one here.
    I hope that continues to be true.
    
    If you were a migrant farm worker, however, I think the idea of a
    union would look pretty good to you.

    In the U.S. there isn't a single industry-standard employment policy or
    law protecting workers that isn't traceable to the success of or fear
    of unions. Not one benefit or protection exists because of the basic
    goodness of "business" or the inherent responsiveness of government to
    the needs of workers. 
    
    In fact, much of the Invictus-like chest-beating independence crowed in
    this string is possible only because of the people who saw collective
    bargaining as a tool to improve the lot of everyone. 
    
    There are two things that make a union unnecessary: Unions exist
    elsewhere and were successful in advancing the conditions of workers in
    the past; A shortage of labor.
    
    I'd say right now we are dependent on the former for whatever good
    treatment we have. 
    
    John H.

    Unions are most necessary where the individual has no bargaining power. 
    That is probably true of some digits and false for others.  Certainly,
    no one has much bargaining power when the company is downsizing.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

    re: .36
    
    I believe it to be a valid point that Personnel may tend to keep straight
    because of the threat of unionization.  But, it's a bit like the
    nuclear threat.  Basically, you only get to set it off once and once
    set off it's typically rather annoying to undo.
    
    Having worked in a "union shop" I found that workers can find themselves 
    playing politics with the bureaucracy of the union.  Without a union,
    they have to play politics with the bureaucracy of management.  So,
    we're not going to get away from having to play politics with the
    bureaucracy to get representation.  But, my personal experience has
    been that playing politics with the bureaucracy of management is "better".
    That might arguably be because of the threat of unionization.  But,
    that's not enough justification for becoming a union shop.  It's only
    good for threatening to "push the button".
    
    Steve

    re: .24
    
    Many European countries have lasw regarding vacation time, nothing to
    do with unions.
    
    yf
    

European Uionism vs US.

	The Europeans have had strong "collusion" among labor groups and gotten
many of their benefits codified into law through the use of mass strikes and 
boycotts. In most cases they stuck together to get things that benefitted all.
In the US we have a tendency to splinter and attempt to get all these things 
accomplished through collective bargaining. 

Bargaining power

The single most effective tool in reducing both individual and union bargaining
positions is a recession. 

    re .39: Yes, but it's not *only* laws, it's the market powers (which
    includes the unions). E.g. the legal minimum vacation in Germany is 17
    (working) days but hardly anyone offers less than 30 days (i.e. 6
    weeks) - DEC has (at least for the time being) 47 days if you work 40
    hours a week.

Some interesting knee-jerk reactions here! I love .4, I expect the author would
use Indian politics as an example of why we should not have democracy.

Speaking of democracy, are not unions made up of their members, don't they vote
for the policies the union pursues?  If you are saying unions in the U.S. would
mean scenerios like .4, then you are also saying that's what your collegues
would vote for. If that is the case then we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

Dave (UK bias).

>	The Europeans have had strong "collusion" among labor groups and gotten
>many of their benefits codified into law through the use of mass strikes and 
>boycotts. In most cases they stuck together to get things that benefitted all.


	Yup, because of the strong arm tactics, laws have been passed to 
	give more protection to workers from the unions.

	Heather

>      	Yup, because of the strong arm tactics, laws have been passed to 
>    	give more protection to workers from the unions.
     
    Oh, what you mean like freedom for robber barrons like Robert Maxwell to 
    try and frame Scargill, whilst pocketing pensioners money...Or for
    Rupert Murdoch to bust the 'infamous' fleet street unions
    [incidentally, only to institue such harsh conditions that Wapping is
    becoming unionised,despite the efforts of the 'nice' employers union to
    keep it under wraps].                                                 
                                                                         
    Violence gets used on both sides - unfortunate but true - the state 
    and employers *generally* get to use their greater economic muscle
    rather than physical force - though not always the case -
    demonstrations get banned, pickets get banned from gathering to present
    their case.  
                                                                    
    Winton 

    wrt to the US unions, therewere VERY good unions - but the US
    government broke them twice -
    
    The IWW was hounded immediatley after the first world war, ending with
    the execution of its leader Joe Hill - very rank-file.
    
    The McCarthy era in the 50s led to the absolute destruction of
    rank-file activists in the factories, and a massive rise of bureaucracy
    in the unions. 
                  
    Incidentally Heather, that is EXACTLY what Thatchers strategy has been
    in the UK - take the power away from the shop-floor, and give it to
    HIGHLY PAID UNION BUREAUCRATS, who do sfa, but echo the law.
                                                                
    Almost all UK labor laws can be regarded as a result of workers
    pressure - whether direct or indirect - unions negoatiating from
    a position of strength, or a historic gain from a one-off strike. 
                                          
     Winton                               

	My weekend job on the radio in Boston is a union job. 
	All the employees of public station WGBH in Boston are
	unionized, except management. I've felt over the years, 
	that the unionized people (including radio producer/hosts
	and TV news reporters, etc.) and especially as a part-time 
	employee (and there are many of us at the station in both 
	radio and television) that the union has made a positive
	difference for me, in that I've gotten yearly cost of
	living increases. In 14 years there, I got only one merit
	raise and I know of nobody else on staff who's gotten a 
	merit raise at all. I think managers have more politics 
	to deal with to get themselves any raises at all there
	in these recessionary times. The one time I had a serious
	dispute with management (in year three), the union was
	no help at all. Just my opinion, but I think it works 
	to my advantage there to be in the union. No time to
	talk about it now, but the station locked out the 
	engineers a few years ago and our union (different
	union) was required to work. We walked the picket line
	with the engineers. 

	mc

	

> pickets get banned from gathering to present their case.  
                                              

	Yes, I remember the pickets presenting their case.

	They had iron bars in their hands, they told me to go away (not 
	politely), they told me I would "get some of that", pointing
	to someone being forcefull removed and hurt in the process.
	Then then told me they would find out where I lived and "get" my
	family.
	I was 19, wearing heels and a dress, I had been working 6 months, and 
	they sucessfully intimidated me.

	The only case they had was to keep me out of the building with force
	and threats. No-one articlated why.
	
	All I wanted to do was continue to support a payroll programme so the
	people who worked for SWEB (both blue an white collar workers) could 
	continue to get paid.
	
	Heather

>    Incidentally Heather, that is EXACTLY what Thatchers strategy has been
>    in the UK - take the power away from the shop-floor, and give it to
>    HIGHLY PAID UNION BUREAUCRATS, who do sfa, but echo the law.
 
	What Thatcher did for me was keep my job. I was threatened with loosing
	mine as the unions were instigating a closed shop in the offices.

	What she also did is alow me NOT TO FUND the highly paid union 
	bureaucrats, with a closed shop I would have been forced to pay the 
	union who paid the bureaucrats, and also funded the labour MP's who 
	did not want the laws passed to protect me from the unions.

	Heather

    To understand my views about Unions, you have to understand my views
    about management.......
    
    I beleive the manager's job (paticularly in Digital) include
    representing the company to the employee, *and* the employee to the
    company.
    
    If a Union is representing the employee, then they are doing a
    management job, and this represents a partial failure of management.
    
    For me, one of the delights of Digital was the lack of need for a Union
    to do that task. To have it suggested makes me realise how far down we
    are, and what a challenge it will be to get back to where we were.
    
    JohnK

    I guess this has gotten off the original premise, of setting up a
    guild of engineers, and back into unions versus management ('s right to
    manage).
    
    I actually thought a while back that a guild would be 'more'
    appropriate form of organisation - but the curent climate has to be 
    one for building a real union.
          
    FWIW  Heather, the police did the same thing to miners picketing
    Orgreave - except they were 'legal' and better armed.  Or do you 
    still believe the editted back to front 'highlights' of the horse-charge.
          
    Winton    

         Dear Lucky Comrade!

         Congratulations!  You're a winner!  We have reserved a
         special spot for you in the coming class war!  

         No more drab days spent behind the lines with a secure,
         boring, white-collar job!  No more worrying about where to
         spend the vacation, what school to send the kids to, where to
         put your retirement money!

         That's right!  You're now on the barricades!  Enjoy the
         suspense of trying to figure out just how you will pay for
         Junior's bone marrow transplant!  Experience the thrill of
         trying to meet that mortgage!  Don't worry about Sis's
         college bill -- let her fend for herself!  Comb the wanted
         ads!  Spend all day in the unemployment line!  Hit the
         pavements!  Man those barricades!

         But you have to act now!  This offer is only good until the
         coming revolution of the proletariat.  Just choose one of the
         options below, peel off the appropriate sticker, and send it
         in.  That's all you have to do!  And you (and your class)
         could be a big winner!


         o  Option 1 -- the Rugged Individualist

         Compete ruthlessly against members of your own class! 
         Abandon any sense of class consciousness!  Fight for the few
         miserly scraps thrown from the bloated table of Capital!


         o  Option 2 -- Identify with the Oppressor

         Develop a keen sense of false consciousness!  Adopt the
         ruling class's values as your own!  Then, choose from one of
         the following Special Extra options:

         a)  Become enraged 
         b)  Become embittred 
         c)  Become depressed
         d)  Identify even more strongly and irrationally with the
             oppressor


         o  Option 3 -- Ignore It All and Hope It Goes Away

         Bask in the darkness, with your head firmly planted in the
         sand!  Cultivate those feelings of anomie!  Develop a special
         relationship with drugs, alcohol, or TV to help make yourself
         even more numb!


         o  Option -- Develop a Little Class Consciouness

         Don't forget to consider this less popular option.  It might
         just be your lucky pick!


         See you on the barricades, comrade!

		-- Ed McMao

.49>    For me, one of the delights of Digital was the lack of need for 
.49>    a Union{...} To have it suggested makes me realise how far down we
.49>    are, and what a challenge it will be to get back to where we were.
    
    AMEN!
    
    Most of the rhetoric in the past 50 replies or so boils down to pure
    ideology.  Either you believe that Unionization can improve the lot of 
    individuals, or you don't.  I doubt arguing about it here will change
    minds on either side.
    
    Getting away from the ideological knee-jerk, let's consider the
    question of whether the lot of individual employees at Digital has
    become sufficiently poor to require forceful action to improve. 
    Reading about CMI and STD and TFSO suggests that perhaps it has...
    
    If it has, what's to be done?  Individuals have little power against an
    organized group.  Have things have degenerated to the point that a
    significant number of individual employees perceive their relationship
    with the corporate organization as adversarial?  
    
    Two or three weeks ago, my personal answer would have been "yes", and
    my opinion would have been that the only course open to individual
    employees with the power to change that situation would be to form an
    organized group.  That's how Unions started, BTW.
    
    Now I'm not so sure.  The recent change in CEO makes me think that
    perhaps the corporate organization will change the situation for the
    better.  I'm willing to wait and see (hopefully looking in from the
    outside, for my own personal reasons).
    
    However, I think that many contributors to this thread have missed the
    point.  The issue is *POWER* pure and simple.  The corporate
    organization has total power over individual employees except for legal
    restrictions and competitive labor market situations.  Both of those
    areas would tilt entirely to favor the corporate organization over the
    individual if individuals had not organized in the past to promote
    their interests.  Calling the organization of individuals "guilds" or
    "unions" makes no difference, alone each individual is powerless. 
    Having a second organization (such as a union) does not give you power,
    but it does give you more opportunity to gain power...
    
    Last thought, back to the first point of unions being unnecessary at
    Digital - that was in the old days, when Ken Olsen's vision was the
    empowerment of individual employees.  Unions are obviously unnecessary
    in a corporation that empowers individual employees, but the existence
    of discussion shows Digital has certainly departed from that ideal (at
    least in the minds of many of us)!

    My daughter used to belong to the Teamsters.  They took a big chunk   
    out of her pay check every week. After a year she still hadn't seen 
    a rep. from the union on site, and neither had anyone else there.
    
    On the other hand, the Nursing Association my sister belongs to
    (which is a union in everything but name) is very proactive
    and gives good representation.
    
    What ever!!!! I feel that after years of a culture that promised no
    layoffs, a lot of people in this company have been left with their
    nether regions hanging on the line to dry.  I don't know if a union 
    would solve this, probably not.  Collective representation? who knows.

    One of the big bargaining points unions always want is job security -
    after the guarantee of which, companies tend to resort to dumping
    management.  On that basis alone, the Borad should have unionized us
    long ago!
    
    I was an autoworker once, and when the gas station I worked in refused
    to join a strike by the Lessee/Operator association the association
    members came by in their tow truck to shut us down.  The autoworkers
    sent a bus load of gentlemen who persuaded them that it would be in
    everyone's best interests to let myself and the other autoworker
    continue in the pursuit of their livlihood.  It was quite exciting at
    19, but I'm not so sure I'd like it now.
    
    Other unions with which I have dealt have not been as dynamic.  Some
    have had a bureaucracy which rivals our own.
    
    The most amusing strike I watched was when the secretaries staff at the
    Ontario Federation of Labour walked out to protest low pay and poor
    working conditions.  The Federation hired scabs!
    
    Same S**t, different pile.
    

    The package in DEC Sweden (low degree of unionization) was 4-14 monthly
    salaries  - in DEBFCI (former Philips in Sweden, highly unionized)
    emplyees got 6-22 salaries.

          
>    FWIW  Heather, the police did the same thing to miners picketing
>    Orgreave - except they were 'legal' and better armed.  Or do you 
>    still believe the editted back to front 'highlights' of the horse-charge.
          
    Winton, I don't remember seeing any film of horse charges at Orgreave,
    edited or otherwise. 
    The threats to my life, my family and my job are real and unedited,
    my mother and brother also left CHOSI a bit later, when the unions 
    threatened their work as nurses if they refused to strike and leave the 
    patients un-attended.
    My father was lucky, he left the Dockyard 6 years earlier to be self 
    employed.
    My brother was still in a closed shop - luckily he was in the building 
    trade, and was not hastled into being a picket, or being picketed.
	
    I am from a working class family, the type of family the unions would like
    to pretend that they support, however this is not the case.

	Heather    

    Oh come on, surely this conference isn't the place for you two to
    debate the politics of the UK in the 1980's. Try a pub.
    
    In the meantime, unions *can* be a good idea, in *some* circumstances.
    But what was outlined in this topic isn't a union. It sounds more like
    a club.
    
    	- andy

          <<< Note 2026.56 by SUBURB::THOMASH "The Devon Dumpling" >>>

          
>    Winton, I don't remember seeing any film of horse charges at Orgreave,
>    edited or otherwise. 


     I did. I also remember Wapping.

     Stuart

    
    	Why are you discussing unions?
    
    	A better way to correct the problems would be an ESOP!
    
    We could pay ourselves dividends IF we do a good job.  We could remove
    those managers who weren't.  Just need someone to finance the buyout
    :^)
    

2>    I thought the U word was a no-no 'round here? 
    
    Over the years I've heard the occasional comment in hallway gossip that
    one of the quickest ways to get fired is to start talking about unions.
    Of course, since there is a Federal law against reprisals for union
    organizing activity it can't be too blatant - if it was I'd think there
    might be some unions quite glad to help embarass Digital by helping to
    ensure legal funding parity in any suit over wrongful termination
    involving such issues.
    
    I even wondered if edp's basenote was bait for an attempt to do even
    better than a TFSO...
    
    ...but I'm still hopeful that the corporation will do the right thing 
    and not rise to any such bait.
    
    --bruce 
    (who considers unions at best a necessary evil, at worst an unnecessary one)

    re .60
    
    >Over the years I've heard the occasional comment in hallway gossip that
    >one of the quickest ways to get fired is to start talking about unions.
    
    The version that I've heard was a statement that the first "manager" to
    suffer unionization of "his plant" would be fired.  I've never heard
    that "employees" would be fired.  (and, for the sake of the legal
    department's size, I'm glad.)
    
    That statement was definitely proved wrong when we built mfg plants in
    European countries with mandatory unions.
    
    So, that too is gone with the old DEC,
    
    Dick

    About 15-16 years ago while working for a small manufacturing product
    line in Nashua (about 50 people total), we were approached by personnel
    and management asking us what we thought of unionizing.  It would be on
    an experimental basis.   The drawbacks and benefits were discussed and a 
    vote was taken.  It was defeated by about 48-2.
    
    This may have been around the time the GE rumors were flying around.
    
    					Steve

    I'd be suspicous if management ASKED you to unionize...

    I think there's a distinction between what .62 said and how .63
    interpreted it.
    
    Back in the late 70's I was working for a division of Varian, and there
    was a union that was trying to get the manufacturing folks to unionize
    (I forget which one, but it wasn't one that I'd heard of before). 
    
    Management acted very much like described in .62 ... they openly
    discussed with employees what the ramifications might be, both pro and
    con.  According to what our GM told us at the time, management was 
    required by law to do so.
    
    He didn't advocate unionizing, he simply discussed the advantages and
    disadvantages.  He told us he could not legally influence the way 
    employees voted, either for or against.  There were about 400 employees
    affected ... less than 20 of them voted to unionize.  
    
    IMO - a union would not help this company out of it's problems, nor 
    would it assure you of job security.  If anything it would add yet
    another layer of bureaucracy ... which is the last thing we need.
    
    ... Bob
    

    Re bureaucracy - You don't need union bureaucrats to be unionised -
    all a union needs to be is workers meeting together to decide what
    responses this take to manaagement.        

    Do you think Solidarity had bureaucracy (at least before they got
    sucked/coopted into running the country)?   
    
    the American union, people should read about are the Wobblies - or the 
    IWW - highly succesful, but persecuted for being too left-wing, union.
  
                       
    Winton  

    Unions in the states have outgrown their usefulness in several areas.
    One of unions biggest problems, especially the U.A.W, is they seem
    to exist to promote themselves not the worker anymore. The UAW would
    have done a much greater service to their members back in the 70 and
    80s if they had required retraining of members to instal/maintain the
    robotics instead of fighting their arrival. The other problem with
    unions is they strickly on senority system. Someone with senority
    can not be laid off unless fired for cause. We all know how paperwork
    that requires. Unions *might* offer short term increases in pay and 
    at least a *feeling* of security, but that pay increase would quickly
    be eaten up by your dues. By the way I belonged to a union for a while
    whenI got out of high school, and my father belonged to the carpenter
    and teamster unions. All of which have practically priced themselves
    out of work.

    I'm not sure, but an impression I get, is that a lot of the
    construction unions, act more like employment agencies than 
    unions in the US - is this correct ?
    
    I would suspect this would be viewed with a jaundiced eye - but at
    least you get better Health and Safety and Pay on US sites than even in
    the UK , where the mainunion was broken in the 70s, and now all work is
    carried out by sub-contractors who hire and fire at will, have legendly 
    bad Health and Saftey practices, and go bankrupt with alarming
    regularity. 
                
    I never thought I'd hear this comment from a PLASTERER (reputedly well
    paid in UK), that He'd prefer to live in America because the builders
    have unions :-)  Thats like someone saying they'd like to live in China
    because they like their Free Market ....
          
    Winton                

   Re: Note 2026.66 by SWAM2::OCONNELL_RA
   

�    Unions in the states have outgrown their usefulness in several areas.
�    One of unions biggest problems, especially the U.A.W, is they seem
�    to exist to promote themselves not the worker anymore. The UAW would
   
   We are seeing this in Dayton, Ohio with a union that represents
   grocery store employees.  It's like seeing a city govt. eyeing a
   choice subdivision for additional tax base.
   
   Situation: Union is picketing a certain grocery store chain.  It is
   trying to tell customers that the chain is very unfair to its
   employees and the customers should aid unionization by boycotting the
   store.  Very noble.
   
   I have many friends who run registers and stock shelves at the
   chain's stores.  They wish the union people would go away.  They are
   very happy with the chain.  There seems to be a few disgruntled
   employees, but you will find that in any large organization.  There
   is nothing the store nor the employees can do to stop the picketing.
   1st amemdment and all.
   
   It turns out the union wants to be in these stores.  The employees
   told them to go stick it up their collective butts.  The union is now
   trying to get the customers to boycott so that the chain's management
   will force a unwanted union on the employees.
   
   I don't condone legalized extortion; which is what a closed shop
   union is.  "If you don't pay us money, we won't let you work."