Conference 7.286::digital

    talk about empire-building...

    
    
    Agreed,
    
          Ya we need another manager's job created when violence and other 
    security related issues are (and should be) handled by Security TRAINED
    to acess/react to situations. I think THEY can determine when to
    contact police, personnel...etc... 
    
    I could be wrong but I fail to see the point of this and feel it ONLY
    puts the ideas into people's heads to react before the fact in such a
    way...
    
    What was the Job Req, a HOSTAGE NEGOTITOR... From what I hear/see if
    Corp. Personell/Management spent more effort in 'actually handling
    this delicate downsizing situation' these types of actions would be
    averted in 99.99% of the time. 
    
    Ohhh well, if this saves a life then let it go... So we spend $100K +
    for this mgr, if it saves  ONE life, it will be worth it though this
    is one effort we hope fails to show an ROI...

    
    Ya know, sometimes I think the world would be a better place if we
    simply resorted to violence a little more often ;-)
    
    Hey, I wonder if the Boston Tea Party or the French Revolution would 
    have happened if Digital Management was involved.
    
    -Ed
    

What's the problem?  I don't see where in the memo there's any evidence that
this is anyone's full-time job.  Should DEC *not* have a plan for dealing with
violence?

    re: .3
    
    It's my understanding that BOTH the Boston Tea Party (BTP) and the
    French Revolution (FR) resulted directly from the long term imposition
    of Digital Management Style (DMS) upon the two involved populaces.
    
    One should be able to see the relationship between "Taxation without
    Representation" and the DMS "Responsibility without Authority" (RWA) while
    they (DM) exercise "Authority without Responsibility" (AWR).
    
    Similarly, "Let them Eat Cake" (LTEC - pronounced El-Tech)) sounds like 
    something Jack Smith would say.  Shortly prior to "Off with their heads!"
    
    
    

    
    >The Local threat of Violence Management Team will be
    >activated to implement Emergency Response Procedures as
    >acts warrant and to develop the Initial Action Plan.
    
    Oh brother. Talk about the department of redundency department.
    Just what this company needs, more processes, more teams, more
    people involved in decision making, more, more, more...
    
    Why do we need a security department if managment wants to do it?
    
    

    
    
    
    "We have met the enemy and he is us"....that little furry animal 
    must have worked at DEC!

>    security related issues are (and should be) handled by Security TRAINED
>    to acess/react to situations. I think THEY can determine when to
>    contact police, personnel...etc... 

Actually, wouldn't the person attacked have some say about calling the police?

>    
>    Ya know, sometimes I think the world would be a better place if we
>    simply resorted to violence a little more often ;-)

Do not even JOKE about this sort of thing right now.  Someone I know did
joke about it and the pwers that be moved rather swiftly.  People are taking
any hint of violence quite seriously.

-Joe

    
    
    To save money, why not just call the old VIA or DTR specialist that
    just took SERP and hit the disruptive employee with a WOMBAT.
    
    
    

.9>>    Ya know, sometimes I think the world would be a better place if we
.9>>    simply resorted to violence a little more often ;-)

.9>Do not even JOKE about this sort of thing right now.  Someone I know did
.9>joke about it and the pwers that be moved rather swiftly.  
    
    One might say they reacted violently.	:-)
    
.9>People are taking any hint of violence quite seriously.
    
    with the exception of that incidental violence attendent upon any
    mindless bureaucratic reaction, of course...

.6>    >The Local threat of Violence Management Team will be
.6>    >activated to implement Emergency Response Procedures as
.6>    >acts warrant and to develop the Initial Action Plan.
.6>    Oh brother. Talk about the department of redundency department.
.6>    Just what this company needs, more processes, more teams, more
.6>    people involved in decision making, more, more, more...
    
    I can see it now, as some random vandal sprays the lobby with a 
    couple of bursts from an Uzi the LTOVMT is activated to implement the
    ERP by booking a conference room and calling a meeting to develop the
    IAP.  The resulting IAP?		"DUCK! Keep your heads down, and CYA!"
    
.6>    Why do we need a security department if managment wants to do it?
    
    'Cuz somebody gonna hafta clean up the mess afterward.
    
    Seriously, I think the effort to plan in advance is appropriate
    foresight.  Security is a part of the LTOVMT (they had a representative
    on the list).  I believe the team is managed by Personnel, which seems
    appropriate to me as well, I want them to be more concerned with people
    getting shot than buildings or signs...
    
    All in all, I think it would be irresponsible *not* to have such a
    team, under present circumstances.  There are enough incidents recorded
    (even outside the corporation) of unpredictable responses to layoff
    programs to make it prudent to anticipate all foreseeable situations. 
    I agree that this is one program that ideally should show zero ROI, but
    I for one am glad it exists.
    

Some bad vibes: "union" and "employee vs. management" titled notes.

If it's coming to an "us vs them" attitude - I'm outta here.

    Is this being distributed because management fear employee retribution
    at the next round of layoff's?
    
    In fact its not as funny as it seems. Here in the U.K. an employee
    actually went for his manager when he was told he was being laid off!
    (or so the story goes!).
    

    PLEASE SEE NOTE 1948.397 
    
    I reproduced a copy of the incident in Landover MD USA that brings us
    back to a more serious note.  I agree with the previous noter who said
    that we should stop joking about violence.  Things might come back to
    haunt us!

I see nothing wrong with this memo.  I wonder if the Post Office has such
a policy, and I wonder if postal workers laughed at it - before a 'disgruntled'
worker came in and offed a number of them.

Hopefully, a 'team' like this one will never have to be used.   But I'm sure
if any one of you that are either joking at it, or somehow offended by it,
were to be injured by a TSFO'd employee that went off the deep end, that 
you'd consider suing DEC for not protecting you.

JD

    Every site needs to have some sort of plan on how to deal with these
    things.  Many years ago, we had a rash of bomb threats which
    interrupted our work by necessitating evacuation of the facilities.  We
    later discovered why these were happening and put a stop to it.  That
    is part of management's responsibility for the safety of its employees.
    
    Now, there may be inefficient or ineffective means chosen to manage
    such threats, but I doubt that anyone from another site has enough
    knowledge to identify such cases.  Let the people who are on the scene
    decide for themselves what works.
    
    Dick

    The Salem, NH plant has a team called something like Disaster Response
    Team.  Their function is to call together resources, such as police,
    fire, security, community relations, counselling, ...
    
    They are prepared to act in case of an on-site disaster due to
    accident, act of God, or even violence.  They would also get into
    action in case of a off-site disaster such as a car crash killing
    co-workers.  
    
    There is a place for this type of team.  *However* the ZK team seems to
    be geared solely toward employee related violence and by virtue of its
    name seems to indicate an expectation of violence.  I think a broader
    charter would be more appropriate.
    
    It is management's responsibility to be prepared but focusing on this
    narrow area sends the wrong message.
    
    
    Marv
    

    a few back:  I would sue Digital for  not allowing ME to protect
    MYSELF.  If I could carry concealed anywhere in this country, I would
    have to best option for protecting ME, _NOT_ some management team
    deciding who to call, what's the phone number, and then wonder how long
    it'll take for the "rescuers" to get here- let alone wonder if they'll
    enter the place to find the perp or put up a post outside while waiting
    for the FBI and anti-terroist teams and local SWAT teams to show up.
    
    How many would be dead by then?  Again, rest assured, I _would_not_ sue
    DEC for not protecting me, that is _NOT_ their responsibility; I would
    sue for not being allowed to protect myself which is _MY_
    responsibility.
    
    Sorry for making this sound so soapbox-ish, but some of the mindsets
    around here really baffle me.
    
    Reg.

>    it'll take for the "rescuers" to get here- let alone wonder if they'll
>    enter the place to find the perp or put up a post outside while waiting
>    for the FBI and anti-terroist teams and local SWAT teams to show up.

I suspect the team is to handle much more 'mundane' type cases, where one
person hits another, or makes a verbal threat.  You make it sound like they are
a SWAT team; I would not expect anything more serious.  Just my opinion.

    Get real.  It should be obvious that when the company is looking for
    heads to chop, that nonvalue added departments will get more creative
    at finding "jobs."  I've known security guys who would arm themselves
    if they could.  When you don't have anything else to do you create a
    hypothetical crisis and a not-so-hypothetical ad hoc SWAT team. IMHO
    
    DAR

    In my opinion, the base note and many of the replies to this topic miss
    the mark.  I think Digital management has undertaken this plan/policy
    as a prudent precaution to protect all employees, as much as possible,
    from any harm that might result from the actions of an employee under
    stress.
    
    Such actions can and do occur within this company.  I have personal
    knowledge of a range of extreme behaviors that have occurred within the
    last year as a result of TFSO activity, as well as normal PP&P 6.21
    activity.  I'm glad to know that someone has planned in advance to
    deal with these kinds of situations in a rational way.
    
    	Bill

    Re: .23
    
    Do you really think this "team" is going to have any impact on reducing
    the frequency of stress related interpersonal problems.  When things
    like that happen, they happen remarkably fast.  So fast in fact that
    others in the same area don't usually know what's going on.  Forming
    these SWAT teams is probably even counter productive if you actually
    believe that they will make the work environment "safer."  I still say
    its another nice little bureaucracy to rationalize some one's job.

    
    Hey, I'm not afraid of catching any lead.  I'm not a manager and won't
    be handing out any pink slips.  Maybe we should simply issue
    bullet-proof vests to those who will ;-)
    
    -Ed
    
    

    
    Re: .20
    
    >Sorry for making this sound so soapbox-ish, but some of the mindsets
    >around here really baffle me.
    
    I agree totally, but I doubt we'd agree on which mindsets are
    the baffling ones.  I am no antigun advocate but, frankly, the
    idea that DEC employees should be permitted to "carry concealed"
    on the job is precisely an example of why the activity described
    in the base note is going on.  Get real.
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .25    "Maybe we should sumply issue..."
    
    Then again, maybe we shouldn't.  
    
       o -
        >     (sideways smile not nearly big enough!)
       \_/

    
    i sure hope this is not a serious reaction to the 300 rampaging zko
    nerds mail - but you never know, there's been a few who thought it
    was real!
    
    However, after seeing a story on the tube last night where a fellow
    publically stated for several months that he would kill his ex-wife
    and indeed did follow thru, i think it a good idea for people to take
    such talk seriously. Loosing a job is bad enough, and certainly not
    worth loosing a life over.  Having a team to evaluate whether threats
    are real or a bad joke is not out of line and i would expect this to be
    just an added responsibility for the people involved.
    
    bob
    

    
>>    it'll take for the "rescuers" to get here- let alone wonder if they'll
>>    enter the place to find the perp or put up a post outside while waiting
>>    for the FBI and anti-terroist teams and local SWAT teams to show up.

>I suspect the team is to handle much more 'mundane' type cases, where one
>person hits another, or makes a verbal threat.  You make it sound like they are
>a SWAT team; I would not expect anything more serious.  Just my opinion.

    
    	There are already proper steps to take in the event of these
    scenarios. WE DON"T NEED MORE PROCESSES!!!!! There isn't anything that
    will happen that you can prevent beforehand anyway. 
    
    ed

    I kid about a lot of things, but this possibility isn't one of them.
    Most of us are not mental health professionals; how many of you (or
    your co-workers) could anticipate who might snap?
    
    I would like to think this can't happen at any DEC site but I'm not
    that much of a Pollyanna.  There have been instances of vandalism that
    occurred after past TFSOs; we've all been hearing that future lay-offs
    will cut much deeper.  How many of you are willing to bet the farm
    that the co-worker next to you will continue to be a "rock" if he/she
    is tapped?
    
    Sometimes people who "appear" to be very strong are very strong in
    one area.....hiding inner turmoil.
    
    I don't know if this is a chance to create another empire, as someone
    else put it, if this task force is pushed into action and saves one
    person from injury, then frankly I don't care if it appears to be
    another boondoggle.
    
    Karen
    

    Re: .24
    
    No, I don't think a team such as this will help to reduce the frequency
    of stress-related, or any other, interpersonal problems.  They will
    continue to happen as always.  The point is that the team should be
    able to help deal with the problems, if and when they do occur.
    
    I agree with you that some situations do develop very quickly.  That is
    not to say that each and every one of these is going to result in a
    lethal confrontation or actual physical harm as its final consequence.
    A plan and trained participants can be effective in defusing many such
    incidents.
    
    I don't understand your contention that the formation of an emergency
    response team is counter-productive.  If you have not had the
    opportunity to work as a manager of people, I would encourage you to
    seek out and try one of these positions.  It will give you a different
    perspective on this, and other, facets of the Digital workplace.
    Although I am not currently a manager of people, I have been in the
    past in a number of assignments both within and outside of Digital.  I
    can assure you that the issue and its possible resolutions are highly
    complex.  When, as a supervisor or manager, your concern is for the
    well-being of *all* of your reports, including someone who is, or is
    about to become, dysfunctional, you will see things in a different
    light.
    
    I don't mean to preach on this.  I do have some direct experience that
    I hope is worth sharing.
    
    	Bill

   The following is a VAXmail I sent to Mr. Fitzpatrick.  I work a USAF
   installation.  Threats are taken seriously here.   We are reminded of
   them at least once/year in briefings.  Known, published procedures
   are a good thing to have.
   
   
TO: TOV Management Team

SUBJ: Something you might want to incorporate


I work at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio.  We are brief annually on
what to do when we receive a bomb, or other type of threat.  Each phone at
the base has an 8"x5" card next to it.  This is the AFLC FORM 1591.

It has two benefits:

	1) concise instructions are readily available at each phone, and
	2) guides the threat recipient on what questions to ask the caller.

I thought you might want to see how other organizations prepare for these
serious situations.

Also, before Digital I worked for the computer dept. at Northern Kentucky
University.  Our department had one additional item: grab all the backups
you can before leaving the building.

Words below in ALL CAPS are printed in red ink on the card.

Hope this helps.  Call me at (513) 258-3368 (Digital phone) if you have any
questions.


Steve 8^)

AFLC FORM 1591, MAR 87 (FRONT SIDE)

                            BOMB THREAT ACTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you RECEIVE a bomb threat, complete all items on this card.

If you are NOTIFIED of a bomb threat by an OFFICIAL SOURCE accomplish items
4-11.

1. Fill in Bomb Threat Record on reverse of this card, and give to Security
   Police upon their arrival.

2. After caller hangs up, you may also; calls are not traceable afterward.

3. Immediately notify:	Security Police, ext 71100
			Command Post, ext 76314
			Building manager, ext 55337

4. Notify your supervisor.

5. Properly secure all classified material.

6. Visually check your work area for strange, out-of-place or suspicious
   objects, packages.

7. If nothing found, mark and post "THIS ROOM/AREA SEARCHED" card outside
   entrance to your area.

8. If anything suspicious found - DO NOT TOUCH - call Security Police, 
   ext 76841, and your Bldg Mgr.  Mark, post "THIS ROOM/AREA SEARCHED" card 
   outside entrance to area.

9. Open outside windows, unplug electrical appliances.

10.Quickly collect essential personal belongings.

11.IF DIRECTED, evacuate building to point directed and take cover. 
   Otherwise, resume duties.


		DON'T...TOUCH STRANGE OBJECTS, PANIC OR RUN



AFLC FORM 1591, MAR 87  (BACK SIDE)


                            BOMB THREAT RECORD
================================================================================
Fill out and give to responding security police
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exact wording of the threat:








================================================================================
Questions to ask caller (Try to keep him/her talking)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the bomb located

Area_____  Bldg_____  Room_____  Other_____

When is it set to detonate:
What does it look like:
What kind of bomb is it:
What will cause it to explode:
Did you place the bomb yourself:
Why was it placed:
Who are you:
================================================================================
Additional information to note
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caller's voice

Male____	Female_____	Calm_____	Angry_____
Accented(type)_____		Age_____
Race(if evident)_____		other_____
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threat language

Articulated_____	Incoherent_____	Foul_____	Taped message_____
Other_____
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background noises

Voices_____			NR_____			Other_____
Street noises_____		Music(type)_____
Office sounds(type)_____	Long Distance_____
Industrial noises(type)_____
Aircraft(type,if known)_____
Trains_____			Ships_____
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call was received at


_____HRS ________, 19____, on phone ext_______

At(Post #)______________by_____________________

Call lasted _________minutes
   

    Regarding a few back -- Is security allowed to arm themselves with things
    like Tasers or not?

    I had a card reader freak out at me at MET two years ago.  It opened the
    door and then rang the alarm as I walked into the building at 7pm.  The
    guard came around the corner pointing _something_ at me.  Maybe it was just
    an old-fashioned camera with a big flashbulb, but I tend to doubt it.  It
    disappeared when he saw my badge...

	If security is smart, they will neither confirm nor deny what,
	if any, weapons they carry. The less information the "bad guys"
	have, the better.

						Tom_K

    
    After an incident at LKG a few years back, I believe DEC Security has
    chosen the Uzi Model H2O as the weapon of choice.
    

Am I being insufferable today, or what?

The Uzi squirt gun incident was at LJO2 (PCSG).  I joined the responsible group
a couple months after the incident.  They were still quite proud of themselves.

    Maybe joking about this kind of stuff relieves the stress some.  Please
    don't forget that an unstable, recently canned worker drove through an
    IBM office, jumped out and started killing just a few years ago.  Then,
    he killed himself.  This could happen any time and place.  I'm glad I'm
    on the 7th floor of our building, which has two escape routes
    (stairwells).  
    
    regards,
    
    Patrick

My Dad worked at IBM and was at the site when that happened.  If you have
ever seen the Research Triangle Park facility, well, let's say that it's 
big.

My Dad said the worse thing about this incident was that security received
a call that some nut was shooting people in so-and-so building, but they
couldn't find him.  Shortly after that, quite a few cameras were installed.

    I think the Threat of Violence committee is a very, very excellent
    idea.  It will stop all those crazies who go nuts when they get fired
    and get a gun and drive into the building and kill people.  The
    committee will work real good.  The crazy person's car can be seen on
    the cameras in the parking lots.  The security guard will see the crazy
    person's car and know that a crazy person is coming into the building
    to kill people.  This will cause the security guard to write a report
    and send it the to Threat of Violence committee.  This is good because
    it will make the committee meet and decide to deal with the shooting. 
    The committee will call each other, and they will get together and
    discuss how much of a threat a car driving into a building is.  And
    they will decide that is a bad, bad threat, and they will do something. 
    They will do this especially because after driving into the building,
    the crazy person will kill and shoot people, and that is not good.  So
    the committee will vote, and they will vote that the crazy person
    should not drive into the building and they should not have a gun and
    they should not use the gun to shoot people.  And then everybody will
    be happy.
    
    I am so glad I have Digital management to protect me.

    ref .39

    The process as you described can be greatly speeded up by few 
    changes, for example, why have the Violence committee wait for the report 
    to arrive from the security people to start action ?

    they could have extra camera installed in their cubes whereby they
    themselves can view the crazy person's car approaching the building.

    This way we saved some valuable moments in the process.

    I think if we all put our brains together, we can always find more 
    efficient ways of doing thing .
    this is just one example.

    Hope this helps.

    /Nasser
    I spelled checked.
    

Let's see ... management extends LTD benefits to all employees,
at a 50% level with no employee-contribution and we are incensed
at our management because an older component of the plan has
had its rates increased after a prudent six-year contract with
DEC has held them to 1986 levels.

Management decides that a bit of advance planning with respect
to potentially devastating events like bomb threats, irrational
employees with dangerous weapons and materials, or just your
run of the mill grudge-gotten-out-of-hand is a good idea, and
we are incensed because they used the "C" word (committee), dared
to actually name the names of those responsible to do the planning,
advised employees of whom to call during an emergency, and, worst
of all, actually communicated all of this to us.

Can't you see, absolutely everything management does is totally
wrong.  There's isn't a single intelligent or caring manager anywhere
in the company.  Our promotion process is *so effective* that
every such individual is carefully screened out.  All the managers
are fools, and all the individual contributors are sages; just
shoot all the managers --- and perfection will emerge.

Thank goodness we don't operate in the ordinary, real world, where
all people do some things right and some wrong, where the difference
between good management and bad management is often just getting
60% of the decisions right versus 40%, and where people are people
and all employees are culpable and creditable.

Let's be sure we turn our anger into the bitterest form we can,
deny and obstruct all progress, criticize always but contribute
never, and be especially certain that we are not ourselves actually
responsible for *anything* that is wrong.  Yes, that feels better;
it's quite definately the other guy's fault.

- greg

    RE .39
    
    Ah Eric ... thanks for the chuckle ... a little humor goes a long way
    in these trying times ... ;^) ... do try not to take all this too
    seriously.
    
    RE .40
    
    Nassar ... I'm tempted to say check your spell checker, but I think
    your message is more valuable to us all than your spelling.  Your
    positive approach is refreshing, but seriously I don't think there's
    much that such a committee could do to prevent a determined person from
    committing acts of violence against the company, except maybe study the
    problem after the fact.
    
    RE ... ToVMT
    
    I don't see that there's anything controversial about it ... at least
    the company's acknowledging that there may be a problem, and offering a
    solution (which, admittedly may be nothing more than a CYA move).  It's
    better than pretending that violent retaliation from a disgruntled
    (former) employee can't happen here, wouldn't you agree? 
    
    As to the Noter who suggested he'd prefer carrying his own weapon ...
    NOT!  Who's to say you wouldn't become the disgruntled employee?
    
    ... Bob
    

Dripping cynicism aside, some planning for this kind of thing
is obviously a good idea, and I see no obviously flawed aspect
of the information communicated, except perhaps the continuing
(inevitable?) drift toward stuffy formalism.

- g

    RE: .41 & 43
    
    
    Greg:
    
    In .41 you miss the whole point. In .43 you make up for it. 
    
    At least you prove you are right 50% of the time.  Wouldn't it be nice
    if we could say that for everyone else (including myself!) & Digital
    Management!

>          <<< Note 2035.40 by STAR::ABBASI "i^(-i) = SQRT(exp(PI))" >>>

>    /Nasser
>    I spelled checked.

For your amusement, copied from a Denver PC users bulletin, without permission

Owed Two Checkers
       By Cindy Speer

I have a spelling checker
It came with my PC
It plainly marks four my revue
Mistakes I can not sea.

Iran this poem threw it
I'm sure your pleased too no
Its letter perfect inn its weigh,
My checker tolled mi sew?


Regards
Barry
 

    RE: .41
    
    >Let's see ... management extends LTD benefits to all employees, at a
    >50% level with no employee-contribution and we are incensed
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Have I misunderstood something about the new plan?
    

When I rollerblade around the ZKO parking lot, I notice that the security
cameras spend quite a bit of time following my movements.  I feel honored to
be so protected. ;-)

'Course at MKO, they protect me even better by throwing me off the facility.

    >When I rollerblade around the ZKO parking lot
    Is one allowed to rollerblade in the vicinity of a DEC facility?
    this sounds like a violations of some rule, Iam sure.
    /Nasser
    I spelled checked

    Ah, Nasser.
    
    You are obviously not tuned in to "CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT".
    
    Summarised, this goes as follows:
    
       "When designing any process, ensure that you build in enough
       inefficiency at the start so that you can make quarterly changes
       along the way and thereby meet your targets for CONTINUOUS
       IMPROVEMENT."
    
    Then - everyone thinks what a great job you're doing.
    
    So the cameras in the members' cubes is the first CONTINUOUS
    IMPROVEMENT step and reduces the "TIME TO CALL FIRST MEETING" metric by
    25%.  You even get budget $$ to work on it!
    
    If you do it right you can plan all the CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT activity
    along with the original process design and save yourself a lot of extra
    effort later.  The budget $$ will still flow because you DON'T TELL
    ANYBODY!
    
    S'easy!
    
    Mike

    rest assured I am not in any category that pyschoanalysts have pegged
    for the typical person that would go crazy.  If I did shoot someone at
    work, it would be for the right reasons: self preservation and
    protection of my co-workers.
    
    Reg.

re: .-1

Could very well be, but, rest assured, in such circumstances no one is likely
to take _ANYONE_ else at their word.

-Jack

    .52
    
    Well, John-boy, I might have to eat my words: you might be on my hit
    list for grins and giggles.  8^)

    
    	I think this is a good topic although I fail to understand how the
    TOV committee is relevant to management's attitudes towards employees; at
    any rate I don't think it is a good example.
    	I am not concerned so much with management's views of employees or
    vice versa but the lack of trust on both sides, which becomes evident
    in topics like this. It is this lack of trust that's contributing to
    the problems in this company right now. 
    	Let's face it; we need a major attitude adjustment on both sides so
    that we can begin working together to turn this company around.
    Unfortunately our egos are too fragile to accept that we need each
    other at this critical point in our company's history. 
    	Nothing, not even ALPHA, will stop us from going the way of PRIME
    if we can't trust and communicate with each other anymore! 
    	I firmly believe that we have good managers but they are caught up
    in so much crap today that they have little time to spend with the
    employees. We have a terrible cycle going on here which is destroying
    us. The scenario seems to go like this: 
    
                           +-------------------------------------+
                           |                                     |
    			   |                                     |
                           V                                     |
    		Edict to reduce headcount                        |
    			   |                                     |
    			   |                                     |
    			   V                                     |
    		     Reorganize unit                             |
    			   |                                     |
    			   |                                     |
    			   V                                     |
    		  Redefine unit's work                           |
    			   |                                     |
    			   |                                     |
    			   V                                     |
    	Pare down unit's work to baselevel competencies          |
    			   |                                     |
    			   |                                     |
    			   V                                     |
            Transition "old" work to different units             |
    			   |                                     |
    			   |                                     |
    			   V                                     |
             Unit/organization entrenches itself                 |
    			   |                                     |
    			   |                                     |
    			   V                                     |
         Results in more isolation and less meaningful           |
         communication within the company!                       |
    			   |                                     |
    			   |                                     |
                           +-------------------------------------+
    
    	In addition these transitions to other organizations are virtual, not 
    physical, in many cases, as other organizations go through the same cycle.
    One day an org may agree to pick up the work, the next they have to cut 30%
    from their budget, the req's are closed, the transition DOES NOT COMPLETE,
    letting many functions fall through the cracks! 
    	Unfortunately most of this activity seems to have little to do with
    running the second largest computer company on the planet! 
    	These types of perpetual projects are worse than our engineering
    ones (IMHO).
    
    - Jim K  
           
                                                              

    Re .54:
    
    > 	I think this is a good topic although I fail to understand how the
    > TOV committee is relevant to management's attitudes towards employees; at
    > any rate I don't think it is a good example.

    The TOV memo is relevant because it is an overreaction.  Dealing with
    the possibility an employee might do something violent could have been
    handled much more simply:  One memo to all employees that says "People
    might be edgy in these times.  If you learn of a possibly threat,
    please inform security." and one memo to security that says "Take
    threats seriously and be prepared to deal with them.".  The likelihood
    that there will be a serious incident is small, making this less of a
    threat to our health than driving cars, and so it does not call for a
    special effort to deal with.  But Digital has overreacted, forming a
    committee, exaggerating warnings, and issuing a memo that in itself
    instills distrust of others.
    
    What is the cause of the overreaction?  Either it is just gross
    bureacratic inefficiency or management views employees with serious
    distrust.  A better way of protecting against incidents would be to
    treat employees with true compassion, thus defusing emotions before
    they explode.  Has Digital made a plan to do that?  I don't see it.  I
    do see a policy for treating employees politely being broken.  These
    things tell me how management feels about employees.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    re .55
    
      I interprit the memo differently. The way I read it is they put out 
    this memo in a fashion to inform employees, who may be worried of some-
    thing like this happening, that they are aware of these things and are
    taking some kind of action to protect employees.
    
    I agree it sounds a little lame. =)
    

    
    re: .55
    
    	You list two explanations of why the ToV committee was formed;
    personally I don't believe that it has much to do with management's
    mindset. First of all it could only reflect a small portion of
    management's viewpoint. Second, it was done above board and
    communicated to employees and managers in an open manner.
    	Not to be sarcastic here, but it is entirely possible that you
    could benefit from this "protection" as much as a manager. Don't you
    think it possible that there might be a few managers out there who may
    want to act out their violent fantasies on you? Personally, I could see
    how this could happen.
    	Was it overdone a bit? Probably. I am more concerned about the more
    insidious things that could occur in these times, things that aren't
    communicated to employees. 
    
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K
                                          

.57> {re .55}>  Don't you
.57>    think it possible that there might be a few managers out there who may
.57>    want to act out their violent fantasies on you? Personally, I could see
.57>    how this could happen.
    
    Why must this be cast in terms of management vs. individual
    contributor?  With the amount of tension and stress felt by everyone,
    it seems to me that such distinctions are not particularly important.
    It's just as likely that personality conflicts between individuals will
    be the significant factor, regardless of the job roles involved.  So
    even co-workers might want to take out their aggressive urges on anyone
    who gets too offensive...

    
    re: .57
    
    	Since it was being cast that managers were looking for protection
    from employees, I was just trying to show the flip side. Of course it
    does come down to a few stressed out indivuals in the end. I would
    welcome any measure taken at this point to reduce stress and alleviate 
    tension.
    	One thing that might help the individual contributors is to provide
    them more control over their own destiny. The managers have more tools
    at their disposal than do the employees at the bottom of the ladder
    IMHO; this results in more stress especially during these times.
    
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K

    re .59  Gee I thought managers were employees  
    
    Wrong again!  :*)

                                  
    re: .60
    
    	I don't appreciate the implication that I don't view management as
    employees. Please remember the topic at hand: "Management's Mindset
    towards Employees". I don't like the divisiveness anymore than you do,
    possibly for different reasons. But as much as I don't like it, I have
    to remember that there is the concept of rank-and-file and management.
    This isn't a union shop but there are analogies.
    	You are perfectly correct that all managers are employees. However
    not all employees are managers. The issue seems to be that some view
    the ToV as managers distrusting and feeling threatened by non-managerial 
    employees (although I don't see it this way). But at the same token I do 
    feel there is distrust on both sides for other reasons (refer to .54).
    Many non-managerial employees feel threatened by the whole process of
    what is going on today within Digital but you don't see us organizing 
    committees, unions, etc. to address these perceived threats to careers, 
    families, etc. IMHO the layoff process is comparable to a threat of 
    violence to many of us at a personal level as is the threat to one's life;
    they are both related therefore the ToV must exist I suppose. 
    	It is ironic that over the years as the term empowerment was introduced
    to us, many of us feel less empowered than ever.   
    	Maybe we need some preventative committees along with ToV so that
    ALL employees will feel less threatened and helpless with the current
    process. As edp mentioned, compassion and understanding are the key.
    Committees based on these attributes, in addition to the ToV based on
    fear (REAL and imagined), may go further to alleviate the situation.
    And if we could substitute committees with good lines of communications,
    all the better, but it seems we are committee-bound in this company.
    
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K                                 

    Re: .50
    
    I would hope that you do not have at hand the means to shoot anyone at
    work, regardless of motive.  (Unless you mean with rubber bands, paper
    clips and staples.)
    

    .62  what if I did?  I'll keep you wondering on that for a little while
    longer.
    
    Committees should only act at the request of the general public.  In
    this case the committee should have been created after numerous
    requests from DEC employees (all rank and file) spurred this interest.
    Otherwise, it comes across to me as more beareaucracy (intended sp)
    to save someone's personal hide by adding more job responsibilities.
    
    Why we let a few control our fear is beyond me.  Everyone's looking out
    for my welfare- YET, I continue to hear how much empowerment I have,
    how I have to be responsible for my actions, have I have to make my own
    decisions to what's right or wrong- how *I* have to MANAGE my own life.
    
    These things (and more) are a way of life I was brought up on and I
    hope everyone else was afforded the same disciplines.  Gov't gone bad
    spreads to all levels of "business" and now most believe we all need
    someone looking out for us to take away that part of our
    responsibilities.  
    
    So now we have a committee (at least at one site) that will look out
    for those employees (and guests) there and the attitude will be: "We
    have someone to do that for us, don't worry about that.  That group/
    committee will inform us of any changes"  and when changes/decisions
    are made, everyone outside the g/c will spout off, " How idiotic, how
    stupid!"  And again we will be told we have the power to make the
    changes, but who will let us?  Meanwhile, act as sheep and wait for the
    slaughter or the saving- you are empowered to do make that decision.
    
    The comment a few back was the best suggestion on how to handle the
    situation: a stress alert message to all employees and a suspected
    threat directed to security and a message to security to inform them on
    how to handle the situation.  However, as we all know, in a computer
    company where everyone has an account, we all know that someone would
    forward that message out and from there a worse panic could be
    concieved.  So, in light of all this, the way they informed the
    employees of the committee was the best way to do it, BUT, that
    committee should have been formed for that site after all employees
    were addressed and all opinions were collected, digested and issue (or
    non issue) was resolved.
    
    It's great that we have something like this in place, but I would have
    thought DEC would have had a plan for handling threats long ago- after
    all, we aren't supposed to have cameras on site as they pose a threat
    to DEC.  
    
    I think we all agree it's a good idea to have a plan like this, but it
    should have originated at the corporate level and trickled down to each
    site which each site management creating the crew.  But at corporate
    level we only think of $s 'n �s; no policy making, no direction on how
    the company is to act as a whole (except: sell, sell, sell), all
    decisions left up to site/individual management, no group collectivity
    except for the group one presently works and who cares if it operates
    independantly and on it's own as long as it makes money.  Cool, if each
    group was a separate company, but they are not- they are, we are, all
    Digital Equipment Corporation a company that needs more communication
    and question and answer sessions to find out where it should be going
    (not only from the customers) and where it's coming from (employees).
    
    Well, I've flamed on long enough.
    
    Reg.
    

I typically don't enter replies into this conference because of the 99% chance
of misinterpretation of information thus entered, but I've been following
this topic for some time and can restrain myself no longer.   I ask you to
take this reply seriously and to not trivialize it.  This will be my one
and only entry in this topic, no matter how outrageous the responses to this
reply are.

A typical pattern in the DIGITAL notes conference (and, in fact, in most
conferences I have seen) is:

    1) Someone starts a topic
    2) Several replies are entered that provide hypotheses (many of which
       are interesting but baseless) building upon the original topic
    3) Replies are entered flaming about those hypotheses, which by that
       point in time have turned miraculously into fact

This is precisely what has happened in this case, perhaps fomented by
a topic title for which a possible example was given (the first hypothesis).
Suddenly we have a beaurocracy newly created at ZKO that is protecting
Management against a foaming mob of employees, and isn't it terrible that
Management is so set on protecting themselves instead of Doing The Right
Thing in the first place.  Plus we're now very worried that co-employees
are carrying concealed weapons.

Here are the facts, as I understand them:

1) There is a corporate policy around Threats of Violence.  That policy is
obviously meant for cases in which the violence does not immediately follow
the threat, but there is fear that it might happen at some point in the
future.
2) Each site is supposed to tailor that policy to provide things like real
phone numbers and a process that works for that site.  ZKO had a committee
do that tailoring, to comply with corporate policy.  There is no reason
to believe that this exercise was done at the behest of a ZKO manager trembling
with fear under his/her desk.  It was probably done as a normal part of
our Personnel process and in line with the downsizing activities occurring
all over the corporation.  I am absolutely positive that this was in addition
to the 120% time investment in Digital that those committee members were
already contributing to Digital!
3) A mail message that perhaps should have had more context was sent out.  The
wisdom of dispersing the message in this way is questionable.

Far too much time and effort has gone into discussing the ZKO TOV policy
in this conference.  I suggest that you give it a rest.

Leslie Klein

	Tom Fitzpatrick:

	I'd keep my eye on the last two noters -- if anybody's going
	to come into work with an assault rifle, I think it's gotta
	be them.

		-- Cliff

It was surely made in jest, but I think we should all be careful about making
suggestions like Cliff in .65.

Paul, co-moderator Digital

    
    
    "You're a thought criminal!" 
    
    			-Little Boy to Winston Smith in the film 1984
    

    Re: .63
    
    I worry not - I live in another country and you can't bring weapons to
    work here.
    
    Re: .64
    
    If you're so all-knowing and wise, how come you have to work?  Or,
    alternately, since you know just what is appropriate to a topic of
    conversation, and exactly when, as you titled it, 'enough is enough',
    how come you haven't been made Queen of the Censors?  (I know, I know,
    thou shalt not deign to respond.)
    
    
    Don
    (a mere mortal)
    

    
    If anyone ever needed a perfect example of the inmates running the
    asylum, I suggest it is embodied in our duplicitous management's 
    touting the concept of the empowered employee in the midst of this
    protracted 2-year campaign of forced terminations.  Patently unnerving. 
    

    I don't think the concept is intentional, and it is therefore not
    duplicitous.  How can you be in two places at once when you aren't
    anyplace at all?

    I don't think it's duplicitous either.  I think the strategy is that,
    "Nothing empowers an employee as much as giving them the ax." IMHO
    
    Dave

    I'm sure I'm not the only non-US noter reading this topic open-mouthed.
    
    Laurie.

       re .72:
       
       Many people on this side of the Atlantic are yawning, too.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    You're not alone outside the US by viewing this topic closemouthed.

    I, following the habits of a lifetime, am following this topic
    big-mouthed.
    
    JK  O-:)

    I've been hitting the Kp comma on it.

    Jamie.