Conference 7.286::digital

    In the past, the company has asked employees who live in New Hampshire
    to lobby their state representative to adopt a Martin L. King holiday. 
    It still has not been done by the way.
    
    Marv
    
    

    Peter,               
    
    It certainly caught my eye.  I had not know Digital to publically lobby
    for political objectives before, but I don't see anything wrong with it
    as long as it's a business objective that the Company is going after.
    
    o Exactly who is speaking for Digital (no one asked me) ?
    
    This certainly does concern me.  Do we employ lobbyists, or contribute
    to an organization that employs lobbyists?  I don't know.
    
    o Is lobbying on company time and with equipment a valid use of Digital
      resourses ?
    
    For a business purpose, yes I think so.  I doubt that Bob Palmer
    contacted our reps. on his own time.
    
    o Will I be rewarded for lobbying or punished for opposition
    activities?
    
    No.  The Company has asked employees "interested in having their views
    on NAFTA count" to call or write their reps., but not told us what
    views to communicate.
    
    Mark

    I don't see any problem with it, if Digital thinks Mexican (and LACT)
    business can be improved by NAFTA then Digital should say so. 
    
    I'm feel comfortable the folks involved know what they are doing. 
    
    I like the idea of Digital support Martin L. King day as well, although
    the NAFTA issue seems much more obvious to me since there are business
    reasons for doing so. 
    
    

Does Digital employ lobbyists?  Are you kidding?  Of course
they do.  And they belong to trade associations that lobby on
behalf of groups of companies.  I believe that Digital even 
has a Washington office - an office that is full of lobbyists!!
The lobbyists in Digital work for the Government Relations
department.

There is much legislation that affects Digital that is not as
"famous" as NAFTA.  Digital is out there every day trying to
influence these legislative issues.  And so is every other
big company!

Asking employees to write their congress-critters regarding an
issue is done every day.  This is a form of "grass-roots lobbying."

Erica Dorenkamp

DEC UK gives (gave) lots of money to the Conservative party,
which party I personally find to be reprehensible.   Nevertheless,
as long as it's legal to do so, I don't see anything particularly
wrong with this -- they're just "safeguarding the company's interests"
in a normally-accepted manner.

	I'd say that Digital, as a business entity, has an obligation to its
	shareholders to try to affect legislation that will impact the
	company. NAFTA certainly seems to fall under this umbrella.

>    o Exactly who is speaking for Digital (no one asked me) ?

	Why should anybody ask you? this is Digital supporting something for
	the sake of Digital. Unless the company purports to be speaking for
	its employees, it has no obligation to ask you for your opinion.

>    o Is lobbying on company time and with equipment a valid use of Digital
>      resourses ?

	Certainly, so long as it is done in the interest of the company.
	Lobbying on company time AGAINST something that the company supports
	would not, in my opinion, be a valid use of Digital resources.


	I personally dislike the company support of a Martin Luther King Jr.
	holiday, as I see this as entering moral rather than business
	grounds. I would also oppose the company takin a stand on abortion
	rights or gun control, unless such political actions are performed
	for business reasons.

	Roy

    Where does the article (or whatever) on Digital's position on NAFTA
    appear? 

>    Where does the article (or whatever) on Digital's position on NAFTA
>    appear? 
  It appeared in both Livewire U.S. News and Livewire Greater Maynard Area News.
Each has a cross reference to the other.

    for a list of senators and congressmen, see SOAPBOX note number
    1808.23.  It contains names by state with telephone and fax numbers.
    
    cw

>>    for a list of senators and congressmen, see SOAPBOX note number
>>    1808.23.  It contains names by state with telephone and fax numbers.
  
I haven't been in the 'box for a long while.  When I went in just now, 
the highest numbered note was in the middling 800's.

This was PEAR::SOAPBOX?

    not directly NAFTA related, but...
    For a rather nasty article concerning Digital and the use of special
    H1B visas to bring foreign labor over to replace some of the 21,000+
    US jobs lost in the last two years, see the November 8 issue of
    Business Week.  
    
    

    try pear::soapbox note 72.20.

    
I also, am a bit curious about the one-sided tone of the "support 
statement" in Live Wire.  I think we are familiar with some of the
negative points and concerns which are being widely debated in the
various media.  The obvious self-interests of Digital aside, this
trade pact has monumental complications of international commerce,
diplomacy, and sovereignty, and I don't think Digital is acting in
the role of a responsible corporate citizen by glossing over the
more sobering and long-lasting complications of the agreement.

I find it a little disconcerting that Government Relations can
provide one with a phone number for contacting one's representative,
but, if you wish "to show support for NAFTA" you will be provided
with a toll-free number for sending a free telegram to that same
representative (presumably only if it is an affirmative vote).

    This morning's Boston Globe has a full page ad which says, "We support
    NAFTA."
    
    It is signed by Michael Spindler, Apple; Robt.Allen, ATT; Eckhard
    Pfeiffer, Compaq; James Ousley, CDC; John Carlson, Cray; Ronald
    Skates, DG; Lewis Platt, H-P; Lou Gerstner, IBM; Ed McCracken' SGI;
    Scott McNealy, Sun; James Treybig, Tandem; James Unruh, Unisys and BP.
    
    The byline is the "Computer Systems Policy Project"

    
    
    Does anyone know if Digital will support U.S. relo's to Canada, Central
    and South America?
    
    eleanor

Re .0:

> Exactly who is speaking for Digital (no one asked me) ?

It would seem that Digital's highest level officers have reached a consensus 
that the company's best interests are seriously affected by the outcome of
this political issue.  It is a highly unusual situation when a political 
decision has such high stakes for Digital that the corporation would publicly 
take sides on the issue.  

Note that -- as relayed by .14 -- the CEO's not only of Digital but a dozen
other top computer companies are making clear their common position that
passage of NAFTA is in the best interests of all these companies.

> Is lobbying on company time and with equipment a valid use of Digital
> [resources]?

Good question.  What does the P&P have to say on this?  Is the corporate
policy clear?

> Will I be rewarded for lobbying or punished for opposition activities ?

In my opinion, any interference by a company into the personal political 
stands of its employees would be highly unethical.  I have confidence that 
Digital would never stoop to such a position.

> Has Digital abandoned "valuing differences" and respect for the individual?

As far as I can see, definitely not.  See above.

> What other political issues will Digital endorse ? Will I have to lobby for
> these also ?

An individual Digital employee should be under no obligation and under no 
pressure to take any political stand.  I don't feel that Digital's 
encouragement of employees to share their views with their elected 
representatives is any kind of pressure on me to take sides here.

As I said above, NAFTA is an exceptional issue with high economic stakes for
Digital.  I doubt that there will be other political issues where Digital
will take such a high profile position.

    Many companies -- I seem to recall GM in particular -- ask their
    employees to write their congressman/woman about various business-
    related issues.  I've also seen numerous stock proxy statements
    that discuss issues before the stockholders and recommend which way
    the shareholders should vote.  I'm not surprised that Digital is doing
    this.  As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that it hasn't been done
    before.  Does anyone honestly think that former Apple CEO John Sculley
    sat next to Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Inauguration by accident?

    
    Digital is a business, not a commune.  I believe that BP's insistence
    on this is one of his strong points.
    
    I guess a company can't be located in Massachusetts and not be affected
    by the liberalism which pervades the state. 
    
    Sales people are more important to a company than are administrative 
    personnel (and I'm not a sales person)! 
    
    There, I said it.
    
    jeff

    
    NO!  the feeling is that will happen regardless.
    
    IMHO of course.
    
    Gary

                    <<< Note 2767.15 by REFDV1::ESULLIVAN >>>

>    Does anyone know if Digital will support U.S. relo's to Canada, Central
>    and South America?
    
  What does this have to do with NAFTA? Canada is already covered by a trade
agreement, and Central and South America are not covered by NAFTA.

    re. -1
    Bob, I think the question regarding relo's was If the company relocates
    MY JOB to [somewhere] will the company offer to relocate me as well.
    It's a fair question. I think I can guess the answer.
    
    fred deady

    >Bob, I think the question regarding relo's was If the company relocates
    >MY JOB to [somewhere] will the company offer to relocate me as well.
    
    Sure.. but bear in mind one reason they're moving your job
    elsewhere is to save money on wages and other benefits.  So you'd
    have to agree to be paid the local rate for the job.  Hey, if you
    agreed to the lower wage, perhaps they wouldn't need to move 
    your job after all.
    
    		only � :-)
    
    
    

re Note 2767.18 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     I guess a company can't be located in Massachusetts and not be affected
>     by the liberalism which pervades the state. 
  
        Your point re this topic?

        Bob

    
    re Moving jobs/businesses
    
    This was touted as both a danger or a benefit of the EEC.  After many
    years, it has not happened and there is no indication that it will ever
    happen in significant numbers.  There was no mass movement of car
    industry jobs from Germany to Spain.  There WAS a growth of industry in
    the poorer countries, but it was not clearly quantifiable by a
    shrinkage in the richer countries.
    
    My question is, why on earth should we believe that NAFTA will make ANY
    difference.  If one of the roles of government that is generally
    agreed upon is to create favourable economic conditions, then there
    is no past record to indicate that NAFTA will work any better or
    worse than GATT.  (Where's the economic miracle?) 
    
    There's a precedent model for NAFTA in the EEC, and the existence of
    EEC did nothing to prevent widespread economic depression and
    unemployment in Europe. (currently running at 22% in some regions!) 
    More voodoo economics.  However, it did NOT do any of the things the we
    seem to be most concerned about here.
    
    Colin
    

    -.1
    
    Not to sway from the topic at hand, but to use the same logic on 
    health care, that would say that we should use the EEC and other 
    countries that have tried socialised medicine and learn from it.
    
    My impression is, it won't work here either.
    
    JMHO
    mp

    Regrettably, I have to disagree with you on that one.  Unlike most
    Americans, I have spent an appreciable amount of time living under both
    systems.  My impression is that consumers are being catheterised a
    generous amount of disinformation about social medicine, which is
    *generally* very good throughout Europe.
    
    I think that American ingenuity is equal to the task of eliminating the
    shortcomings of previous social medical systems. I'm asked to believe that
    the country that put a man on the moon and beat totalitarianism (twice)
    cannot provide basic healthcare for all, and more healthcare for those
    who want to buy it? :-)
    
    Colin
    

    I also agree to an extent.  I don't believe that there are people in
    the US that do not receive care, if needed. On the other hand, 
    if what we are saying is we need to provide a more "reliable" method
    of care for those who can't get it without an emergency, I would 
    suggest we look to what is available today, medicare/caid, and make it
    work.  The numbers show that about 10% of people (25m) don't have 
    reliable care.  Then fix that problem and review the real problem.
    COST.  This is where we need to focus. Making government responsible
    to deliver care is not the answer. 90% of the people have it, in 
    some form.  To re-engineer the worlds best health care system in the 
    world, by increasing costs (read bureaucracy) and pigeon holing people
    into classes of care is also not the answer.  We are being swayed by
    emotion by our leaders, not by common sense.
    
    Therefore, we SHOULD use our ingenuity to solve the problems, not 
    political gains.
    
    regards,
    mp  

In case you wondered about the toll-free number to have someone-or-other
(Citibank?) send a telegram to your rep. on your behalf supporting NAFTA,
it is 800-75NAFTA.

It's pretty weird if you ask me.  Why not just call the rep yourself, and then
you can say whatever you want to!

Burns

The local paper (Kennebec journal Augusta Maine) has a letter to the editor 
from Bob Palmer endorsing NAFTA.

 Interesting since as one of the few remaining US manufacturing sites we
may have the highest risk if it passes.

dave

The Bob Palmer Pro-NAFTA line appeared on the Op-Ed pages
of yesterday's Middlesex News as well. 

    
    	Well I haven't seen any million page report :) on NAFTA.  But
    I have to wonder...what WILL happen to US manufacturing jobs when
    our minimum wage is ~$4.25 +/- and minimum wage in Mexico is .58�
    read 58 CENTS an hour.  In the US, one would make $34.00 a day, while
    in Mexico you would make $4.64 for the same 8 hours...or should I
    say it would cost the "company" that much.
    
    Also, what happens if the borders are opened up to free trade.  How
    much easier will it be to get drugs into the US?  Did anybody think
    about that?
    
    

    Shhhh.!
    
    You weren't suppose to bring up the "drug trade"... This is where the
    other money, to fund NAFTA, will come from.... 8^|....
    
    Bob
    

    Re: .32 Drug Trade
    
    The real shame of NAFTA is that is allows poorly paid foreign drug
    sellers to undercut the local boys. Here in NY, the drug trade is the
    only industry that's hiring. If NAFTA allows higher quality, lower
    priced drugs in, a lot of good American drug dealers are going to be put
    out of work. Say no to NAFTA, say yes to All-American drugs.
    

    
  re .28
    
    >>   I also agree to an extent.  I don't believe that there are people in
    >>   the US that do not receive care, if needed. On the other hand, 
    >>   if what we are saying is we need to provide a more "reliable" method
    >>   of care for those who can't get it without an emergency, I would 
    
  
    Wow! Have you led a sheltered life!  But that's a topic for another note.
    
    --Tony
    

    
    re: .34
    
    It gets worse.  They powers that be keep telling us that NAFTA
    will pave the way to trade with South America.  We'll be getting
    cheap-o cocaine in quantity before long.  I think drug dealing
    is in for a major recession.  Our local drug dealers will soon
    be reporting that "due to increased foreign competition and
    commodity pricing, as well as unfavaorable currency exchange",
    our street-level dealers must pay more for their own health
    insurance.  And they won't be able to go to school nights
    anymore, either. :-)
    
    Glenn

    -.35 
    
    Dear Tony, do you have a constructive comment?  Or are you just
    pretending to understand?
    
    mp 

    
    re: .37
    
    I should mention that my whole .36 was a joke. Sorry for
    any confusion. (I'm pro-NAFTA, actually.)
    
    Glenn

    re: .6 - I would hope to see some statement from Digital that makes it
    clear to the general public (lest they assume otherwise), that the
    company's political positions in NO WAY reflect or imply support of the
    same by the individual employees & that similar stands by employess are
    totally independent. There were not a few jabs taken at some of my
    Apple friends for support of Clinton during his campaign which at times
    became an issue for them to handle that I know they would rather have
    avoided altogether. It IS Inevitable.

	The company doesn't have any responsibility to explicitly state that
	its positions do not necessarily reflect those of all its employees.
	That would be like the US going to the GATT talks and saying, "Keep
	in mind that these are puelypolitical views, and that some of our
	citizens may not agree, but..."

	If people want to jump to conclusions, they will. A disclaimer won't
	stop that, and would only muddy the message that Digital is trying
	to send.

	The real purpose of similar disclaimers (i.e., "the opinions
	expressed are min and not my employer's") is to limit legal
	liability. As an employee I have no legal liability for the
	decisions of the company (unless I'm in senior management, in some
	cases). So a disclaimer isn't necessary.

	Roy