Conference 7.286::digital

I'm very disturbed by the firing of the 3Gs and of the downsizing of a valuable
member of our account team last week due to politics. The SLT needs to hear 
from all of us and from our customers. Management and processes need to be 
streamlined post haste.

I'm am just about the most anti-union person you could find. I do think 
however, that the more of us that can speak with a single voice, the more 
influence we can have to fix what's broke.

We are still one of the top engineering companies in the world. We have a 
great story to tell. The infrastructure to communicate, sell and distribute our 
products and services is pitiful and most of the fixes I've seen have been 
knee-jerk reactions with little thought, poor implementation and execution.

I'm willing to lend my support to a common message as long as its positive and 
constructive.

Jim

    We are Digital. 
    
    If this is the positive and creates the necessary change then I'm
    interested.  If we want a great company, we all have to make it great. 
    
    I'm very interested in policy and policy enforcement. It needs to be
    more democratic.  What has happened with the way these people were
    termintated appears to be an abuse of power. Its not a good way to
    build trust.
    
    Feel free to put me on your distribution. I hope managers will be
    included in this effort. Us and them mentalities aren't very 
    constructive.
    
    Geoff

re: .2

>    I'm very interested in policy and policy enforcement. It needs to be
>    more democratic.

What makes you draw that conclusion? This is presumeably a private, for-profit
corporation. Why should policy and policy enforcment be tied in any way to a
democratic ideal?

-Jack

>                                  This is presumeably a private, for-profit
> corporation. Why should policy and policy enforcment be tied in any way to a
> democratic ideal?

Because strict "hierarchy" (from "sacred leader") is obsolete
and doesn't work anymore.  The now global business marketplace is
far too diverse, fast paced, and complex, for any single person or small
group of people to see all the problems and dictate solutions to large
numbers of employees.

It's the 90s, the "information age".  The whole value of information
is making it available when and where it's needed.  This is the exact
opposite of hierarchy which maintains its power by controlling the
flow of information.

I'm not claiming corporations should be run as representative democracies
or large families, but if Digital is to have any meaningful future,
our excessive reliance on hierarchical bureaucratic structures has got
to go.

- Peter

    P.S. -- as a good friend pointed out -- DIGITAL has just told us, in
    effect, 
    
    "It's OK for you to use this Xerox(tm) machine to duplicate text,
    but you can't use that Laser Printer (or FAX machine or whatever) to do
    the same thing -- to duplicate text.  If you use the WRONG instrument
    to duplicate materials, sayonara."
    

re: .4, -Peter

That's a nice idea. I don't necessarily disagree. But, I haven't seen or heard
anything from upper management to the effect that that's how we're going to
do business now. And, until they say it, I don't think it's going to happen,
regardless of wishes and hopes.

I almost hate to say this, but almost the first thing I learned when I became
an engineering supervisor, was that management at DEC wasn't necessarily
operated like a democratic institution. Initiative, Recall and Referendum
aren't options available in the corporate culture.

Sure, it makes sense to make intelligent decisions based on plenty of input.
But that doesn't mean that there's a policy to ensure that that happens.

Is that good? Is that desireable? Is that the way it should be?

It almost doesn't matter, because that's the way it is.

-Jack

    
    
>I almost hate to say this, but almost the first thing I learned when I became
>an engineering supervisor, was that management at DEC wasn't necessarily
>operated like a democratic institution. Initiative, Recall and Referendum
>aren't options available in the corporate culture.
    
    Digital is no different that other companies in this regard.  In what
    company *is* there Initiative, Recall and Referendum?
    
    Jim

None that I know of - I think that was my point.

-Jack

    The thing that we can never get away from is 'the human factor'.  By
    that I mean people are going to continue to act like people regardless
    of ideals, policies and 'whats best'. The best we can hope for is that
    management will strive to achieve policies and act in ways which are
    best for Digital...... but, they are human, and empires tend to form,
    and self-serving behavior.
    
    Jeff

    Managers should do the "right thing."  If they don't do the right
    thing, they should be held accountable.  A company that lets narcissistic
    managers run amuck will not be profitable and will go out of business.

    --Doug C.

    Who determines what "the right thing" is? I think that in itself is a
    problem. The "right thing" is too subjective! 

>                                                     I haven't seen or heard
> anything from upper management to the effect that that's how we're going to
> do business now. And, until they say it, I don't think it's going to happen,
> regardless of wishes and hopes.

It's not up to "upper management".  The environment dictates the
response required.  I'd say the environment is giving us a STRONG
message (-183 million last quarter).

The "management" doesn't know how to make it work.
Enough of us working together do.

From where I listen, some of the management are saying it,
but not enough yet, so we have to keep reminding them.

"Voting is but one note in the symphony of democracy"
We have much more powerful methods.  As Gandhi observed:

  "The goal of non-violent resistance is to provoke a response"
  [while removing the target for their anger]

- Peter

I am trying to understand from the base note what is the purpose of 
employees "organizing".  The base noter is soliciting input from employees,
but considering how diverse and organizationally seperate we are as a
company, what does this mean?  Would we be organizing to address wrongful
terminations?  Would we be organizing to determine product strategy/direction,
would be organizing to protect our jobs?  Would this organizing be for US
employees only?  Would we spend months/years in meetings determining what
the mission/goal of organizing is because of diverse agendas?
How would we determine who will lead this effort?  

I am interested in many things, but, having worked here for the past 9 years
am no longer interested in "organizing" vague, unclear, undirected, unfocused,
reactions to external stimuli.  I am interested in clear, defined, analyzed
problem identification with focused and attainable problem resolutions. 
 

re .12

Not so fast! Have you read 3023.45? I think this is the first good news
from the ozone layer since DEC has been in financial trouble. Heres a man
	o with the ability (and desire) to clearly communicate w/o
	  resorting to managment-speak,
	o has a timetable...hes upfront in letting you know what hes doing
	  and when you can expect a result and
	o has a proven track record w/i the company of taking a division
	  from nonexistant to somewhat known in a couple of years...no
	  mean feat given the segment of the industry (PCs).

Like it or not we (the grunts) need an upper management to lead and direct.
They (upper management) on the other hand need to understand that grunts
march in circles until theres one clear cadence. Id encourage you to give
Mr. Pesatori a break.

    The framework for positive employee organization already exists.  It's
    called stock ownership.  Digital has been encouraging this for 15+
    years via the Employee Stock Purchase Plan/discounts.  The glitch has
    been the ability to sell immediately for the 15%.  
    
    Last time I checked (about 2 years ago) employees owned about 15% of
    the outstanding common (ie: voting) shares.  A few more semi-annual
    ESPP buys at very low prices should be boosting this %, perhaps to the
    point where we are the single largest shareholder group.  Perhaps
    an alliance with a few major outside shareholders would do the trick. 
    A voting block of 50% plus 1 share is all that's necessary to effect
    some dramatic changes.  Even the possibility of a large plurality (35%,
    40%, etc.) that could sway other shareholders is enough to create heat
    and change.  Seems to me like the bestest, fastest way to align
    employee, SLT, and BOD interests to turn this firm around quickly.  The
    pressure on the entrenched blob in the middle would be unbearable...
    
    My $.02 worth...

re: .16

Now _THERE'S_ an idea I like. I'm not sure how workable it is, but I like
it.

I think one of the problems with it might be that even if employees owned
or controlled a majority of shares, it might be difficult to reach a
common set of goals. E.G. some of the employees owning some of those shares
are the managers following the practices we'd like to see changed. Given
their access to options, etc., they might well hold the majority of that
controlling interest.

-Jack

>                                  This is presumeably a private, for-profit
> corporation. Why should policy and policy enforcment be tied in any way to a
> democratic ideal?

>>Because strict "hierarchy" (from "sacred leader") is obsolete
>>and doesn't work anymore.  The now global business marketplace is
>>far too diverse, fast paced, and complex, for any single person or small
>>group of people to see all the problems and dictate solutions to large
>>numbers of employees.

>>>        You will undoubtedly see a continuation toward a more directive,
>>>   top-down management style and less of a traditional Digital matrix
>>>   style as we get the company in order.  Why?  Because we need to be more
>>>   disciplined in making decisions, especially on how to eliminate work
>>>   when we downsize, and we need to be disciplined in executing plans once
>>>   we make a decision.
>>>				BobP during recent DVN

Don't hold your breath... ad-hoc-racy style co-operation 
is for folks who've installed Lotus Notes; just do what you're 
told, keep your resume' up-to-date and quit whining. ;^)

Now go out there and win one for the giffer,

Larry_on_the_salery_continuation_plan 

    I believe we need employee empowerment, but with established
    boundaries.  The "Do the Right Thing" approach has led to a fat
    sub-optimized organization (It seems that different people have
    different ideas as to what the "right" thing is).  I agree that the
    environment is too complex and changes too much for one small group of
    people to make all the decisions, but I don't believe that's what BP is
    trying to do.  In fact, I believe BP's statements had more to do with
    his decisions being CHANGED or diluted when filtering down through our
    management layers (Middle Mgt's "right thing" differed from BP's "right
    thing", so they chose their own).
    
    Senior mgt. needs to set direction and strategy for the corporation. 
    Mgt. below that level needs to make decisions within the framework of
    that direction.  It's not that decisions are not made, but that there
    are boundaries which need to be in place, so the company runs in a
    productive/efficient manner.  If senior management has said "No travel
    unless its revenue related", we shouldn't have to debate whether to
    travel for the "Intro to Windows" course or for staff mtgs.
    
    I don't get the impression that BP is trying to control every little
    thing, while the rest of us run around like mindless robots.
    
    Bing

Important ideas do not always lend themselves to being defined in
simple black and white terms.

As an organization, we should not rely on just one style of decision
making.  Consider the four main styles of decision making in business:
Autocratic; Consultative; Participatory; and Consensual.  No one of 
these four styles is best. In fact the most effective organizations
use all of them at different times to handle different situations.

Why should policy "be tied in any way to a democratic ideal?"
Because in many circumstances, it works better.

I don't mean to oppose our management in any way.  Quite the contrary,
I'm trying to do everything I can think of to help us all (including
management) make good decisions.  If this means pointing out the need
for change, so be it.

The Universe didn't make a mistake when it created us.
We each have a contribution to make.

- Peter


[BTW: I think the shift of emphasis Pesatori will bring
      is very much needed.]

    RE:.18, management options are basically worthless today.  Those
    acquired 5 or more years ago (and therefore excercisable now) were for
    lofty purchase prices.  You'd have to be independently wealthy (and not
    too good with numbers...) to exercise your options today when you could
    much more cheaply on the open market.
    
    My point in making the employee stock ownership suggestion was that
    it's a pro-Digital, pro-business, PROACTIVE way to organize that has
    been available (and subsudized by Digital) all along.  It's there for
    the taking.  People want to wait for "empowerment"?  That's an
    oxymoronic term.  As Jock Ewing said to his son Bobby (who was whining
    about JR's machinations when Daddy had given Bobby the power to run
    Ewing Oil), "...nobody GIVES you power, son.  POWER IS SOMETHING YOU
    TAKE!"
    
    I attempted to demonstrate to the Company (vIa DELTA...) how they were
    giving away $100M+ chunks of stockholder equity every 6 months,
    actually expropriating it from one group of shareholders
    (current/outside owners) to another (employees).  I won't get into the
    math here, but suffice it to say that no one in Treasury or the
    Executive Suite wanted to be bothered with the facts.  Now nearly four
    years later (and about $500M - $1B) in depleted stockholder equity
    (ie: wealth) I'm tempted to use this Company-given means (vs. trying to
    change it) to finally promote some serious changes.  It's been done in
    other companies, perhaps not as big, but certainly in more dire
    straights.
    
    Your thoughts, ideas? 

    RE: .22 How does the ESOP dilute equity? The company doesn't print
    new shares for the plan. Generally they buy it on the open market
    and save of for distribution.

    			Alfred

    THE ESPP depletes equity primarily by selling, more correctly,
    re-selling shares bought back by the company on the open market.  The
    difference between the buy-back price paid (which was @ $100 per share
    - Treasury's own numbers...) and the price sold to employees (let's
    see, should be about $20 this go-around) is taken as a hit to
    shareholder equity.  We sell to employees at $20 what cost the company
    $100.  So $80 per share X how many millions this time (2 or 3? depends
    on participation/contribution rates...) equals net write-down to
    stockholder equity.  Further, dilution occurs because of more shares
    outstanding that are sold at less than book value.  In my lenghty and
    heated debate with Treasury in 1990, they insisted that all this was
    academic, since book value has no relevance to market value.  I tried
    to persuade them that they were expropriating current shareholder value
    and handing it over to employees, amonth other flaws of the plan, but
    to no avail.  They quashed it so speedily and furiously, that it never
    got an official DELTA hearing...  Thoust doth protested a bit much.  
    
    I feel personally vindicated, but very angry that nothing was ever done
    to modify ESPP.  I had numerous detailed, specific ideas that were
    summarily dismissed.  We couldn't monkey with any employee benefits...
    might be demoralizing, you know...

3050.0 and 3050.17 have been removed after having been judged by Corporate
Employee Relations to be in violation of Digital corporate policies.

I'm leaving the remaining entries as they contain interesting and useful
discussions unrelated to the base note.

				Steve

re Note 3050.25 by QUARK::LIONEL:

> 3050.0 and 3050.17 have been removed after having been judged by Corporate
> Employee Relations to be in violation of Digital corporate policies.
  
        Can they be sent by E-mail?

    
    >        Can they be sent by E-mail?
    
    As a general rule, if you can't say it in Notes it's worse if you
    do it by mail.
    
    			Alfred

>3050.0 and 3050.17 have been removed after having been judged by Corporate
>Employee Relations to be in violation of Digital corporate policies.

And the can of worms gets opened......

re: .27, Alfred

>    As a general rule, if you can't say it in Notes it's worse if you
>    do it by mail.
    
But, isn't that only if you end up reaching a hostile audience?

:^)
-Jack

re .25:

Which corporate policies?

Thanks,
Nick

    
    >Which corporate policies?
    
    6.54 Proper use of Network Resources
    
    			Alfred

    Federal law supercedes Digital policy.  I have reposted the note and am
    contacting the National Labor Relations Board for additional advice.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    I remember when I became a manager back in the mid-80's, one of the
    FIRST talks I received was about unions.  If I ever heard my reports
    talk about "unionizing" I was to immeditely involve personnel and
    termination is not out of the question.
    
    Dangerous stuff.
    
    Bob
    

RE: 3050.34 by MKOTS1::AMIRALIAN

> Can someone explain to me the difference between Digital Common Stock and 
> Digital Prefered Stock ? 

Common stock is a percentage of the business.  Preferred stock is a promise
to pay fixed amounts at fixed times,  just like a DEC bond,  with more risk,  
lower return,  and tax advantages to a corporate holder.


> Can only certain people receive prefered 

Nope.  Anyone can buy DEC preferred on the NYSE.  Call a broker.  However,  
unless you are a corporation you may not want to:  see discussions on this
in Digital_investing (kp7 or select to add to your notebook).


Phil

    re: .33
    
    I would think that posting .33 would also be 'dangerous stuff'...
    
    Dave

    I am curious; What _are_ the forms 'employee organizations' can take,
    and what are the legal aspects of trying to set them up?
    
    Both in this conference and some others I see discussions of "worker
    councils" in some countries (some of the notes re: France and Germany
    in here), and I believe there is a similar body in the UK. You hear about
    other companies in the US setting up employee feedback groups of various 
    kinds _other_ than formal unions. 
    
    Note: This is not a 'solicitation' to create such an organization, but
    rather a query as to how these are created (within Digital in other
    countries as well as at other US compnaies) and what form they take...
    
    Dave

Its becoming blindingly obvious that what is being cracked down on
here is not solicitation.  It is dissent.  If someone were to make
a loud enough statement dissenting with the current corporate
approved directions, I would imagine that it would not take a finding
of solicitation to see them terminated.

I fear that edp may fall dangerously close to that line, and while
NLRB may take a dim view of a company preventing its employees from
organizing, I also do not believe that there is any law stating that
a corporation has to lend its own resources to such an organizing effort...

    
    Re: .40
    
    > I fear that edp may fall dangerously close to that line, and while
    > NLRB may take a dim view of a company preventing its employees from
    > organizing, 
    
    I should say so.  It is specifically against the law to take any action
    intended to discourage employees from organizing a union.  You can get
    in a big legal mess for that.
    
    > I also do not believe that there is any law stating that a
    > corporation has to lend its own resources to such an organizing effort
    
    I'm not so sure.  When I was a school board member and one of the
    boards representatives in negotiations with the local teacher's union,
    we were forced to hold negotiations sessions during school time 
    including having to pay for substitute to replace the union members who
    were attending the negotiations sessions.  
    
    There are all kinds of rulings with respect to labor negotiations that
    might surprise you.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    
    

    Re:  .40, your first para...  AMEN!  I, too, after DCUgate and what is
    happening in here have this chilling feeling that it is DISSENT that is
    being cracked down on, rather than any truly majour breach of P&P.  I
    see that infamous 6.54 being referred to by corporate personnel types,
    with that even more infamous word "solicitation" in cracking down on
    employee discussions...
    
    It seems to me that it is stated that there will be no law made in the
    land that shall take precedence over our Constitution and Bill of
    Rights...  mutter...  need to do a little research this weekend... 
    legal precedence in our seriously flawed judicial system doesn't cut
    any mustard with me.
    
    Me?  I'm scared, out of my mind over the chilling ramifications of what
    I see occurring, i.e. the POTENTIAL threats of legal action, or loss of
    livelihood, or equally chilling actions of that genre, for speaking
    out...  truly the bastion of our great society is the tenet of free
    speech, and, yep, I know I'm leaving myself wide open to the earnest
    types who will try and point out to me that that tenet does not apply
    within the four walls of Digital...  see above para, and spare me,
    please.
    
    Quaking, but determined,

    Re .32.
    
    I suggest you just quit and save us all from having to witness your
    martyrdom.
    
    Jim

Jim,
>>    I suggest you just quit and save us all from having to witness your
>>    martyrdom.
Maybe thats the goal...to be a sacrifice of sorts.

    
    
    RE: .43  An ignorant statement if ever I saw one.  If you see
    someothing wrong with the corporation and want to form a team to voice
    these opinions, it should be looked upon as admirable.
    
    
    Mike 

Mike,

Ahem!

>>If you see someothing wrong with the corporation and want to
>>form a team to voice these opinions, it should be looked
>>upon as admirable.
This if course PRESUPPOSSES that someone in a position to affect
change wants to HEAR (as in solicit and understand) what you have
to say. Do you know anyone within Digital (thats burgundy with round
dots) like that?  
 

    Re .45
    
   > RE: .43  An ignorant statement if ever I saw one.  If you see
   > someothing wrong with the corporation and want to form a team to voice
   > these opinions, it should be looked upon as admirable.
    
    The statement wasn't made out of ignorance, but a degree of anger at
    all the negative blabber going on in this file.  The base note is just
    the straw, I guess.  I don't think the base note is going to result in
    anything positive and am angry at the fact that Digital resources are
    being used to organize against Digital.  That's my take on it, anyway.
    If you dissagree, then join up and have a good time.  I just suggest
    that this not be done while Digital is paying your salary and for the
    network and other resources you are using.  This smells of vengence
    pure and simple.
    
    If you want to help the 3G's I suggest you do that by meeting with them
    and their attorneys....but please don't use the cafeteria.
    
    	Jim

Jim,

>>   The statement wasn't made out of ignorance, but a degree of anger at
>>    all the negative blabber going on in this file.  The base note is just
>>    the straw, I guess.
You come here for a serious discussion? I think this is the wrong conference for
that. The only subject in this conference that deals with the reality of Digital's
situation is 2987 beginning around reply 58. If you haven't already I suggest you
read AND study it. I believe, given the pressures leveraging The Company's current
business cost structure, its the only proper and right-mined avenue for all LOYAL
employees to persue. In addition I would also encourage you to make a difference
and empower YOURSELF and join one of the many Cafe-Watch groups forming (even as
we speak) within The Company. If you would like to contact me offline about this
most sensitive subject please feel free. Thank you for your time and attention.

					Most loyally yours....JimG 

================================================================================
Note 3050.48                  Employee Organization                     48 of 48
EVMS::GODDARD "Layoffs: Just say No"                 16 lines   6-MAY-1994 15:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim,

>>   The statement wasn't made out of ignorance, but a degree of anger at
>>    all the negative blabber going on in this file.  The base note is just
>>    the straw, I guess.

You come here for a serious discussion? I think this is the wrong conference
for that. The only subject in this conference that deals with the reality of
Digital's situation is 2987 beginning around reply 58. If you haven't already I
suggest you read AND study it. I believe, given the pressures leveraging The
Company's current business cost structure, its the only proper and right-mined
avenue for all LOYAL employees to persue. In addition I would also encourage
you to make a difference and empower YOURSELF and join one of the many
Cafe-Watch groups forming (even as we speak) within The Company. If you would
like to contact me offline about this most sensitive subject please feel free.
Thank you for your time and attention.

					Most loyally yours....JimG 
    

>    Federal law supercedes Digital policy.  
    
    	Federal law allows me to carry a gun (if a legal gun, of course)
    	if I have the proper permits.
    
    	Digital policy does not allow me to carry it here.
    
    	Federal law allows me to drink alcohol.
    
    	Digital policy does not.

   I agree with .50 that Digital has every right to control many activities 
   in the work place.  The base noter seemed to think his note was somehow 
   protected under the attached United States Code.  The base note has been 
   removed, so it makes it hard to judge but does US law protect notes that 
   encourage employees to organize?

-CITE-
    29 USC Sec. 151

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 29
    CHAPTER 7
    SUBCHAPTER II

-HEAD-
    Sec. 151. Findings and declaration of policy

-STATUTE-
      The denial by some employers of the right of employees to
    organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure
    of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of
    industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary
    effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the
    efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of
    commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially
    affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or
    manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of
    commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or
    (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as
    substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing
    from or into the channels of commerce.
      The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not
    possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract,
    and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of
    ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of
    commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by
    depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in
    industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage
    rates and working conditions within and between industries.
      Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of
    employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce
    from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of
    commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial
    strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the
    friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of
    differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by
    restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and
    employees.
      Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by
    some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the
    intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce
    by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through
    strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted
    activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow
    of such commerce.  The elimination of such practices is a necessary
    condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed.
      It is declared hereby to be the policy of the United States to
    eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the
    free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these
    obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice
    and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the
    exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
    self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own
    choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions
    of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

-SOURCE-
    (July 5, 1935, ch. 372, Sec. 1, 49 Stat. 449; June 23, 1947, ch.
    120, title I, Sec. 101, 61 Stat. 136.)

-MISC1-
                                 AMENDMENTS
      1947 - Act June 23, 1947, amended section generally to restate
    the declaration of policy and to make the finding and policy of
    this subchapter 'two-sided'.
                      EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1947 AMENDMENT
      Section 104 of title I of act June 23, 1947, provided: 'The
    amendments made by this title (amending this subchapter) shall take
    effect sixty days after the date of the enactment of this Act (June
    23, 1947), except that the authority of the President to appoint
    certain officers conferred upon him by section 3 of the National
    Labor Relations Act as amended by this title (section 153 of this
    title) may be exercised forthwith.'
-END-
-CITE-
    29 USC Sec. 157

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 29
    CHAPTER 7
    SUBCHAPTER II

-HEAD-
    Sec. 157. Right of employees as to organization, collective
        bargaining, etc.

-STATUTE-
      Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
    join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
    through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
    other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
    or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to
    refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent
    that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
    membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
    authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.

-SOURCE-
    (July 5, 1935, ch. 372, Sec. 7, 49 Stat. 452; June 23, 1947, ch.
    120, title I, Sec. 101, 61 Stat. 140.)

-MISC1-
                                 AMENDMENTS
      1947 - Act June 23, 1947, restated rights of employees to bargain
    collectively and inserted provision that they have right to refrain
    from joining in concerted activities with their fellow employees.
                      EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1947 AMENDMENT
      For effective date of amendment by act June 23, 1947, see section
    104 of act June 23, 1947, set out as a note under section 151 of
    this title.
                    COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS AND MEMBERS
      Prohibitions placed on Communist organizations, and members
    thereof, with respect to labor, see section 781 et seq. of Title
    50, War and National Defense, particularly sections 782(4A), 784,
    792a, and 841 to 844 of that title.

-SECREF-
                   SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
      This section is referred to in sections 158, 158a, 175a, 433 of
    this title; title 18 section 1951; title 50 section 792a.
-END-
-CITE-
    29 USC Sec. 158

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 29
    CHAPTER 7
    SUBCHAPTER II

-HEAD-
    Sec. 158. Unfair labor practices

-STATUTE-
    (a) Unfair labor practices by employer
      It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer -
        (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
      exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title;
        (2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or
      administration of any labor organization or contribute financial
      or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and
      regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section
      156 of this title, an employer shall not be prohibited from
      permitting employees to confer with him during working hours
      without loss of time or pay;
        (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment
      or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
      membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in
      this subchapter, or in any other statute of the United States,
      shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor
      organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any
      action defined in this subsection as an unfair labor practice) to
      require as a condition of employment membership therein on or
      after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such
      employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is
      the later, (i) if such labor organization is the representative
      of the employees as provided in section 159(a) of this title, in
      the appropriate collective-bargaining unit covered by such
      agreement when made, and (ii) unless following an election held
      as provided in section 159(e) of this title within one year
      preceding the effective date of such agreement, the Board shall
      have certified that at least a majority of the employees eligible
      to vote in such election have voted to rescind the authority of
      such labor organization to make such an agreement: Provided
      further, That no employer shall justify any discrimination
      against an employee for nonmembership in a labor organization (A)
      if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership
      was not available to the employee on the same terms and
      conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he
      has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied
      or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee
      to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly
      required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;
        (4) to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee
      because he has filed charges or given testimony under this
      subchapter;
        (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives
      of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159(a) of
      this title.
    (b) Unfair labor practices by labor organization
      It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or
    its agents -
        (1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the
      rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title: Provided, That
      this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization
      to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or
      retention of membership therein; or (B) an employer in the
      selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective
      bargaining or the adjustment of grievances;
        (2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate
      against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of this
      section or to discriminate against an employee with respect to
      whom membership in such organization has been denied or
      terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the
      periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a
      condition of acquiring or retaining membership;
        (3) to refuse to bargain collectively with an employer,
      provided it is the representative of his employees subject to the
      provisions of section 159(a) of this title;
        (4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual
      employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry
      affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the
      course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport,
      or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
      commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten,
      coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an
      industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object
      thereof is -
          (A) forcing or requiring any employer or selfemployed person
        to join any labor or employer organization or to enter into any
        agreement which is prohibited by subsection (e) of this
        section;
          (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling,
        handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of
        any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease
        doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring
        any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor
        organization as the representative of his employees unless such
        labor organization has been certified as the representative of
        such employees under the provisions of section 159 of this
        title: Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B)
        shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise
        unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing;
          (C) forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or bargain
        with a particular labor organization as the representative of
        his employees if another labor organization has been certified
        as the representative of such employees under the provisions of
        section 159 of this title;
          (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular
        work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a
        particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in
        another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or
        class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order
        or certification of the Board determining the bargaining
        representative for employees performing such work:
      Provided, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be
      construed to make unlawful a refusal by any person to enter upon
      the premises of any employer (other than his own employer), if
      the employees of such employer are engaged in a strike ratified
      or approved by a representative of such employees whom such
      employer is required to recognize under this subchapter: Provided
      further, That for the purposes of this paragraph (4) only,
      nothing contained in such paragraph shall be construed to
      prohibit publicity, other than picketing, for the purpose of
      truthfully advising the public, including consumers and members
      of a labor organization, that a product or products are produced
      by an employer with whom the labor organization has a primary
      dispute and are distributed by another employer, as long as such
      publicity does not have an effect of inducing any individual
      employed by any person other than the primary employer in the
      course of his employment to refuse to pick up, deliver, or
      transport any goods, or not to perform any services, at the
      establishment of the employer engaged in such distribution;
        (5) to require of employees covered by an agreement authorized
      under subsection (a)(3) of this section the payment, as a
      condition precedent to becoming a member of such organization, of
      a fee in an amount which the Board finds excessive or
      discriminatory under all the circumstances.  In making such a
      finding, the Board shall consider, among other relevant factors,
      the practices and customs of labor organizations in the
      particular industry, and the wages currently paid to the
      employees affected;
        (6) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver
      or agree to pay or deliver any money or other thing of value, in
      the nature of an exaction, for services which are not performed
      or not to be performed; and
        (7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or
      cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is
      forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a
      labor organization as the representative of his employees, or
      forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or
      select such labor organization as their collective bargaining
      representative, unless such labor organization is currently
      certified as the representative of such employees:
          (A) where the employer has lawfully recognized in accordance
        with this subchapter any other labor organization and a
        question concerning representation may not appropriately be
        raised under section 159(c) of this title,
          (B) where within the preceding twelve months a valid election
        under section 159(c) of this title has been conducted, or
          (C) where such picketing has been conducted without a
        petition under section 159(c) of this title being filed within
        a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days from the
        commencement of such picketing: Provided, That when such a
        petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith, without
        regard to the provisions of section 159(c)(1) of this title or
        the absence of a showing of a substantial interest on the part
        of the labor organization, direct an election in such unit as
        the Board finds to be appropriate and shall certify the results
        thereof: Provided further, That nothing in this subparagraph
        (C) shall be construed to prohibit any picketing or other
        publicity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public
        (including consumers) that an employer does not employ members
        of, or have a contract with, a labor organization, unless an
        effect of such picketing is to induce any individual employed
        by any other person in the course of his employment, not to
        pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not to perform any
        services.
        Nothing in this paragraph (7) shall be construed to permit any
      act which would otherwise be an unfair labor practice under this
      subsection.
    (c) Expression of views without threat of reprisal or force or
        promise of benefit
      The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the
    dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or
    visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor
    practice under any of the provisions of this subchapter, if such
    expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of
    benefit.
    (d) Obligation to bargain collectively
      For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the
    performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the
    representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and
    confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms
    and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement,
    or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written
    contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either
    party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to
    a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That
    where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract covering
    employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain
    collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall
    terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such
    termination or modification -
        (1) serves a written notice upon the other party to the
      contract of the proposed termination or modification sixty days
      prior to the expiration date thereof, or in the event such
      contract contains no expiration date, sixty days prior to the
      time it is proposed to make such termination or modification;
        (2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the
      purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing
      the proposed modifications;
        (3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
      within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a
      dispute, and simultaneously therewith notifies any State or
      Territorial agency established to mediate and conciliate disputes
      within the State or Territory where the dispute occurred,
      provided no agreement has been reached by that time; and
        (4) continues in full force and effect, without resorting to
      strike or lock-out, all the terms and conditions of the existing
      contract for a period of sixty days after such notice is given or
      until the expiration date of such contract, whichever occurs
      later:
    The duties imposed upon employers, employees, and labor
    organizations by paragraphs (2) to (4) of this subsection shall
    become inapplicable upon an intervening certification of the Board,
    under which the labor organization or individual, which is a party
    to the contract, has been superseded as or ceased to be the
    representative of the employees subject to the provisions of
    section 159(a) of this title, and the duties so imposed shall not
    be construed as requiring either party to discuss or agree to any
    modification of the terms and conditions contained in a contract
    for a fixed period, if such modification is to become effective
    before such terms and conditions can be reopened under the
    provisions of the contract.  Any employee who engages in a strike
    within any notice period specified in this subsection, or who
    engages in any strike within the appropriate period specified in
    subsection (g) of this section, shall lose his status as an
    employee of the employer engaged in the particular labor dispute,
    for the purposes of sections 158, 159, and 160 of this title, but
    such loss of status for such employee shall terminate if and when
    he is reemployed by such employer.  Whenever the collective
    bargaining involves employees of a health care institution, the
    provisions of this subsection shall be modified as follows:
        (A) The notice of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be
      ninety days; the notice of paragraph (3) of this subsection shall
      be sixty days; and the contract period of paragraph (4) of this
      subsection shall be ninety days.
        (B) Where the bargaining is for an initial agreement following
      certification or recognition, at least thirty days' notice of the
      existence of a dispute shall be given by the labor organization
      to the agencies set forth in paragraph (3) of this subsection.
        (C) After notice is given to the Federal Mediation and
      Conciliation Service under either clause (A) or (B) of this
      sentence, the Service shall promptly communicate with the parties
      and use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring
      them to agreement.  The parties shall participate fully and
      promptly in such meetings as may be undertaken by the Service for
      the purpose of aiding in a settlement of the dispute.
    (e) Enforceability of contract or agreement to boycott any other
        employer; exception
      It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization
    and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express
    or implied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to
    cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or
    otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or
    to cease doing business with any other person, and any contract or
    agreement entered into heretofore or hereafter containing such an
    agreement shall be to such extent unenforcible and void: Provided,
    That nothing in this subsection shall apply to an agreement between
    a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry
    relating to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at
    the site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a
    building, structure, or other work: Provided further, That for the
    purposes of this subsection and subsection (b)(4)(B) of this
    section the terms 'any employer', 'any person engaged in commerce
    or an industry affecting commerce', and 'any person' when used in
    relation to the terms 'any other producer, processor, or
    manufacturer', 'any other employer', or 'any other person' shall
    not include persons in the relation of a jobber, manufacturer,
    contractor, or subcontractor working on the goods or premises of
    the jobber or manufacturer or performing parts of an integrated
    process of production in the apparel and clothing industry:
    Provided further, That nothing in this subchapter shall prohibit
    the enforcement of any agreement which is within the foregoing
    exception.
    (f) Agreement covering employees in the building and construction
        industry
      It shall not be an unfair labor practice under subsections (a)
    and (b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the
    building and construction industry to make an agreement covering
    employees engaged (or who, upon their employment, will be engaged)
    in the building and construction industry with a labor organization
    of which building and construction employees are members (not
    established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in
    subsection (a) of this section as an unfair labor practice) because
    (1) the majority status of such labor organization has not been
    established under the provisions of section 159 of this title prior
    to the making of such agreement, or (2) such agreement requires as
    a condition of employment, membership in such labor organization
    after the seventh day following the beginning of such employment or
    the effective date of the agreement, whichever is later, or (3)
    such agreement requires the employer to notify such labor
    organization of opportunities for employment with such employer, or
    gives such labor organization an opportunity to refer qualified
    applicants for such employment, or (4) such agreement specifies
    minimum training or experience qualifications for employment or
    provides for priority in opportunities for employment based upon
    length of service with such employer, in the industry or in the
    particular geographical area: Provided, That nothing in this
    subsection shall set aside the final proviso to subsection (a)(3)
    of this section: Provided further, That any agreement which would
    be invalid, but for clause (1) of this subsection, shall not be a
    bar to a petition filed pursuant to section 159(c) or 159(e) of
    this title.
    (g) Notification of intention to strike or picket at any health
        care institution
      A labor organization before engaging in any strike, picketing, or
    other concerted refusal to work at any health care institution
    shall, not less than ten days prior to such action, notify the
    institution in writing and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
    Service of that intention, except that in the case of bargaining
    for an initial agreement following certification or recognition the
    notice required by this subsection shall not be given until the
    expiration of the period specified in clause (B) of the last
    sentence of subsection (d) of this section.  The notice shall state
    the date and time that such action will commence.  The notice, once
    given, may be extended by the written agreement of both parties.

-SOURCE-
    (July 5, 1935, ch. 372, Sec. 8, 49 Stat. 452; June 23, 1947, ch.
    120, title I, Sec. 101, 61 Stat. 140; Oct. 22, 1951, ch. 534, Sec.
    1(b), 65 Stat. 601; Sept. 14, 1959, Pub. L. 86-257, title II, Sec.
    201(e), title VII, Sec. 704(a)-(c), 705(a), 73 Stat. 525, 542-545;
    July 26, 1974, Pub. L. 93-360, Sec. 1(c)-(e), 88 Stat. 395, 396.)

-MISC1-
                                 AMENDMENTS
      1974 - Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 93-360, Sec. 1(c), (d), substituted
    'any notice' for 'the sixty-day' and inserted ', or who engages in
    any strike within the appropriate period specified in subsection
    (g) of this section,' in loss-of-employee-status provision and
    inserted enumeration of modifications to this subsection which are
    to be applied whenever the collective bargaining involves employees
    of a health care institution.
      Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 93-360, Sec. 1(e), added subsec. (g).
      1959 - Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 86-257, Sec. 201(e), struck out
    'and has at the time the agreement was made or within the preceding
    twelve months received from the Board a notice of compliance with
    sections 159(f), (g), (h) of this title' after 'such agreement when
    made' in cl. (i).
      Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 86-257, Sec. 704(a), among other changes,
    substituted 'induce or encourage any individual employed by any
    person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to
    engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment'
    for 'induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage
    in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their
    employment' in cl. (i), added cl. (ii), and inserted provisions
    relating to agreements prohibited by subsection (e) of this section
    in cl. (A), the proviso relating to primary strikes and primary
    picketing in cl. (B), and the last proviso relating to publicity.
      Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 86-257, Sec. 704(c), added par. (7).
      Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 86-257, Sec. 704(b), added subsec. (e).
      Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 86-257, Sec. 705(a), added subsec. (f).
      1951 - Subsec. (a)(3). Act Oct. 22, 1951, substituted 'and has at
    the time the agreement was made or within the preceding twelve
    months received from the Board a notice of compliance with section
    159(f), (g), (h) of this title, and (ii) unless following an
    election held as provided in section 159(e) of this title within
    one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the Board
    shall have certified that at least a majority of the employees
    eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind the
    authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement:'
    for '; and (ii) if, following the most recent election held as
    provided in section 159(e) of this title the Board shall have
    certified that at least a majority of the employees eligible to
    vote in such election have voted to authorize such labor
    organization to make such an agreement:'.
      1947 - Act June 23, 1947, amended section generally by stating
    what were unfair labor practices by a union as well as by an
    employer, and by inserting provisions protecting the right of free
    speech for both employers and unions.
                      EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1974 AMENDMENT
      Amendment by Pub. L. 93-360 effective on thirtieth day after July
    26, 1974, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93-360, set out as an Effective
    Date note under section 169 of this title.
                      EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1959 AMENDMENT
      Amendment by sections 704(a)-(c) and 705(a) of Pub. L. 86-257
    effective sixty days after Sept. 14, 1959, see section 707 of Pub.
    L. 86-257, set out as a note under section 153 of this title.
                      EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1947 AMENDMENT
      For effective date of amendment by act June 23, 1947, see section
    104 of act June 23, 1947, set out as a note under section 151 of
    this title.
        AGREEMENTS REQUIRING MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS A
                          CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT
      Section 705(b) of Pub. L. 86-257 provided that: 'Nothing
    contained in the amendment made by subsection (a) (amending this
    section) shall be construed as authorizing the execution or
    application of agreements requiring membership in a labor
    organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory
    in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or
    Territorial Law.'
               UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES PRIOR TO JUNE 23, 1947
      Section 102 of title I of act June 23, 1947, provided that: 'No
    provision of this title (amending this subchapter) shall be deemed
    to make an unfair labor practice any act which was performed prior
    to the date of the enactment of this act (June 23, 1947) which did
    not constitute an unfair labor practice prior thereto, and the
    provisions of section 8(a)(3) and section 8(b)(2) of the National
    Labor Relations Act as amended by this title (subsecs. (a)(3) and
    (b)(2) of this section) shall not make an unfair labor practice the
    performance of any obligation under a collective-bargaining
    agreement entered into prior to the date of the enactment of this
    Act (June 23, 1947), or (in the case of an agreement for a period
    of not more than one year) entered into on or after such date of
    enactment, but prior to the effective date of this title, if the
    performance of such obligation would not have constituted an unfair
    labor practice under section 8(3) (see subsec. (a)(3) of this
    section) of the National Labor Relations Act prior to the effective
    date of this title (sixty days after June 23, 1947) unless such
    agreement was renewed or extended subsequent thereto.'

-CROSS-
                              CROSS REFERENCES
      Actions by and against labor organizations, see section 185 of
    this title.
      Boycotts and other unlawful combinations, right to sue, see
    section 187 of this title.
      Federal Credit Unions, providing facilities for operations of,
    see section 158a of this title.
      Federal employment denied persons who assert right to strike
    against Government, see section 7311 of Title 5, Government
    Organization and Employees, and section 1918 of Title 18, Crimes
    and Criminal Procedure.
      Injunctive relief granted to Board against unfair labor practices
    and boycotts, see section 160 of this title.
      Restrictions on payments and loans to employee representatives,
    see section 186 of this title.
      Right to strike preserved, see section 163 of this title.
      Strikes subject to injunction, see section 178 of this title.

-SECREF-
                   SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
      This section is referred to in sections 158a, 159, 160, 183, 187,
    433, 2101 of this title; title 18 section 1951, title 50 section
    792a.
-END-

    	Maybe we should remember that probably more than 50% of DEC's work
    force does not work in the U.S. and is not subject to U.S. law. Most
    other countries give more protection to trade unions and members. The
    base note said nothing that was U.S. specific (as far as I can
    remember).

��             <<< Note 3050.33 by POBOX::RILEY "I *am* the D.J." >>>

��    I remember when I became a manager back in the mid-80's, one of the
��    FIRST talks I received was about unions.  If I ever heard my reports
��    talk about "unionizing" I was to immeditely involve personnel and
��    termination is not out of the question.


    What was the SECOND thing -- how to defend yourself and the
    corporation against wrongful discharge lawsuits?  

    Federal law -- dangerous stuff.

re Note 3050.47 by CTHQ::DELUCO:

>     am angry at the fact that Digital resources are
>     being used to organize against Digital.
                             ^^^^^^^

        Who said "against"?  I never read "against"?  It seemed to be
        trying to organize FOR Digital's sake, to improve the
        company.

        This company is in a terminal condition right now.  The
        current prescription seems to be leeches and blood-letting.
        I think a second opinion is in order.

        I don't understand the kind of knee-jerk reaction that always
        assumes that what employees want is bad for the corporation
        and what management wants is always good.  Look back at some
        of the griping in this (and other conferences, such as
        Marketing) conference of five years ago -- you'll see
        "griping" suggestions which we're struggling to implement
        now.

        Bob

    
    
    What .54 said.

re: .50

In this case we're talking about a law which explicitly forbids the company
from interfering in certain activities of its employees (or that's how some
folks are interpreting the cited statute).

re: "against Digital"

I don't think there's anything inherently anti-Digital in the idea of self-
starting teams addressing themselves to the problems they see in the work
environment.  We seem to give occasional lip-service to "employee involvement"
and "employee empowerment", but i haven't noticed much substance behind the
talk yet.  I contributed a number of suggestions to Delta when that was put
in place--and nothing happened with them.  I've been on a couple of teams of
individual contributors where we were mandated to become involved by our
management--and where we stumbled around in the dark a lot because of the
shifting direction and uncertain commitment we were getting from above.  If
employees want to form groups to tackle the issues that we see affecting the
company's success or failure, you might think management would welcome that
--but, perhaps, as one of the earlier replies to this string guessed, all
the lip-service is just that and no one in upper management thinks that those
in the ranks could possibly offer valuable input.

I think a lot of the negative focus that some people really object to in this
conference is a symptom of the powerlessness that many of us feel in being
able to get the ship we're on righted.  The old "just shut up and do your job"
(as your management defines it) dog won't hunt any more--we KNOW now that
there's a big disconnect that happens as the directions of our leaders get
passed down through the management chain.  Ken Olsen said so openly, and Bob
Palmer (who is in many ways an inspiring leader in his own right) acknowledges
it also.  There are individual contributors and line managers who WANT to
bridge that disconnect and probably believe that it's a bad bet to keep
waiting for the bridge to descend miraculously from above.  That's caring
about the company in my book, not being anti-company.

If i were Bob Palmer, i'd be encouraging employees to start taking initiative
to examine where the big disconnects are happening and how to fix them--and
to provide feedback directly back to the highest management levels.  If we're
too big for "management-by-walking-around", maybe this would work instead.

								- paul

    re .39:
    
    �Both in this conference and some others I see discussions of "worker
    �councils" in some countries (some of the notes re: France and Germany
    �in here), and I believe there is a similar body in the UK. You hear about
    �other companies in the US setting up employee feedback groups of various 
    �kinds _other_ than formal unions. 
    
    Workers' councils are, in a way, mandatory in Germany (and some other
    European countries). There is a specific law conecrning their election,
    their powers etc. and every company exceeding a certain number of
    employees is supposed to have one. However, they can't really be
    enforced, i.e. their are no sanctions against the employees if they do
    not elect a council. However, it is a rare case that one doesn't exist
    in any company of any reasonable size.
    
    Note that formally the workers' concils have nothing to do with unions;
    they do, usually, cooperate tightly if one exists.

    
    	In the EEC, to which Great Britain belongs, there was proposed a
    "Social Charter" to which Great Britain objected and subsequently opted
    out of this.
    
    	Over this last weekend, it has become apparent that opting out was
    rather ineffective since the EEC is now "directing" member states
    (excluding Great Britain) that they MUST all have worker councils in
    ALL companies (as do France and Germany and several others already),
    national or multinational.  These councils also have members on the BOM
    of those companies.
    
    	The upshot is that although Great Britain is not "directed" to do
    the same, most multinational companies seem to be "forced" to do the
    same in Great Britain as in the rest of Europe.  Hence nulifying the
    opt out.  The Unions here are determined that all British companies
    should do the same.
    
    				Malcolm.

    
    
    RE: .56  Very well put. 
    
    
    And I'd also like to second the person who said that they look to this
    conference for information which is not being funneled down through the 
    management channels.  We need correct and honest information.  None of
    the spin that we seem to get.  If we know what is going on then we can
    plan accordingly and work to make the plans a success.
    
    
    Mike

OK.
edp has abundantly made his point.
The moderators of the DIGITAL notesfile, under direction
from Coporate HR, have deleted notes which Eric has repeatedly posted,
which Eric feels should be protected by (US) federal labor law, but which
Corporate HR feels violate company policy.

I AM NOT and WILL NOT comment on the validity of either point of view.

My comment here is simply that the point has been made.  I appeal to Eric
to back off and stop making the entire community suffer for your right
to make a point.  The point has been made.  Continuing to push it will only
hurt the rest of the community, and could conceivably result in escalated
nastiness between Eric and Corporate HR.  Maybe that is what is desired.
Maybe not.  I'm just tired of paying for it.

Kevin Farlee

    It will be interesting to follow the "story behind the story" on this.
    Eric is known for a certain level of dogged determination and has a
    taste for late-night research. I wonder if he has uncovered some
    obscure legal precedent and is preparing to cash in ...
    
    I wonder how much of Digital's "downsizing" fund is earmarked for
    legal fees and/or settlements?
    
    Geoff

    Speaking as one who greatly enjoys EINFs, and as one intelligent enough
    to realise that the Company is struggling a little financially, I regret
    to note that once again an individual, the same individual, is prepared
    to risk their removal for his own personal ends.
    
    I make no comment on the cause, but however just it may be, the end
    does not justify the means, especially when the means seems to be a
    never-ending and escalating assault on EINFs.
    
    I do not envy the moderators of this conference: they are damned if
    they do, and damned if they don't. And all along, the whole freedom we
    have to enjoy EINFs and this conference itself is being sacrificed on
    the altar of a personal vendetta, motivated by who knows what.
    
    I cannot imagine Digital Senior Management tolerating this sort of
    thing for much longer, and I cannot help but wonder how the same
    individual can appear in the "list" month after month and year after
    year without something "being done". If, as I suspect, it is the
    classic American fear of litigation that stops management action, then
    their only course left open will be a total, corporate-wide, ban on
    EINFs.
    
    Please, give it a rest. Just stop it will you?
    
    Sadly, Laurie.

    RE: .62
    
    My sentiments exactly.  You stated them much better than I.
    
    I have many opinions around this union/organization that fall in both
    houses; however, if I were serious, I would take it to the limit with
    the open door policy, NOT putting this important tool that each of us
    has access to to assist in doing our jobs, at risk.
    
    The moderators have my support and heart felt thanks for doing their
    best to keep this EINF going (as long as management will let them, that
    is)....
    
    Toodles.....JP

    Re .60:
    
    > edp has abundantly made his point.
    
    The purpose of the note is not to make a point.  It is to establish
    communication with other employees.  While YOU may have seen the note,
    there are other employees who have not and will not because of
    Digital's censorship.  
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    
    
    	And how would you suggest that a stand be made? If edp's contention
    is that it's illegal to censor the note, the only way to show that is
    to keep posting it.
    
    The original intent was to get DEC folks together to see if there was
    something they could do to help DEC. I say keep it up.
    
    ed

    Hypothetically....
    
    If I happened to have the personality type, and if I thought I could
    get away with it, and if I wanted to depart this company with a particularly
    generous financial settlement as a result of legal action, could I take
     some action which had the effect of 'drawing a line in the sand' and
     then dare someone to cross it? Would this conference be a good place
     for me to try to take such action?
    
    There have been lots of accusations of things 'digital' has done which
    are not proper or correct. As I do not know who or what 'digital' is
    (other than a corporate entity recognized by the government) how about
    folks being specific about WHO is doing things which they should not.
    Maybe then some corrective action can be taken. Personally, I find this
    absolutely unproductive bashing of 'digital' extremely tiring. It is
    un-actionable.

    RE: .63  by GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER 
    
    >We hear about employee involvement and empowerment...is it nothing but
    >lip service?
    
    I have news for those who would be empowered...
    
    
    
                       The empower has no clothes.
    

    Re .67:
    
    > . . . how about folks being specific about WHO is doing things which
    > they should not.
    
    Here's a summary.
    
    I posted a note (in this conference and others) saying I was interested
    in organizing, asking for mail and notes, and giving instructions on
    contacting me.
    
    Steve Lionel, a Digital moderator, deleted the note.  I reposted it. 
    Lionel (I presume) deleted it again.  I called the National Labor
    Relations Board and spoke to one of their lawyers.  I briefly described
    Notes conferences, the notes in the Digital conference, my intentions,
    and so on.  She advised me to inform Digital that the deletion of my
    note was illegal.  I reposted the note and informed Lionel that the
    deletion was illegal.
    
    Lionel left the note in for a few days.  Jose Ramirez of Corporate
    Personnel responded to Lionel's mail (or one of the moderators' mail),
    telling him the note was against policy because of solicitation, but
    that I could post notes on a wide variety of topics and ask for
    responses to be entered in the conference.  Lionel (or one of the
    moderators) deleted the note.  I reposted the note.  Repeat some number
    of times.  I also sent objections to Ramirez, Ron Glover, John Murphy,
    and Bob Palmer and informed them I intended to repost the note.  And I
    asked the National Labor Relations Board to send me "A guide to basic
    law and procedures under the National Labor Relations Act".
    
    Ramirez sent me mail telling me not to re-enter the note
    "unilaterally".  (Of course, they deleted it "unilaterally".)  I have
    not re-entered the note since then.  I edited the note, removing the
    part that asked for mail responses and replacing it with a note that
    the phrase had been censored by Digital.  I reposted that version of
    the note.  One of the moderators deleted it.  I asked who and why, but
    none of them have owned up to it.  They closed new topic creation and
    created the topic for submitting new topics, promising to return
    unacceptable submissions with an explanation.  I submitted my note. 
    They have hidden it but have not explained or told me who hid it or why
    or what part(s) of it are questionable.  The guide arrived, and I read
    the relevant parts.
    
    Ramirez also said I was encouraged to use the Open Door Policy, but I
    have a letter signed by John Murphy stating I am not allowed to use the
    Open Door Policy for Notes-related issues.  I asked for clarification
    about whether I was allowed/supposed to use the Open Door Policy or not
    and who I should contact.  I pointed out that I had previously asked
    for an explanation of the relationships and powers of Ramirez, Glover,
    Murphy and others in Corporate Personnel but that no explanation had
    been given.
    
    Ramirez' response did not explain those relationships.  He listed, by
    name, two people in my immediate management (Chuck Turley and Bryan
    Jones) and the group manager (Neil Davies).  Of course, none of them,
    to my knowledge, have the authority to instruct the Digital moderators
    to accept my note, so in directing me to them, Ramirez is just giving
    me the run-around.  I can't get anybody to tell me who has what
    authority or responsibility.
    
    I was supposed to meet with Turley, Jones, and a person from local
    Personnel yesterday, but Jones had to postpone.  The meeting has not
    yet been rescheduled.  I have asked Ramirez if any of the people listed
    have the authority, should we decide it is appropriate, to instruct the
    Digital moderators to accept my note.  I have also asked, if they do
    not, who they should elevate the issue to.  And I have asked at what
    point "final resolution" is reached within the company.
    
    The National Labor Relations Board is sending me the forms for filing a
    charge of unfair labor practices against Digital.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    Eric,
    
    What's the NLRB's phone number?  I'd like to get a copy of that "guide
    to basic law and procedures under the National Labor Relations Act"
    booklet.  
    
    I'm strictly curious; as a contractor I have no interest in whether or
    not you manage to organize anybody.  Though it's probably worth noting
    that the Teamsters union recently went on strike against Roadway
    trucking, and the main issue was the use of part-time and contract
    labor. 
    
    thanks,
    --bonnie

    re .69
    I am not surprised.

    If EDP has removed the contentious areas from his posting, could the
    moderators explain the reasoning for removing the adapted posting?
    
    I feel that a blanket 'no create' policy helps no-one. 
    
    Can EDP and the moderators agree that, until this issue is resolved,
    EDP will not post 'the message', thus write create can be re-enabled?
        
    Cheers,
    
    Greg

    RE: .69
    
    I wonder how much all of this will contribute to the red ink at EOY.
    
    May I once again suggest you start your own conference?
    
    Laurie.

I wonder what laws would apply if the Conference, or the moderator 
had been in a foreign country.. (ie: Outside the US.)

Interesting... 

David

I did not delete Eric's note every time - several of the other moderators have
been involved.  But that's not really relevant.

Corporate Personnel tells us that they are "actively working the issue",
but we don't know what it is they are planning nor have we been told when
a decision will be made.

The moderators have been told by Corporate Employee Relations that Eric's
note is inappropriate.  They're the ones who determine Digital policy and
we'll do what they say.  CER also said that it was inappropriate for Eric
to continue to repost a note removed by a moderator - a position taken
many times before.

Eric says that it is "illegal" for us to remove his note.  Of course, he
says so based on his interpretation of what the DIGITAL conference is, and
it is here where I think he is mistaken.  DIGITAL (the conference) is
not a corporate bulletin board for general announcements; this is stated
in note 1.2.  Nor is it a corporate publication.  DIGITAL is an employee-
interest discussion resource, supported on a volunteer basis by employees
and its content is not dictated by the corporation.  (The corporation can
tell us what it may NOT contain.)  As far as I know, Eric has not attempted
to use any of the official corporate communications methods (LiveWire,
READERS CHOICE, etc.) to put across his message; instead he insists on
focusing on this notes conference.

As far as I know, none of the moderators has any personal objection to the
content of Eric's note (other than the threats he routinely adds at the end
to all his postings.)  But we take our direction from Digital's corporate
departments and no one else.  If Corporate Personnel eventually decides that
Eric's note is ok, then that's fine.  But this little game of automatically
reposting the note has got to stop - it's causing grief for all of the
readers of this conference (not to mention the moderators, who have real work
they'd rather be doing.)

					Steve

Re: .72

Eric has not removed the "contentious parts" of his posting in his recent
reposts.  In our opinion, only the first two paragraphs are acceptable as
written.  (Eric, if you want, feel free to repost the first two paragraphs
and invite discussion.)

				Steve

    Re .70:
    
    The phone number of the Boston office of the National Labor Relations
    Board is 617-565-6700.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    Re .75:
    
    > DIGITAL (the conference) is not a corporate bulletin board for
    > general announcements; this is stated in note 1.2.  Nor is it a
    > corporate publication.  DIGITAL is an employee-interest discussion
    > resource, supported on a volunteer basis by employees and its content
    > is not dictated by the corporation.
    
    The fact that Digital is an employee-interest discussion conference is
    what makes the law apply -- it might not if it were a corporate
    publication.  And the purported policy in 1.2 is not sufficient -- I
    have extracted over a hundred notes from the conference demonstrating
    the uses made of it that have been allowed by Digital.  They include
    solicitations, requests for electronic mail, employee organization
    information, and more.  It's illegal to single out an
    employee-organization note for deletion when those other messages have
    been allowed.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    Re .76:
    
    Why haven't you identified the "contentious parts"?  You've been asked.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    1. Can Eric and the mods take this off line, until a resolution is agreed?
    
    2. Eric, can you commit to not reposting until a resolution is agreed?
    
    Mods, if steps 1 and 2 are acheived can the no new write be lifted.
    
    Greg
    

    edp:
    
    Please get on with life. I'm sick of it as I'm sure others are.
    

    
    ref .80
    
    why take it off line ; I find it rather interesting!!!
    

    edp.....GET A LIFE
    
    

Taking it offline stops annonying the people who don't care about the issue,
and hides if from those people that do care about the issue.

By hiding if from those that care, we remove their support, and probably
doom the issue to be forgotten, not resolved.

(What is the issue?  Are we discussing the possible formation of and employee 
organization, or are we discussing corporate censorship?  I think there
is more interest in the latter than the former.)

Like all conferences, if you don't like a particular string of notes,
do a 'next unseen' and move on to a notes string that interest's you.

I feel Eric is being very pushy, however I believe that the company will
drag its feet if allowed, so Eric has to be pushy if he wants to 'win'.
If corporate wants Eric to stop, they can stop him.  The fact that they
haven't stopped him (yet?) would seem to indicate that they are indeed
dragging their feet (or verifying their legal position?), rather than 
standing their ground.

I feel that the moderators are trapped in the middle. I feel that they are
taking the correct steps given the current situation.  Our discussions
here aren't going to resolve the situation - but isn't that what this 
conference is for?  To discuss issues just like this?
 
The process is interesting to watch.  It is also informative.  It also
is distracting us all from the recent 'doom & gloom' feelings.

	Joe

    I happen to think Eric has a very good idea.  Most of the folks I speak
    with out here in the field  have good ideas on how to help this
    company get healthy. Care about it.  People who get very frustrated
    when it seems no one listens or wants to listen to their ideas....
    
    So, putting a little form to the coffee chat, getting some people
    together to formalize ideas designed to improve this company is a good
    thing....
    
    Digital should welcome this.  It is exactly the thing the SLT needs to
    help them steer this big boat

>    Digital should welcome this.  It is exactly the thing the SLT needs to
>    help them steer this big boat

	Yes, but what is really needed is for the SLT to get out into the
	field, and see and experience the customer frustrations.  If not that,
	then they should at least get the input from those people who do.

	I find it quite ironic that Digital "management" makes all the
	decisions for the company direction, but it seems that they don't
	have the slightest idea of what is going on.  Oh, I suppose surveys
	help, but maybe they should go interview those people who did not
	return one and find out why.

	From my experiences as an employee trying to buy PC equipment, Digital
	still has a long way to go to make this company "user friendly".

    Check this out and see if you think I'm getting the runaround or not:
    
    The Open Door Policy lists Open Door Resource Managers in "geographic
    regions".  The Greater New England section lists six open doors.  One
    of the open doors is in Merrimack, less than half an hour from me. 
    Four of them are in Massachusetts, about an hour away.  One of them is
    in Delaware, several hours away, minimum.
    
    Guess which one Personnel has instructed me to go to?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    
        .87

    >  Guess which one Personnel has instructed me to go to?

    hummm... the Delaware one?

    do i get a cookie now?

    \bye
    \nasser

    From mostly read only....
    
    Eric, hang in there.  Do what you believe in.  Someone said that
    America was becoming a nation of cowards.  Some of the "Oh Dear!"
    answers in here exhibit a desire to avoid perceived risk for the
    security of status quo.  Others want to avoid the discomfort by
    ignoring the principles at stake.  The heck with them.  For you folks,
    and you know who you are, quit speaking for me.  I want to see this
    issue and right here in the open.
    
    You don't like it? Hit "n u".  It works every time.
    
                   

    
    
    	Re .89
    
    	I second that!!
    
    ed

    re: .77 and .87
    
    Thanks for the phone number, Eric.  An informed consumer, and all that.  
    
    And as the saying goes, don't let the turkeys get you down...
    
    Delaware, huh?  I didn't know Delaware was in the same geographic
    region as NH.  Isn't that clear down next to Maryland???  When did they
    move it to New England? 
    
    --bonnie

re: .75, Steve

>Eric says that it is "illegal" for us to remove his note.  Of course, he
>says so based on his interpretation of what the DIGITAL conference is, and
>it is here where I think he is mistaken.  DIGITAL (the conference) is
>not a corporate bulletin board for general announcements; this is stated
>in note 1.2.  Nor is it a corporate publication.  DIGITAL is an employee-
>interest discussion resource, supported on a volunteer basis by employees
>and its content is not dictated by the corporation.  (The corporation can
>tell us what it may NOT contain.)  As far as I know, Eric has not attempted
>to use any of the official corporate communications methods (LiveWire,
>READERS CHOICE, etc.) to put across his message; instead he insists on
>focusing on this notes conference.

Pardon me for pointing out the Catch-22-nature of the above. Eric isn't
allowed (but continues to attempt) to post here in DIGITAL , which has
historically been known as a repository of open thought, but he should
be pursuing one of the house organs which can't be breached without
having your copy reedited by a dozen corporate spin doctors? The only
things that appear in those are what _IS_ dictated by the corporation,
which is what makes them next to worthless in terms of being informative
relative to anything of non-corporate interest.

-Jack

re: Delaware

I believe that Delaware manager also maintains an office here in ZKO, 
although it's not listed in her ELF entry.

Ray

    
    Dear Moderators,
    	It appears to me that EDP notes are viewed less tolerantly than
    other notes.  I suggest some self examination toward such a bias.  
    It appears there is a Polarization toward and against Eric.  I'd hate 
    to be CONSIDERED OR PERCEIVED as one who has discriminated against 
    someone.  Eric doesn't appear as if he is going to let this go,
    are you really sure you want to continue?

    Jim Morton

    If Eric has reached an insurmountable obstacle (in the plan to improve
    Digital) so soon - before the names of interested employees and their
    suggestions have even been gathered - then perhaps it's a job best left
    to someone else.

    For example, if someone suggested setting up a meeting, then couldn't
    agree on the time, the place, nor the arrangement of the chairs without
    involving Worldwide Personnel and the National Labor Relations Board
    to FORCE one's way about these things - my confidence in the benefits 
    of the meeting would be pretty low.

    The point of the suggestion to form some sort of Employee Organization
    was (I thought) to help Digital.  So far, all we've seen is this one
    impasse: ONE basenote can't be written to ONE specific notesfile, altho
    it's been written to at least one other notesfile -- and already we have
    Digital's Worldwide Personnel involved in something that appears to be
    heading towards a complaint of "unfair labor practices" with the
    National Labor Relations Board.  (This whole battle is about ONE note 
    in ONE employee interest notesfile in a multinational billion-dollar 
    corporation with around 100,000 employees...???)  Wow.

    If this one point is worthy of a fight to the death (of sorts) and the
    threat(?) of a lawsuit - what happens when all the thousands and thousands
    of points come up which have a more direct impact on whether or not 
    Digital is both successful and profitable?

    Is this effort an attempt to overthrow Digital from within (or to try
    to control it in some way with the use of threats and strong-arm lawsuit
    tactics?)  Let's hope not, for God's sake.

    If the point is to get the message out - it's been done.  Enough people
    have discussed the missing basenote to make it clear that they should
    contact Eric if they are interested in what he says he is trying to do.  

    Fighting to the death over a basenote in this notesfile will do absolutely 
    nothing to help Digital Equipment Corporation (except, perhaps, relieve
    Digital of the massive headaches resulting from allowing employee interest 
    noting.)

    .95 and others like you - Amen!
    
    I personally have read portions of the basenote (got the gist of it),
    and found it rather naive.  Whether or not EDP openly suggested pure 
    unionization, or was merely suggesting a large group of
    concerned employees who gather to brainstorm, is moot.  It is
    incredibly naive to assume that upper management would *listen*
    to anything that group had to say with regard to how the company is
    run.  With or without a union or organization, the company will still
    have the right to eliminate positions, job classes, and individuals,
    based upon business needs, performance, etc.  Even with an iron-clad
    union contract, it is easy enough to create a documented environment
    that supports the need to eliminate a job.  Wake up!
    
    The reality for me is that Digital leaves us quite free to "organize" 
    and suggest...that's what this notesfile is all about.  Each topic in
    this file is a mini-organization, a group of concerned employees
    suggesting, brainstorming, spouting off, *thinking* about Digital and
    its success or failure.  Digital simply isn't obligated to use our 
    suggestions.  Nor would Digital be obligated to use the business-
    direction suggestions of any formal employee organization.  
    
    In general, unions and employee organizations like those in Europe are 
    formed to assist employees in their quest for fair employment practices,
    such as regulated raises and pay levels, minimum work hours and 
    headcount, and decent working conditions.  Whether EDP and other choose
    to agree with this or not, I contend that so-called employee rights 
    (such as employment continuation!!) are not enforced much better 
    with these groups than they are without.
    
    I cannot speak for everyone worldwide, I only know that I already have 
    decent working conditions, receive raises if my manager thinks I *earn* 
    them (merit only!!), which is as fair as any other company, and work a 
    long and hard week for too little pay, and give too much of that pay
    back to my government.  In this feeling, I am joined by 99% of the
    worker-bees in the world!
    
    Since joining Digital in 1989, I have seen many valuable employees lost
    to "transition" and some transitioned who I thought should have simply
    been fired, without getting the "big bucks" upon leaving.  I know 
    people who have climbed to so-called corporate ladder by the 
    grace of the still-living but ever-shrinking "old boy network", 
    and others who are brilliant, dedicated and valuable employees 
    interminably stuck in dead-end, low-impact positions.
    
    All of this makes Digital normal for a business of its size, or any
    other size, for that matter.  My husband has been working in small 
    businesses throughout my Digital career, and his experiences with lack 
    of information, and of "democracy" in employment practices have paralleled
    mine.  I come from a small business background, and my prior-to-Digital
    life was little different from here.  I have a dear and close friend 
    who is a unionized worker, and her experiences in the past 5-10 years 
    have also been quite similar.  Her pay may regularly increase, but if
    her services aren't needed, she can still be let go, whether or not she
    did a great job.  The worker-bees have little say in life,
    with or without the organization.  The voice won't do you any good
    unless you have the *authority* to back it up.
    
    What I am trying to say here is, Digital isn't perfect, it
    never will be, but it's no worse than most, better than some, and
    its *ours* for as long as we are lucky or unlucky enough to be employed
    here.  Perhaps EDP should consider laying off this tremendous fuss over
    one note, and get back to *work*.  Instead of trying to change the
    Digital world in one fell swoop, perhaps we should all start by working 
    on our own little corner, day by day, a little at a time.  It's a lot
    less frustrating that way.
    
    More time spent on business, and less on this labor relations issue might
    get us back to profitability faster.  Just my 42 cents worth.
    
    M.
      

    There was a time when I would agree... there was a time when I'd say
    Eric is reacting badly.... that he is ungrateful....
    
    But you know, lately I've seen some pretty silly moves by our leaders, 
    watched dang fine sales people get TSFO'd so  unit managers would have
    a place to hide and seen Digital go from valuing to publicly insulting
    its salesforce....
    
    Maybe there is a point here, maybe Eric is right, maybe we should be
    concerned about the quality of input that goes to the SLT.  Perhaps a
    formalized channel of communication  from beyond the glass house will
    profit all of us..... the SLT, the field...everyone....
    
    But, there is one tiny issue.... IMO, this channel, this organized 
    coffee chatters club, this group of concerned employees, must be 
    invited to form, invited to participate, invited to communicate...
    The idea should be sold to the SLT and other groups at the top. The 
    idea has merits, can add significant value, and will work; the people
    at the top are not stupid.  Put this in the right light and they will
    snatch it up... 
    
    Am I kidding myself?  Maybe.  But who has formally proposed this and 
    all its benefits to the SLT.  Who has SOLD it?  Eric tends to dwell
    on things that might benefit some, but certainly create stress in 
    SLT types.... Sure if there are "management" or "corporate" perceived 
    abuses they can be "questioned" formally...but the real power of an
    organized employee forum comes from the REAL information, the
    realities, the customer feedback.... the information that can help SLT
    types to make the right decisions.... not flop around like a trout on 
    the pavement....
    
    At this point the national anthem plays.....
                                                        
    Prior to decision time 

re Note 3050.98 by BSS::S_CONLON:

>     I'd love to hear some constructive brainstorming make it to the SLT,
>     but this attitude of 'I'm gonna launch a complaint with the feds if
>     I can't have my ONE note in this ONE conference in the exact words
>     I choose' seems pretty pointless at a time when the company doesn't
>     need employees ADDING to the corporate folks' headaches right now.
  
        You make a lot of sense.

        But notes like the one before yours makes sense, also.

        EDP is acting quite childish by automatically re-posting
        deleted notes.

        But I think Digital management is equally childish in
        thinking that one note is somehow harmful -- more harmful
        than banning it has become.

        It all seems pretty pointless at a time when the company
        doesn't need corporate folks ADDING to the employees'
        headaches right now.

        Bob

        P.S. I deeply resent that somehow people in policy making
        positions in Maynard are "corporate folks" while the rest of
        us aren't.  I deeply resent the implication that headaches to
        so-called "employees" are of no consequence to this company.

    As you have probably noticed by now, I deleted my note before you
    posted your response to it.  I thought better of suggesting to this
    particular conference that 'constructive brainstorming' would be
    more helpful than rounding up a 'posse' to go after the SLT for a
    nice - relieving - dump, so to speak.  :|
    
    I'm not part of the SLT, so my reference to 'corporate folks' was
    certainly NOT meant as an insult to me, you and everyone else who
    isn't some sort of corporate officer, by the way.
    
    I did use those words, though, so don't pin them on the SLT.  Resent
    me for an unbelievably cruel choice of words (if that's my sin) all
    you like.  
    
    You're right - we all have headaches these days, so none of us needs
    to have more headaches ADDED (including the SLT and Worldwide Personnel.)

re:       <<< Note 3050.97 by POCUS::RICCIARDI "Be a graceful Parvenu..." >>>

>   ....and seen Digital go from valuing to publicly insulting
    its salesforce....
    
I think BP has been ripped apart by the press for the unfortunate phrasing
in his original statement that this comes from.  While he did say
(paraphrased) "Digital has the worst sales force" that was only HALF of his
statement.  The press always conveniently leaves off the remainder of the
sentence "because Digital Management messed it up."  Kind of like a
reporter saying (hypothetically) "Joe Blow was arrested today for murder
and child abuse" and then conveniently leaving off the remainder of the
fact "but he was released when it was found to be a case of mistaken
identity."


I envision the press in cases like this to be a rabid dog going for the
jugular of the victim.  The more blood and gore the more interest the story
generates.

My 2� worth -

	Al

Re .98
     
    
    
       > P.S. I deeply resent that somehow people in policy making
       > positions in Maynard are "corporate folks" while the rest of
       > us aren't.  I deeply resent the implication that headaches to
       > so-called "employees" are of no consequence to this company.
    
    Bob,
    
    The "us versus them" attitude exists in the original EDP organization
    memo (ie, protect the employee's from Digital).  It is not a
    fabrication of people who don't agree with EDP's tactics.  While there
    are definitely problems in Digital and some being created by
    mis-management (BP agrees and is chopping management heads), we are
    arguing here about how we solve them, not whether they exist.  Your
    phrasing here seems to indicate that someone is saying that our
    problems and complaints are of no consequence.  I didn't read that into
    any of the arguments being put forth.  I see dissagreement regarding
    how we deal with it.  Someone may be saying that organizing the way
    that EDP suggests is not the way to deal with it.  When they say that,
    you accuse them of saying that the problems don't exist.  Rathole
    fodder.
    
    Jim

    Although Eric might have a point, I agree with a previous noter that
    apparently he's not the one to lead the charge.  I can only think of
    one other instance where someone was so crass as to create a batch job
    that automatically reposted a deleted entry.  This resulted in them
    being permanently banned from that conference.  (Whereupon they sent
    mail to the world trying to foster support/sympathy).  Childish.
    They also took it to SOAPBOX, where the rest of us could ignore it.
    
    Should we ever organize, please let it be under someone with the skills
    necessary to carry us and our concerns forward, instead of presenting
    both in a poor light deserved by neither, accomplishing nothing.
    
    						mis dos centavos

    1. Eric may not be working in his own best interest or in Digital's
       best interest but IMO it's his right to try and this conference
       and many others have allowed much worse in the past.
    
    2. Digital does not want employees input.
    
    3. The open door policy never worked and never will.
    
    Perhaps with everyones 2 cents being kicked in here Digital could
    return to profitabillity. (unfortunately due to our current overhead
    structure each of these 2 cents are costing us 75 cents.
    
    
    Brian V                                             

    Re .102:
    
    I haven't said I want to be the spokesperson.  We could easily have
    different people negotiating with Digital, organizing employees, and
    planning our actions.  Would anybody like to volunteer?
    
    My immediate plans are to collect more names and contact information,
    along with a list of complaints and suggestions.  When we've got some
    ideas about how to proceed, I'll be looking for other people to help.
    Certainly if sites other than ZKO are to be involved, there will have
    to be other coordinators.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    I agree with what Eric is doing.  I've seen lots of people at
    Digital screwed by managers with the IQ of month-old tuna. 

    Reposting the note was exactly the right thing to do.  Get
    visibility, and establish a pattern of behavior on Digital's
    part.

    I look forward to the National Labor Relations Board's
    investigation of this.  Digital is not omnipotent.  Within
    the past few years the corporation had paid substantial fines
    for violating US export law; there is no reason to think that
    the corporation is anymore adept at interpreting US labor
    law.

    In fact, given the Jack Smith Virtual office concept, they
    may know less about labor law.

	- Lee

    RE: .96  by SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA 
    
    >I personally have read portions of the basenote (got the gist of it),
    >and found it rather naive.  Whether or not EDP openly suggested pure 
    
    I've seen a lot of words used to describe edp's noting style over the
    years, but I don't recall "naive" being one of them.
    

                            did you check on na�ve?

    
    I do not agree with Eric that the senior management or SLT of this
    company are approachable, let alone receptive to suggestions from
    a committee of 'untouchable' employees.  Nor do I think it is wise
    to use the firing of three DCU candidates as a rallying point or
    example for corporate decisions requiring redress.
    I must confess however, to morbid curiosity to see how this melodrama
    plays out.  If nothing else, at least the 'Knight of La Mancha' is
    tilting at the windmill of employee empowerment - something I've
    long suspected was a myth.
    
    Mike

re .105:

What was illegal about "virtual office?"  My favorite example of DEC's
failure to understand the law is the biweekly pat fiasco.

re .107:

It's not an umlaut, it's a dieresis.

     > It's not an umlaut, it's a dieresis.
    
    I had that once. Very unpleasant. Saw a doctor. Much better now...

re: .109, Gerald

> My favorite example of DEC's failure to understand the law is
> the biweekly pat fiasco.

Yes - the biweekly pat fiasco was clearly blatant sexual harrasment on
a grand scale.

-Jack

OK, my fingers don't work too well in the morning.

    
     > It's not an umlaut, it's a dieresis.
    
    >> I had that once. Very unpleasant. Saw a doctor. Much better now...
    
    Too right. One should always use fresh eggs in an umlaut.

    
    hi, what is this biweekly pat thing? what are you guys talking about?
    
    \bye
    \nasser

It was supposed to be "biweekly pay," but I \nassered it.

    !! It was supposed to be "biweekly pay," but I \nassered it.
    
    thanks, I needed that,
    
    		fred deady

��  <<< Note 3050.109 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

��What was illegal about "virtual office?"  My favorite example of DEC's
��failure to understand the law is the biweekly pat fiasco.
    Cool.  I forgot about the biweekly pay.

    There was a Jack Smith memo a few years back that said all of
    the greater maynard area would now be a virtual office.  The
    company wouldn't move people between sites, and wouldn't
    reimburse mileage when folks drove between sites.

    It turned out that not reimbursing mileage was illegal.

    Re: .110
             The umlaut and the doctor
    
    Just in case you come across the acute, the grave and 
    the circumflex DON'T try the doctor, go to the chiropractor
    instead.
    The results are amaaaaaazing!
    
    g.z.
    

Note 1182 discusses the "virtual office."  I don't see any mention of legal
problems.  You can take unreimbursed mileage expenses as a deduction on your
income tax (employee business expense), so I doubt if there are any legal
problems with such a policy.  The policy reversal seems to have been
a direct result of the uproar that ensued when the "virtual office" memo
came out.

    > > It's not an umlaut, it's a dieresis.
   
    >>> I had that once. Very unpleasant. Saw a doctor. Much better now...
    
    > Too right. One should always use fresh eggs in an umlaut.
    
    Actually it was a Western Umlaut with Beans and Tomatos.
    

Regarding the real issue -- employee organization -- sure, sign me up as
an interested party.  I have absolutely zero interest in belonging to a
union, and I'm not convinced that any other kind of employee organization
would help.  However, I feel that there are a number of issues that the
SLT needs to understand to successfully manage the remaining employees,
and they don't appear to understand them.  I'd be happy to try to help
a constructive attempt to get through to them to help Digital.  I've
tried this individually and gotten nowhere.  I'm willing to try doing
it in a group, because the only way I'd give up on the underlaying
issues is if I gave up on Digital, and I'm not prepared to do that.


re .62:  

>  ...this conference itself is being sacrificed on
>  the altar of a personal vendetta, motivated by who knows what.

Did you know that it is contrary to Digital policy to impute improper 
motives to someone?  I'm sure nobody reading this note string minds,
but this is the sort of statement that could get you in serious trouble
if certain senior managers didn't like it.  That's a proven fact.
The apparent double standard is also part of the problem.
    

re .64:

> ...if I were serious, I would take it to the limit with
> the open door policy

Have you ever tried to resolve a serious issue through the Open Door
policy?  Specifically, have you ever tried to resolve a non-local issue
through the Open Door policy?  I find it highly amusing that edp was
told to use (and also not use) Open Door.  My own organization's Open
Door manager made it crystal clear to me:  if I didn't have a problem
with someone INSIDE that organization, it didn't concern him.  I'm not
saying he was wrong to take that attitude.  What I'm saying is that
propoganda aside, Open Door does NOT necessarily accomplish anything,
except to make people think there is a means to solve problems.


re .75:  

> As far as I know, Eric has not attempted
> to use any of the official corporate communications methods (LiveWire,
> READERS CHOICE, etc.) to put across his message

LIVE WIRE regularly posts information about the DCU that is supplied by
non-Digital employees.  LIVE WIRE has in the past absolutely refused to
post information about the DCU from Digital employees -- even entirely
neutral announcements.  I'm not criticizing the LIVE WIRE managers -- I'm
pointing out that they have an agenda, which is to communicate the things
that senior management wants communicated, and nothing else.  I'm very
surprized that you didn't know that.  


	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- For what it's worth, I'm also against any further reposting.  The
point has been made that those who decide these things won't permit this.
However, I also think that if the parts that the policy makers identified
as objectionable are removed, it's right and proper to allow the remainder 
of the message to be posted.  There's certainly precedent for that.  LS

    > Too right. One should always use fresh eggs in an umlaut.

Refers to an old printers joke, 

You can't make an umlaut with out breaking X








[spoiler]











"You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs"

    
Re .122
    
>>  ...this conference itself is being sacrificed on
>>  the altar of a personal vendetta, motivated by who knows what.

>Did you know that it is contrary to Digital policy to impute improper 
>motives to someone?  I'm sure nobody reading this note string minds,
>but this is the sort of statement that could get you in serious trouble
>if certain senior managers didn't like it.  That's a proven fact.
>The apparent double standard is also part of the problem.
>    
    
    Not that you have stated any agreement with the wording of the
    original organization memo, but that memo strongly (IMHO) suggested
    improper motives were behind some of the incidents that fueled the
    organization effort.
    
    Jim

    I think I fractured my circumflex breaking X for my umlaut...will my
    mileage to the doctor be reimbursed or will it be a virtual trip. 
    
    						Tex

    ~ end of time till you get de money.
                                       

    .86�	Yes, but what is really needed is for the SLT to get out into the
    .86�	field, and see and experience the customer frustrations.  If not that,
    
    
    Hmmm...wonder if BP would actually go for this:
    
    Palmer and all the rest of the SLT forego their three-piece suits and
    don regular clothes,maybe a sport shirt and slacks. They are then given
    field-service tool bags and go out on some calls with some randomly
    chosen engineers. Wonder if the customers would even recognize him.
    They certainly wouldn't recognize most of the SLT! This would be a
    tremendously educational experience.(to say nothing of the humility of
    it all,imagine BP eating a "Big Mac" between service calls)
    
    Ken

    RE. LAST
    
    Please fast-forward yourself to the 90's.  MCS Service Engineers don't
    wear "lounge lizzard" atire.  They are, for the most part, as well
    dressed as any of the other groups that are in front of customers for a
    living.  We are no longer "techy tech, board swapping, break-fixers".  
    
    Jon

    .128
    
    maybe in your area, but not countrywide!

    Does that mean I shouldn't wear my white socks anymore?

    .128�    Please fast-forward yourself to the 90's.  MCS Service Engineers don't
    .128�    wear "lounge lizzard" atire.  They are, for the most part, as well
    .128�    dressed as any of the other groups that are in front of customers for a
    .128�    living.  We are no longer "techy tech, board swapping, break-fixers".  
    .128�    
    
    Who do you work for,IBM?
    
    Ken

    A note about the current state of things:  I'm still here.  A dozen or
    two people have contacted me, expressing various levels of support and
    interest.  I am waiting for the National Labor Relations Board to make
    a decision. 
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    Preliminary word from the NLRB is that Digital has offered to settle my
    charge:  Digital will allow me to repost the note and to solicit in
    non-work conferences (but not by mail) and will withdraw the warning
    they gave me for reposting the note after the moderators deleted it.
    
    Have the moderators heard anything about this yet?  The paperwork
    should arrive Monday, but my vacation begins Tuesday, so there won't be
    any more activity in the immediate future.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    I haven't seen anything yet.  We'll let you know if/when we do.
    
    				Steve

��      <<< Note 3050.133 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

��    Preliminary word from the NLRB is that Digital has offered to settle my
��    charge:  Digital will allow me to repost the note and to solicit in
��    non-work conferences (but not by mail) and will withdraw the warning
��    they gave me for reposting the note after the moderators deleted it.

    Congratulations, Eric.

    It's pretty sad when an employee has to use an agency of the
    federal government to cause a group called "Corporate
    Employee Relations" to observe U.S. labor law.  

    I received mail from Ron Glover yesterday confirming some of what I was
    told through the NLRB, so I'm reposting my original note 3050.0.  As
    when that note was written, I am not prepared to form a union, and I do
    not think many people would vote to form a bargaining unit -- too many
    people are afraid they would be laid off for doing so, even though that
    is illegal and the burden of proof would be on the employer.
    
    However, there are ways we can help each other and fix Digital's
    mistakes.  One such will be in the response after the original note.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    Last week [when this was originally written, around May 1], Digital
    fired three employees running for the DCU board of directors.  The
    alleged reason for termination is misuse of the network, but I don't
    believe it.  Can we trust Digital anymore?

    Were they fired because of revenge, politics, or just capriciousness?
    Whatever the answer, I think employees should protect themselves.
    Organizing could allow us to do that.  It could also allow us more say
    in the direction Digital takes, the quality of our products, and our
    work conditions.  I am tired of excessive bureaucracy and poor
    management hindering me from doing good work, and I want to change it.
    Generally, organizing can give us more control of our lives and our
    work.

    I would like to hear from other employees who are interested in
    organizing.  I don't expect that you're ready to join a union just like
    that, and organizing doesn't mean we have to create a controlling union
    and threaten strikes.  Just putting our voices together can get us
    answers and shed light on issues that are currently out of our reach.

    What has Digital done that you disagree with?  Did they "give the
    package" to the experienced, productive employee but retain the
    non-producer?  If that happened to somebody you know, let me hear from
    you.

    Please send me mail and/or reply in topic 3050 of the Humane::Digital
    conference letting me know what areas are of most concern to you.  What
    would you like to change about Digital?  What would you like to change
    about your work, its conditions, and the products you work on?  What
    concerns about organizing do you have, and how would you like to see it
    done?

    Please note that I am not prepared to unionize!  I do not think I could
    or would want to manage more than a moderate-sized group of employees
    voicing their concerns.  The purpose of this message is to initiate a
    productive discussion.  If employees do decide to create a more formal
    organization, it will require others to continue the work.

    How you can reach me:

    	 From anywhere on the Internet and many other connected services,
    	 you can send me mail at [email protected].  I read mail there once every
    	 day or so.
    
    	 Most of my mail is still received at Rusure::edp.  Use your own
    	 judgment in sending mail through Digital's systems.

         If you wish to keep the content of your message private, I
         can accept PGP-encrypted mail.  My PGP key is below.

         You can also send physical mail to:

	      Eric Postpischil
	      6 Hamlett Drive, Apt. 17-FA
	      Nashua, NH  03062


				-- edp


    Permission is granted to distribute this message far and wide.

    PGP is a strong encryption program.  If you have FTP access, you can
    find PGP in /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip at ftp.funet.fi.

    Once you have PGP installed, you put my public key in your PGP key ring
    with the command "PGP -KA key_file", where "key_file" is the file
    containing this message, including the key below.  Then you can encrypt
    messages that only I can decrypt.  To encrypt, use the command "PGP
    -ETA input_file POSTPISCHIL".  The output file can be mailed to me
    safely; somebody reading our mail could tell you sent me a message but
    could not read it.  My public key is:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a
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=7irK
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


    Note to moderators:  This posting is intended to be protected under the
    National Labor Relations Act (29 USC Sections, 151, 157, and 158).
    Removing it may constitute a violation of law.  This is not legal
    advice; consult a lawyer if you have questions.

    One approach might be to inform the commissioner of the
    existence of the DCU employee notes conference and have
    him request all notes and  replies entered between say
    1 jan and 1 august 1994. 
    
    I don't know US labour law but seeing that the conference is
    an employee only notes conference on non-business issues I
    would assume the contents would have to be released in a
    labour dispute (and in an ideal world that Digital would be
    more than pleased to release the contents to an impartial
    commissioner).
    
    Personally, I think the contents of the conference speaks for
    itself about who has acted rashly and who hasn't and certainly
    about who has acted reasonably and who hasn't.
    
    re roelof

    [This is being reposted to correct a typographical error.  -- edp]
    
    Below is email from Dave Garrod.  Digital is trying to prevent him from
    getting unemployment benefits, on the basis he was discharged for
    violating "a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy".

    As I have stated before, I don't believe that, and I will be writing to
    the Massachusetts Department of Employment and Training to object and
    indicate my knowledge to the contrary.  Clearly, Digital's policies are
    not uniformly enforced.  Your support is welcome; please send your
    comments to

	Commissioner Nils Nordberg
	Department of Education and Training
	19 Staniford Street
	Boston, MA  02114

    Mention docket number 147096 (David J. Garrod).  The law (see below)
    states that Digital's claim of discharge must be shown "to the
    satisfaction of the commissioner".  So anything you can tell the
    commissioner to the contrary can help Dave Garrod's case.  For example,
    if you can send copies of email solicitations you have received, that
    would help show that actual practice in Digital differs from policy. 
    If you don't have examples saved, write about solicitations you
    remember or any other knowledge you have about how Digital's policy is
    not enforced.

    There is a hearing on this September 14.  Send mail soon.


				-- edp


[This is not a private message. It may be shared with anybody you
 want to share it with.]

Eric,

You indicated interest in hearing about the difficulties I am
having in claiming unemployment. I fail to understand how
Digital is getting away with claiming that I have no right
to unemployment benefit.

In regards to claiming unemployment. The MA statute Chapter
151A, says:

Section 25. No waiting period shall be allowed and no benefits
shall be paid to an individual under this chapter for-

(a) [irrelevent text omitted]

(d)  [irrelevent text omitted - there is no (b), (c) by the way]

(e) For the period of unemployment next ensuing and until the
individual has had at least eight weeks of work and in each of
said weeks has earned an amount equal to or in excess of the
individual's weekly benefit amount after the individual has left
work
(1) voluntarily unless the employee establishes by substanttial
and credible evidence that he had good cause for leaving attributable
to the employing unit or its agent,
(2) BY DISCHARGE SHOWN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
COMMISSIONER BY SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO DELIBERATE
MISCONDUCT IN WILFUL DISREGARD OF THE EMPLOYING
UNIT'S INTEREST, OR TO A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A
REASONABLE AND UNIFORMLY ENFORCED RULE OR
POLICY OF THE EMPLOYER, provided that such violation is not
shown to be as a result of the employee's incompetence, or
(3) because of conviction for a felony or misdeameanor.

(the capitalization above was done by me, otherwise it is an
exact transcript of the MA statute.)

It is section 25e(2) that Digital is using to prevent me from claiming
unemployment. It's highly questionable as the whether the
mail message I sent out was a violation ofthe no solicitation
policy (I maintain it wasn't a solicitation). My action most certainly
[was not] a deliberate misconduct or a wilful disregard of policy. Quite the
contrary in fact I worked EXTREMELY hard to word the message
to stay within the policy guidelines. But even if it was a violation
of the "no solicitation policy" as alleged, as everybody knows
solicitations go out over the ENET every day. So much for
a "uniformly enforced policy".

I believe the real reason Digital railroaded me out is because
certain individuals in Corporate HR objected to the fact that I was
(and AM) running for a DCU Board position. Picking on the mail
message was a way of railroading myself and the other 2Gs out
of the company.

Dave

    I am by no means in possession of all the facts in this case, but on the
    face it looks like egregiously poor behavior on the part of Digital to
    fire someone who is actively and vociferously arguing for change in the
    DCU operations and then attempt to cut his social safety net by denying
    him unemployment benefits. While the application of the policy is
    subject to debate, I do not think any reasonable, objective person would
    believe that Dave Garrod was attempting to act maliciously toward the
    corporation or against its interests. On the contrary, his actions
    seemed more intent on righting what he perceived to be wrongs that were
    having a detrimental effect on the employees and the corporation in
    general. This latest information paints an extremely distasteful and
    unprofessional picture of Digital, much to our disgrace.

    
    
    Brian V
    

>    This latest information paints an extremely distasteful and
>    unprofessional picture of Digital, much to our disgrace.

	This is what happens when engineers are replaced by bureaucrats.

    simple solution: vote.  i did.

    August 14, 1994

    Commissioner Nils Nordberg
    Department of Employment and Training
    19 Staniford Street
    Boston, MA  02114

    Re: Docket Number 147096 (David J. Garrod)

    Dear Commissioner Nordberg:
    
    I am informed that Digital Equipment Corporation, my employer, is
    attempting  to deny unemployment benefits to David J. Garrod under
    Chapter 151A of the  Massachusetts statutes, section 25 (e)(2), "by
    discharge shown to the  satisfaction of the commissioner by substantial
    and credible evidence to be  attributable to deliberate misconduct in
    willful disregard of the employing  unit's interest, or to a knowing
    violation of a reasonable and uniformly  enforced rule or policy of the
    employer . . ." It is my further  understanding that Digital claims
    David J. Garrod sent or was involved in  the sending of an electronic
    mail (email) message that Digital deems to be a  solicitation in
    violation of policy prohibiting the use of corporate email  for
    solicitations.
    
    The enclosed evidence demonstrates that Digital's policy is in no way 
    uniformly enforced. Indeed, the policy is virtually completely ignored. 
    Several employees collected the dozens of email messages enclosed.
    These are  a variety of solicitations of sorts that are sent
    frequently. To my  knowledge, none of the authors of these messages
    have been disciplined in  any way or even advised that their email
    violates policy. Actual practice  within Digital has not conformed to
    purported policy at any time within the  past decade. Almost all
    employees, except the diminishing few without any  email access,
    regularly receive solicitations, and many employees send them.
    
    Managers and supervisors are among the recipients of such
    solicitations, so  Digital is surely aware of the actual use of its
    email, yet employees are  never warned that these messages are
    violations of policy. More than that, I  know Digital's policy makers
    have been asked repeatedly over a period of  years to clarify the
    meaning of "solicitation" as it pertains to the email  policy, but
    employees have never received any usable definition. Because of  this,
    it is impossible to say that Garrod's act was a knowing violation of a 
    rule of the employer; one cannot know when the knowledge has been
    willfully  withheld.
    
    Even if Garrod's mail had violated a uniformly enforced policy,
    termination  is entirely disproportionate to the act. Digital has
    another policy it is  not following in this matter, a disciplinary
    policy which specifies the  procedures for progressive corrective
    action. When an employee has committed  a serious policy violation,
    which the sending of a single email could not  constitute, the
    appropriate action is an initial written warning. A  subsequent
    violation may call for a final written warning, and only then  should
    termination be considered. Firing Garrod without warning for sending  a
    single email message is uncalled for; that Garrod violated policy is
    not a  credible explanation for his firing. The severity of Digital's
    act does not  make sense unless there is some other motivation.
    Violating its own  disciplinary policy is evidence Digital fired Garrod
    for some reason other  than sending an email solicitation.
    
    The law quoted above says the discharge must be shown to your
    satisfaction.  Surely you will be most dissatisfied on three points:
    The purported policy  is barely enforced at all, let alone uniformly,
    Garrod did not knowingly  violate policy, and Digital did not terminate
    Garrod for violating policy.
    
    For your information, I am employed by Digital Equipment Corporation in
    New  Hampshire, and I have no relationship with David J. Garrod. His
    activities  in regard to the Digital Credit Union, of which I am not a
    member, are my  first recollection of any knowledge about him. My
    observations are those of  another employee, one very dissatisfied with
    the behavior of Digital  Equipment Corporation.
    
    Please advise me about other ways that I or other employees can help
    David  J. Garrod. In New Hampshire, ten employees can ask the
    Department of  Employment to render an opinion in a dispute. If there
    are similar  provisions in Massachusetts by which employees can ask
    that Digital's  actions be investigated, please inform me of them. I
    very much would like to  know why Digital is railroading employees who
    are running for positions on  the Digital Credit Union Board of
    Directors, and any assistance you can  provide in this matter would be
    greatly appreciated.
    
					Yours truly,
					Eric Postpischil

>================================================================================
>Note 3050.144                 Employee Organization                   144 of 144
>RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."         86 lines  15-AUG-1994 08:51
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric,

It was great reading your letter, I am glad to see people standing up and
being counted when injustice is done.

Ren� El Gringo 

    Eric,
    
    my compliments and moral support.
    If some people in Digital are willing to
    show this kind of personal courage then the New
    Digital may not be so bad after all...
    
    re roelof

    There's a typo in .138; the correct name of the department is
    "Department of Employment and Training".
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Ron Glover still won't give a definition of solicitation, so I have
    stipulated to Digital that I will rely on the definition given in _The
    American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition_:
    
    	1. To seek to obtain by persuasion, entreaty, or formal
    	application.
    	2. To petition persistently, importune.
    
    If Digital wants us to go by any other definition, it's up to them to
    say so.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

re: .148

Many conference moderators over the years have asked for such a definition.  It
would make our jobs a lot easier and make things more consistent among all the
conferences on the net.

You didn't really expect him to give you a definition of solicitation, did you?
Did he tell you he wouldn't define it, or did he just ignore your requests?

Bob

    Re .149:
    
    > Did he tell you he wouldn't define it, or did he just ignore your
    > requests?
    
    He used the same old line about how they feel policy is sufficiently
    clear.  That's garbage.  But the point is that since they haven't
    provided a definition, I did, and now they know we're using it (at
    least I am, and I'm suggesting it to others).  I suspect being vague
    had some purpose to Glover et al, giving them deniability or
    flexibility to use the policy as they wished.  I know that's failing
    for them now in one administrative hearing.  And I'm trying to get rid
    of their deniability further by saying "Here, this is what we're going
    to use.  Tell us if you want something different."
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    So, what's the latest on the hearing mentioned in .144?

    Have any additional suits been filed by -- well I don't want
    to mention anyone specifically, because that might cause a
    reaction by that crack Corporate Personnel SWAT team, but you
    know, people might have at one time had a common employer, but no
    longer do -- and there were more than two, but less than four
    of them?

    Thanks.

    Thanks to the person who sent me the articles on union campaigns and
    management in nonunion companies.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.