Conference 7.286::digital

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






    re: ethics
    
    At my site there a 4-5 outstanding lawsuits regarding unlawful
    termination. All  of these relate to safety/OSHA issues. In other words
    people are being  terminated for attempting to work safety issues. In
    one case a very prominant  laywer is representing the ex-employee as
    well as OSHA. The person was fired for  going to OSHA when the plant
    refused to correct an environmental hazard. Not  only is this going on
    at this time, but this has been standard practice here for  the 10
    years I've worked for Digital. 
    
    When I asked one of the facilities folks about this I was advised to
    say  nothing/know nothing or I might make the list of ex-employees.
    
    Intimidation is alive and well, ethics are dead, if they ever lived.
    

                       <<< Note 3351.0 by MPGS::BALIN >>>
>>I don't need to summarize the many pages of horror stories one can 
>>easily refer to in this notes file; however, I'm deeply interested in 
>>getting a sense from a broader population in Digital -- are there any 
>>signs at the grass roots level that Digital is again becoming a company 
>>driven first and foremost by ethics?  Do some of you think this is an 
>>ideal that never existed?
    
    
    In a nutshell : 
    
    1. No. It's getting worse.
    2. No. Once there was a definite culture of good ethics.
    
    
    Ethics requires a personal commitment to doing the right thing and
    standing by the consequences of your decision. It means knowing that
    there is a right and a wrong thing to do. 
    
    Today's environment (especially in subsystems) discourages this kind of
    behavior. Official word is that there is no right or wrong, only 
    'shades of grey'.
    
    The people of principle were the first to leave either via TFSO or in
    disgust. The people of anything goes who would do/say anything to keep
    a job were the ones who stayed. Ethics has a lot to do with the  quality
    of people you attract and maintain - and it is the quality of the
    people that make a company stand above the rest.
    
    It was not always such - once there were Giants here. 
    
    Now there are only grey cardboard cutouts.
    
    Publius

    Digital still has ethics: after all, Win Hindle, VP of ethics, saved
    the company his $450k a year salary by retiring.  ;-)  kb

    I have a strong sense of ethics, I used to pontificate them within the
    organization that I 'used' to work for..... There riddled with
    stupidity and politics and good old boys and girls. They did not like
    my outspokenness....(anyone who knows me....knows me!) I was on a team
    of four people doing client/server offer stuff......Three out of four
    got TFSO'd.....and after my direct manager had to tell those folks,
    (she had ehtics too) her management tapped her as well......
    
    Ethics?  Some organizations DO NOT AND NEVER DID have ethics.  
    
    After the three of us were TFSO'd, they re-formed the group I was
    in and continued the project.....shot it out the door inb two weeks
    and spent a MONTH patting each other on the backs!  
    
    Ethics you say?   I think not!!!!!   
    
    What's the problem?  Simple. ETHICS HAVE TO START AT THE TOP!
    
    nuff said?
    
    chet

re: Basenoter

I came on board about ten years before you.

At that time, "Do the right thing" was a recognized principal directive.

Today, it still is.

The difference is that back then, "the right thing" was very obvious
to many involved. Today, only certain folks know what "the right thing"
actually is. If you don't [know], it's often very unfortunate for you.

-Jack

��    At my site there a 4-5 outstanding lawsuits regarding unlawful
��    termination. All  of these relate to safety/OSHA issues. In other words
��    people are being  terminated for attempting to work safety issues. In
��    one case a very prominant  laywer is representing the ex-employee as
��    well as OSHA. The person was fired for  going to OSHA when the plant

    When I worked in LKG, someone had complained to OSHA that
    runners stretching in the hallways were a safety hazard.

    OSHA did an 'official' investigation.  I never heard what
    the outcome was.

    So, while Digital may have adopted screwing employees as a
    general past-time, not all OSHA complaints are serious, and
    some may even be (shock, horror) vindictive.

    in an environment of fear and intimidation ethics do not count. when
    that happens you get all the lawsuits and vandalism we are now
    experiencing. i wish i could see it getting better. time will tell.

    Interesting topic. Come to think of it, most of the people who
    have jumped ship recently at the CSC are in my opinion highly
    ethical people. And many people who are seriously seeking
    employment outside of Digital are top notch, caring people.
     
    Of course our performance reviews don't address how ethical
    we are so the company has no way of knowing it's losing
    good, honest, hard-working people.
    

I joined DEC from Coopers & Lybrand in '86 after weighing up the pros 
and cons of the various companies that I had consulted to.

At that time two companies shone above the rest...

DEC and Conoco

Both, to me, had high ethic values and were great companies to consult
and work for.

From talking to my younger brother who works for Texaco and many old
colleagues from my 12 years in consulting, I now feel that companies 
with any ethics are very few and far between ( this is also 
highlighted in the Japanese cultural and work ethic changes - a 
massive change for them ).

Industry and the social infrastructure has changed - not for the 
better - and, if anything, has accelerated towards a very self-centred,
selfish social outlook; I believe that Digital is just reflecting the
current downward spiral.

I don't know whether 'returning to the old values' is possible or
even acceptable in the current environment - maybe we need strong
religion and/or a change in world economic policies to swing the 
pendulum back to a more caring, sharing type of culture.

Sorry, this is me on my soapbox


 

re Note 3351.9 by AYOV18::AYRDAM::DAGLEISHP:

> I don't know whether 'returning to the old values' is possible or
> even acceptable in the current environment - maybe we need strong
> religion and/or a change in world economic policies to swing the 
> pendulum back to a more caring, sharing type of culture.
  
        I agree with this assessment -- the moral/ethical problems in
        our society are *very* deep and lead to many of the other
        problems we experience.

        Bob

    re .0
    a no brainer really.Externally-towards clients-we are very,very
    ethical,maybe even too ethical if ethics is defined as a
    standard.However,the employee survey,RENEW,shows unequivocably that we
    are not perceived to be ethical internally and maybe .9 is right but
    this is no excuse

> I don't know whether 'returning to the old values' is possible or
> even acceptable in the current environment - maybe we need strong
> religion and/or a change in world economic policies to swing the 
> pendulum back to a more caring, sharing type of culture.
    
    This problem doesn't just exist inside of Digital. It's become the
    American way. It's all around us (at least here in the US). Take a look
    at all the hype surrounding gun control right now. Guns have been
    around for over 200 years, but suddenly they're a big problem. The guns
    haven't changed, the _people_ have. 
    
    We're seeing the same responses here at Digital about our problems that
    we see from the public-at-large concerning gun control (and any other
    perceived problems). "Make the government (management) fix it!" is the
    battle cry on both fronts. Perhaps it's time for folks to look inward,
    rather than outward for solutions to some of their problems.
    
    The governments response is "get rid of the guns". Digitals response is
    "get rid of the people". :-(
    
    Harry
    

    In Central Maryland during the nite, we had a terrible thunderstorm
    with a lot of power outages.  Mike Wannemacher and I arrive at
    the Greenbelt office at 6AM this morning and no power.  So, what do we
    do?
    
    We called over to the Landover facility, they had power, and drove over
    and got some work in under our belts.

    Companies don't have ethics.  People do.
    
    A company doesn't have a brain.  A company may have 80,000 members,
    each one with a brain, but that isn't the same thing.  A company
    may have a leader with a brain, but that isn't the same thing either.
    The closest thing a company has to a brain is a network of processors,
    and even that isn't the same thing.
    
    What a company does have is a culture.  Each person who joins the
    company is affected by the company culture, in ways that are sometimes
    not obvious.  Each person who stays with a company for any length of
    time makes a mark, great or small, on the company culture.
    
    One way a culture affects individuals is by shaping the development
    of the individual's ethics.  Some company  cultures 
    encourage the growth and development of ethics in individuals, some
    radically transform them, and some discourage ethical development.
    
    So the discussion of corporate ethics is really a discussion of
    corporate culture.  Is corporate culture good or bad?
    Do you prefer Ben&Jerry's culture or Wal-Mart's?
    
    Many of us have changed our perception of ethnic cultures from 
    a purely judgmental one to a moral relativist one, saying that you
    can't make judgements about a culture without understanding the context
    of that culture.  I think the same holds for corporate cultures.
    
    Do I accept the paradigm of moral relativism?  well, it depends on
    the circustance (heh, heh).  I was more "at home" in the engineering
    culture of DEC in the '70s than I am in the business culture of
    Digital in the '90s, but that doesn't mean that one culture is
    "wrong".  (BTW, I am neither a professional engineer nor a professional
    businessman, at least for today).
    
    Dave
     
                                                                    

    The impression I get from various corporate actions is that, ignoring
    waffle with no substance, ethics are a set of behaviours we can no
    longer afford.
    
    We have to be aggressive, which to me has negative connotations. (Ever
    been accosted by an aggressive drunk?).
    
    We have to be lean and hungry - this conflicts with 'doing the right
    thing'.
    
    In the business environment that we have helped to create, being the
    nice guy is a luxury that has a detrimental effect on the balance
    sheet.
    
    It's a dog-eat-dog world - there is no room for doing the right thing. 
    We exist to make money, hopefully at the expense of our competitors.
    
    Finaly we have METRICS which directly conflict with the desire to help,
    give good advice, and consider the customers long-term interests. 
    Someone had a Notes name of 'metrics drive the behaviour'.  This is true
    in the deepest sense.  Metrics suppress activities not directly
    measured and encourage only those numerical things that can be counted. 
    'Doing the right thing' can never be measured by anything as crude as
    metrics.  People are financially penalised for doing things that their
    managers have not placed into their metrics.
    
    As a footnote, having studied the rise (before the fall) of IBM, IBM
    used to employ creative selling tactics to the detriment of their
    customers.  As a result of many anti-trust cases in the US Supreme
    Court, they issued a Guide to Ethical Business Practices.  This was a
    definition of where the dividing line was between criminal and non-criminal
    selling activities.  The line was drawn, not to forbid individuals from
    csrossing it, but so that individuals were aware of where official
    management support ended.  Remember Mission Impossible, where the guys
    where given a mission, which invariably ended with the statement 'Of
    course, the Government will deny all knowledge and will provide no
    support'.
    
    Martin - ethical until I can't afford it

    re: -1
    
    With some exceptions (this isn't a perfect world) I disagree.  We can't
    afford to be un-ethical.  Business is a set of relationships, and there
    is nothing that sours a relationship quicker than unethical behavior. 
    While IBM may have been hard-nosed and crossed the line occasionally,
    their basic culture started with "respect for the individual" and a
    culture that was more ethical than not.  This was fundamental to their
    relationships with customers and partners, and this, in turn, was
    fundamental to their success.  Digital was similar.  Ethical behavior
    is essential for long-term success.  The problem, is it can be costly
    in the short term, and we're under the short-term gun.  I still
    maintain that we can't affort to not be ethical, that poor and
    unethical decisions will undermine any company....   My two cents.
    

Before I joined DEC, I worked in the oil industry. I was asked to do some 
very unethical things and refused. One of the reasons I was made redundant 
(TSFO'ed to the US).

Since I joined DEC, I have NEVER been asked to do anything even remotely 
unethical. We have constantly (well, occasionally) been bombarded by memos 
exhorting us to be 'ethical', 'do the right thing' and other such things. I 
approve of this attitude.........

So, is the UK different ?

Alan

The ideas expressed in .15 are quite disturbing to me.

I wonder if the author is stating his opinion or feels s/he is stating facts.
That it may indeed be fact is scary.

I believe this is a result of the greed-is-godd (it's a typo, but I left it that
way because it's an effective double-entendre |-( ) 80s.

Bruce

    
    	Can't decide weither to take the philosophical track, or focus on
    corporate/personal morals as the touchstone on Ethics at Digital. So
    I won't bother with either; instead a little story....
    
    	Several years ago a customer offered me a "bonus" to help his
    company secure a piece of business he was not contracted for under
    his Digital Business Partner Agreement. Being of sound moral character,
    I politely declined. He contacted another DECie somewhere else in the
    US, who promptly took the business, and, I assume, the "bonus".
    
    	Nothing ever happen to that DECie (as far as I know that DECie
    still is employed here), even though we formally complained about the
    business thru the hierarchy.
    
    	End of story. Draw your own conclusions. It's life. As they say in
    Jersey, "It ain't illegal until you get caught". I'm a Midwestern boy,
    our ethics are a bit stronger, and far more personal. I think it is the
    same for any organization. Look at GE's ongoing problems, and Jack
    Welch is as moral as they come.
    
    			the Greyhawk
    
    		

>    	Nothing ever happen to that DECie (as far as I know that DECie
>    still is employed here), even though we formally complained about the
>    business thru the hierarchy.
    
	I always make sure "the man in the mirror" can hold his head up
	high and know his own standards have not been compromised.  Ethics
	come from within, IMHO, and not from any company "culture" or other
	outside source.  People usually align themselves to those of like
	standards, and DEC used to be one of the best.

>    I'm a Midwestern boy, our ethics are a bit stronger, and far more personal
>    			the Greyhawk
    
Bull!  Since when does geography have anything to do with ethics?

I suppose there are no prisons in the Midwest and, if there are, they're
full of non-Midwesterners?

Ws

    Since when does geography have anything to do with ethics?
    
    There are very different business practices in the heart of the country
    than on the coast.  (The left and right coasts are very different too.) 
    Bottom line I agree with Greyhawk, midwestern ethics are a bit stronger, 
    and far more personal.
    

    
>    There are very different business practices in the heart of the country
>    than on the coast.  (The left and right coasts are very different too.) 
>    Bottom line I agree with Greyhawk, midwestern ethics are a bit stronger, 
>    and far more personal.


I also have to agree with Greyhawk.  There seemed to be a big difference 
between the North East and South East as well.  The point about taking things
a little more personal also comes to mind.


Al

    

    I also have to agree with Greyhawk.
    
    The existence on prisons and prisoners says little about the ethics
    of people outside of prison.
    
    I still hold to my opinion that there is linkage between ethics
    and culture, and there is no doubt in my mind that midwestern
    culture is more personal than it is on either coast.
    
    Regards,
        Dave
    

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






In subsystems engineering I know of 4 top-notch individuals who have left
over the past two years. All had exemplary work records and were in a sense
key players.

All were marked 'not eligible for rehire' on their departure.

This was directed from above, and not necessarily by their immediate
managers. The unspoken purpose of this policy is to 'mark' you so as
to cast doubt on the employee for future employers.

In other words, you work for _us_ or you wont work in this industry
again.

I'd prefer a system where incentives and recognition were used to keep
key employees - not this.

Sincerely,

I'll Be Next

>All were marked 'not eligible for rehire' on their departure.
>This was directed from above, and not necessarily by their immediate
>managers. The unspoken purpose of this policy is to 'mark' you so as
>to cast doubt on the employee for future employers.

This is somewhat curious. My understanding is that that "mark" on their
record is generally only on their master file, which is generally
accessable only by Human Resources types. It is further my understanding
that if someone from outside calls DIGITAL (the company, as opposed to
a specific individual whom they mighty have worked for, for example)
for a reference, the only thing any Human Resources type is supposed to do
is verify the dates that the individual worked here. Period.

-Jack

    to -2
    
    any individual who indicated in response to an external inquiry that a
    given employee has been 'marked not for rehire' will get exactly what
    they deserve - and it will start with a very significant suit from the
    individual  who is the subject of the inquiry. 

    I am not sure if -3  is  referring  to  the  fact  that when a person
    leaves Digital and go to work for the competition, it has always been
    a Digital policy (but I believe it is an unwritten  one) that Digital
    will  not rehire that employee unless there is a senior VP  approval.
    This has been a long time policy, not a new one.

    
    	re:.3 Win Hindle and the Office of Ethics.
    
    	You know that when a company forms an "Office of Ethics" that's 
    	about the only place you'll find them...
    
    	jcc

    I realize that this may possibly result in a deluge of requests for
    assistance to the Corporate Office of Ethics, but I think the benefits
    outweigh the risks involved.
    
    If you notice behaviour which you feel is unethical or in violation
    of Corporate Policies or government laws, please DOCUMENT these 
    violations (VERY IMPORTANT).  Report them first to your manager.  
    If you feel that this has not resulted in a change (or the manager 
    is part of the problem), then escalate this to your local Personnel 
    department (unless you feel that they are part of the problem).  In 
    countries that have them, your local/country Worker's Council/Union
    should also be notified.  
    
    If all of above has not worked, and you feel that the behaviour will 
    continue, then send this documentation VIA SECURE CHANNELS (internal 
    mail, or VAXMAIL (All-in-1 mails can be read rather easily by anyone 
    with privs) and report them to the Corporate Ethics and Business 
    Practices Office:
    
    The Corporate Ethics Hotline: DTN: 223-4636  =  (508) 493-4636
    
    			or
    
    VIC POMPA (or any of his other esteemed colleagues)
    DTN: 223-5092/6769  =  (508) 493-5092
    NODENAME: ASABET::POMPA
    FAX: 223-5355
    
    
    If the practices involve your personnel records, or your HRO office, 
    then please contact JOHN MURPHPY (World-wide Personnel Department) at: 
    DTN: 223-9590.
    
    The above individuals can ensure that investigations are conducted 
    and that unethical practices will corrected.  They are extremely
    discreet and will ask your opinion as to how you want the incident
    handled.  *You* determine how the incident you reported is handled.
    Try to get as much documentation about the incident as possible 
    (preferrably in writing).  It would also help if you had a witness
    or two to substantiate your claim (nice to have, but not necessarily 
    essential).
    
    Just to be on the safe side, you might also want to check with a lawyer 
    - particularly one who specializes in employer-employee relations.  If 
    you are in Germany, please ensure that your legal insurance was obtained 
    a minimum of 3 months before you check with the lawyer.
    
    Every person has to decide for themselves where they stand in regard
    to ethics.  For me, my personal ethics are more important than my job.  
    
    Personally, if you feel that you are in an environment where unethical 
    practices occur, I would recommend (in addition to the steps mentioned 
    above) that you discreetly & actively seek employment elsewhere - just 
    in case.  (You can always turn down an employment offer, but knowing 
    that an offer has been extended to you may help you sleep better nights.)
    
    IMO, if you see unethical behaviour and don't report it to the parties
    mentioned above, then you shoulder the responsibility when these 
    practices continue.  Turning your back on the problem only makes the
    situation worse as these practices will go unchecked.  Inaction in 
    itself is a conscious decision to let the situation continue.  
    
    Hopefully, we all will act according to our conscience and will as
    KO put it "Do what is right to do".  In the long run, things will 
    work out right. 
    
    Best Regards,
    
    
    Frank

I will say that after I posted the anonymous entry in .1 I have received
inquiries from two different departments in Digital, both from people who
seemed genuinely concerned and eager to investigate the allegations.  Of
course I would not reveal any information but I did pass along the requests
to the anonymous author.

In my conversation with Kay Breeden, corporate director of Environmental
Health and Safety, I mentioned that many employees had a low opinion of the
Corporate Ethics Office and tended to view it as a joke.  She was astonished
and disheartened to hear this.  Nevertheless, I would agree with Frank
Willoughby that employees should report problems.

					Steve

> She was astonished and disheartened to hear this.  


The astonishing thing is that she was astonished.


Steve,

  Did she feel she had a better understanding of the workforce?  I would think
that if the had ever asked anyone at the worker bee level she would have
gotten that answer.  


Al

I don't know...

	Steve

    Re: .33
    
    Maybe being astonished is now standard policy for the Ethics Dept.
    
    

    Maybe she should go look at the work-at-home notes string (3358,
    especially .76) , where several people report they've been asked to
    tell what they feel is a lie about their phone usage, to understand why
    we feel this way. 
    
    --bonnie

Did you people ever stop to consider that some of these people you are
slamming are also trying very hard to make/keep this company a great
place to work?

ok, maybe they are out of touch (i'm not convinved, because i'm not convinced
that this conference is necessarily a valid cross-section of what goes on in
this company), but that doesn't mean that they can't still be concerned and
actually care.

I have now donned my bunker gear, SCBA and nomex hood (all NFPA approved),
so flame away.

--Scott

    re: .38
    
    I tend to trust people until they give me a reason to stop doing so...
    I know a former DECie who filed a complaint with the OoE.  The OoE
    assigned the target of the complaint to do the offical OoE
    investigation of the complaint!  I don't think I need to tell you the
    result of that 'investigation'.  I could say more, but I think you get
    the idea.
    
    Bob

    I think that one of the reasons this company is in trouble is because
    we've promoted and supported too many concerned, caring, hard-working
    people who are wonderful human beings . . . and just don't have a clue.
    
    --bonnie

    RE: .31 by SUOCEA::WILLOUGHBY 
    
    >(All-in-1 mails can be read rather easily by anyone with privs) 
    
    But wouldn't that be unethical?
    

     <<< Note 3351.40 by WEORG::SCHUTZMAN "Bonnie Randall Schutzman" >>>
                                -< exactly the problem >-
    
    I think that one of the reasons this company is in trouble is because
    we've promoted and supported too many concerned, caring, hard-working
    people who are wonderful human beings . . . and just don't have a clue.
    
        --bonnie
    
    
    
    	Well Bonnie, we have more than our share of ones falling into the
    last category, but I haven't found many in the "caring" category, in my
    21 years service, I must confess.
    
    
    				Malcolm.

    re: .42
    
    >>>	Well Bonnie, we have more than our share of ones falling into the
    >>>	last category, but I haven't found many in the "caring" category, 
    >>>	in my 21 years service, I must confess.
    
    I would have to say that my experience also indicates that the clueless
    and uncaring do outnumber the clueless and caring . . . but the
    clueless and uncaring collect enemies and tend not to last.  But in
    engineering anyway you tend to never really get rid of the person who's
    working really hard and really trying to do his best for you, but you
    wish s/he'd just go somewhere else to do it.  Because s/he's so nice,
    you don't want to lay them off, so you wait them out until they get
    discouraged and go find a job somewhere else.   
    
    I can remember cases where the person chosen for promotion to
    supervisor or manager was the least good engineer, because s/he would
    be the least loss to the team.  A few such people turned out to be good
    managers.  Most of them were still clueless.  I can remember more cases
    where an incompenent manager went on mismanaging for years until so
    many good people left that something had to be done.  The old manager
    would find another job -- usually managing somebody else, because
    nobody wanted to go on record saying, "This person's incompetent." 
    Years later they turn up managing the same group as before. 
    
    --bonnie

        ... anyone with sufficient privileges can read your 
            VMSmail ... so, don't CC yourself when you send 
            the message.

       > ... anyone with sufficient privileges can read your 
       >     VMSmail ... so, don't CC yourself when you send 
       >     the message.
    
    Perhaps we should look at developing and marketing truly private mail -
    at least as an option, if not a standard product.  I bet the people 
    making the decisions about which solution to go with would give a
    second look at one that guaranteed the security of their inter-office
    communications.  
    
    
    
    bill

    In the employee handbook for Oracle the point of trading on inside
    information is made very clear. two of 124 pages are dedicated to
    describing it.  The two prior pages discuss business ethics.
    
    I have never received such direction from DEC.  There were a few
    memos and mail messages but nothing quite as clear as the direction
    that I have received from Oracle.
    
    ed

    re: .45
    
    We don't need to develop it - PEM (Privacy Enhanced Mail) is already
    common.  It's also easy to use a popular encryption package such
    as PGP to provide quite good security for communication.
    
    I know that Digital would rather not see a lot of encrypted mail
    flow on its network, but it seems to me that the Ethics office would
    be a good candidate for allowing people to send PGP-encrypted mail
    to it.  PGP is a "public key" system; the way it would work is that
    the Ethics office would publish its public key, employees would use
    it to encrypt mail to be sent to the EO, and only the EO could
    decrypt it (using their separate "secret key".)  Unfortunately, this
    doesn't hide the fact that encrypted mail is being sent, nor does it
    hide the destination, but it does at least prevent snoopers from
    reading the text.
    
    					Steve

    	Anyone seriously considering this would have to have some legal
    research done.
    
    	It is illegal in France to have anything encrypted without a
    government licence. The version of PGP available in the U.S. is export
    restricted. These are just two examples of problems you might see.
    Sweden, Switzerland and Israel are the *only* countries that I know
    have no restrictions on encryption technology, and I am not quite sure
    about Switzerland - someone told me there *was* a law but that it had
    never been enforced.
    
    	To make PGP or PEM available to send mail to the Ethics office
    would be quite a major project involving the legal departments in every
    country in which we do business.