Conference 7.286::dcu

re: .0

>    Thoughts or comments?

By all means.

>				They (Digitial Mgmt of the time) started 
>    the CU, not you or I. I think it was awfully nice of them to let us
>    share in it for a little while.
    
Well, let me see if I can recall properly. That was back before the days of
Email and the Net (at least in my group) and certainly before NOTES, so there's
little recorded history.

Those of us who were (relatively happy) members of Workers' CU were notified
(by bulletin board or flier, I think) that DEC (it wasn't DIGITAL back then)
was big enough to establish it's own CU and there would be mechanisms put in
place for folks to migrate.

Yes - _I_ feel as though _I_ did start it - just as much as any other member
who migrated. If none had chosen to do so, it wouldn't have come into existance.
There was pressure brought to bear, of course. As of a certain date, WCU reps
would no longer have access to DEC facilities, etc.

So _they_ may have chanelled things at the time, but _we_ still started it.
I don't think it would have gotten off the ground without _us_.

-Jack

    
    How about, the C U B U ?  The Credit Union Business Unit!
    Did the DCU show a profit last year?
    Digital needs profitable business units.  Could that explain the fees?
    
    Hey...wait a minute....
    
    

    RE: ATMs being Digital property -- A few years ago, in PKO, there used
    to be a BayBank ATM beside the DCU ATM.  That didn't mean to say that
    Digital had input into the workings of BayBank, outside of the wishes
    of individual members who were also Digital employees.

re .3

And before that, it was a Shawmut ATM, which I used frequently.

(When was it replaced with a BayBank machine; I don't remember that.)

/john

    
    The CU is a profitable unit; perhaps this is why it is able to offer
    its employees a profit-sharing program. I'm not against that idea in
    general, but I would suggest that the CU increase its interest rates to
    members IN ADDITION to providing this type of compensation to the CU
    employees. 
    
    Ultimately, I am suggesting that we view the entity as it really is...
    another Digital business unit. The DIGITAL Bank.
    
    

    So then, the assertion that Digital and DCU are separate and distinct
    organizations is a bit disingenuous. One might say that there is a
    symbiotic relationship, at least, between the two. 

    If Digital finds it in their best interest to promote the DCU's
    financial services as a corporate benefit, they might also take an
    interest in who is controlling the DCU. Anything that reduces the
    perceived value of the credit union as a benefit would reflect directly
    on Digital.

    Eric

>						Anything that reduces the
>    perceived value of the credit union as a benefit would reflect directly
>    on Digital.

You mean, like, supposing they had this credit union that nobody wanted
to belong to?

-Jack

    Re.:  .6 - NICELY said!  :^)  I LIKE that word "disingenuous"...  Your
    point is well made.
    
    Gee, sure you're not a lawyer???  ;^)  ;^)  ;^)

    
    This is a rathole. It assumes that Digital management gives a rodent's
    hindquarter about benefits -- an assumption that is increasingly hard to
    justify with each passing year.
    

re Note 834.3 by TOOK::GASKELL:

>     Digital had input into the workings of BayBank, outside of the wishes
>     of individual members who were also Digital employees.
  
        BayBank doesn't have members, it has customers and
        stockholders.  (It's supposed to be quite a different kind of
        thing from DCU.)

        Bob

    
    Re.9
    
    	But Digital DOES give a rodent's hindquarter about giving the
    appearance of caring about benefits.
    
    ed

    
    Ahh, I see the subtle distinction...
    

    
    RE: .10
    
    And DCU have customers and stock/share holders. You receive dividends
    (interest) on your funds, you pay (sometimes) overdraft fees, etc. etc.
    It is no different than any bank. 
    
    I made good on my committment to myself and opened a set of accounts
    with a local financial institution and the "concept" of relationship
    banking was discussed. In this situation, you needed a combined balance
    of $10,000 in all accounts and debt to qualify for the best of the best
    services. In looking at all the other account options, fees were the
    rule on all accounts, unless you maintained a minimum balance of $750
    on some accounts and $1000 on others.
    
    The Digital Bank is just about the same in every regard except the
    actual dollars. 
    
    As far as I'm concerned, the only item that keeps the Digital bank from
    being a formal part of the corporation is the paperwork. Otherwise, I
    acknowledge the bank as a Digital business unit (this is in part why I
    am switching banks....)
    
    The only question remaining in my mind is "does the Digital bank
    finance our customer purchases?" like they do with employee purchases
    (i.e. the Digital Financial Group).
    
    -dan
    
    

    
    RE: .6 
    
    Absolutely! 
    
    I just wish this corporation would be "person-enough" to own up to
    their desire to maintain control over the Bank. 
    
    There is more than enough evidence to support this concept (re: John Sims 
    infamous mailing costing Digital $20K on the surface) and the recent
    axing of the 3Gs (which, IMHO, was a set-up by Digital management
    because they KNEW that the 3Gs would absolutely have to respond....not
    unlike George Bush and Mike D...and have no $$ to do it any other way!)
    
    Here's to Digital owning up to the facts!
    
    Cheers,
    -dan
    

re Note 834.13 by EPS::MAGNI:

>     And DCU have customers and stock/share holders. You receive dividends
>     (interest) on your funds, you pay (sometimes) overdraft fees, etc. etc.
>     It is no different than any bank. 
  
        It's (supposed to be) VERY different --for DCU, the customers
        ARE the stockholders.  They are not one group whose interests
        are to be balanced against the other group.  The customers
        ARE owners.

        Bob

    
    RE: .15
    
    I couldn't agree more. That SHOULD be the relationship. However,
    it is not the way it is working.