Conference 7.286::digital

    I did not recognize you at first without Ahhhhhhhhhh, g'day!  Do
    you know whether this policy is worldwide or something that only
    Australians got?  I have not seen it myself except here.
    
    Burns

    The intention  of  this  policy  is  that an employee will refrain from
    personal  activities  which  could  cause,  OR  EVEN  APPEAR TO CAUSE,
    inability  to  act  with  total  objectivity  

Reasonable.  Say for example I was investing heavily in the stock of our
competitors.  No matter how innocent I was, such activity could easily be
subject to misinterpretation, so I shouldn't do it.

    When Digital  employees  have  immediate  family members working with a
    company  that  is  a competitor, ...
    such  employees  SHOULD  NOT  BE  ASSIGNED TO POSITIONS WHERE THEY HAVE
    ACCESS  TO  PRIVILEGED  OR  CONFIDENTIAL  INFORMATION  IN THE COURSE OF
    CARRYING OUT THEIR NORMAL JOB RESPONSIBILITIES.

This is a crock.  It is disgusting.  The person who made this policy should
be fired, or maybe shot.

1)  Either an employee is trusted or not.  If he/she is trustworthy, then
the policy is unnecessary.  If not, then the above should be applied 
regardless of where his/her family members work.  Having a family member
who works for a competitor is not a "personal activity" to be covered by
the previous policy - it is a personal relationship, and as such, none of
Digital's business!

2)  All of us have friends working for competitors.  Most of us are closer
to some of our friends than we are to some of our family members.  Taken
to its logical conclusion, the thinking behind the above policy says that
we should drop our friends who work for competitors.  Insane!


It would be reasonable to have a policy of avoiding, where practical, having
close family members work on similar projects for us and a competitor.  That 
would be a strain that most of us would rather avoid.  But it is nonsense
to hide company confidential information from somebody because a family
member simply works for a competitor in some capacity!  

Who is responsible for this policy, anyway?  A business school graduate?

	Larry

re .1

The policy appears in the U.S. personnel policies and procedures manual, and
has for quite some time.

/john

    Yes, this has been a policy for many years. WHy is it being brought
    up now?
    
    Sue

Ahhh Gi'day...

    1. It  was  placed  in a circular with our latest pay slips, I've never
    seen it before (I've been here nearly 6 years), and a few of the people
    around  here  were  concerned enough to see what people here felt about
    it, and I volunteered to put it in here.

    2. We  DON'T  have  access  to Personnel Policy and Procedures manuals.
    Personnel  number each manual, and demand return to them if they are no
    longer  required.  I  have  no  documentation  to  prove  that they are
    "restricted" distribution, but they are treated as such.

    3. It's outrageous, and (rightly so) upset some people.

    4. It's corporate policy that has been "recently revised".

    5. I've  signed  an  employee  agreement,  if  I'm breaking it, I would
    expect  to  have  my  butt  kicked.  I'm  not, and I don't expect to be
    persecuted. If they don't want to persecute or discriminate against me,
    then don't write the policy in the terms as it stands.

    N.B. For  the record, I have no family members working in the industry.

    Does anybody off hand have the location of the policy in the manual?
    
    -joet

    Yes it's wrong and silly (in my opinion).
    
    Yes the solution is trivial:  don't talk about where your family
    members work.  And push back the minute you suspect something smells
    fishy w.r.t. what you are allowed access to.

    <--(.6)
    
    Section 6.06, 4 November 85
    
    					=maggie

    Sigh.  I guess "conflict of interest" policies have pretty
    well-established precedents everywhere, not just at DEC.
    
    I find them abhorrent.  They inherently presume guilt unless
    proven innocent, whether it be spouses working for competitors,
    drug-testing without clear individual cause, or even owning
    stock in a competitor (I certainly feel that I can respect the
    abilities of another company and attempt to profit therefrom
    without compromising my efforts here - and the only connection
    I can conceive of would be that I might sell that stock if I
    suspected one of our own developments were about to change the
    situation).
    
    I'm inclined to believe that employers have a right to be
    unreasonable in such regards, since after all I work here of
    my own free will and can leave if I don't like it.  A policy
    such as this one certainly decreases my respect for DEC
    (because it's a clear indication of a lack of reciprocal
    respect - something I used to believe was a policy also).
    
    		- Bill
    

    Whoops - forgot one main point.
    
    Though I find such policies abhorrent, I would find it even more
    abhorrent to side-step their effects by keeping quiet about any
    infractions.  I might leave, or I might stay and raise hell, but
    I would not lie.
    				- Bill
    

    just one point... are you sure you don't talk in your sleep?   :-)

    
    Policy or no, DEC continues to function like a big seive, in that
    we don't have good control over ourselves (as employees) in KEEPING
    OUR MOUTHS SHUT about DEC business.
    
    I've no idea if DEC is better or worse than other large companies
    in this regard, but the policy is right on about treating company
    business with care.
    
    I agree, however, with the other folks here, that it is written
    with an implied level of distrust of employees with access to sensitive
    information.  This wouldn't be a chicken and egg game would it??
    
    :^)

    re: .12:
    
    Oh, I don't know about that.  In my experience, every x years there's a
    big bellyache about how we spill the beans too often, there's not
    enough security, etc. etc. Some memos fly around and after a couple of
    months everyone settles down. 

    My experience on 2 development projects indicates that yes the trade
    rags do occasionally print correct tidbits in their "rumour" columns,
    but usually they are far off the mark, manage to combine projects
    into one rumour, etc.  There is so much conflicting information
    out there that it doesn't do us any harm.
    
    Any company the size of DEC will be the subject of rumour.  Given
    how successful we are, I don't see the case for there being any
    problem needing fixing.  And in any case, my personal life is my
    own business.
    
    jdr

    <<received today, copied from memo from Geoff Sackman>>
    
    SUBJECT: Revision to Policy 6.06 Conflict of Interest
    
    Effective September 15th the attached... replaces the existing Section
    VIII in the personnel manual.... As you can see, the policy change
    emphasizes education and counselling of employees who may find
    themselves in this situation.
    
    Because this is a frequent occurrence in Digital, please read the
    material carefully and communicate it to the appropriate line managers
    in your organization.
    
    A distribution to all managers will occurr in the next update to
    the Personnel Manual scheduled for February 1987. If you have any
    questions, please call me. [CFO2-3/C19, dtn 251-1318]
    

    						Section 6.06
    						Page 10 of 10
    						Date 15 SEP 86
    
    VIII. WORK ASSIGNMENT OF DIGITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATED WITH
    	  EMPLOYEES OF A COMPETITOR, CUSTOMER OR SUPPLIER
    
    When Digital employees are associated with employees of a competitor,
    customer, or supplier, whether through blood, marriage, business,
    or social relationship, it is in the interest of all of us to minimize
    the possibility that these employees are exposed to situations which
    may compromise Company confidentiality. Therefore, we have established
    a policy intended to educate employees as to means of avoiding
    disclosure of confidential information and how to take steps necessary
    to prevent disclosure.
    
    Employees who are or may be in situations of this type are responsible
    for discussing the situations with their managers. If the individual
    employee feels a desire or need to alter his or her position or
    job characteristics, the employee's manager should make all possible
    efforts to help the employee make the necessary job changes.
    
    If the employee does not feel the desire or need to make job-related
    changes, he or she should be counselled by the manager or Personnel
    or both as to his or her responsibilities with respect to
    confidentiality under the employee agreement and Company policies.
    
    It is expected that the steps outlined above will resolve almost
    all concerns of employees and managers in these situations.
    
    By necessity, actions taken by the Company or by the employee based
    on this policy must be applied on a case-by-case basis and individual
    judgments should be made with regard to the sensitivity of the
    confidential or privileged information, the level of the position
    held in the competitor, customer or supplier and the potential risk
    to the Company if disclosure of confidential information occurs.
    
    All cases requiring action under this policy or any proposed exceptions
    from this policy should be reviewed and approved in advance by the
    appropriate Personnel Management Committee member and the
    organizational Vice President.

    re .14
    
    	That is a major improvement to the policy.  I wonder if they
    did it at all in response to this discussion.
    
    		David

    Given some of the material that has been published recently in
    Charlie Matco's column in "Digital Review", I'd suggest that
    such education be required for all employees.
    
    	- Jerry

Ahhh Gi'day...

    [re .16]  Cummon  Jerry!!! A couple of drunken bums big note themselves
    by  blabbing half truths to some journo and you call upon the jackboots
    of  the grey men/women to descend from the clouds (how do you know they
    weren't officially sanctioned?)

    It's WRONG  to  disclose company information, therefore I won't!! Don't
    hassle  me  over  it.  If  I felt I couldn't keep my mouth shut, then I
    would  get  out  (like  the  .14  says),  catch  the  wrongdoers, don't
    persecute the innocent!

    I hope  this  revised  policy  filters down, it's much more reasonable!
    Well done, whoever is responsible!

	Re-read [.0] again and imagine if YOUR spouse worked for IBM.

RE: .16

The most likely explanation for Charlie Matco's information is that he reads
memos from the recycle bins of LTN.  There is good reason to believe that
the stories about "well-oiled engineers" spilling the beans are just a front.

--PSW

>                                         There is good reason to believe that
>the stories about "well-oiled engineers" spilling the beans are just a front.

    Why so?

I will not discuss my reasoning in an unrestricted forum.

--PSW

    Well now, my curiousity has perked up.  How's about letting us in
    on the nature of your information about whether engineers drink
    or not?

        I believe Paul is correct to not discuss the issue in an
        open notes file.
        
        JimB.

Ahhh Gi'day...

		  What's this to do with conflict of interest?

    I am surprised at how easy Contract Employee's get off.
    Our control over information given to companies that deal with
    our competitors is extremely lax. 
    From my perspective, the focus on employees is off the mark.
    
    Marshall
    

Does anyone know if it is considered "conflict of interest" if a software
specialist wants to sell DEC computers on his/her own time? Assuming
DEC gets all the business of selling the hardware, installing it, 
installing the system software, etc., can an employee make a profit
off of selling/installing a third party package on the DEC sold system?

I'm a fanatic of DEC computers and can see how two birds could be killed
with one stone (apologies to bird lovers) if I could push DEC systems
to potential clients.

I've read the P&P manual and don't feel it is clear enough on this
issue. Comments?

						Warren

    I suspect you need VP approval for this, just as for a business that
    was unrelated to DEC.  On the one hand, it does increase the value of
    DEC products.  On the other, the customer gets the services of a DEC
    employee (you) without paying the usual consulting services fee.  If
    your value derives to any extent from the fact that you are a Digital
    employee, then DEC should get part of the fees that the customer pays.
    
    I'm not a VP, and I'm not likely ever to be a VP.  However, if I were 
    I would insist on interviewing you before making a decision. I would 
    look for the extent to which you are trading on your association 
    with DEC, and balance that against the increased value of DEC's
    products as a result of your activity.  In a close call I would 
    turn you down, in order to avoid setting a precedent that could lead 
    to abuse in the future.
    
    There is also the risk that if you participate in selling a third-party
    product to a customer, the customer may expect DEC (through you)
    to support it.  If it doesn't work well he will complain to you,
    and indirectly blame DEC.  Thus, you should be careful to sell only
    high-quality third-party products.
        John Sauter

    Some years ago I researched this same question.  I was told by senior
    management at that time that it was against DEC policy for non-sales
    employees to directly solicit customers (that is: you can recommend
    DEC products but you can't be an official spokesman, with commissions,
    etc., unless it's your job).  The reason given was that internal
    engineers might accidently sell an unannounced product.
    
    However, there was the program whereby you could win a DECmate by
    recommending it to a customer, if they bought it.  This program
    came out several years after I got the first answer.

    Re: 26
    
    	I don't see where DEC installs third party software (i.e. an
    	accounts payable systems, etc.), so I don't think DEC should
    	get any part of the fee for that service.
    
    Re: 27
    
    	I already specified that all I would do would be to recommend
    	DEC products (implying contact with the sales office, etc.)
    	and other standard DEC personnel would sell and install the
    	system (software services, field service). All I would do is
    	install the non-DEC software package and possibly maintain it.
    
    	If this is done NOT as a DEC affiliate or representative (i.e.
    	I am not representing DEC to the "customer") then I see no
    	reason why the customer should hold DEC responsible if the
    	third party software (or ME) fails to do the job. I would
    	expect that I would be responsible.
    
    	As I said before, it would benefit ALL parties. DEC would get
    	revenue from hardware sales and software services, I would get
    	revenue from third party software services, and the customer
    	would get the benefit of the entire computer system "package".
    
    							Warren
    

Sorry, no matter what you're doing for the customer, a DEC software specialist
could be doing it and making a profit for DEC.  Including recommending and
installing third-party software.

The local Software Consulting Services manager would be *guaranteed* to object,
and you won't be allowed to do this.

This is exactly what happened in one case a few years ago that I'm aware of,
where a DEC employee had a serious personal financial disaster and needed
extra money.  His manager was willing to let him do something similar to this,
but local SWS nixed it.  And rightly so.  Software Consulting Services are a
*major* part of our business.

/john

    re .28
    
    Software Services in many Areas is doing 'Prime' contracting where we
    are involved in the sale, delivery and integration of a 'Solution' that
    may consist of Digital products and services, custom software, and
    third party software. 
    
    What you propose IS in direct competition with us.  Sorry.
    
    	-Barry-