Conference 7.286::digital

    How can Digital as a company impose these terms and conditions upon
    its employees without violating its own personnel policies.
    
    It seems that unless (1) Digital either changes its own personnel
    policies (not likely) or (2) the responsible manager who will sign
    the contract will look the other way at these non-standard terms and
    conditions, then Digital is going to decline to renew the contracts.
    
    By the way, if a contract has non-standard T's and C's it still
    goes up to a VP, doesn't it?

    As I understand it, this is a grey area that no one wants to define
    until an actual case comes up.
    
    For example, DEC field service techs who enter Government facilities
    must follow the regs--on military bases, they can be stopped and
    fined for not wearing seat belts while driving.  Also, the guards
    may search their bags and trucks on the way out.  But I've never
    heard of a case where a tech was actually searched.
    
    Some companies have techs resident in government facilities; for
    example, Raytheon reps regularly ride ships to check out and monitor
    new radar gear.  These people must follow the same regs as sailors
    while on board: no drinking, no drugs, etc.  But I have never heard
    of a case where a tech was required to undergo a drug/urine test
    (even in Viet Nam, where such tests were a regular occurence).
    
    I would guess that the worst that would happen is that the contracting
    company would get a letter concerning an individual tech if some
    violation occurred.

Barry,

In terms of this specific case, it would seem like DEC should handle it just
like any other P.O. containing Ts&Cs -- get the customer to sign our Ts&Cs
on the resident contract as overriding the customer's Ts&Cs.

/john

Re: .3

	John, the lawyers tell us that if we accept a customer's order, or their
PO form, and THEIR terms differ from ours, theirs will prevail in court. The
principle, as I understand it, is the LAST document to change hands, and be
acceptable to both parties is the ruling document. If we log the order as given,
we accept it. Therefore we MUST examine ALL purchase orders received for
deviations before logging. I stress this to the USWMs I service, any questions,
ask me or the Southern Area legal staff.

Re: .2

	An interesting story about being on a warship as a civilian:

	A guy at one of my residencies years ago used to be a Marine assigned
to Navy brig duty (the Navy does not run its own brigs!). One of the cardinal
rules while on a Navy site, sea OR land, is DON'T BREAK A PRISONER LINE! You are
consider part of that line if you do! A high-ranking DoD official was on this
guy's ship one time, and did just that. He spent the next several hours under
Marine guard in the brig while the ship's captain contacted his superior to
inform him, and, get him to call the Marine commandant to ASK for his release!

>	John, the lawyers tell us that if we accept a customer's order, or their
>PO form, and THEIR terms differ from ours, theirs will prevail in court.

Yes, I know this painfully well from a mistake I made (and was able to correct)
while working in the Atlanta District.

That's why I said we needed to make sure that the customer understands that our
Ts&Cs override his P.O.  We have to go back to the customer with our Ts&Cs.

I hope we'll decide that our employee's rights are more important than the
income if the customer decides their policy is more important than doing
business with us.

Even if we know all of the residents will pass the tests.

/john

    Barry, I have a couple of questions regarding the purchase order
    you received.
    
    First of all, what have our legal people said?  I assume you've
    assigned it a top priority since keeping the purchase order 10 days
    legally signifies acceptance (at least that's what our CAS people say).
    What opinions have you received thus far? 
    
    Second, what is the current position (if any) of the courts on
    something like this?  Have any decisions been handed down that would
    indicate mandatory testing/searching would be a violation of our
    consitiutional rights?  I haven't heard of any.
    
    Just out of curiosity, though it doesn't make any difference, I
    wonder if the customer has tested their own employees, or is planning
    to begin testing in the near future.  Do you know how they are treating
    their OWN people with regard to drug testing, searches, etc.?
    
    I reiterate John Covert's hope that Digital would decide in favor
    of our employees' rights at the expense of $$$ if it comes down
    to that.
    
    						Pat

    There is another aspect that comes into all of this where
    defense contracts are concerned.  Most of these require 
    government-issued security clearances to even get close enough
    to find out what the problems might be, let alone work on 
    them.  The DoD has a firm policy that it "is not in the best
    interests of the country to trust individuals known to be 
    disregarding the laws of the land with defense secrets. They
    feel that allowing drug users to maintain clearances would be
    condoning the breaking of the law.  All of which is used as 
    justification for the DoD to demand testing before granting
    security clearances.
    
    In a closed environment, you can't work without a clearance.
    So, it may not be simply the whim of the customer that is
    driving this issue; it is possible that our employees
    can not do the job in certain environments without being
    subjected to this testing.  
    
    So, it becomes a question of a) abandoning certain sectors of
    business, b) have our employees in those areas submit to
    testing, or c) convince the government to abandon this policy.
    
    Kevin
    
    

Re .7:

I've been intrigued by the following question for several years now:

Consider a Digital employee whose current job description does not require
a security clearance.  If they are to be assigned to a contract which
requires a clearance (e.g. SWS person assigned some custom software
development at a secure customer site), may the employee decline the
assignment without predjudice?  Imagine being forced into a security
clearance check and then getting in trouble as a result of failing the check.

My personal belief is that the employee should have the right to decline
the assignment, no questions asked.


Have any readers been placed in such a position, or worked for an
organization withing Digital which has a policy which covers this
situation?  If so, I would be interested in hearing about it.
				/AHM

    > the employee should have the right to decline the assignment,
    > no questions asked.
    
    You've got to be kidding me.  We *are* talking about Digital software
    services, out there in the field, right?
    
    Mistaken assumption #1: the software specialist can decline the
    assignment.
    
    Mistaken assumption #2: no questions asked.
    
    What was that song about "that'll be the day...."
    
    Jon

    
    RE: .8 & .9
    
    I realize things differ from field office to field office, but when
    I worked in SWS in the Wash. D.C. area it was widely understood
    that no one was obliged to accept a position involving a security
    clearence if that person had an objection to obtaining said 
    clearence.
    
    It was just widely accepted by managers who dealt with gov't
    clients that not everyone's idea of good time was to be strapped
    to a lie detector, have their background's extensivly scrutinized,
    etc.  No questions were ever asked.
    
    I would also add that this was my only my perception and I never
    saw any written policy on the matter.  

jt

    I have declined two jobs at DEC that required clearances and no
    one asked why.  (I already have a clearance--my objection is simply
    that I don't want to get into--or know about--classified stuff.
    If it ain't public, I'd rather not be responsible.)

    While on active duty, I occasionally worked with civilian contractors.
    I gained the impression that they were all "volunteers", to the
    extent that they had the option of turning down the classified
    assignment.

    The ability to decline a clearance depends a great deal on the company
    you work for. At my last job, almost all the porjects they had going
    were of a classified nature. So if you said "No, thank you" to a
    clearance form, they were in no position but to let you go.
    
    Here at DEC, I've been in positions of both accepting and rejecting
    slots that required clearances. For me the decision was on which
    agency was involved and whether I would be "clearable" there. I
    used to support NSA on occasion and one of the customers got the
    warm fuzzies about me and said "I'm going to put you in for a 
    clearance." I said "Thanks, but no thanks". I told my manager about
    the incident and the customer called and expressed interest to
    her. She told him that I wasn't interested and it was dropped.
    
    I later took a residency with a different agency and received
    a clearance there. DEC even agreed to pay for my laywer if the
    need for an interview with investigators came up. The need never
    arose, but it was a nice feeling that I was being backed up.
    
    Jim
    

>       (3) any CONTRACTOR employee who is found in violation of the
>       policy or who refuses to permit inspection may be removed or
		  --------------------------------	
>       barred from XYZ property at the discretion of XYZ. 

        This might be your and Digitals escape clause. If pressed by these
        regulations, simply refuse inspection, and call their bluff. If
        they bar you from the site, your problem is solved. Digital does
        not require you to submit to these invasions of your privacy.
        
        I have been at customer sites that wanted to see the contents of
        my briefcase on the way in and out of their sites. Usually these
        folks are defence  contractors, and want to be sure I'm not taking
        home an F-15 for personal use. I did have to get a property pass
        to take the RSX distribution tapes that I had brought with back
        out with me.
        
        When it comes to filling bottles, Tom Paxton has already spoken
        for me. His new song is great; I wish I had all the words to post
        here. 

    
    My SWS unit does work solely for Aerospace and Government sites.
    I have been asked whether or not I would like to get a clearance.
    In all cases I was informed that I could decline and there would
    be no priedieus.
    
    I should also point out that in the telephone pre-screen I was informed
    that any information given to/obtained by Digital Security or a
    government agency would not be passed on to anyone, and would remain
    in the confidence of those organizations.
    
    							-- Neal 

Re .14:

Your unit's policy sounds exemplary.

However, people should know what they are getting into before they
voluntarily submit to clearance investigations.

Section 6.18 (Employee Privacy) of the Personnel Policies and Procedures
manual acknowledges that if a government agency legitimately demands
confidential information about an employee, the company must turn it over
to them.  Digital cannot guarantee to anyone that their personnel files
will not be disclosed to the police.  If they think it would harm the
investigation, they won't even tell you your files have been disclosed
until after the investigation is over.

I have a book that details repeated efforts on the part of government
agencies to pool information about individuals.  There was also a debate
about the practice in CACM a few years ago.  If a security clearance
investigation uncovered, say, undeclared income, the fact that the IRS
didn't drag you off screaming the very next day is no guarantee that they
won't come back for you some time in the future.  The fact that some such
data sharing may be illegal sometimes doesn't interrupt the interchange
until after it has occurred.
				/AHM

	re .10 & .12

	I also worked in the Washington DC SWS office at one time.  I 
	never saw anyone suffer any repurcussions from refusing to be
	submitted for a Security Clearance.  Or from being submitted
	and subsequently being rejected by the Govt.  The management
	people I know in DC are very sensitive to this issue and I
	can't imagine them ever holding refusal/rejection against any
	of their people.

Frank

    	Years ago, I had a secret security clearance which was required
    to get into most of my sites. One of my sites notified my office
    in writing that they would now require no less than a top secret
    security clearance. Evidently, there was a change in the rules since
    I got my secret clearance because in order to get the top secret,
    I supposedly had to take a lie detector and urine test. I declined
    to fill out the paperwork but not for those reasons. The site had
    a 24x7 DECservice contract. No other person in my office had or
    intended to get a top secret security clearance. This effectively
    meant that I would be the only one in my office that would be able to
    service the site. It also meant I would basically be on standby
    24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no extra income for the trouble.
    I also did not recieve anything extra for having the secret clearance.
    It was not specified when I hired on with that branch that one was
    even required.
    	At any rate, my declining to get a top secret clearance forced
    my manager to state that when they required a top secret clearance
    to gain access to repair their system, our office would not be able
    to respond. This push back resulted in that site not requiring the
    top secret clearance to gain access to the system for repair purposes.
    
    RAYJ

    Everyone here seems to merge policy with enforcement.  Anyone can
    (I don't mean legally) have a policy of not allowing drug users
    to do certain things.  This does NOT, however, imply that they are
    entitled to perform drug testing in order to enforce that policy.
    
    I consider it perfectly reasonable to ban users of certain kinds
    of drugs from certain activities.  However, I consider un-warranted
    drug testing to be a gross invasion of privacy.

>   I consider it perfectly reasonable to ban users of certain kinds
>   of drugs from certain activities.  However, I consider unwarranted
>   drug testing to be a gross invasion of privacy.

I don't know how you figure out who is using what drug!

If I'm working in an environment that is potentially hazardous and the idiot 
next to me causes us both to be injured or killed because they have a drug 
related "accident", isn't that invasion of more than just my privacy?

I protest!

		Mike

Re .19:

Complain to your boss about the job performance of the worker who keeps
screwing up *before* he gets a chance to injure or kill you.

Because the odds are that the day you get injured or killed from someone's
substance abuse problem won't be the first day it is quite obvious to their
colleagues and management that they have a problem.

And if you aren't up to that level of responsibility, then don't ask me to
submit to random drug testing to make up for it.
				/AHM/THX

    re .19 ~ how do they figure out who'se using...
    
    Too often that determination is made on the basis of the local
    authorities' current biases.  Let's see, back in '77 at an unnamed
    company (big one, too), if you were Jewish or Black... Before that
    I heard something about Irish, then Italian. 
    
    Sad, but that is often how the determination is made on who is probably
    using at any given time.
    
    That's _one_ of the major reasons I get a little upset at drug
    screening.  Aside from constitutional issues...

    It seems to me that if a manager is doing a decent job, he or she
    ought to have some idea of which people are having problems - be 
    they alcohol or other drug abuse or other problems that can affect 
    someone's job performance.  And if it's not affecting job performance, 
    it simply none of their business.
    
    -- michael

>And if you aren't up to that level of responsibility, then don't ask me to
>submit to random drug testing to make up for it.

I'm up to reporting it all right but I don't guarantee I'm going to recognize 
it in every case and I don't think I should be asked to.

We are guaranteed "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and I think 
the order is of these is the proper one.

I see it as your pursuit of happiness is more important than my life.

	Mike

In reference to the last reply I should say that I would find a way to talk to 
the individual first. Reporting someone for an infraction should not be taken 
lightly. I would not relish it... now there is another consideration that has 
been forced on me.

	Mike

    re:19
    
    >If I'm working in an envoironment that is potentially hazardous
    >and the idiot next to me causes us both to be injured or killed
    >because they have a drug related "accident", isn't that invasion
    >more than just my privacy. 
    
    	What if the "idiot next to you" in the above situation did not
    have an accident causing you harm BECAUSE he took drugs ? What if
    the only way this "idiot" could get a good nights sleep was to take
    a tranquelizer before going to bed ? How about if the "idiot" took
    a diet pill to help him stay awake, thus avoiding an accident causing
    you harm ?
    	I don't aggree with your line of reasoning for obvious reasons.
    I think the key issue is the unwarranted invasion of privacy. If
    someone is doing the job they are paid to perform satisfactorily,
    then what someone does outside of work is their business. If someone's
    performance is not up to par, making me take a drug test for it
    is incredibly absurd at very best.
    
    RAYJ

This discussion is taking a Soapboxish turn.  In this conference, if possible,
the discussion should be limited to work at DEC (where very few of us do work
that might endanger the person sitting next to us).

For a more general discussion, see a number of topics in 2B::Soapbox:

	dir/title="War on Drugs"
	dir/title="Drug testing"

/john

    The discussion on this topic has been good and many excellent points
    have been brought up.
    
    To keep you all informed of the status, the following is the language
    that has been presented to the client.  It is good to see that Digital
    is taking the proper stand in the interests of us all:
    
    

"DIGITAL agrees to advise its employees and the employees of its subcontractors
and agents that 

(1) it is the policy of XYZ to prohibit use, possession, sale and distribution
of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substances on its premises, and to
prohibit the presence of an individual with such substances in the body for
non-medical reasons in the workplace 

(2) an employee shall not be subject to an inspection of the employee's person,
vehicle or personal effects without express written consent of the employee 

(3) if XYZ has probable cause to believe any employee is in violation of this
policy, the employee may be barred from XYZ property.  In the event any
employee is barred from XYZ property, such action will not be a breach of the
Agreement by DIGITAL." 


    Note that 'employee' as used here, means a Digital employee!
    
    
    I will keep all informed as this develops further.
    
    	-Barry-
    

    re:.5 and .27
    
    	Can DEC conditionally accept a customer's contract ? In other words,
    according to .5, the last contract signed would prevail in court.
    How can you prove legally that a customer agreed to the policy stated
    in .27 after DEC signed and approved XYZ's contract ? Assumably, the
    customer would have to sign something AFTER we signed their contract. 
    In order to insure that happened, DEC would have to conditionally
    sign XYZ's contract with the stipulation that they sign DEC's AFTER
    DEC sign their's. With wording like this, maybe I should be writting
    contracts :-)
    	Item number 2 in .27 would place the decision to adhere to XYZ's
    policy in the hands of the employee. So long as no repercussion is
    felt by the employee for refusing to sign any written agreements with
    XYZ, I think this covers the employee's interests adequately.
    
    re:26 Noted, understood, and agreed. Sometimes I lose track of which
    conference I'm in. Sorry.
    
    RAYJ	      
    

        I've moved notes 249.29 through 249.42 to Topic 716.  See
        716.686 for more details (and the moved replies).
        
        Jim Stratton, co-moderator, DIGITAL