Conference 7.286::digital

    I believe the ruling in the UK is that husband/wife may not work in the
    same group (eg sales unit) and neither half could work in personnel,
    certainly my wife was turned away from personnel because I work
    for DEC. The problems arise as spice (plural of spouse? mouse-mice)
    move around and also it does not seem to apply to people who live
    as "man and wife" but are not married.
    However this rule seems to be gradually fading.
    
    Andrew Dodd UK SWAS Welwyn

    I believe the ruling is that aside from personnel a husband and
    wife may not work in the same cost center. This may infact allow
    a husband and wife to work in he same group as long as the CC is
    different.

    The policy is that two people related to each other may not work
    in the same group if:
   	.  one person has managerial or supervisory position over the
    	   other.
    	.  one person has access to confidential information about the
    	   other 
   	.  disbursment of petty cash to one another
    	.  dependent responsibilities, ie purchasing and accounts payable
    
    	Section 6.04 of the Policies and Procedures manual.

It would be extremely harmful if a husband and wife were working on the same 
sensitive project and decided to leave together. On a 10 person team that 
would remove 20% of the knowledge base.

        Mike

    both .2 and .3 are correct about the policy. It is "enforced" to
    varying degrees when people are POSSLQ and that is known.
    
    Long term harm can also come about in several ways when external
    relationships affect the way decisions are made or are PERCEIVED
    to affect the way decisions happen in the workplace. 
               
    There IS a theoretical benefit to the people involved to have them 
    working in different cost centers: they would not both be fired
    at the same time if the cost center were dissolved!
    
    	Rick	
    	Merrill
                                                       

    Here at the CSC in Colorado Springs I know of two instances of
    married couples working in the same cost center but on different 
    telephone support teams under different unit managers.  In the first
    case, the couple moved here from the Atlanta support center.  In the
    second case, the husband has been working here for sometime and the
    wife will be starting next week.  The support center is a good sized
    organization and a couple working in the same cost center might not
    even see each other during the workday.

    Mike

    re: .1-.6
    
    Well I didn't believe it, but now I do.  I can't say that I agree
    with you (especially .4, ANY two people could leave the group with
    such confidential information).  About the only instance that I
    could agree with it is in the case of one spouse being a supervisor,and
    the other being the supervisee.
    
    David

    Re: .7
    
    At my previous employer, exactly that situation arose:  a husband
    and wife left together, mostly because one of them was forced to
    give up some responsibility.  They responded as a unit to any
    management actions taken either for or against them as individuals.
    This really handicapped management's ability to supervise them
    properly, with their joint resignation being the last straw.
    
    I think the point is that a married couple is more likely to leave
    together than just any two people.  Two of the most common reasons
    for leaving a job, namely job dissatisfaction and spouse relocation,
    are more likely to apply to them as a couple than to two unrelated
    individuals.  Granted this is just percentages, since I'm sure there
    are cases of just one spouse leaving, but the percentages count.
    
       Gary

    Does this apply to just spousal relationships? How about siblings
    or parent-child or even in-law realtionships?

    lee

    It applies to any family relations, these are defined as:
    
    	parent, spouse, child, sister, brother, stepparent, foster parent,
    	guardian, in-law, grandparent or grandchild.

    The information in .3 is correct; P&P is very specific about
    restrictions on spouses who both work for Digital.  However, the actual
    decisions are left up to Digital management.  My husband and I
    encountered one large geographic area where we were told we could not
    work in the same BUILDING (which housed several hundred people), even
    though we would be in totally different groups and would probably never
    have occasion to work together.  We had found two hiring managers who
    wanted us, but THEIR manager nixed it.  We took the matter to
    Personnel, who told us that it's at the discretion of management, and
    the restrictions outlined in P&P are esentially nothing more than
    guidelines. 
    
    So...  We looked around Digital and found a manager who didn't feel
    that way.  And now we're happy and productive in another organization.
    One of the nice things about working for Digital is the freedom
    to do just what we did!
    
    							Pat

re Note 424.8 by TOKLAS::FELDMAN:

>     I think the point is that a married couple is more likely to leave
>     together than just any two people.  Two of the most common reasons
>     for leaving a job, namely job dissatisfaction and spouse relocation,
>     are more likely to apply to them as a couple than to two unrelated
>     individuals.  Granted this is just percentages, since I'm sure there
>     are cases of just one spouse leaving, but the percentages count.
  
That sounds like the same kind of stereotyping behind most of the traditional
forms of illegal discrimination.  (You know, married women with children are
more likely to be absent because the kids are sick -- that kind of thinking.)

Isn't this discrimination based upon "marital status", anyway?

Bob

    There can be some advantages: a married couple may have the strength
    to stick out the down times when all your projects seem to be getting
    cancelled ...  a married couple working together has more "support"
    than others might, and if they are enjoying working together it can
    make the workplace a happier place to work. I can think of nothing 
    finer than a family business where everyone works together.  
    
    With tongue in cheek: a married couple earns more so you can pay
    them less than you would two similar singles!     
    
    If one is sick the other can take their work home to them.
    
    If anyone is going to carpool, it would be family members.
    
    Since they're so close, you can put them both in one office.
                      
    Whoa, send in the clones!
                                                      	:-)   

    If you think it is difficult to have your spouse work for DEC (as
    mine does - we used to be in the same group for a while, since our
    groups got merged together, but not now), try having him/her work
    for a competitor (as my ex did), if you want to get
    conflict-of-interest questions from the personnel people (of course,
    unless your "nepot" is pretty well known, personnel probably won't
    find out anyhow...).  I'm glad these rules seem to falling by the
    wayside; I think they date from the days of "the boss's son".

.0>    A close friend of mine whose sister works for DEC told me that there
.0>    is a P&P ruling against two spouses (spousei?) working in the same
.0>    group.  This sounded a bit absurd to me, and so I thought that this
.0>    would be the notesfile to check this out. Is this true or not?
        
        The right place to find out about Personnel Policies and
        Procedures is by reading the PP&P manual.  Your manager should
        have a copy.  If he or she does not, your PSA should have a copy.
        If neither of these sources can or will help you, or if it is
        obvious that the manual is seriously out of date (and MANY of them
        are), you can access the entire thing ON-LINE by using VTX; the
        server on UCOUNT (at Spit Brook Road) hosts this; it's not yet
        listed in the Corporate VTX Library. 
        
        It's perfectly reasonable to ask how people feel about the policy,
        or ask for unofficial interpretations, but if you want to know
        what the policies are, go read them yourself.  NOT ONE OF THE
        REPLIES SO FAR HAS INCLUDED THE CURRENT POLICY.  Which is fine,
        but that's what you get with NOTES.
        
        Tom

    RE .15
    
    My reply .3 was taken directly from the P&P manual, mine is up to
    date and quoted the section from which it came.  I later put in
    a definition of relations from that same section.  Section is 6.04

    
    A couple of questions for those who may be knowledgeable:
    
    1.	What about cohabitants?    
    
    2.	If it is illegal for the company to even ask marital status
  	of an employee, how can the company enforce the policy of
    	keeping spouses in separate CC's?   The Digital Equipment
    	Corporation Policy seems to be a direct violation of Federal
    	Law!
    
    3.  Where is the line drawn?   All of the company's reasons for
    	having this policy could also be used to implement a policy
    	which keeps [for instance] "friends" from working in the same
    	CC.   Or how about "People who play on the same softball team
    	may not work in the same CC".   Absurd, yes, but, as I stated,	
    	all of the reasons for the "no families in same CC" policy could
    	easily be used to create "no people from the same high school
    	may work in the same CC" policies or some such poop.
    
    Just curious...
    
    -monty-

    Re: .12
    
    No.  There is a big difference between "We won't hire you because
    you're married" and "We won't hire you because you're married to
    one of our employees in the same group."  Is it discrimination?
    Yes (of course, all hiring decisions are discrminations).  Is it
    illegal discrmination?  I'm not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt
    it.  I believe that the legislative intent of the laws concerning
    discrimination and marital status was not meant to apply to these
    circumstances.  Should it be illegal?  I don't think so, but perhaps
    that's a discussion for Soapbox, since it isn't DEC specific.
    
    You're right though, that I really shouldn't have generalized my
    specific example to be a general case.  I should have just limited
    myself to the one data point of two people acting as a unit, which
    was in response to an earlier note.
    
    Re: .13
    
    Point well taken.  I believe these points balance each other out,
    and that the compelling argument in favor of DEC's policy is that
    people should not supervise or have financial management over
    relatives. 
    
       Gary

    re .14: I was asked to find another position 4 years after my husband
    left DEC to work for a competitor. If DEC doesn't want spouses working
    for competitors, they're going to have to drastically enlarge their
    workforce or move to Alaska. The policy is very much implemented
    at the discretion of management. We've had husband and wife teams
    in the same group reporting to different managers. 

From the Basic Interviewing Skills Workshop Workbook:

"
		EEO/AA LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL INQUIRIES

Subject		Lawful Inquiries	Unlawful
...
13. Relatives	a.  Names of applicant's	a.  Do you have children
    		    relatives, other than a	    home?  How old?  Who
       		    spouse, already employed	    cares for them?  Do you
		    by this Company.		    plan more?

    		b.  Do you live with your	b.  Names, addresses, ages
       		    parents?			    number or other infor-
						    mation concerning
						    applicant's spouse,
		c.  Names and addresses of	    children or other
		    parents or guardian of	    relatives not employed
		    minor applicant.		    by the Company.
...
22. Martial[sic]	[none]			a.  Inquiry into marital
    Status					    status e.g., Are you
			      			    married?  Are you single?
						    Divorced or separated?

						b.  Name or other information
	    					    about spouse.

						c.  Where does your spouse
						    work?

						d.  What are the ages of your
						    children?
"

Note that this table refers to inquiries during the interviewing process
in the United States.  In particular it addresses the kinds of questions
which should or should not be asked of a person BEFORE they are hired.
Some questions may be asked after a person is hired, e.g. requiring
verification that someone is old enough to work once they have been hired.
It would be unwarranted to draw a conclusion from this material about the
legality of an employer's request for information about an employee's spouse.


Re .16:

I was going to insert the whole policy, since it is so small.  But I
was too lazy.  However, since quoting two small parts of the policy out of
context appears to have raised more questions than it has answered,
(perhaps because so few people are willing to go straight to the horse's
mouth), here's the whole enchilada from the UCOUNT VTX database:

"
       6.04 Assignment of Employees Who Are Related             12-AUG-83

              ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE RELATED
POLICY

It is  the  Company's  policy  that  employees  who  are  related will not be
assigned to the  same  work  group.   The Company's interest is to promote an
environment in which business  decisions  are  made  free  from the effect of
family relationships.  Likewise employees  should  not  accept  or  remain in
positions in which a family relationship  with  another employee could impact
their ability to make decisions in an objective manner.

PRACTICE
	                                                                  
For purposes of this policy, family relations  are defined as parent, spouse,
child,    sister,  brother,  stepparent,  foster  parent,  guardian,  in-law,
grandchild  or  grandparent.    Specifically,  related employees will not  be
assigned to positions such as:

	   o	 Direct supervision of one another,

	   o	 Dependent responsibilities i.e. Purchasing and Accounts 
                 Payable,

	   o	 Disbursement of petty cash to one another, or

	   o	 Access to privileged or confidential information about one 
                 another.
	   
It  is  understood  that  the examples contained within this policy  may  not
precisely  cover  every  situation  which  arises.  The line manager and  the
Personnel Department  are  responsible for reviewing all applications of this
policy on a  case  by  case basis.  Employees who feel they may be subject to
the provisions of this  policy  should bring it to their manager's attention.

Additional points are covered in  policies  6.06,  Conflict  of  Interest and
6.12, Confidentiality.
"
				/AHM

        Re: .19 by BIGMAC::JAROSS -- could you provide some more info on
        this?  Were you asked to leave DEC because your spouse went to
        work for a competitor, or were you asked to find another position
        inside DEC in an area unrelated to your spouse's work for a
        competitor, or what?  It's unclear from your reply which of these
        different cases you mean. 
        
        I've never heard of anyone being asked to leave DEC because his or
        her spouse worked for a competitor in the computer industry.  That
        would not be the DEC way, as I perceive it.  On the other hand, it
        would be prudent to be concerned about "technology transfer" where
        the spouse worked on similar projects for a competitor. 
        
        Just curious..
        
        Tom

    I know of a case at DEC where one man was a direct report to his
    brother.  This man has since left the company, but I believe that
    even if he had gone to work for a competitor his brother would not
    have been asked to leave.

    re: .22 Ha!  What do you mean "report"?
                                                     
    
    Of course, he didn't need to go "to work" at all!

Re .22:

Yes, I was thinking of that case as well.
				/AHM

    RE: Working for family. While I might tend to go easy one my wife
    I *know* she'd expect 110% out of me. So I'd never go to work for
    her. :-) Likewise my brothers and I would tend to be very demanding
    of each other. Family doesn't always get along you know.
    
    		Alfred

>>    424.25

>>    RE: Working for family. While I might tend to go easy one my wife
>>    I *know* she'd expect 110% out of me. So I'd never go to work for
>>    her. :-) Likewise my brothers and I would tend to be very demanding
>>    of each other. Family doesn't always get along you know.
    

	I think the rule about 'family' in the same unit/group/cc 
	is as much to protect the 'family' as it is to protect DEC.
	My wife and I both work for DEC, in the same building, on
	the same floor and for the same overall dept. and we get along
	just fine. (Not CC, and neither reports to the other)

	However, as the reply  above mentions, in a case of family
	reporting to family, sometimes it seems necessary to 'go harder'
	on your relatives, than on other employees, just to avoid
	the exact opposite appearance!

	Gord C.
	(Who had his father for Calculus, and Algebra in HS. and experienced)
	(the above phenomonon                                               )