Conference 7.286::digital

re: .0:
>             NOTES FROM SPEECH BY HARRIS SUSSMAN, January, 1989
>                        "WORKFORCE IN THE YEAR 2000"
>    
>    Given computer and networking capabilities "half the people at DEC 
>    don't need to come to DEC to do their work."  Information management 
>    technology redefines and redesigns the nature of work and 
>    organizations.

Although information management technology redefines the nature of work,
it does not redefine the nature of people.  I.e., contrary to the
Dec slogan of a few years ago, we do NOT change the way people work,
except on the superficial level of changing the tools they use.  What
is more important, is that we do not change the way people perceive
their work, or the way in which their work fits into their greater
social existance.

As a contrary opinion, here are some notes from a conference held in
1980 in Sweden on "the office of the future."  (I wasn't there, but
was sent conference proceedings).

Christina Gustafson, who was on the governing board of the Volvo local
of the Swedish Engineer's union discussed changes in the work environment.
She noted that an anaysis of changes must start from an understanding of
the meaning of work for the individual:

-- Economic security: salary.
-- Social status: the way in which one's work is perceived by others.
-- Sense of community: the way in which one retains contact with
   one's collegues.
-- Use and development of one's resources: the way in which work
   educates and enriches one's own existance.

The assumption that employees need not "come to DEC to do their work"
focusses primarily on economic security.  People who "never come to Dec"
will have difficulty in retaining the network of social contacts that are
an essential part of the work environment.  It will also be more difficult
for them to gain recognition for their efforts.  Furthermore, the lack
of opportunities to develop interpersonal communication skills will make
it more difficult for entry-level employees to move up to management
positions, which necessarily require greater negotiation and communication
skills.

In another presentation, Jacob Palme, who developed the COM computer
conferencing system (similar to Notes, but with a few additional capabilities)
Pointed out that negotiations are better if done face-to-face:

  "Teleconferencing is not a replacement for face-to-face meetings.
  The former has, in part, other functions and can be used as a complement
  between live meetings and to reach a larger circle of people than those
  who have the time and ability to travel to a meeting.

  However, there are tasks, such as very complex negotiations, that are
  much simpler to handle at face-to-face meetings.  Meetings give a
  completely different direct contact than what is possible by a
  teleconference.  In the future, we will be able to choose the
  best form of communication for every task.

  Here are some situations where teleconferencing is useable:

  -- Exchange of experience between people with similar jobs but who are
     located in different places.
  -- Exchange of experience between the users of a common computer system
     including the contact between the users and the developers.
  -- Contact between a geographically spread out group that is working
     towards a common goal.
  -- Questions, even when you don't know who has the answer.

    I have heard Dr. Sussman speak (around Christmas time, which is
    NOT the time to hear him speak!), and I thought his points were
    fascinating, if somewhat more appropriate for the Ford Hall Forum
    than a corporation...
    
    How ironic that someone should question the value of teleconferencing
    in a Notesfile!  I don't want to disagree, but [.1] set me imagining
    what would happen if the occupants of my facility (some 1,000
    employees) worked primarily from their homes instead of their offices.
    Remember that overhead for white-collar workers approaches 100% of
    their salaries. The company would save considerably on the expenses of
    building and operating a full-sized office building (meeting rooms
    would suffice); employees would save considerably on commuting costs;
    the country as a whole would enjoy a little less pollution from
    automobiles.  It's not clear to me that a distributed workforce needs
    or permits the same management structure; we may need fewer chiefs!
    
    Without sitting down to do a financial analysis, I'd
    guess Digital could give each of us a top-of-the-line workstation
    and a decent laser printer, pay the telecommunications charges,
    and STILL save a significant amount of money each year. 

    I acknowledge but won't comment on the issues of merging home and
    work time, advancing one's career, and the loss of the power lunch.

    Re: < Note 738.1 by BOLT::MINOW >

> The assumption that employees need not "come to DEC to do their work"
> focusses primarily on economic security.  People who "never come to Dec"
> will have difficulty in retaining the network of social contacts that are
> an essential part of the work environment.  It will also be more difficult
> for them to gain recognition for their efforts.  Furthermore, the lack
> of opportunities to develop interpersonal communication skills will make
> it more difficult for entry-level employees to move up to management
> positions, which necessarily require greater negotiation and communication
> skills.

    I beg to differ on the following points:
    
    1.  Some of us software specialists out in the field go on residencies
    for years at a time.  Yet, in the once every month or two times
    we manage to get into the office, we manage to maintain most of
    the necessary contacts.
    
    2.  You'd be surprised at the amount of recognition such specialists
    get.
    
    3.  Some people have absolutely no wish whatsoever to go into
    management.  I know some people who tolerate management, only because
    they believe that it's a necessary evil!
    
    Just wanted to show the other side of the coin, as there are people
    already working in the "not at the office" mode.  Granted, residencies
    are not quite the same thing, but they come close in some respects.
    
    Doug 

Interesting.

Trade unions in Europe are opposing work-at-home programs specifically because
of the social isolation of people who do not come into the office each day.

    John,
    	 depending upon the function within Digital, home terminals are
    extremely easy to come by, as is a DEC-funded home phone line (like the 
    one I'm using right now).
    
    Some other functions (including one I've worked in) are not as
    accomodating.
    
    Andy in EUrope.

Another one of the big differences between the U.K. and the Continent.

    Oh, so you meant Germany, not Europe.
    
    A

I meant several countries in Europe.

    The cynic in me says that this has much more to do with the interests
    of the unions than the workers.
    
    And John, I still think that's a great lookin' sailor suit!
    
    Al
    

>    The cynic in me says that this has much more to do with the interests
>    of the unions than the workers.

You mean, you think the unions want the people showing up at work so that
the union can organize, and that's what they mean by "social interaction?"

Sodium hydride.

>    And John, I still think that's a great lookin' sailor suit!

And our saucy ship's a beauty!

/john

    re: .10---"Sodium hydride".
    
    The faint glimmerings of Freshman Chemistry which remain in my brain
    after so many years of disuse (Chemistry, not the brain as a whole)
    responded "no, Hydrogen Sulfide!"  (after several false starts).  
    I'm sure John must mean something terribly clever by this phrase, 
    but I certainly don't know what it is.  Maybe "that stinks"?  Naw,
    not clever enough.
        John Sauter

    re: .11
    
>    re: .10---"Sodium hydride". 
    
    Sodium hydroxide is lye.  Maybe that has something to do with it.
    
    -joe tomkowitz

>    Sodium hydroxide is lye.  Maybe that has something to do with it.

NaH

Hmmm. My chemistry is faint, but I'd say you dare not mix it with water..

If you clowns will excuse a digression back to the topic... The comments
in my original posting were originally from a presentation by a Swedish
Trade Union specialist (and are about 10 years old).  Swedish unions are
organized on very different lines than Americans.   Since the European
manufacturers, with all of their union-mandated handicaps such as 5 week
vacations and high salaries are more than competitive with us, perhaps
there are things to be learned from their experiences.

Martin.

    The New England area went through the "home work"
    argument recently.  Seems the unions complained of
    people (usually women) producing knitted garments
    (ski caps, etc.) at home, in violation of a Federal
    statute against such.  Several union people admitted
    (off the record) that it would be almost impossible to
    get such people to join a union.... it was much better
    if they came to work in a factory, where they could
    be talked to, etc....
    
    One women (I read the interview in the local paper)
    had been knitting to supplement the family's income,
    while staying home with two young children.  She said
    she COULD pay for child care, go to work in a union 
    shop, and so on.... but the gain to the family income
    would be almost zero that way.... and she STILL would
    not be spending time with the children....  
    
    
    As for .9 and subsequent "chemical notes"....
        Butyl Mercaptan.
    
                                 - Ed -

    re: .16  (butyl mercaptan)
    
    Ed, are you referring specifically to the mercapto- portion of the
    molecule?  8-)

    Hmmmmm....   I'm not sure I know.  
    
    Let me ask my pet skunk.  He's the one that actually
    produces this marvelous substance, so he should know,
    shouldn't he?  Maybe if I asked the right way, he'd
    be willing to contribute a little bit for analysis??
    
    Should I send you a sample??    %-)
    
                              - Ed - 

    re: several back, Unions, Germany, etc....
    Having lived the growth of DEC France and observed DEC Germany's
    over the past 20 years, I'd say that despite all the mournings
    about unions and worklaws "interfering" with DEC Germany's and
    individual employee interests,... it didn't work out that bad
    for neither DEC nor the employees. I'm not sure that France is
    better off with less of "union interference".
    With regards to these and maybe other Euro-countries, as long as
    a company is small enough to have approachable managers with real
    decision power on personnel issues, you don't really need them (Unions).
    Once the managers start to say " I can't decide, it's personnel,
    it's xxMT whatsoever,...it might be useful to have some sort of
    "organized" and as well anonymous counterweight.
    Today's traditional unions are certainly unable to cope with
    new styles of working such as from home, as they still have to
    catch up with the already existing reality. 
    But there could be unions in the future able to support the
    "home-based" workforce. (If you give them NOTES ferinstance !)
    Fred