Conference 7.286::digital

    	I have also noticed some of these areas pointed out and wondered
    whether they have taken the time to proof read this information
    at all. One significant area that stood out was on page 4 of the
    booklet. Its basically stating that a BAC of .01 or more is worse than
    a BAC of .09 - .05. That alone clearly said to me that this thing was
    hastily put out. Where as it should have stated that a BAC (Blood
    Alcohol Concentration) of .1 is legally drunk and not the typographical
    .01 as printed. Not a good publication if the facts aren't proof read. 	
    	Also in my copy on page 13 they even had to put a sticker for
    section B. Another bad sign that this publication may contain more
    errors not noticed on first reading. 

    B

        I had a different complaint about the booklet.  I was glad to
        see that it covered alcohol--which is an often ignored drug--
        but was sorry to see that they didn't mention tobacco.

        Tobacco has quite a bit in common with the drugs covered:  it is
        highly addictive, it can cause significant harm to a fetus when
        used during pregnancy, use of it is restricted at work.  It is
        more addictive than almost all of the drugs they list and causes
        more deaths than all of the drugs they listed combined.  Tobacco
        should have been covered first in the booklet.


        					B.J.

    The spelling, etc., errors are what happens when people who can't spell
    rely entirely on spelling checkers.  Some plain, old-fashioned proof
    reading was obviously called for....too bad.  Along the same lines, I
    just got a copy of a very sensitive letter going out to some very
    unhappy customers re one of our software products.  It also has two
    errors that a simple proof reading would have caught.
    
    As for the booklet itself, mine is already in the circular file, as
    I assume thousands of others also are.  A very, very wasteful exercise
    for a company which is supposed to be controlling unnecessary expenses.
    Guess we'll never learn.  (now, guess I'd better proof-read this
    carefully, hmmmmm.......).

I just got the Drug Imformation Booklet in the mail. And the Only
thing that I have to say is that I'm Thankful to K.H Olsen, because we
must become aware that this DISease not only affects the person using, but
significant others - family, friends, co-workers.

I mention (Drug and Chemical Dependency as a DISease) because it is, just 
like cancer or any destructive disease. Is chronis in nature, displays
progressive, that will lead to premature death unless the chemical intake is
stopp.  One of the most crippling effects of the DISease of drug or chemical
dependency is that it makes the victim incapable of recognizing its presence.

.2 please forgive me but, I don't think Tabacco dependency should have
been coverd first, because we as a society know what tabacco can do.
Drug and Chemical dependency is a family DISease, its pass from generation
to generation. As I  mention please forgive me but my suggestion is, that
you read or educate your self regarding this DISease.

And yes I talk from experience, because this DISease it completely shatter
7 years of my marriage.  Ever since I learnwhat Chemical dependency can
do, I'm not only willing to learn more about it, but to help and support
others who are trying to find their way in.

For last I'm no longer afraid to tell the truth, and that truth is, because
of this DISease, I grew up in a very disfunctional family (Physically, Verbally
and Sexually abuse as a child. And today I'm grateful that I know the why of
that abuse. And I have forgive them, because they are suffering from
this DISease. As I share this I'm exposing my self to let others know
my secret. But I'm out of that closet, and its been bright ever since.

I thank you K.H Olsen, and to all of those who put together the Drug
Information Booklet.

To .3, All I read from you is remarks or misspell.. I wonder is we are
    getting the real message of this Booklet.

Thanks,


   Imre 
"A survivor"




    

    I can live with the spelling errors...
    What bothers me is the comment on p.4 immediately below the table:
    
       [] A BAC of less than .05 -- Drive cautiously.
    
    According to DECdib (DEC Drug Information Booklet--sorry I
    couldn't resist) I can have three drinks before I go out and drive
    'cautiously'.  Now, I have never had one drink in my entire life, so I
    can't comment intelligently, but I suspect 3 would put ME under the
    table.
    
    Suppose I am a truck driver for DEC.  Do I now have a the company
    consent via DECdib to "have a couple" before I start that long haul
    into Maynard?
    
    
    
    

    The only thing the booklet said to me was "that some DECies in high
    places haven't cottoned on that WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF HARD TIMES HERE
    AT DEC!  The government publish some good informational pamphlets on
    drugs and addiction, so why did DEC go to the expense of reinventing the
    wheel.
    
    Wake up and smell the coffee people, we need decisive action,
    management and leadership to get DEC through to better times, not
    mounds of glossy paper.

    
    re: .5
    
    The table doesn't take in tolerance levels. It's just based on weight,
    number of drinks, and time.
    
    /prc

re: .3

	:
  <<  rely entirely on spelling checkers.  Some plain, old-fashioned proof
  <<  reading was obviously called for....too bad.  Along the same lines, I
 	:
  <<  errors that a simple proof reading would have caught.
	:
  <<  Guess we'll never learn.  (now, guess I'd better proof-read this
    	:


"Proofread" is one word (not two separate words nor a hyphenated word). Which 
only goes to show how difficult it is to get all typos, etc. out of a simple
message.  Frankly, I'm less bothered by typos in the booklet than in the 
customer letter you mention. 

	Marvin-whom-a-secretary-once-called-"picky"-because-I-insisted-that-
		she-correct-typos-in-a-letter-that-was-going-out-over-my-
		signature

While it was probably expensive, I think the booklet was part of Digital's
effort to respond to the "drug free" workplace initiative by the Government.
(i.e. drug education, drug treatment etc.).  So if the alternative is this
type of education versus urine testing, Well....

				Bob 

I was happy to read and receive the booklet. I have a teen aged
son and another in his early 20's and while I have no evidence
that either is a substance abuser, they do occasionally use
some drug language which I don't understand. At least now I can
speak their lingo assuming the information is accurate. My older
son is a security person a UMass Amherst and has told me some
chilling tales of substance abuse on campus and the results of
same.

My guess is that this booklet is a prelude to actual drug testing
at Digital. I doubt very much it was distributed in lieu of same.
   Ted

    DEC could'a got all the info they needed to people by referring them
    to the government printing operation in Pueblo, Colorado...just like
    the TV ads say, and completely free!!
    
    Oh, BTW, just got a memo stating that we are 178M over BOD for Q2,
    and discretionary spending is up by around 130% over same period
    last year.  We truly will never learn.  Everyone thinks their little
    project is an exception.  Maybe that rumour going around about mega-
    layoffs in January is so unrealistic after all.

I really enjoyed the "Common Street Names" column of the fold-out chart.  Here's
the corresponding "Common Net Names" table:

NODE   ADDRESS LOC        CPU     O/S     TYPE  SYS MGR            DTN

ACID   44.0760 REO 01 F   VS3000  VMS      4E   HAY             0008303557
BONE   42.0151 REO 01 F   VS2000  VMS      4E   ECKLEY          0008304474
BOOZE  49.0207 MUH        UVAX I  VMS      4E   ROTHER          0007564111
CACTUS 62.0513 ZKO 3  3   MAYFAI  ULTRIX   4E   DEANE           0003810803
COKE   20.0135 SGO 04 1   11/750  VMS      4E   LUGO            0007212389
DLS     4.0508 LKG 02 2   VAXMAT  MSDOS    4E   SMITH           0002265337
GANJA  42.0498 REO 02 F   UVAX/G  VMS      4E   PAVITT          0008306926
GRASS  41.0575 USH        8530    VMS      4E   SMITH           0007814012
H      35.0289 OFO        VS2000  VMS      4E   HILLERICH       0002746565
HERB   36.0173 CYO        VAX200  VMS      4E   LENNIG          0004327632
HORSE  37.0451 DLB 5  3   UVAX/G  VMS      4E   REED            0000000000
JUICE   2.0217 ZKO 2  2   UVAX I  UVMS     4E   LEMEN           0003812263
JUNK    7.0470 MRO 1  3   UVAX I  UVMS     4E   FITE            0002977750
LADY   48.0755 GEO 03 0C  VAX200  VMS      4E   TAYLOR          0008214935
REDS   61.0232 ZKO 2  2   VS2000  VMS      4E   KELLY           0003812507
RUSH   31.0596 TTB 1  6   VAX200  VMS      4E   SERRA           0002641827
SMACK  31.0830 GSF 01 01  3500    VMS      4E   FERLAN          0002644861
SMOKE  15.0018 CTS 1  1   3100    VMS      4E   CLENDENIN       0002873264
SNOW   15.0144 APO 01 2   UVAX/G  VMS      4E   RODUTA          0002891302
SPEED  44.0772 REO 01 F7  VAX200  VMS      4E   LIU             0008303454
STUFF   3.0598 MKO 01 02  VAXMAT  MSDOS    4E   POIRIER         0002643600
WEED   10.0822 UCP    3   DS3100  ULTRIX   4E   MURPHY          0000000000
				/AHM

    Every DIGITAL facility I've ever been in ALREADY has the same "Free 
    Drug Abuse Information" rack with 10-12 slots FILLED with glossy 
    brochures on all the favorite recreational drugs.. tobacco and alcohol 
    included.  Why this Drug Information Booklet had to come out at this 
    time is beyond me.  In fact, my dispersed unit was just denied permission 
    to meet (we only meet 2X per year) because of travel restrictions.  And
    then I get this kind of CRAP in the mail.  If I can't travel to meet my
    manager and my peers, then ALL Human Resource Classes and EAP better
    get axed, too.  Tell me how a class on the "Dynamics of Difference"
    adds to our bottom line.   (sorry, different topic/rathole)
    
    Also, for a booklet purporting to discourage drug use, it describes
    some of the effects in pretty positive terms, especially the
    psychedelics. ".. feelings of esthetic delight, empathy, serenity, joy,
    insight, eliminates anxiety and defensiveness, invites
    self-exploration, feeling of relaxation and well-being, affectionate,
    melts boundaries with others.."  I could use some of the above in MY 
    life these days.
    
    karl

    Couldn't agree more, Karl.  Apparently there is a crapola exemption
    within DEC for this kind of junk.  I think it's kind of the DEC
    equivalent of being "Polically Correct".  Some things are just
    untouchable.  In my opinion we should get rid of Management Education
    (show me some results), EAP, Valuing whateverthehell, the AIDS Program
    Office, and probably several dozen more boon-doggle operations.

	Speaking for myself I believe EAP to be one of the most importent
	benifits we have here. If you've never had need for it you may not
	understand or appreciate it but I think we need it. It made a big
	difference to me a number of years ago when I needed help with a
	family situation and I'll back it to the wall.

		Alfred

    re .14
    
    >> In my opinion we should get rid of Management Education
    >> (show me some results), EAP, Valuing whateverthehell, the AIDS Program
    >> Office, and probably several dozen more boon-doggle operations.

    You have a right to your opinion, but your opinion scares me.  Have you
    talked with Digital employees who have been through drug and alcohol
    rehabilitation and who are now clean and sober?  That's often a direct
    result of EAP intervention.  Without EAP intervention (and AA) many of
    those same people would probably eventually lose their jobs, and end up
    on some kind of public assistance program, drinking and drugging
    themselves to death.   EAP helps get people into treatment, and helps
    coordinate their return to work.
    
    AA is a very powerful program, and EAP is a direct corporate conduit to
    it.  EAP has done a great deal of good work with managers to help them
    identify employees with drug and alcohol problems so that they can take
    some positive action with this type of poor performer.
    
    By Valuing whateverthehell, you probably mean valuing differences.  You
    know, if we *practiced* the principles of valuing diversity - mostly 'live
    and let live' - most of the valuing differences staff would probably be
    delighted to move on to other kinds of work.  
    
    AIDS program office?  I'd much rather know that a co-worker with AIDS
    had a knowledgeable and trained support staff within the corporation.
    He or she could probably get a great deal of necessary support by
    picking up the phone and dialing a dtn, or via a network mailing list. 
    
    The program office can work closely with local DEC health centers and
    outside medical personnel to provide the care needed for the employee
    to continue as a productive worker.  The program office can also help
    manage some of the ignorance surrounding HIV and AIDS and provide
    co-workers with answers to any questions about safety.
    
    In a company this size, I think it would be foolish not to provide
    support for people living with the disease.  Again, if a cure is found
    tomorrow, I'm sure DEC will be delighted to assist its HIV positive
    employees in receiving treatment and close the office.
    
    Holly
    
    PS - Although it would be inappropriate to name names, I have first
    hand experience with Digital employees who have benefited from all the
    services I've described above and who are much more productive
    employees today as a result.
    
    

    Just got some mail about an Investment in Excellence Course.  Teaches
    really good stuff like:
    
         The Human Thought Process
         Conditioning
         Self Image
         Comfort Zones????
         Goal Setting
         Affirmative and Visualization Techniques
    
    Only 850 bucks and four days out of work.  Man, I can just see our
    profitability turning around.

    .16 -- I couldn't agree more under normal circumstances.  Our backs
    are against the wall now, and we can't afford those luxuries.  You
    know, thousands of small companies with millions of employees somehow
    manage to get by without these percs.  These are tough times requiring
    tough measures.

    re .12
    
    Now you've done it. The node name police will have to get busy...
    
    re general
    
    My guess (and hope) is that this booklet is intended to show some
    compliance with 'drug free workplace' requirements instead of testing.
    
    It contains enough typos and outright mistakes to make its value
    somewhat questionable. Even the comments on antihistamines and
    decongestants are wrong (as an example of something easy to check).
    
    re correction sticker
    
    The difference between the original paragraph and the corrected one is
    that the original included a sentence to the effect that interactions
    with Health Services would treated in confidence. The sentence was
    removed.
    
    Maybe these things will be collectors' items in decade or so. Sort of
    like the way people buy videotapes of "Reefer Madness" or "Hemp for
    Victory" today.
    
    gary

    What does it cost to create something like this and send it to everyone
    in the corporation?
    
    Given our current financial status, was this really necessary?  I'd
    rather have bottled water!
    
    Mike

re .20

>was this really necessary?

To continue to deal with our largest customer (the U.S. Gummint) and gummint
contractors, yes.

re .21:

>
>>was this really necessary?
>
>To continue to deal with our largest customer (the U.S. Gummint) and gummint
>contractors, yes.

But surely the Feds would be just as happy if we set up racks with Gov't
Printing Office publications (or, if that wasn't good enough, mailed them
to all employees).

    re .17
    
    
    	I've fought this battle along with some other courses like
    "Becoming an everyday genius" with Jack Smith and I'm not sure
    how far I got but compiled a list of such things and with some
    simple mathematics discovered that we as a company spend some-
    where in the vicinity of $100,000,000 per year on such things.
    	I sent it on to Mr. Smith for further review. The result was
    each VP got a copy of my original note to him and finally got 
    a few organizations to to reply with about 20 pages of justification
    of these sorts of courses. At least I tried. I figured we could spend
    the money better on teaching folks how to program in C or other
    types of courses that are more directly applicable to our core 
    business of computing. The $100,000,000 figure took into consideration
    the amount of money (average fully loaded cost) spent by being away
    from their work in addition to the actual cost of course and
    materials etc. However, it's just not clear whether or not we ("DEC")
    are willing to fight the battles that must be fought in  order to turn
    this thing around. Otherwise, these types of courses for example would
    not exist or at least not fully funded by DEC right now. Would $100
    million dollars fund approximatley 1000 people?? I hope I never see the
    day where we lay off good hard working people before these types of
    company funded programs are scrutinized extremely carefully. Somehow
    paper clips and pencils and post-it's don't seem nearly as insidious...
    
    
    sigh...
    
    /ray.
    
    

         Well, one good use of the Drug Information Booklet is that it
    alerts me that the Percodan my dentist prescribed (when he yanked my
    wisdom tooth) could get me fired if I got picked for a urine test.
    
                                     Greg

    True, but you could have learned that here as well (the topic of false
    positives was discussed here some time back), without the expense
    of a glossy brochure.
    
    gary

    RE: .26
    
          WHAT...and have DIGITAL spend money on a glossy NOTES conference?
    
                                    GB

    Since the booklet invites "comments and feedback," but gives no
    indication where to write, one appropriate person would be:
       Bruce Davidson, Corporate Director of EAP, PKO3-1/K44.

    
    Last Friday my nine year old son brought home a "Drug Information"
    booklet from school. It is published by the U.S. Govt. and is 
    available from the Printing Office in Pueblo, CO.  I was wondering
    how much the school paid for copies for every student, so I checked.
    
    The booklet is free, in any quantity. The info appears to be as
    good as that in the Digital publication - without the typos.

    re:-1
    
    Nothing is free! Somebody is paying for those "free" gummint published
    booklets. (guess who!) I would much rather see private purchase of such
    things rather than public money being used.
    
    Ken

    
    Ken,
    The difference in cost between my son's drug info booklet from
    the Government Printing Office and my copy of Digital's booklet
    in terms of impact on MY POCKET and MY COSTS renders the use of
     the term 'free' quite appropriate.
    
    Consider what budget the manager of the DEC booklet consumed in
    the creation of that 'resource.'  Now consider how much of a budget
    you or I would have consumed to furnish the GPO version.
    
    And yes, this all begs the question that providing the booklet is
    a necessary service.
    
    J.B.

    I guess we're on the same track here. (maybe) The money budgeted for
    the purchase of these  booklets by DEC would simply go somewhere else
    if those things weren't purchased.(probably somewhere that you or I
    wouldn't notice too much)
    If the gummint didn't print those booklets,the money would certainly go
    somewhere else also in some barely visible form.(like buying a bunch of
    $400 hammers)
    
    Ken

    
    My perspective - someone in Digital says we need to put a drug info
    booklet into every employees hands. (Right or wrong that's the starting
    point.)
    
    The way Digital did it - use internal sources to design, layout and
    print(maybe they were printed external) thousands of copies of a slick,
    glossy, typo-loaded and somewhat questionctually, high expense
    booklet. The cost to the company and hence to each of us - HIGH.
    
    Now another way - drop a card to GPO, Colo. and request 100,000
    coipes of their drug information booklet. They might want some
    compensation but I know they've filled request for over 3,000 copies
    at NO CHARGE. Now as a taxpayer I'll pay something for the costs, but
    then so will every other taxpayer regardless of his/her company. Take
    that up with your congressman. Digital's cost this way is a lot less
    than reinventing the wheel in-house and we'd have a better booklet.
    
    End of this rat hole pursuit. Happy holidays.
    
    J.B.