Conference 7.286::digital

Just what we need...

another bureacracy!

VOTE NO!

    I would definitely vote NO to a union.  I have been in companies where
    there have been unions, and when it comes to negotiations, employees
    never win.  Unions don't protect employees, even though you pay dues.
    
    Again, DEFINITELY NOT.

    I don't believe there is a company in America so badly run that a union
    can not and will not make it worse. If management doesn't care about
    employees than it's time to leave. Adding a union just adds an other
    layer of people who don't care about the people.
    
    			Alfred

No, I would not vote for a union.  I believe unions perpetuate the
counterproductive "us-against-then" mentality of workers vs. management.

I don't imply that management is perfect, just that unions would make it worse.

Paul

    Unions had there place years ago...and I have worked as 'management' in
    a union shop and in a union....that being said....
    
    NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Joyce

At least in theory, an union can prevent management from being abusive to
individual employees.  Are you all saying that it doesn't work that way,
or that the bad things a union does are worse than the problems that they
are able to address?  Anyway, I don't qualify for a union (at least not
one with legal protection), so it's just a matter of curiosity to me.

	Thanks,
	Larry

    The only union I want to see in Digital is the union of my paycheck and
    my hand.
    
    Union.  vote no
    

    I worked in a union shop.  I saw abuse of union members by the union.
    I saw the division it caused between management and workers.  Not a
    pretty sight.
    
    Steve (who was an engineer there and therefore "management")

    I think unions once served their purpose, representing guys who
    slaved in dangerous coal mines, steel mills, and the like... but in this
    business  - - FERGET IT ! ! Unions have helped to drive prices up on
    many things.
    
    Can you imagine how our machines would be priced..being made by union
    labor..gives me the chills.
    
    				V O T E   N O ! !

    While I am as rabidly anti-union as the previous replies in this
    thread, I think that the upper management of this company has seriously
    lost touch and lost the confidence of the bulk of the employees.  While
    I would certainly not want to work in a union shop, I think that
    calling in union organizers, or even merely talking publicly about the
    possibly of unionizing may serve as a wake-up call to upper management 
    and finally make them take the problem of employee morale and
    dissatisfaction seriously.
    
    

See personal name above for my sentiments on Unions.

    Unions = Junk.
    
    Been there, done that, waste of time.
    
    Where else can you work in the <BLAH-BLAH> and make $25/hour.
    Digital doesn't need that.  If you feel you're getting screwed,
    leave.  Chances are, you're being paid a competitive wage for your 
    responsibilities.  Unions only add a layer of fat, and increase
    business costs.
    
    Mike
    (I didn't use examples in Blah-blah, but you can figure it out,
    I'm being "touchy-feely") :') 

I was never much of a big union fan when I lived in the US, but...

	36 hour workweek
	6 weeks paid vacation
	1 month salary as christmas bonus
	3 months minimum notice by TFSO (with generous severance package)
	Open positions filled across all Digital subsidiaries
	Unpaid leave for further education
	Longer child care leave

hasn't damaged my morale.


Mark

Digital Equipment GmbH (Germany)

(we were always digital, never DEC)

	

	Mark,

	How much do the the unions and workers council in Digital have to
	do with this, and how much is it due to Germanys social policies?

	Heather

    
    Yes, I think a union is a good idea.
    
    I was a union member while employed by Digital, but since I couldn't
    convince my colleagues to join, I let my membership lapse.
    
    Since the announcement of the imminent closure of this facility 
    (Galway) I have become even more convinced of the need for employees to
    organise themselves in a union.  It is too late for Galway, but I am 
    pleased to read of the efforts of the German workers, and they have my 
    whole hearted best wishes.
    
    Historically, unions have achieved more good than harm.  The bad press
    they receive has a lot more to do with who controls the press than with 
    what unions are really about.
    
    
    Liam

    In a new departure from the more publically accepted image of trade
    unionism as a confrontational force against management, Irish Trade
    Union leaders put forward and agreed on a new policy which envisages
    unions as being in a team with management, decrying practices which
    were restrictive and pushed up prices and stifled innovation.
    In our competitive age, trade unions have come to realise, it seems,
    that a certain level of cooperation and flexibility is needed to
    survive in business and keep ones job.
    On the other hand, as events in Galway have shown, no ammount of
    flexibility and competitiveness will prevent management from closing a
    profitable and world-class operation if political forces are brought to
    bear on their decision as it seems to have been in this case. Those who
    think that job security can be found by total subservience and
    conformity to the demands of management, no matter how onerous, will
    have to think again in view of the Galway disaster.
    The question is one of balance, workers cannot expect to have a secure
    job unless they engage in a certain level of innovation and change.
    Employers cannot expect to have a steady market for their goods,
    especially big-ticket items like cars and housing or luxury items like
    holidays and fashion ware, if the best they can offer society is a
    series of short-term contracts interspersed with periods of subsistence
    on welfare.

Unions are a group of employees who band together for strength and to work for
mutual benefit.

They are most common in situations where management do not value the 
employee but that need not be the case.

They work best when they are localised and rely heavily on the involvement 
of the members.

They work worst when either the management or the employees have a negative 
view of the union, whether it be real or based on prejudice.

Ask yourself, if it was called a Staff Association, would you still be 
against?

Dave.

    A big part of the problem with unions in the States is that many of the
    largest are controlled by the Mob (organized crime), and are more
    interested in getting their greasy hands on pensions funds than in
    helping workers.

    There was a lot of blind union bashing in the first few replies. So
    unions have made mistakes in the past, but who hasn't? So unions may be
    currently at a crossroads and having to review their role in industry
    and society. But please do refrain from mindlessly shooting down the
    unions. Maybe the unions in the US are radically different from those
    in Europe?
    
    There is nothing worse than listening to some yuppy who has 4+ weeks of
    vacation a year, good health benefits, a nice car and house, a
    reasonable wage, and pleasant working conditions, slag off the unions.
    The pay and conditions we enjoy today are at least partly due to the
    efforts and sacrificies made by our predecessors in the trades union
    movement.
                                              
    Some moderation please.
    Edward

	I don't believe the Galway situation proves anything.

	The company was going to close down either Ayr or Galway, if they had 
	unions in both places instead of neither, I do not believe it would 
	have made a difference.

	I have worked in a union place, I have been physically restrained
	from entering work, and my family have been physically threatened
	if I worked.

	I will have no part in a unionised company, if we did become unionised,
	I would leave.

	On a seperate issue,
	The European court has looked accusations of political interference 
	with the Galway/Ayr situation and has said that everything was above 
	board, so I think we should be careful with what is said here, lawyers 
	come expensive.

	Heather

    What's all this talk about the company being unionised or not being
    unionised? Here in France, any employee is free to join any union at
    any time. That does not mean that the company is transformed into a
    union house overnight. At Digital France there are a few union members
    - not many - and one union delegate, who appeared very recently (a sign 
    of the difficult times).
    
    Other notes seem to imply that, elsewhere, either companies are
    completely unionised or have no union representation whatsoever. Is
    that the case?

    >    Other notes seem to imply that, elsewhere, either companies are
>    completely unionised or have no union representation whatsoever. Is
>    that the case?

    In much of the US unions legally enforce contracts that require all
    employees to join the union as a condition of employment. My wife
    turned down one job because union membership was a requirement. Other
    places have contracts that say that employees don't have to join the
    union they just have to pay dues.

    I worked a summer job at a union shop company once. The company had
    some work goals for the summer help. They wanted to let us leave early
    on days when we met the daily goal early. The union demanded that they
    make us stay the whole day. They also got in the way when someone
    suggested I visit the infirmary after getting a minor injury on the
    way into work. Seems it was the "unions" infirmary. I was not
    impressed.

    			Alfred

I submit that much of the blind "union-bashing" in here is
a typical DEC response to suggestions that there may just
possibly be a different way of doing something.   That is to
say, reject it outright, don't even think of discussing it
to see if there are any merits at all in the proposal.

--

My view? Don't know. I'm not fond of centralised control, which
is what unions seem to have represented in the past.  On the other
hand, in situations where the employees are getting the raw end
of the deal, collecting together in a self-help organisation (which is
what a union is supposed to be) may be the best way to improve their
bargaining position.

   >>    In much of the US unions legally enforce contracts that require all
   >>    employees to join the union as a condition of employment.
    
    We call this a closed shop. I think that this practice is illegal in
    most European countries.
    
    Edward

	I have had previous bad experiences with unions
	with one of my former employers, which for a long while
	made me feel anti-union. I too have had a bad experience
	with picket lines.
	
	I would now however say yes to the initial question which
	was posed.

	Why....because generally I do not feel that large
	corporations can be trusted anymore to act in the best 
	interests of employees. Could they ever?

	But it goes further and much deeper than that and perhaps
	gets away from the point........however.....
	
	The main reason I would now be pro-union is because
	of the way in which...(certainly in the UK), Government
	has created an environment in which employees can be more
	easily exploited by the more unscrupulous employer, and there
	are some good excellent examples of this type of employer
	in Scotland.

	I think the questions asked in .15 are relevant.

	And believe me, in spite of what Digital are going through
	just now, there are much worse employers around.

    Which Union would employees of Digital be involved with?  

    AT WILL EMPLOYEES HAVE VERY LITTLE PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
    THERE ARE MORE LAWS PROTECTING THE STREETS FROM THE WASTE
    PRODUCTS OF THE FAMILY DOG THAN THERE ARE TO PROTECT AN
    EMPLOYEE FROM ABUSE BY AN EMPLOYER.  (At Will employees = 
    anyone working without a union contract.)
    
    I don't want DEC to "work for my best interest", I don't
    want to feather-bed my job or legislate job protection for bad
    employees -- I just want to be treated fairly and honestly by
    my employer.  I believe I have a moral right to this, even if I don't
    have a legal one. 
    
    The way labor laws are written at present something sure needs to be
    done, however, I don't think a union is the answer.  Rather than
    joining a union, using my energy to lobby my congressman to change
    existing labor laws to give protection to, and a basic "bill
    of rights" for employees, would be a better use of my time and money.
            
    For example, right now there is an effort to end the right for an 
    employer to "fire for no reason".  A single mother with a good attendance 
    and work record, already working a 60 hour week, was fired for refusing 
    to work additional overtime as her young son would be left alone in the 
    house until long into the night.  All to often an employer pits parental
    responsibilities against continued employement, making an already difficult
    situation into an emotional nightmare for parents.  I don't see what the
    employer gains by doing this.  All they seem to gain is bad moral, a 
    stressed out employee and a potentially poor employee pool in the year 
    2000. 
    
    Because employment laws were pretty much written by or under the influence 
    of employers, At Will employees are screwed.  The only way a union could 
    change that would be through a union contract, and that only protects as 
    well as it is written. 

    re:.21
    Amen
    
    Marc H.
    
    

    Who says the earlier responses were blind?  Sounds to me like many of
    them spoke from experience.
    
    No to unions!
    
    jw
    (a yuppie who only enjoys 3 weeks of vacation, and who put myself thru
    college at night to get there!)

    
    Union?  No way.
    
    I've been there.  Instead of dealing with just the silliness of the
    company, the worker has to deal with the silliness of the union
    as well.  It looks good in theory but rarely brings the promised
    benefits to the the employees.  The union itself ensures they get
    theirs first.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Another "no" vote from Detroit, one of the biggest unionized cities in
    the US (or so it appears).
    
    I currently work a second job in a "closed" union shop (must be a
    member to work there) where the only benefits that I gain from
    membership is a higher rate of pay and overtime after 8 hours per day.
    I do not use the other benefits (health, dental) because of coverage
    that I have through Digital.
    
    There are a number of "hard-liners" that insist that if you are listed
    as being under one classification, that you not perform the job of
    another, i.e. if you are a waiter, you will not vacuum the floor
    because you are taking away the job away from a housekeeping employee.
    I'm not talking all the time here, just in a certain, emergency,
    instance.  Things like this have caused a number of grievances over the
    course of the time that I have been there......
    
    A previous reply did mention the control that organised crime has over
    the unions in the US, and the Hotel Employees/Restaurant Employees
    Union (that I belong to) has been noted as being 3rd most infiltrated
    (behind the Teamsters and the United Auto Workers).
    
     John

	I have worked in places with unions, and I have ben forced to join them
	in the past.

	There are many problems, some I have come across are;

	1. If there are unions they do the negotiation on pay rises.

	You really can't do the discussions yourself.

	2. They like the power, if you don't belong they keep hastling you
	to belong.

	3. They push an "us and them" attitude.

	4. The employee legistlation is quite good anyway, and most companies
	like to be seen as "good employers", and treat their staff reasonably 
	well.
	
	5. Unions would sacrifice the company on the alter of payrises    

	6. The intimidation gets physcial, and very nasty, if they call a 
	strike which you do not wish to be part of - even if you don't
	belong to the union.

	Heather

When I worked for another company some years back, I twice voted no to a
Union, the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers). The union
lost the election both times. At the time, we were being treated fairly, the
rules were applied consistently and fairly to everyone, compensation was
adequate, benefits were good, there were lots of perks, and chances for
advancement were good if you worked for them. I was eventually laid off, and 
the plant was closed, due in part to technological advances that made our 
product obsolete. I have no grudge against that company, mainly because all 
were given the same severance package, layoffs occured by seniority in an 
orderly fasion, and I understood the business need to shut down.  

Times have changed. Employers no longer seem to care about us (the employee).
Benefits have shrivelled, they expect long hours at work (away from our 
families), raises have been almost non-existant, the policies are in a 
constant state of flux, and never (IMHO) have been applied consistently, 
perks are gone, and TFSO seems to be the only way to advance. When TFSO 
started 3? years back, the people in our remote office knew that when our 
time came, there would be little or no money for us. (The fairness of this 
practice is being discussed in other strings). 

Lots of employers are using contract labor to replace regular workers, paying
them less and giving them no benefits at all. This is not fair to either the
contractee or the displaced worker. (Again, my opinion). 

Would I vote Union? 

Depends on the Union. If I felt the union was particularly corrupt, no. 

If I was comfortable with the union, and with the way I feel I have 
been treated the last several years, Probably.  

Some unions are corrupt, and have committed excesses, and we are not living in
the days where coal mines worked 11 and 12 year old children 12-14 hrs a day,
but things could still be better. 


From Tennessee, open shop by law (last I heard, anyway):

R Mumford

    
    Union ?  Reluctantly, no.  Saw it for 7 years elsewhere.  Not that
    I trust any corporations - they're just machines.  It just doesn't
    seem that unions work out in practice.  I think even with all this
    stress and fear here now, an organizer would have a real tough sell.
    I'd listen, but the pitch would have to be VERY convincing.  Maybe
    they're better outside the US ?
    

    Hell will freeze over before I'll join a union ...

    Bob

    A few comments, in no particular order...
    
    1.  US readers should realize that in the UK, unions are an integral
    part of the political process.  They don't call it the Labour Party for
    nothing.  This makes the legal and social framework of unions quite
    different between the two countries.
    
    2.  There are a lot of claims in this note about faults of unions.  How
    about naming names and sources?  Otherwise we are just rumor-mongering.
    
    3.  Anyone who doubts the historical value of unions should consider
    for a moment what kind of persons populated the suburbs around "heavily
    unionized" Detroit after World War II, and how they could afford those
    brand new houses.  (A look at an area map detailed enough to print
    names of freeways will help.)  Substitute the name of any manufacturing
    city in the U.S. and the story is much the same.
    
    4.  The person who worried about the price and quality of products
    built by unionized companies should think about any late model Boeing
    airplane, or, for that matter, any late model Ford automobile such as
    the Taurus.
    
    5.  It helps to think of labor unions in the context of "lesser of the
    evils," as well as "preserve job security."  Labor does not organize
    for "proactive" reasons.
    
    Wes

    
    Re: .39
    
    > How about naming names and sources?
    
    OK, I'll give you one:  The National Education Association
    
    I spent ten years as a teacher before coming to Digital.  The
    NEA has *NO* interest in education.  Their interest is in trying
    to coerce from local tax payers ever increasing salaries and
    fewer and fewer job responsibilities.  Most teachers who are worth
    their pay have little use for the NEA.
    
    Is that specific enough for you?
    
    Steve
    

    My brother and others lost their jobs due to the union.
    
    My brother worked in a foundry, good pay, and benefits.  He bought a
    house, two cars, then the union came in, he joined like most others.
    
    First time a strike, for 3-4 months, so house payments were missed, and 
    they got a 50 cent per hour pay raise.  A year later, another strike,
    and 5-6 months with no work.  More missed payments, more problems,
    finally they got a dollar increase and other benefits as well, but the
    company said if you strike in the next 3 years we will have to close,
    UNION said okay.  15 months later, another strike, and the gates were
    closed, and the company filed bankrupcy.  Sold to another larger firm,
    and they met the union demands, with the statement that there could be
    no more strikes for 2-3 years, again the UNION agreed.  A year later,
    STRIKE.  Gates were closed, and then the bulldozers and wrecking crew
    arrived, the facality was leveled and the land stands vacant to this
    day.  My brother lost cars and house.  I would say no to a Union...
    
    UNIONS in my opinion S*CK.  My brother never made up the lost wages
    from the time lost to strikes.
    
    The union management still is employed some place else.
    
    JUST MHO
    
    Dave

    
    
    I never understood the logic of loosing three - six months pay (out
    on strike) to get a dollar raise.  You loose regardless.

Re .41
My understanding is that the members have to vote to
strike...right? If this is the case then they were their
own undoing.

    re: .39
    
    My union experience was while working at the Callaway Nuclear Plant
    owned by Union Electric in Missouri back in 1984 and 1985.  I have
    *lots* of stories about the union there including:
    
    	o an engineer that I met there who was a union tech, went to
          school to get his degree in engineering, was promoted to 
    	  engineer -- and took a pay *cut*.
    
    	o a secretary in tears as she confided in me concerning union
    	  biases and abuses towards women.
    
    	o a grievance filed against me for using technicians to handle
    	  a plant emergency that were called up by the union.  I overheard
    	  the union leaders in an elevator discussing how they were going
    	  to use the opportunity to file grievance because the wrong techs
    	  were called -- they just hadn't decided yet (days after) who 
    	  should have been called -- and it was the union reps that did the
    	  calling.
    
    	o Standard Joke -- How many engineers does it take to screw down a
    	  terminal?  Three - one to use a pocket knife to screw it down and
    	  two to watch out for techs.  (We were not allowed to carry tools,
    	  but we could carry pocket knives.  We all had big Swiss army
    	  knife sets.)  What was funny about the "joke" was that it sounded 
    	  like a joke but was actually true.
    
    	o More than once I had to verbally instruct union technicians on
    	  exactly what to do and how to physically operate the equipment.
    	  But, since I was non-union I was not allowed to actually do the
    	  work myself.
    
    	o At the plant you had to pretend that the boxes you were carrying
    	  were light or face grievance filings.
    
    	o Exposure to a higher-level union rep.  Brought donuts and marked
    	  the box "Union Members Only."  Had a deep tan, wore lots of gold
    	  and spoke of how great his vacations were with union brothers.
    	  Definitely promoted "us versus them."
    
    	o Several technicians there could afford second homes while the 
    	  engineers typically could not.
    
    I spoke with a friend (fellow Missourian) that was pro-union about these 
    issues and how it had hardened me against unions.  His response was
    that the union at Callaway Nuclear was a bit of an odd duck.  He
    assured me that other unions in Missouri were much better.
    
    Steve

From .0

>>There's been a lot of dissatisfaction in the notes file about treatment of
>>employees. Should we unionize?
I would vote no. I would think that a better method is for the employees to buy
the company or to atleast own a controlling portion of the company.

It seems the big issue, and one I agree with, is that the big nationals don't operate in
a way that is condusive to win win negotiations and work situations.

I do wonder if we wouldn't be better represented if we were organized.  Perhaps the
answer would be a union of our own.  We're still 90,000 or so.  All us faceless
thousands would be harder to ignore if we would talk with one voice.

Comments?

    Just my .02 cents! Sorry .0175 due to inflation!
    
    
    Unions are made of people who run them.  If the Union stinks it's
    because of those people.  No more no less! I still vote NO!
    
    	One thing I've learned is you get what you pay for,
    	or you get what you put in.
    
    - Mike
    

    I agree with those that say the unions in Europe and those in the US
    are entirely different animals.  If I were working for Digital in
    Germany or one of the Scandinavian contries (yes, I have been on
    cultural exchanges to these places), I would unhesitatingly join a
    union.
    
    As it is, I am an US citizen working for Digital in the US.  I have
    been a member of the National Right To Work Committee for over 16
    years.  For those you who may not know, this committee's agenda is to
    fight for the right of workers NOT to be coerced into joining unions or
    paying union dues as a condition of employment.  US unions commonly
    employ such tactics -- with sometimes devastating impact on workers and
    their families, including the use of violence and threats of violence.
    The use of extortion tactics to get workers to join up has been ** well
    documented ** (by thousands of cases in the committee files) and is
    perfectly LEGAL in the United States.  (But not in the more enlightened
    contries of Europe I suspect).  

    re .46 - "...talk with one voice...."
    
    How long have you been reading notes? One voice? Ha!
    :)

    
    A union could be of benefit, if it meant that upper management
    would sit down with the employees and address the concerns of
    employees.  Most employees want Digital to succeed as much as
    anyone in management.  This assumes that management wouldn't
    listen otherwise, I'm not sure.  
    
    My experience - I worked in a union factory.  I was the boss's
    favorite, because I took pride in the fact that I could keep
    the crankiest machine running without a breakdown.  He would
    come and get me if he wanted to do some "work".  I watched 
    him shovel sand into a wheelbarrow on many occasions.  He had
    to bring a union man, because, as management, he wasn't allowed
    to do anything that would take work away from a union member.
    Eventually, I had a visit from the local union president, who
    informed me that I was working too hard and making everyone
    else look bad.
    
    Summation - I think that a union of Digital employees COULD be
    an asset to the corporation and the employees.  Do I think it
    is terribly likely that it would actually work out that way?
    Nope.
    

    
    	In a couple of former lives I worked for union outfits.
    Never again if I can help it.
    
    	I vote no
    
    Joe

    From the difference in the tone of replies from either side of the
    water, I can only conclude that unions in the US and unions in Europe
    are very different.
    
    I've alway considered the German unions as a model. There are very few
    unions - only about 6 or 7 - they are not affiliated to any political
    party, and their leadership tends to be moderate. The Germans talk
    about social partners, whereas elsewhere, it's often a case of us
    versus them.
    
    Salut,
    Edward

                          o      o     oooooo
                          oo     o    o      o
                          o o    o    o      o
                          o  o   o    o      o
                          o   o  o    o      o
                          o    o o    o      o
                          o     oo    o      o
                          o      o     oooooo

    	RE: .7
    
    
    	I'm in 100% agreement. Good answer!

    
    	Well I couldn't help but put my 2 cents in.
    
    	I "used" to work for the carpenters union in Washington D.C.  They
    did have great medical benifits, but that is the ONLY good thing I can
    say for it.  While I was a member, the carpenters NEVER went on strike,
    BUT all the other unions did (labor, operators, etc), and EVERY time 
    THEY went on strike, we were not allowed to cross the picket line.  So,
    while they were on strike, I always got a job with a "scab" company 
    doing home improvements.  In the union (back in the early 70's), I was
    making $10.00 an hour.  As a "scab, I was making $5.50 an hour.  At
    year end, I made more money as a "scab" than I did from the union job.
    
    There were several times when we were doing "work" that we needed some
    material.  Each set of carpenters was assigned a laborer.  Many times 
    the laborer was not around when we needed him, so we tried to get the
    material ourselves.  The shop steward caught us and told us we would
    be FIRED if we were caught doing it again.  So when we needed
    something, and the laborer was not around, we HAD to just stand around
    and wait will he came back.  
    
    That is part of the reason why things cost so much.  If you could put
    in 8 GOOD hours a day, and not spend 1/4 of it standing around picking
    your nose, you could get more done.
    
    Speaking from experience....NO to unions!!!!
    

I was a member in two unions before Digital - The Retail Clerks Union and 
Teamsters.  Neither one did me any good.

To be able to take advantage of the medical benefits when in the Retail Clerks
Union you had to work 40 hours a week.  Everyone in the grocery store I worked
in work 39.5.  Great!  I never saw any good out of that union.

When I worked for UPS, I had to join the Teamsters.  All the minorities (which
included women) had the heaviest/largest routes and more stops and pickups to 
do.  But nothing would be done to even the workload since we couldn't seem to
get to be part of the good-ole-boy network.

So I haven't exactly had the greatest time with my experiences and unions. I
vote NO!

Judy

    I worked at GE for 12 years.  Management ("white collar" employees) did
    not have a union.  Hourly employees did have a union.  During my 12
    years at GE, every new or improved benefit provided to white collar
    employees was a direct result of the union negotiating that same
    benefit for hourly employees.  
    
    We middle management employees rooted for the union.  While I was at
    GE, benefits never deteriorated -- as they have every year I've been at
    Digital -- they just got better, and better, and better.
    
    Digital's medical plan and savings plan is the worst of any company --
    big or small -- I have ever worked for.   

    re -.1
    
    GE was continually making more and more money, too.  Funny
    conincidence.
    
    bk

    
    I was at an IC vendor's company about 10 years ago.  We were trying to
    debug a hardware or device problem, we weren't sure which.  We needed
    to change a load on the test fixture.  It was a 10-minute job, from
    start to finish, but it was a union shop, and they had professinal
    technicians for that.
    
    It took almost 4 hours to get the work done.
    
    If I'd smuggled a soldering iron in it would have taken less than
    1/10th the time.

	The 48 hour work-week is part of the social chapter of the Maastricht
	treaty.

	We believe it will make us less compettitive, and so loose us jobs,
	which is one reason why we opted out.

	It will badly hit small businesses, especially those just setting up, 
	where the people whom set them up expect and want to work these hours
	to get the businees going, knowing they will reap the rewards later.
	They could not afford the extra staff required on start-up, if this
	was passed, many small businnes ventures would never get off the
	ground, and many others would go to the wall.

	It may look good when trying to stop exploitation, but the lifeblood
	of our economy, the small businesses, where the management are the 
	workers, it could spell disaster.

	Heather

    
    .62 does not define "we", but I believe it means the government of the UK.
    
    Sample comment ........ 
    
    
    
    To: The Editor of the Times
    
    Sir, 
    
    We live in amazing times. A once-significant power now has a government 
    that decides that the key to future good times is to run an economy 
    based on the international re-saleability of a peasant salary structure. 
    Let us be grateful that Churchill is in his box, unable to see what we
    have become. 
    
    I remain, 
    
    "Puzzled of Reading"

re: .65

    
  >  .62 does not define "we", but I believe it means the government of the UK.
    
  >  Sample comment ........ 
    
 
Thanks for that.  I was just starting to become offended by the use of we in .62
There are lost of people here in the UK who disagreed with the opt out from the
social charter.

	Stuart

    
  >  .62 does not define "we", but I believe it means the government of the UK.


	Indeed it does.

	Heather

          <<< Note 2573.63 by SUBURB::THOMASH "The Devon Dumpling" >>>
    
    
>>>    The 48 hour work-week is part of the social chapter of the
>>>    Maastricht treaty.
    
    Heather,
    
    Please get it right. The social chapter of the Maastricht treaty does
    not, repeat NOT, prevent anyone from working for more than 48 hours a
    week. They can work as many hours as there are in a week if they want
    to.
    
    The clause simply states that no workers can be forced by their
    management to work for more than 48 hours a week against their will.
    Hardly revolutionary, is it?
    
    Salut,
    Edward

	My brother has been told by his union, that if this went into
	effect in the UK, they would make it compulsory that no-one
	did over 48 hours.

	Heather

    That's his union's decision and has nothing to do with the treaty. I
    doubt the legality of such a ruling.
    
    Edward

	But it is to do with unions, which is what this topic is about.

	Heather

Heather,
	if your brother is in a union then he has as much right to be heard 
as the other members. If the union are going to try and make something 
compulsory then the majority of members will have voted for it. Tell your 
brother to canvas his collegues and get them down to the union meetings!

Dave.

	Well, Germany plans to cut 6 billion pound from their social security
	budget, and boost the economy.

	They loosened restrictions on Sunday trading and holiday working
	They have a draft plan to allow women to work in mines, and on
	factory night shifts.
	Plus "others things" such as child benefit, maternity leave, university
	students, civil servants, and construction workers.

	The unions are against it, they say "the proposals are a disaster for 
	the average German", "given rising unemployment, making fewer people
	work longer hours is not only socially devastating but simply economic
	nonsense".

	So, I suppoes this will be a good test to see if the unions can actually
	do anything.

	I expect many other Euroopean countries to watch this carefully, as many
	are trying to cut their deficits.

	Heather

	The union is all over the country, he could canvass all he wants,
	and probably only reach 1%.

	The union are the only ones with enough money to spend to canavass
	all the members.

	Heather

    
    
    
    	Well assuming that one believes the US is becomming more
    	socialistic as we head down the path to 'one world government',
    	I'm supprised Digital hasn't accepted the inevitable yet. 
    
    	Cary...

	The US may becoming more socialist, however much of Europe is
	becoming less so. I'm, not sure of the GIA countries.

	This would probably leave us in the stsus quo!

	Heather

>Unions = Socialism

Care to expand on that? 

Dave.

re.74:

There are many ways to reach a wide audience Heather, he would not have to
personally canvas everybody or have any money whatsoever. He should use the
unions existing organisation and networks to spread the message by generating a 
movement within. 

Dave.

>>Unions = Socialism
>
>Care to expand on that? 

Hey, if one can believe the USA is heading towards "socialism",
a trifling little thing like identifying unions and socialism
should pose no problem!

re.80:

;-)

    Are the people talking about unions=socialism being serious?
    I wish it were true,but as a socialist and a Trade Union supporter I
    know it is'nt.
    
    I vote yes for unions at DEC.Lets get rid of the notion that an
    individual employee is able to negociate on equal
    terms,re.pay,conditions etc,with a multi-national corporation.The
    company acts collectively,and so should the employees.
    
    We're talking about balance and fairness,not socialist revolution.
    
    Woody.

>>Imagine:a fair deal for all...
>> We're talking about balance and fairness,not
>>socialist revolution.

Good I'm glad you clarified that...I thought we were
talking about the least common denominator.

    I'm throwing my weight in with the ``NO UNIONS'' people.
    
    FWIW, ``fairness for all'' and ``acting collectively'' is not for me. 
    I have never served in a union environment but have heard and see the
    horror stories (one union last winter went after a local man for his
    ``crime'' ... there was a fire and he shovelled some sand on an icy
    walk that firemen were slipping on ... properly (arrggh!) he had to
    apologize since they should have been allowed to slip and fall until a
    member of the public works department arrived) (sorry on the
    digression).
    
    I am in a software engineering group and am a senior engineer.  There
    are several other senior engineers.  Personally, I would find no
    motivation to turn in exceptional work at the expense of my free time
    if I knew there was to be no compensation for it compared to others. 
    Currently I may be better than some and not as good as others and am
    willing to trust that salary/etc is distributed on that basis.
    
    Anyway ... I would say no on unions.
    
    George
    

re: .82

>    Are the people talking about unions=socialism being serious?
>    I wish it were true,but as a socialist and a Trade Union supporter I
>    know it is'nt.
    
well, I'm not sure what the exact definition of socialism is but, given the
idea that unions are surpose to look after the good of the whole at the expense
of the individual, then it could be looked upon as socialism.

>    I vote yes for unions at DEC.Lets get rid of the notion that an
>    individual employee is able to negociate on equal
>    terms,re.pay,conditions etc,with a multi-national corporation.The
>    company acts collectively,and so should the employees.
    
No thanks, been there, wasn't at all happy with the way negotiations were 
handled.

>    We're talking about balance and fairness,not socialist revolution.
    
And we are to believe that a union will be balanced and fair to all its members?
Huh!

Let me tell you my horror story about the union I was involved with.
The only time we saw the union reps was at contract time and then they acted
as if they couldn't get out of there fast enough. This one time the
members were meeting with the union negotiator to go over our list of demands.
He stood up in front of us and said "Okay, give me the things you would like
me to negotiate for. Come on, anything, who wants what?".

Well, this one guy stands and says "Well, how about another holiday? lets
say the employee's birthday?".

The negotiator then says "Thats absurd!, I'm not going in there (the negotiations)
and ask for something as stupid as that!". "Now who else has something?".

You can imagine the response. The union came back from the negotiations with 
a company offer of a 3 year contact with yearly raises of .02, .02 & .10.
And they recommended that employees accept it. That left me with a VERY bad
taste in my mouth for unions.

So, as I said, thanks, but no thanks. I'll negotiate for myself. 

- George

      As a former member of the afl/cio/afm, I'd canvass all my
      friends & work mates to make absolutely  certain  there's
      no  "union" organization formed here, and I'd quit if one
      ever developed that I was forced into or had to work with
      on an ongoing basis. 

      "Fairness"  and  "Unions" are not words that I can use in
      the same context. Being social  is  one  thing.  Fair  is
      another. Having to mandate either is circular logic using
      a flawed philosophy doomed to failure at the outset.

      Provide  a  better  service  than  the next person, get a
      better  response  from  your  employer.   Same   in   the
      marketplace. You can't mandate somebody build a worse car
      because you can't build one right in the first place. 

      You snooze, you lose.

The earlier notes about someone changing union work rules using the
union's own processes for communicationg with its members remind me 
of our efforts to change things in the DCU.  Funny, but although a
credit UNION belongs to its members, we found that all of the DCU's
means of communication were controlled by the DCU management and used
to send the messages they wanted people to hear.  Members who were
opposed to management policy of THEIR credit union had to rely on 
means of commuication not owned (or even influenced) by the CU and
its directors.  I would assume that the same is true in most
unions, human nature being what it is.  FYI, the new DCU directors 
are trying to change the bylaws to allow more member communication,
but their federal oversight agency hasn't allowed it yet.  The urge
to stay in power by controlling (= stopping) communications appears
to exist at many levels.  Of course, it can't happen at Digital...

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    re:.87
    Actually, the Credit Union experience makes a good case for the
    existence of unions:  When they were finally perceived as being
    nonresponsive to members, the members rose and overthrew the
    leadership.  Even without better rules, the members are more in control
    now than ever before.  With a labor union, the rank and file can always
    vote to de-certify, if somehow they can't change the leadership.
    
    In America, unions are portrayed in a very negative light by the press. 
    Unions are  people who go on strike.  Unions are people who create
    ridiculous work rules.  Unions are why people who have less education
    or skills or merit than "us" make more money.  Unions are run by
    mobsters.  Etc. Etc.  
    
    Much of that is true.  And other problems are not often portrayed: 
    Unions whose scope overlap tend to fight each other, leaders fighting
    for themselves rather tthan for their members.  But that's still
    one-sided.
    
    Unions give leverage to members.  There are many unions, with different
    cultures and negotiating philosophies.  What worked in the mills of the
    '20s is not necessarily what works in the high-tech world of the '90s.
    But that doesn't mean that unionization is necessarily useless, merely
    that a high-tech union needs a new agenda.  ANd the high-tech managers
    have done a good job of scaring the rank and file off of unions by
    citing the obsolete rust-belt unions as bad examples.  And that's what
    this Topic cites so much of too.
    
    Union contracts are whatever the company and the union, the latter
    acting on behalf of members, negotiate.  Silly work rules are not
    necessary.  And frankly, with the Digital that I knew until, say, 1991,
    unions couldn't have helped -- the company took a pro-worker stance
    that few unions could match.  But in this "new Digital", a united
    workforce makes more and more sense.
    
    And a lot of "professionals" are unionized.  Professors, physicians,
    scientists, engineers and others have unions in some contexts.
    
    The question should not be  "Teamsters (or USW or UAW or IBEW) or
    nothing"  It should be, "Is there any room for any kind of labor
    organization within Digital?" 
    
    What issues could a labor organization (hey, I'll avoid the "U-word"
    for now) help in here?  Are any of these worthy of discussion?
    
    	Health benefits
    	Layoff policies
    	Vacation accrual policies
    	Grievance for arbitrary management disciplinary action
    	Shrink-wrap software
    	...
    Just look through this conference and see what issues come to mind!
    I don't think we need the Teamsters, or an old-fashioned smokestack
    industry union.  But citing the horrors of declining industrial unions
    or public sector unions should not tar the entire concept.
       fred

re.85:

>well, I'm not sure what the exact definition of socialism is but, given the
>idea that unions are surpose to look after the good of the whole at the expense
>of the individual, then it could be looked upon as socialism.

Then an employer's federation is socialist? In fact, by that definition, 
a company or corporation is socialist!

Dave.

    RE.88
    Fred,Could'nt have said it better-excellent note!
    
    RE.89
    I understand your point.My point is that unions are not inherently
    socialist-they're prime concern being the welfare/advancment of the
    membership.True that directive can lead to political activism-but not
    neccessaruly socialism.In the UK the unions created the Labour Party as
    their political wing,but before 1901 many unions supported the Liberal
    Party.In the US,the AFofL's Sam Gompers(a former Marxist)committed his
    organisation to capitalism for as long as it benefited it's members.In
    Argentina,the Peronist unions accepted a quasi-fascist system-because
    they,as Gen.Peron's powerbase benefited.
    
    Collective action is important to socialism,but not every collective
    organisation is socialist.
    
    Woody.

    
    
    	Just thinking about my immediate family, we have about 150
    person-years of work between us.  I'm now the only one not in Union,
    but none of us has ever been involved in strike action.  If you look at
    work figures, the actual amount of time lost through strikes is a tiny
    proportion of total work time in any industrialised, unionised society.
    
    The bad press about unions is just that - bad press.  The right wing
    press chooses to focus on the "bad" aspects of unionisation because it
    represents something they truly hate - a workforce that can stand up
    for itself.
    
    I almost blew a gasket laughing at the guy who suggested that
    individual bargaining is preferable in all cases.  As if you could go
    to your manager and say, "let's forget about cash ths year, the raises
    are so piffling that they can't compensate for the erosion of other
    benefits.  I'd like to renegotiate my healthcare program..." I'm not a
    union member now precisely because I felt that the individual
    bargaining in the high tech industries fitted the worker-manager
    relationship model in thos industries.  However, times were good then,
    and the corporation could afford to be philanthropic.  These days, I'm
    not so sure.
    
    THere are plenty of "horror stories" from the other side too. A few
    years back a car company in the UK was so ineptly managed that the
    lines kept running out of parts.  Workers would be idle, but still drew
    pay.  The management solution was idiotic.   Instead of solving the
    supply chain problems, managhment would engineer an industrial dispute
    and cause a strike.  This was usually done by issuing an edict that
    they knew would break current contracts and cause a strike.  Workers
    were then no longer paid by the company, but received strike pay from
    the union fund.  You might think this a good short-term solution, but
    it isn't.  What they ended up with was an atmosphere of complete
    mistrust, lack of confidence in management and immediate polarizarion
    over any issue.
    
    Anyone who has been involved in a real union, with a democratic charter
    knows that a strike is a no-win situation.  As othe people here have
    pointed out, the workers NEVER regain in remuneration what they lose
    in the strike.  Some of them may lose their jobs for ever, customers
    suffer, management has lost control and the company stands a good
    chance of going down the tubes.  What ever happens, the main loss
    is a channel of trusted dialog that managers and workers alike can use
    to resolve disputes quickly and to their mutual benefit.
    
    The point is that much industrial action is NOT carried out by real
    unions, in a normal situation.   The example of control by organized
    crime has been cited here.  That could rightly be described as the
    American disease when it comes to unions.  The point is that the loss
    of democratic control to mobsters means that this is NOT a "real union"
    issue.  Those people don't care if the union or the company folds. 
    They simply pack up and move on.  If workers allow such a thing to
    happen, then they have no-one to blame but themselvs.
    
    The history of unions in Britain is also one that is marred by
    the "British Disease" of trade unionism.  (the term is one that was
    frequently used in the 70's & 80's).  That was
    
    	a) the politicising of trade unions by leftists who were following
           a different agenda.
    and
    
    	b) the fact that most disputes arose in "nationalized" industries,
           which were government owned and controlled. 
    
    On the other hand, consider the German experience.
    

    Germany is one of the most unionized countries in the world, yet enjoys
    one of the strongest economies in Europe, exports more than the US or
    Japan.  It is renowned for the quality of its engineering and gives its
    workforce a high standard of living, healthcare, education and
    training.  I don't know about the last few years, but Germany had a
    pretty high strike record c/f other European countries around ten years
    ago.  Thata did not seem to prevent it rising to the top of the
    European economies.

    Strangely enough, this unionism arose out of a socio-political
    structure that was IMPOSED on Western Germany by the Allies.
    My conclusion is that the German union structure has successfully
    eveloved BECAUSE of a balance between democratic control of their
    political structure, and an absence of nationalized industries
    and extremist political agenda.  Simply put, the German union worker
    won't stand for losing control of her union.

    To paraphrase a note elsewhere:
    
    Strike:  [Polish Dictionary Definition]  A work stoppage by employees
    in support of demands for freedom made upon an oppressive communist
    totalitarian regime, eventually resulting in restoration of democracy.

    Same left-wing unions bringing down a left wing government?  One
    of the idiosyncracies of unions is that the individual members tend to
    be very conservative folk.  They share the same values, send their
    kids to die in the same wars, pay the same taxes.
    
    While the principles of most REAL unions may not be as noble as those
    in the joke definition above, their REAL goal is to maintain an
    atmosphere in which workers have a degree of influence over the running
    if the corporation.  Ironically, this is the major source of bad morale
    expressed in this notesfile these days.  What the union members in
    Digital Germany will end up with is a continuation of the communication
    channel that allows them to suggest and negotiate deals that *might*
    reduce lay-offs in Germany.   Maybe through job-sharing, agreed wage
    reductions, increased productivity - strategies that management migh be
    disinclined to try without a little prodding.

    If you watched the the Tom Peters program on Quality, it  highlighted a
    phenomenal degree of trust and cooperation between workers at all
    levels in the mittelstand corporations.  I wondered if this was because
    they were NOT unionized, but told a more paternalistic attitude towards
    the workforce.  In such an environment the workers really did care
    about the customer, the product quality and the long-term survival of
    the corporation.  The interesting thing here is that while Japan's
    workforce is not unionised in the Western sense, it shares many of the
    characteristics of relationships between German mittelstand workers and
    their employers:  High degree of worker participation in the process, 
    quality, training, paternalism, shared goals, long term view etc, etc.
    It's the relationship that matters, not the organizations around it or
    the vehicle that is used for communication.

    Given that other hi-tech corporations *survive* unionization in Germany
    and mittelstand corporations *thrive* under it, the only difference
    is that this time, Digital is involved.   

    Colin
    
 

    re: .91
    
    Please note that many of the offerings in this thread do NOT reflect
    "bad press".  Many people have cited THEIR PRIOR EXPERIENCE with
    unions.  You may choose to ignore this as immaterial, but please do not
    attribute this to "bad press".  (My own affiliation with a union during
    a summer job left me likewise unimpressed).
    
    Also, the statement to the effect that the workers are to blame when
    organized crime invades a union is naieve (sp?).  Organized crime has
    been reputed to be very "persuasive" when "encouraging" local
    leadership to join a larger controlled union.  And they don't make
    money by letting people simply "vote them out" either.  It can be done,
    perhaps, but don't expect it to be simple -- or painless.

When we mention "union" in the States, we always think in terms of the 
Teamsters and the goons that do/have run them. We can also remember some of 
the other unions where the leaders have been corrupt and sold the membership 
down the river.  My wife worked as a "temp" for HRDI, a Government sponsored 
program run by the AFL/CIO out of their headquarters across from the White 
House. The busiest person in the office was the Shop Steward - very few days 
went by that she wasn't called on to arbitrate between union labor and union 
management. I felt this was a statement of the sorry state of affairs for 
workers in America. One thing to remember though - most all of these unions 
were brought about not because the workers wanted a pay raise, but because of
management abuse, dangerous working conditions, etc. 

As an aside, I read that the United Auto Workers is planning to negotiate 
indexing the wage of its members to the salary of management. Maybe not such 
a bad idea, even from a union considered to be somewhat shady. 

Think again though of some of the professional unions, specifically the CWA 
(Communication Workers of America) and their relationship with Bell. Or how 
about the Airline Pilots Association.  The latter are in discussion with 
Delta over paycuts, and have basically caught Delta overstating their crisis 
in an effort to get pilots to give up some bennies and pay. This was after the
other Delta unions had agreed to cuts without any protest. I would like to 
think that were I to have to join a union, it would be one of these, or the 
others we never hear about that quietly go about their business of looking 
out for their membership. 

Unions are also responsible for some of the benefits we have enjoyed. 
Without the threat of having to negotiate with the entire workforce, most 
companies would not be so liberal with the crumbs that they throw our way. 
In one of my weaker moments, I aspired to become a Unit Manager with 
Digital, and the first question I was asked was "What would you do if 
someone in your group started talking about unions"? This may not have been 
company policy but it sure was a serious worry to the District, Branch and 
Unit managers.

I personally don't think our industry will ever unionize. Its best chance 
was back in the 70's when it was growing. I think the opportunity peaked a 
few years back, and with the glut of people looking for work today, 
unionizing would be the same as asking to be laid off. 

But while I wouldn't join, I feel I owe a "Thank You" to all the people who 
have joined them, for the reputation that they have established that makes 
companies think twice before railroading the employees. I also feel that 
some industries absolutely need them at the moment - the frozen food 
industry for one. Remember the people killed in the processing plant last 
year in Carolina because management had chained the exits to prevent theft? 
Or again, the same industry at the moment hires illegal immigrants to do 
dangerous work for minimum pay - and being illegal, they aren't likely to 
organize. 

So don't "pooh-pooh" unions altogether - they have their place. And the minute 
that a company is sure it won't be organized, someone is sure to step in and 
take advantage of it.
                          

    While my .88 reply was a bit long, I do have one more comment...
    
    Industries like ours didn't need unions in the growth years because
    labor (us) had an out:  We could job-swap freely.  Labor was in short
    supply, so employers had to be nice to labor.  This was especially
    important with the best employees, who were in high demand.
    
    Digital today faces a different labor market:  Within the Greater
    Maynard area, our historic competitors (potential employers) are in
    even worse shape.  There are still jobs out there, but it's not nearly
    the market it was.  So the employer doesn't have to be nice to us any
    more:  We're stuck because we might not be able to find jobs; the
    TFSO's ones are forced to and not all of them are having an easy time.
    
    In other words, we worker bees have lost our historic leverage.  We're
    just "human resources".  Draw your own conclusions.

re Note 2573.94 by CARAFE::GOLDSTEIN:

>     Digital today faces a different labor market:  Within the Greater
>     Maynard area, our historic competitors (potential employers) are in
>     even worse shape.  There are still jobs out there, but it's not nearly
>     the market it was.  

        Well, perhaps.  But according to the following, it out to be
        relatively good for us software types:

TOTAL SOFTWARE EMPLOYMENT UP 29 PERCENT ACCORDING TO NEW MASSACHUSETTS SOFTWARE
COUNCIL GUIDE. - Sentinel DOW Story

                Sentinel Delivered by WGS Advanced Development:
        DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY BY INFORMATION PROVIDER AGREEMENT:


  BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Despite a regional recession, the Massachusetts 
software industry has demonstrated tremendous growth during the past year, 
with total software employment rising from 63,484 in 1992 to 82,040 in 1993 -- 
a substantial 29 percent increase.

  This data is contained in the Massachusetts Computer Software Council's new 
"The Complete Guide To The Massachusetts Software Industry,"  available today 
from the Council.

  The Software Council's guide breaks down total software employment in 
Massachusetts by employment in software-only companies, software divisions of 
hardware companies, and electronics companies with a software component.  
According to the Council, the number of software-only companies in 
Massachusetts rose from 1,415 in 1992 to 1,611 in 1993, with the 1,611 
companies generating more than $3 billion in revenues and representing a 15 
percent increase in employment.

  "The 1,611 software companies in Massachusetts represent one of the most 
dynamic industries in the Commonwealth,"  said Governor William Weld.  
"They're creating jobs around the state and entering markets around the world."

  Joyce Plotkin, executive director of the Software Council said, "The new 
guide indicates that the software industry continues to grow at double-digit 
rates.  The figures also point out that the lines between hardware, software 
and electronics companies are blurring as these companies increasingly focus 
on delivering totally integrated solutions to their customers."

  According to the Council, the profile of average software companies remains 
similar to previous years, with 76 percent of software-only companies 
employing 25 or fewer people and generating $5 million or less in revenue.

  Other findings of the Council indicate that 57 percent of the companies 
listed in the guide concentrate on horizontal markets including databases, 
general accounting, CAM, business productivity and data communications.  Also, 
29 percent focus on the design of applications for vertical markets such as 
banking and financial management, scientific and engineering, medical and 
telecommunications.  Further, 13 percent of the companies concentrate on the 
design of software development tools and systems such as general utilities, 
network-related software and integrated development environments.

  The Council's guide is produced annually and contains current information 
about Massachusetts-based software companies, including employment statistics, 
demographic information, product mix, and primary area of application 
development.  The guide is available for $85 and can be ordered through the 
Software Council at (617) 437-0600. The Software Council will also distribute 
the new guide at no charge to Massachusetts public libraries and universities 
in an effort to promote greater awareness of the software industry.

  The guide is published by the Massachusetts Software Council in cooperation 
with Mass High Tech newspaper and underwritten by Hill & Knowlton and Ben 
Franklin Smith Printers.  This effort is part of the Council's mission to 
attract capital, customers and employees to the state's software industry by 
promoting the Massachusetts software industry domestically and internationally.

  Founded in 1985, the Massachusetts Computer Software Council is a trade 
association of more than 300 software companies.  Its mission is to help 
senior executives better manage and grow their companies.

           CONTACT:  Katherine Leavenworth/Carol DeMatteo
              Miller Communications
              (617) 536-0470
                   or
                     Joyce Plotkin
                     Software Council
                     (617) 437-0600
11:34 ET   JUL 14, 1993
% ====== Internet DOWvision Codes
storyCounter: 1783
Storydate: 07/14/1993
Headline: . TOTAL SOFTWARE EMPLOYMENT UP 29 PERCENT ACCORDING TO NEW MASSACHUSETTS SOFTWARE COUNCIL GUIDE.
transmissionTime: 1149
Time: 1149
categoryIndustry: I/SOF
categorySubject: N/BW N/ECO N/LAB N/TRG
categoryMarketSector: M/TEC
categoryGeographic: R/MA R/NME R/US

    I'll ask niavely ... is it really THAT BAD out there? [that we need to
    talk union]
    
    Yes, I agree I can't walk up to my manager and say I want to trade off
    something to bring the health care cost down.  But on the other hand we
    DO get a fair number of choices.  I can still individually argue on
    issues such as working environment/salary/etc.  And even corporate
    edicts like the ``no shrinkwrap software'' I feel can be escalated
    given a true need and an enterprising manager.
    
    So, barring smaller items like turkeys/amusement parks/wellness
    centers, I ask again (and again niavely from one man, one site) is it
    truly that bad...
    
    George
    

You don't learn the true character of a person or company when things are
going well.  You learn their character by observing how they deal with
problems.  

So if you want to know if things are really THAT BAD here, go find people
who have had problems and ask them how good a job they feel the company
did at dealing with the problems.  Ask people if they feel that difficult
topics are communicated effectively from the higher levels of the company.
Ask people who have concerns about decisions that have been made if they
feel that their concerns were understood and factored into the decision
process.  Look to see if people are doing what is right for the company or
doing what is best for them.  And, of course, look for people you know
with ethics complaints and ask if they feel that the complaint was handled
fairly and impartially.  Such people can be hard to find, though -- in my
experience most such people are afraid to let their stories out.  And that
tells its own story, doesn't it?

Also note that for the most part, the people arguing against a union are
not claiming that there are no problems at Digital.  Mostly they are saying
that a union wouldn't solve the problems, or would create worse ones.

It's easy to complain about turkeys and amusement parks, but that's not
the point, at least not for me.  And even the complaint in the base note
is not so much about the wellness center being closed as it is about
how that decision compares to other things that are going on.  E.g., if
it's a choice between closing a wellness center or telling a VP that
he can't have a chauffered limo waiting outside his building all day,
which is really better for the company?  And are these decisions even
being made in terms of what is best for the company?  But I digress.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    At the risk of stating the obvious:
    
    The problem that Digital has at the present time is a lack of profits.
    
    All the turkey/amusement park/wellness center issues stem from this
    single cause.  All the health benefit/TFSO/retirement package issues
    stem from this single cause.
    
    If there is anyone who honestly believes that a labor union will help
    Digital return to profitability, I would be interested in hearing about
    it.
    
    Otherwise . . . .
     
    
    

    This article is from issue #4, 7/8/93, of CPU (the newsletter of the
    "Working in the Computer Industry" working group of Computer
    Professionals for Social  Responsibility, reprinted with blanket
    permission). Apparently some IBM employees are promoting organization
    without unionization.

>7. TOOLBOX: NEWSLETTERS OF INTEREST

>In recent weeks we've come across a couple of newsletters 
>readers might find of interest.

>One such is _Resistor_, a long-running monthly newsletter of 
>the organization "IBM Workers United". The _Resistor_ 
>carries commentary from the other side (i.e. not Wall 
>Street's) alongside sensible advice to Gerstner et al. on how 
>better to run sub-dividing Blue. Last month's issue led-off 
>with a story written by one of the workers at IBM's 
>Endicott/Glendale facilities describing management's 
>insensitive handling of the pending layoffs at that plant. 
>Other pieces speak of the inequality of the sacrifice: How 
>supplies are cut-back; new equipment is not bought; wage 
>increases disappear and workers are let-go while Corporate 
>Headquarters goes unscathed and the Board of Directors gives 
>Gerstner millions, etc.

>IBM Workers United (IWU) promotes the idea of Employee Works 
>Councils (IBM already has such organizations in its European 
>offices, according to the newsletter). They propose workers 
>electing representatives to plant level councils. Management 
>would have to consult with these councils on everything from 
>work organization to health and safety polices. The councils 
>would not be unions, IWU insists, and they would not be able 
>to call strikes. "It is democracy in the workplace and it is 
>long overdue in IBM and in other companies" says a recent 
>_Resistor_.

>The same issue goes on to describe more of what IWU is about:

>"As more people in this area and other locations read the 
>_Resistor_, the old misconception of what we are is still a 
>concern. In December 1989 we said this: 'IBM Workers United 
>has always urged our fellow workers to organize and 
>challenge, and we have always felt what was needed was a free 
>and independent association of IBM employees, NOT an AFL/CIO 
>union.'

>"We have friends in unions and have worked with unions on 
>various issues, BUT what works in some companies and 
>locations doesn't necessarily work in others.

>"The AFL/CIO only represents 13% of the American workforce. 
>We believe in expanding the American Labor Movement towards 
>new directions that can encompass all types of worker and 
>employee organizations.

>"We think workers today are looking for alternatives to the 
>unionism of the AFL/CIO. Hundreds of thousands of workers 
>have already set up their own independent organizations 
>across the country to protect their interests. People want 
>and need to have control of the organizations they belong to. 
>IBM Workers United believes that is the way to go, but that 
>it is only the first step. The second step is a Works 
>Council. It has been done, it can be done. Changing times 
>demand new ideas."

>IBM Workers United and the _Resistor_ newsletter may be 
>contacted at PO Box 634, Johnson City, New York 13790. They 
>don't have a set sub rate; they ask for a donation instead.
    

    .100
    
    That could be interesting.  Unless I'm mistaken, current US
    labour laws forbid "in-house" unions.  There have been a couple
    of recent cases where federal judges have ordered in-house
    cooperative bodies to be disbanded.
    
    IN Europe this was a strategy used by some white-collar occupations to
    prevent unionization - the corporation sponsored an in house "staff
    association".
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin
    

> Unless I'm mistaken, current US labour laws forbid "in-house" unions

I thought that was only if they were company sponsored.

re .99:

>    The problem that Digital has at the present time is a lack of profits.
>    All the ... issues stem from this single cause.  

No.  Many issues (e.g. layoffs) stem from this cause.  But issues like
how it is decided WHO gets laid off and why there are so many new VPs
do not stem from this cause.  Issues like workers being unable to get 
stuff they need to do their jobs while certain VPs get lots of interesting
perqs do not stem from this cause, either.  And issues like senior
managers pursuing their own interests to the detriment of Digital as a
company are a contributor to the lack of profits, rather than the other
way around.  Oh yes, and the "brain drain" that is openly acknowledged in
some parts of the company is not primarily due to the company losing money.  

I could go on, but why bother?  All of the above issues are made far more
obvious when the company is losing money.  But returning to profitability
will not solve those problems (though there are many others that it would
solve).  I doubt that bringing in a union would, either.  But at the risk
of stating the obvious, not all our problems are due to losing money.

The workers' council is an interesting idea.  A lot of blunders (the
vacation time accrual policy, to cite a fairly trivial example) could have 
been avoided or mitigated if management had a group to try out ideas on.
However, the key idea of a worker's council is to increase communication
and empowerment at the lower levels.  Is that attitude part of the new
Digital?  And if it isn't, is that due to the lack of profits?

	Sigh,
	Larry

    
    > I thought that was only if they were company sponsored.
    
    I though so too, but the NPR article on this a few weeks ago cited some
    cases where the body was only intended as a "work council" to improve
    communication, and did not involve dues or sponsorship.
    
    Colin
    
    

    A 'work council' (or workers' council) is mandatory in Germany (and
    many other European countries).
    

        
>    If there is anyone who honestly believes that a labor union will help
>    Digital return to profitability, I would be interested in hearing about
>    it.
    
>    Otherwise . . . .
     
 
Yes I honestly believe that our new union contract will help Digital in Germany
to return to profitability. One of the most important consequences of the deal 
between Digital and the IG Metall has been a rapid improvement in morale. I
know this can't be measured objectively but the number of happy people we have
dealt with here in our works' council office in Frankfurt since the deal leaves
a lasting impression. For the last 18 months we have had to deal with large
numbers of employees who came to see us because they were worried sick about
their futures. The union deal doesn't mean heaven on earth but it does mean 
that everyone can feel confident that their working conditions cannot be
radically altered within the time it takes to write a mail. Happy hard working
employees are essential to profitability.  To quote Robert Bosch the famous
German  entrepreneur and engineer: "I don't pay my employees good salaries
because I'm a rich man. I'm a rich man because I pay my employees good 
salaries." 
                                                              
On the general question of trade unions there are a number of issues which have
been raised. I am opposed to closed shops for the very abuses which have been
described in this note. If the union officials in Germany carried on like some 
of those bandits described in this note then all our members and supporters 
would leave the union and render us powerless within a week. The IG Metall is
the largest union in the world but it is forbidden in its constitution for
people to be obliged to join. This is also in accordance with the legal 
position in Germany. In short, closed shops are a cause of union failure and
not union success. They strangle the democratic process which is essential for
effective trade unionism.

It makes my hair stand on end to read that organised crime has penetrated the
unions. If this is true it must be fought against by whatever means necessary.

On the subject of violence on picket lines, of course I'm against it and I feel
for those who have suffered from it. On the other hand I understand that
violence by employers against strikers is not uncommon in the US. As a pacifist 
I believe that strikes are essentially an excellent form of non-violent action
which depend on solidarity and not aggression.

It is a pity to read about so many strikes which have apparently failed in the
US. That is certainly bad for business from a union point of view. The IG
Metall has a strike fund of about 100 million dollars which it spends
carefully. Since the strike at Digital employees who were not affected have
collected around $7000 for those who lost money during the strike because they
were not in the union.     

So my answer to this question is of course, YES to unions, NO to union
corruption and abuse. How this can be achieved is different in
different countries but in any event it is worth working on.

Best wishes

Kevin Mannerings (Works' council Member and IG Metall coordinator in Frankfurt)
        
    

    I work in Area Support, and a recurring problem is that of the hours
    German employees will work. We in support, are supposed to stay until
    the job's done, day or night, weekend or not; and we do. Many's the
    time whilst supporting Germany I've needed something done locally only
    to be told. "Sorry, I'm going home now, I'm not allowed to work past
    5:30. Tomorrow? Oh no, that's Saturday". As a consequence, the business
    suffers.
    
    Is this legislation or unions?
    
    Laurie.

    re .100 and 101
    
     This smacks of company unionism to me.Company unions have
    traditionally been used to break worker solidarity.  their officials
    work for the company,not the employees. I know that unions in the US
    have suffered from corruption, but the principle of solidarity within
    independent unions,voluntarily affiliated to national/international
    labour federations (AFL/CIO in the US. TUC in the UK) is essential.Not
    only for workers rights,but for real democracy.
    
    Woody.

    
    RE -2
    
    Hi Laurie,
    
    I believe it's legislation. I also work for a European Support group
    but actually in Frankfurt. We have all kinds of difficulties actually
    being *allowed* to work the hours necessary to support countries out of
    hours.
    
    In my opinion, Germany is *not* the place where a group like this
    should placed. (Now I've probably signed my death warrant!)
    
    Anyway, I can understand the frustration you fell.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Mark.

    This is niether unions nor legislation. There is a law which insists
    that people don't work more than 10 hours per day, but Digital in
    Germany can and does provide 7 day 24 hour cover. We have a works
    agreement which allows flexible working time between 7 am amd 18.45 pm.
    Over and above this all employees can in do overtime at any time in
    agreement with their manager. It is then a matter for codetermination
    through the works council, but the emphasis is on flexibility and we
    have not heard of any problems. We don't have any "clocking-on"
    machines or big brother methods and we don't want any. So it seems to
    me the person you were talking to was exercising his or her right to
    quit work on Friday evening and have a free weekend. I must say that
    the IS people here that I know work very hard and quite frequently do
    overtime evenings and weekends, but I think they like to keep it within
    reason. 
    
    I should like to say from my own experience in IS that I'm rather
    skeptical of people who install systems in the middle of the night as
    they tend to make mistakes and create problems for other people so I
    think it's good that there are some gentle limits put on such
    activities. There is also a legal problem: anyone who works into the
    night to the point of exhaustion and then has an accident on the way
    home has a massive insurance problem under German law, and could under
    extreme circumstances be committing a criminal offence. Car accidents
    on the way home are the most common form of work-related accidents in
    Germany, and the insurance gets paid for out of the contributions of
    those of us who work sensible hours. Over 7000 people are killed on the
    roads here every year. Then there is the problem of stress related
    deseases such as strokes or heart attacks which are clearly related to
    overwork. Attention to such questions and the influence of strong
    unions is something which helps to make the German economy one of the most
    productive in the world. 
    
    If you are really having bad problems please talk to your German
    colleagues again about it. I'm hopeful that they will listen carefully
    and try and work out a solution. 
    
    Kevin Mannerings
    
    

    Hallo Mark,
    
    If you are having all kinds of difficulties being *allowed* to work
    flexible times then I must say they have not been caused by the union
    or the works' council! Are you sure your manager wants to pay you for
    the overtime? I think the number of overtime applications we don't
    agree to is about 2%! You are very welcome to come and see the hugh
    pile of applications we agree to! We also told Edwin Richter that we
    would be sympathetic to any requirements for shift work if it meant the
    security of the ELC in Frankfurt would be benefitted by it. We don't
    have a veto over overtime, only a right to negotiation. We have only
    exercised this right in areas where the company was threatening to fire
    employees ans so far we have managed to prevent any dismissal notices
    here in Frankfurt. 
    
    Let's keep this argument fair please!  
    
    Kevin
    
    

    .110
    
    Well said sir!
    
    Woody.

    
    Bravo .110 !
    
    People do have a right to have a life outside Digital.
    
    Those who can't or don't want to shouldn't be coerced into working OT.
    
    (Those who do want it should be allowed all they want).
    
    If DECmanagement wants to provide 7 x 24 support, then they should
    supply enough people to do it without tons of overtime. 
    
    I have worked many 24 hour days, and once I worked 37 hrs without
    relief. (I did ask - no one was available. (7 X 24 contract)).
    
    Please limit me to 48 hrs......
    
    
    Robert M.

    
    Count me as a "NO" on this one. In my experiences, I have seen only
    negative things come from a union shop. The pay and benefits may be a
    notch or two above the norm, but the hate and discontent that are
    fostered by the usual "us vs. them" mentalities cannot compensate for
    slight material gain.
    
    And how many different unions would get in? Being in Field Service, I 
    doubt VERY seriously that I would be involved. Who would benefit?
    No one, except the "union".
    
    .mike.
     

>The pay and benefits may be a notch or two above the norm, but the hate and
>discontent that are fostered by the usual "us vs. them" mentalities cannot
>compensate for slight material gain.

We already have the foundations of the "us vs them" mentality. These 
foundations are being laid down my people who believe the "old" Digital values
were flawed and this has led to Digital's recent problems.

I personally believe that the new values of "do your job and don't ask 
questions" and "you're lucky to have a job" are not values associated with
successful companies. 

A union would provide employees with a stronger voice to fight the 
imposition of regressive management practices.

Dave.

    RE: -2

    >And how many different unions would get in? Being in Field Service, I 
    >doubt VERY seriously that I would be involved. Who would benefit?
    >No one, except the "union".

    	I once worked for a company that had three different unions in the
    same shop.  When your contract was up you where out on strike (at least 
    while I was there they never settled a contract without a strike).  The
    other two unions would not cross your picket line so they where basically 
    on strike also.  Most strikes that I remember lasted from 6 weeks to
    6 months.  when you finally settled and went back to work it seemed
    like only a few months would go by and one of the other unions would go
    out on strike.  Of course they didn't cross your picket line so you
    didn't cross theirs, and the same thing would happen with the third
    union.  It seemed that every three years we where out on strike for a
    total of 6 months or more.  There's no way you can ever make up what 
    you've lost.  This is the major reason I'll never want to work for a 
    union shop again.  As I stated in an earlier reply count me as opposed.

    Joe  
    
    P.S. That company is now out of business.

    
    There may be a definate "us"/"them" environment within Digital today,
    and BOTH sides are at fault, IMO, with the so-called "managers" being
    the more so. There are good worker-bees and bad ones, but their effects
    on the company are much less noticable than a "bad" manager.
    
    We had the correct tools in place years ago to prevent problems from
    festering and growing. The infamous "open door". Great idea, poorly
    implemented. If we would all "DO the Right Thing..." like Ken wanted us
    to, things would be happiness and light. But reality and human meanness
    makes things not work well/correctly. The GOB network and
    Empire-Building gets in the way. Hard to fix, hard to live with.
    
    Things are a mess, but if everyone would get off their dead a** and
    do the *right* thing, we'd be better for it. My message to
    "management"? WAKE UP, and hurry up about it...
    
    .mike.

    re:.117
    
    Good observations.  If I may quip, I think that we've gone from being
    focused on "do the right thing" to focusing on "don't do the wrong thing."  
    The latter might also be phrased as instituting "business controls."
    
    Steve

    What Unions would Digital Employees be members in?

	None.

	Heather

    
    
    re-.1 I HEARD THAT !! (In the U.S.A. of course)
    

No, we don't need a union.  What we need is for about 30,000 of us to show
up outside the Mill some morning and greet BP and the boys as they show up
for work.  We need to let them know that someone besides Wall St. is
watching what's happening to this company.  We need to show them that
someone cares what this company is going to be doing 5, 10, 20 years down
the road and not just how we can turn $.50 profit next quarter.

And when we're done at the Mill, we can just hike a few hundred miles south
and let our 'representatives' in Washington know exactly who it is they
work for.

tom_p

    re: .-1 Really now, what's the fascination with Wall Street?
    
    Other companies think of their _customers_ first, last, and always.
    
    Believe me, if the company shows some consistent growth in profits and
    revenue by just satisfying customers for a year, there will be nothing
    that anyone between Pine Street and Exchange Place can say that will
    change that.
    
    The stock price is the consequence of the totality of the company, not
    the starting point. 

RE          <<< Note 2573.122 by COFFEE::PFAU "Hit the button, Frank" >>>

>No, we don't need a union.  What we need is for about 30,000 of us to show
>up outside the Mill some morning and greet BP and the boys as they show up
>for work.  

  So they would see a big crowd of employees. What would that demonstrate other
than the fact that a big crowd blocks traffic? 

>And when we're done at the Mill, we can just hike a few hundred miles south
>and let our 'representatives' in Washington know exactly who it is they
>work for.

  Same question, what message would this imply? What action would likely result
from us showing up? 

  I think both groups are aware that we are here and would be impressed if we
could organize a parade but it's not clear that would prove anything. 

  George 

    we would probably join the IBEW if any, however I am anti-union and I
    would not join, unless there were a special contract that stated that I
    would be renumerated in like amount if we had to strike.  (NO union
    will do that.)
    
    Dave

    re:124
    
     Good idea ! And who would "organize" such a large group of
     employees? And whatdo you think you would be forming?...
    
     ... a union.                 

    
    I'd join SIPTU in Ireland, if I were remaining in Digital.
    
    In Germany IG-Metall seems to be deserving of support.
    
    If I were in the U.S. I would probably opt for Teamsters, since all the
    badmouthing in this file convinces me that they must have something
    going for them.
    
    In general, I think a large general union is preferable to a smaller
    unit, though there are arguments to be made on both sides.  When you
    are dealing with a large multi-national corporation, then the quality
    of the union's research unit is important, as an alternative source of
    information to official company propaganda.
    
    
    Liam
    
    
    Liam

    As a member if the Clerical field, would the IBEW be the Union or the
    9-5 Union.  Are there Secretaries in the Teamsters Union?  

    Decisions our capitalist system are, in the end, driven by a need to
    maximize profits. Within this structure, I feel that managers can
    control the bureaucracy of the power structure for their personal gain.
    
    We can see this in DEC, where there is great fiscal pressure due to the
    decreasing profit margins on our computer products - you'd think this
    would be a sign to get DEC's house in order. But in this climate of
    cuts, it appears that many managers are extending their power-plays:
    sacrificing line-workers and DEC's long-term gains for the sake of
    their own short-term survival. Perhaps it's my local situation, but I
    feel that managers are increasingly losing touch with the reality at
    the customer level as they strive to look good to higher-up's by
    mouthing buzz-words and by cutting-back on people who are in contact
    with customers or actually producing products.

    I feel that the way to improve morale and to bring reality to
    upper levels, would be for line workers to have a voice in the
    direction of DEC. One mechanism to enforce this would be unions and
    workers councils.
    
    After WWII, the unions that were allowed to survive were those that
    were only concerned with raises rather than a real voice in running
    the place where we spend 1/3 of our lives. These unions copied the
    bureacratic structures of the companies that they made deals with.
    More radical unions like the United Electrical Workers (where no union
    official can earn more than the highest paid line worker) were
    suppressed.
    
    I'd like to go farther. For us to be truly in control of our
    lives and our society, we need to have  control over our tools of
    production and control over the organizations in which we live.
 
    Thus I'm interested in worker's control. This may appear unrealistic
    but the next reply discusses the Mondragon  COOP in Spain which is an
    interesting example of large industrial organizations owner and run by
    their workers. For example:
                                                                          
    - Capital is raised initially by workers buying-into the COOP (with
    $2000 -  $4000) and by loans from the central coop. All workers must be
    owners (except for the small exception of specialists under contract). 

    - The final authority of each COOP is a general assembly of the
    members.

    - Managers get paid as white-collar workers. Top salaries are only
    three times that at the bottom.



    The reply after that is an article on the Semco company in Brazil where
    workers decide on their salaries, their work hours, their production
    goals and their managers.

Much of the following is from "Lessons from the Mondragon Coops" - Bob
Milbrath, SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE May/June 1983:


The Mondragon federation of coops, centered in the Basque province of
Guipuzcoa, Spain, has more than 18,000 worker-members and includes:

- 91 industries which produce a wide range of consumer goods, parts, machine	
tools and construction projects; - a coop bank with half a million members; -
an insurance system; - a large network of consumer coops; - its own technical
research center; - and numerous educational, housing, agricultural and service
coops.


After the Spanish Civil War, the pro-Republican Basque region was left in
ruins. In 1943, a young priest founded a technical school for working-class
youths.  Among its first graduates were five students who went on to university
courses  in engineering. After returning to the town of Mondragon and working
several years in the town's largest factory, they started their own operation,
ULGOR, based on the principles of self-management. 

ULGOR's first product was oil-fired cook stoves. In the early months there were
a series of frustrating attempts to master the technology and materials, but
when butane became available, ULGOR was able to produce a desirable gas cooker.
The priest persuaded a consumer coop and the other manufacturing coops around
Mondragon to form a banking coop with ULGOR.  This second-degree coop, with 
other coops as its members, quickly gained deposits from the local community
who shared in the enthusiasm for this undertaking. This growth enabled other 
coops to be financed and for the founding coops to expand.

Within five years about 25 coops had been started or affiliated themselves with
the Mondragon group; almost all of them were in metal-working or furniture 
making. Informal connections among the Basques in the different towns, extended 
family networks, and the Basque eating and drinking clubs were important to the
mobilization of support for the coops. The location of coops in smaller towns
enlivened areas which otherwise might have been drained by emigration of the
more active people to cities.

***

What are the principles and structures of the coops?

The top authority of each coop is the general assembly of members with each 
member having one vote (except for "second-degree" coops). Assemblies are held
once a year; intermediate authority is delegated to an elected board. Board
member get time off from their jobs but no extra pay. There is also a larger
council with representatives from all the work groups which are centers for
discussing problems. The board appoints managers to run day-to-day  operations,
but who are on equal footing with other members. There is also an  elected
financial auditing committee.

Membership is,in principle, open to anyone who wants to join or start their own
coop. Over time, however preference has been given to locals with need for
employment, younger people and women (there are complaints that women have
lower paid positions). Privileges for senior members are limited to prevent
latercomers from having second-class status.

***

It is important to see that forming a coop doesn't make the problems of 
industrialization disappear. The coop structure does, however, provide a means 
for dealing with these problems.

After spending much thought on developing institutional structures to foster
worker cooperation, the coops were not as care with respect to workplace
organization and the implications of mass production. At ULGOR, new members 
were added much faster than the social structure would allow. Large assembly
lines were setup and "scientific management" was used to divide the work into
repetitive tasks. The size of ULGOR invited conflict between line workers and 
management, thus undermining solidarity and close working relationships.

These tensions came to a head in a wildcat strike in 1974, provoked by a change 
in job classifications which upgraded white-collar work at the expense of 
blue-collar. This strike forced a painful reassessment since in theory such a 
strike wasn't supposed to happen in a democratic collective. Some of the 
problems that the strike brought to the surface persist, such as the tension 
between technocratic decision-making and participatory self-management; the 
question of the need for a union even within a coop.

However the strike also brought positive results such as a movement to redesign
workplaces and a policy to keep the maximum membership in a coop around 500 
(using subgroups for economies of scale).

These coops function inside of a capitalist economy, and thus during a
depression, they could be forced to maximize profits at the expense of
long-term benefits in order to survive. Spain's economy has been stagnating.

However the coops are an important model because of their potential to
humanize technology: within the contraints imposed by the market, the members
do in principle retain the ability to chose their technology and form of
orgainization. This will be a challenge for the future.

Reprinted w/o permission from The Economist, June 26th 1993, p66

Diary of an Anarchist

Flattening corporate hierarchies, delegating authority and empowering
workers may be today's managerial orthodoxy, but even the most caring
of modern managers might feel that the way Ricardo Semler runs his
company carries the doctrine of employee involvement to ridiculous
extremes. 

At Semco, a Brazilian manufacturer of pumps, mixers, valves, catering
and other industrial equipment, most employees decide their own
salaries.  Their bonuses, which are tied to the company's profits,
are shared out as they choose.  Everyone, including factory workers,
sets his own working hours and groups of employees set their own
productivity and sales targets.  There are no controls over travel or
business expenses.  There are no manuals or written procedures.
Workers choose their own boss and then publicly evaluate his
performance.  All employees have unlimited access to the company's
books and are trained to read balance sheets.  Everyone knows what
everyone else earns, and some workers earn more than their boss.  Big
corporate decisions, such as diversifications and acquisitions, are
made by all employees.

No, this is not a Tom Peters fantasy.  Far from collapsing into
chaos, Semco has survived, and sometimes even thrived, amid the
turmoil of Brazil's hyperinflationary economy, which has obliterated
thousands of other small manufacturers.  Though hardly a roaring
entrepreneurial success, this is no mean feat.  Mr Semler expects
Semco to earn about $3m on sales of some $30m this year.  The company
has had to expand and shrink quickly to weather some rough periods,
laying off workers occasionally and even coping with strikes.  Today
the firm is debt-free and has nearly 300 workers, with another 200
running their own "satellite" businesses, set up as independent
subcontractors with Semco's help.

Semco's unique management style would be radical anywhere, but in
Brazil, where authoritarian bossism remains in fashion, it looks even
more bizarre.  A parade of business-school academics and managers
from other Brazilian companies has visited Semco's factories.  Mr
Semler's Portuguese-language book on the company has been on Brazil's
bestseller list for 199 weeks and sold 460,000 copies.  In September
he publishes a new, English-language account* of Semco's evolution
since he took over the family firm at the age of 21 in 1980.

Mr Semler's experiment in employee power seems to work largely
because it is allied with some old-fashioned, financial
hard-headedness.  Budget controls are not only transparent, but
strict.  As owner of the firm, Mr Semler demands healthy dividends.
And because a large proportion of the earnings of all employees is
also tied directly to the firms's profits, peer pressure on employees
not to abuse their freedoms is enormous.  "It's really very simple,"
says Mr Semler. "All we're doing is treating people like adults."

*       "Maverick!" By Ricardo Semler. Century; 272 pages;
        Warner books; $22.95

	... has an essay ("My Turn") from a former postal workers union member 
and officer abou t why she left the union.

Hi,

here my thoughts/experiences from Kaufbeuren KBO Germany (plant will be closed
at 06/30/94) over the recent years:

- almost nobody was/is a member of the union (majority: we don't need a union!)
  
- everybody has been taken the advantages (short working time, long vacation
  etc.) and hasn't paid a penny for it.
  (These working conditions are the results of negotiations of other firms with 
  the unions and Digital couldn't ignore it, because it had to be competitive
  as an employer in the past. They are not German laws, see previous replies).

- now the plant will be closed and the package isn't bad as a result of previous
  negotiations between Digital Germany, the union and the works council from 
  Munich.

The single employee would have no chance to get such conditions and despite of
these facts I think the majority is still against the union.  Why?

Bernhard