| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2461.1 | | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | Patrick Sweeney in New York | Sat Apr 10 1993 19:18 | 5 |
| If you are sincere in attempting to obtain an opinion from us, please
think a bit more about what you are writing about and ask again.
Most replies here will likely speculate about what you meant to write
or complain that your basenote was incomprehensible.
|
| 2461.2 | | 11SRUS::POITRAS | | Sat Apr 10 1993 19:20 | 4 |
| RE .1 Thanks. I was thinking the same thing but wasn't sure how to say it
without sounding rude. Good job.
Mac
|
| 2461.3 | .0, Is this what you mean? | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Sat Apr 10 1993 22:10 | 7 |
| I suspect that .0 was meaning our apparent #1 unwritten rule - stay out of court
unless we file the suit.
I think a lot of this relates to the difficulty in dismissing employees and the
veto power that Personnel has over TFSO lists.
Bob
|
| 2461.4 | "Bulls-eye." | TRACTR::MOODY | | Sun Apr 11 1993 04:43 | 1 |
| ref.3. Exactly.
|
| 2461.5 | | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | Patrick Sweeney in New York | Mon Apr 12 1993 12:42 | 4 |
| OK, what is your point about the "difficulting in dismissing employees"
and the "veto power that Personnel over TFSO lists".
Is this a topic note in installments?
|
| 2461.6 | Your serve | 16BITS::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Wed Apr 14 1993 17:08 | 10 |
| I agree with Pat. Is this supposed to be a game of 20 questions or what?
By the "veto power of personnel" are you referring to the fact that personnel
has been a participant in a review process to evaluate whether or not
there are potential liability issues for the company surrounding the
dismissal of certain individuals based on EEO/AA classifications, as
well as other factors? And, if so, are you for it, or agin' it? Or wasn't
that the intent of the discussion?
-Jack
|
| 2461.7 | {"Non, Pas Encore!} | TRACTR::MOODY | | Thu Apr 15 1993 06:35 | 25 |
| Ref. all previous discussion on this topic.
Thanks for your question(s). I prefer not to think of my inquiry as a
game; however, if it makes you comfortable, go for it.
There was a time when,IMHO, there was a discernible, if
unwritten, reluctance to go toe to toe in litigation, even when we
were 100% sure to prevail. We didn't want our "image" tarnished.
Question: Has this, like so many other things, changed ?
Question: Are we more assertive, more protective of what we see as
"Ours"?
Question: Are we as focused as we once were on our "Image" or are we
more focused on "Substance"?
C'est Tout !
-RAM-
|
| 2461.8 | Why do you ask? | NOVA::SWONGER | Rdb Software Quality Engineering | Thu Apr 15 1993 12:07 | 7 |
| I still don't see the point - your question looks (to me) like it
has something behind it that you are not stating.
And, for what it's worth, I find double-spaced text much more
difficult to read.
Roy
|
| 2461.9 | Self evident | ANNECY::HOTCHKISS | | Fri Apr 23 1993 10:04 | 11 |
| re .8 me too
re .7.I would have thought it was self evident that the new management
of this company is likely to make the company start to play by the
rules of the market rather than thinking we have a divine right not to
or to make the rules or to rise sublimely above them.
So,in answer your question-yes,I reckon DEC will go to court one day
soon over an issue of principles in business and most likely win.And I
also reckon we will be taken to court by a disgruntled employee(most
likely in the US) and probably lose.
Get my drift?All the things that happen to ordinary companies...?
Stuart
|