[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::digital

Title:The Digital way of working
Moderator:QUARK::LIONELON
Created:Fri Feb 14 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:5321
Total number of notes:139771

2169.0. "Digital and Politics" by CASDOC::MEAGHER (It's time, George.) Mon Oct 19 1992 19:26

From USA Today, Oct. 19, 1992, in an article titled "Experts: Wise workers
leave politics at home" (the last 3 paragraphs in the article):

"At Boeing in Seattle, workers can't wear campaign buttons to work or put
political posters on the walls. At Digital Equipment in Maynard, Mass.,
campaign buttons are OK but political posters are allowed only in private
offices.

"Although CEOs of companies such as Apple Computer have endorsed presidential
candidates, Boeing management doesn't do so. Neither does Digital's.

" 'We have over 100,000 employees around the world who have their own opinions,'
says Mark Frederickson, a spokesman for Digital. 'We don't want to sway them.'"
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
2169.1How soon they forgetSDSVAX::SWEENEYEIB: Rush on 17, Pat on 6Mon Oct 19 1992 19:312
    Except when it comes to the "independent" Digital Equipment Employees
    Federal Credit Union.
2169.2ANARKY::BREWERJohn Brewer Component Engr. @ABOTue Oct 20 1992 12:401
    touche'!
2169.3for a slightly different UK perspective...SYSTEM::COCKBURNCraig CockburnTue Oct 20 1992 15:233
See also topics 47 and 394 in ROCKS::UK_DIGITAL

Craig
2169.4MIMS::PARISE_MSouthern, but no comfortFri Oct 23 1992 23:457
    
    Boeing is a big, BIG, defense contractor, who at any time can have some
    very important government and military people touring the facilities
    and observing workers.  Boeing's management is properly concerned with
    avoiding any hint of insensitivity to someone's delicate political
    feathers.
    
2169.5Digital taking a stand on a ballot itemCVG::THOMPSONRadical CentralistWed Nov 04 1992 16:3043
    I'm told the following was sent around in CXO. Perhaps in other 
    Colorado locations?
    
================================================================================

Subj:	Digital on Amendment 2 (Pls Fwd)

                 (PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL CXO EMPLOYEES)

                Colorado Amendment 2 Position Statement

FYI:  Digital Equipment Corporation took a position against the Colorado 
Constitutional Amendment #2 last week.  A letter was sent to the Governor 
and to EPO Colorado/The Equal Protection Campaign stating our opposition to 
this proposed measure.

Though Digital's Management does not attempt to advise its employees on how 
to vote, it will from time to time take a public position on an issue where 
it is determined to have serious implications on our business.  This is a 
management decision and position, not an employee popularity position.

The following position statement reflects our Company posture on this issue.


Digital Equipment Corporation recognizes diversity as a critical dimension
of our business success.  Our goal is to continue to build a diverse
workforce and ensure that our environment allows and maximizes the full
contribution of all of our employees.

Our strength comes from the vast diversity within our population.  The
contributions made by people that are different in terms of race,
religion, physical abilities/disabilities, gender, veteran status,
national origin and sexual orientation are key and will continue to be
key to our future success.

We must continue to attract and retain the best employees in the world.
We must also ensure that our employees are afforded with basic equal
rights and are treated with dignity, respect and protected under the law.

Amendment 2 proposes discrimination based on an individual's sexual
orientation.  Digital Equipment Corporation therefore opposes this
amendment or any other amendment which would sanction discrimination.

2169.6CSC32::M_BLESSINGMike Blessing, CSC/CS Alpha SupportWed Nov 04 1992 17:513
I am a CXO employee.  I never received this memo.

Amendment 2 passed, BTW.
2169.7MU::PORTERbye, george!Wed Nov 04 1992 18:021
What's Amendment 2?
2169.8We talk a good game, now...SCAACT::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Wed Nov 04 1992 18:094
    When do we put our money where our mouth is and move all our facilities
    out of Colorado?
    
    Bob
2169.9Amendment 2 to the Colorado State ConstitutionIMTDEV::BRUNOFather GregoryWed Nov 04 1992 18:1312
     The memo came from Jack Kellogg, the public relations manager at CXO.
It was sent at just the right time to be read AFTER everyone had voted.  I
can't say for sure if that was intentional.

     The amendment basically makes it illegal for a town in Colorado to have 
a law which forbids discrimination against homosexuals, and prevents 
homosexuals from claiming discrimination on that basis.  It passed with a
53% vs. 47% majority.


                                         Greg
2169.10CSC32::M_BLESSINGMike Blessing, CSC/CS Alpha SupportWed Nov 04 1992 18:306
re: .9 Maybe I'll still be getting the memo later, then.  I'll have that
to look forward to. :-)

It's pretty typical here that messages sent down from above to a wide
distribution list show up late.  I don't know if this is intentional
or simply a misunderstanding by the sender on how nmail works.
2169.11IMTDEV::BRUNOFather GregoryWed Nov 04 1992 19:3312
RE: <<< Note 2169.10 by CSC32::M_BLESSING "Mike Blessing, CSC/CS Alpha Support" >>>

>It's pretty typical here that messages sent down from above to a wide
>distribution list show up late.  I don't know if this is intentional
>or simply a misunderstanding by the sender on how nmail works.

     If you're talking about my comment, I was referring to the time the 
message was SENT, not when it was received.

     ...but yes, I have received many an important message too late for effect.

                                     Greg
2169.12this one will go to the Supreme CourtCUPTAY::BAILEYCertified Ski DestructorThu Nov 05 1992 13:577
    >> What's Amendment 2?
    
    Unconstitutional (IMO) ... watch this one get challenged and chew up a
    a lot of court time and $$ before it finally gets overturned.
    
    ... Bob
    
2169.13CSOA1::LENNIGDave (N8JCX), MIG, CincinnatiThu Nov 05 1992 14:232
    I saw some discussion of this on tv the other night. I'm curious on
    what basis does .12 think it is unconstitutional? 
2169.14Conference pointer...SCAACT::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Thu Nov 05 1992 14:288
    Please continue the discussion of the Colorado Constitution Amendment
    in the Colorado conference.
    
    KP7 or SELECT to add the Colorado conference to your notebook.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL
2169.15BSS::C_BOUTCHERThu Nov 05 1992 14:332
    It has been hashed out in over 252 entries on the Colorad note at
    COMET::COLORADO entry 1620.  Take this there.