Conference 7.286::digital

Re: 0

Dave, I'm amused that you would find anything that the management of the
DCU would do (esp wrt BoD elections) "incredible."

I sympathize and am in complete agreement with you.  Ludicrous!

Mike

Re: <<< Note 2936.0 by SMAUG::GARROD "DCU Board of Director's Candidate" >>>

>Interestingly DCU HQ had sent out a memo to the MLO branch saying that
>candidates were not to campaign within a 100 feet of a branch. 

I wonder how they define "within 100 feet"?  The CXO branch is directly 
*underneath* the CXO1 cafeteria... 

I agree with you, though.  Totally ludicrous.

BTW, let us know when you're coming out here to campaign...  :-)

-  David

What the hell is the story with the DCU? I cannot believe the events of the 
last two years and am totally dumbfounded that these sort of petty political 
actions are still going on? Didn't the change in the BOD have any positive
effect? Have the champions of change who were elected to the DCU Board been 
brainwashed to behave like their predecessors?

Unbelievable.

Jim

    We are about to see another change in the BOD...It seems it is also
    about time the BOD appointed an individual who believes in Credit
    Unions...instead of banks.
    
    How much further does DCU's management have to go before they wake up.
    
    
    

re:             <<< Note 2936.3 by RCOCER::MICKOL "I work for Xerox." >>>

> Have the champions of change who were elected to the DCU Board been 
> brainwashed to behave like their predecessors?

Some still represent the ideals they were elected for. Others appear not
to. Others still, represented the wrong things to begin with.

-Jack

    Can you name the name(s) of the DCU jerk(s) who issued the no
    campaigning memo. This would be fun to know.

>>At lunchtime Thursday March 10th Phil Gransewicz, Chris Gillett and myself
>>were in the MLO cafeteria at a table we had set up to distribute DCU election
>>information and answer members questions.


  For those of you who don't know it...Phil Gransewicz is CURRENTLY on the 
DCU BOD!  So don't jump to the conclusion that the BOD (or at least the
*entire* BOD) is responsible here.

    
    Why doesn't everyone do what I did years ago, take your money out
    of there. The DCU is even more unresponsive to people outside the
    GMA of maybe Colorado Springs.

    I am entering a message (as a reply) from the base note author.  A
    belated hello from Dave Garrod.
    
    I have Dave's persmission to post in this conference. 
    
    Moderators, sorry if inappropriate.  If so do what you have to.  But I
    believe this is nothing all that inflamatory in what is contained in
    +.1.
    
    I am posting in this way as there has been past controversy.
    
    Grahame

    Using best Dr McCoy voice, "Damn it Jim!"
    
    Jim is refering to a note that I accidentally posted.  There was some
    pretty sensitive stuff.  Knowing that there is a history with Dave
    (judging from the final action) I decided it was best to remove and
    post the following from Dave.
    
    Grahame
    
From:	US2RMC::"DGarrod@aol.com" 19-JUL-1994 23:32:31.44
To:	spseg::plaisted
CC:	
Subj:	Thanks for the info

Grahame,

Thanks for all the information. Regarding posting my message.
If you do post it in SNAGWY put a header on it saying something
like...

I was talking to Dave Garrod last night. He says "Hi" to everybody
he used to work with. I'm sure he'd appreciate mail, I know he never got to
say goodbye to the many people in the field he used to
work closely with. His email address is
US1RMC::"dgarrod@aol.com". He's still looking for a new job and
I'm sure he'd appreciate hearing about any leads in the New
England area that anybody may have.

All the best,

Dave



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us2rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA25935; Tue, 19 Jul 94 23:28:14 -040
% Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/27May94) id AA26108; Tue, 19 Jul 94 20:26:15 -070
% Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA25015; Tue, 19 Jul 1994 23:25:59 -040
% From: DGarrod@aol.com
% X-Mailer: America Online Mailer
% Sender: "DGarrod" <DGarrod@aol.com>
% Message-Id: <9407192325.tn646758@aol.com>
% To: spseg::plaisted
% Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 23:25:48 EDT
% Subject: Thanks for the info

There's a new Usenet group, alt.digital.dcu, where some of this is starting
to be discussed.

Perry

So what happened to reply .10 -- I assumed it's
been deemed offensive, or something like that?

    
    
    	I just set my own note (.11) hidden, because of note (.12).  I'll
    think about it some more, and probably delete it, since .10 wasn't
    supposed to go out in its entirety.
    
    		Thats a first!  I never thought I'd censor my own note. :-)
    
    Jim Morton

RE: ALT.DIGITAL.DCU newsgroup.

>There's a new Usenet group, alt.digital.dcu, where some of this is starting
>to be discussed.

This newsgroup can be accessed by ANYONE who has an internet connection. 
If you have friends who are no longer with Digital, but are members of
DCU, then they should get access so they can communicate about the
latest happenings at DCU.

	- mark

FYI,

This newsgroup is available on America Online, also, which is "home" to the
G3.

BobW

        The title of this note, "DCU attempts to set policy for
        Digital employees", seemed to make it most appropriate for
        this discussion:

        re Note 2784.97 by LEEL::LINDQUIST:

>     Also, I had another question.  There is an alt.dcu newsgroup
>     on the Internet.  Would I be violating a memo-policy if I
>     posted to that newsgroup during the 'quiet time'?  From an
>     account on a Digital machine?  From a private
>     Internet-provider account, even while a Digital employee?
  
        Perhaps you would be violating this policy just to *read*
        campaign-related material from alt.digital.dcu!

        The policy memo issued by Ron Glover (see following) would
        seem to bar the use of all corporate-owned electronic media,
        and not just notes, for DCU campaigning-related
        communications during the "quiet period."

        So am I to conclude that the notes conference "mirror" of
        alt.digital.dcu that I operate would be barred from carrying
        anything that came from alt.digital.dcu which fit the
        description of campaigning during this period?

        Does this Digital-imposed enforcement of the DCU quiet period
        even apply to the alt.digital.dcu newsgroup itself, when
        distributed by internal news servers and accessed by internal
        news readers?  Will the administrators of news servers be
        required to exclude alt.digital.dcu from service during the
        quiet period?

        Will Digital carry this policy further and enforce the
        policies of other independent organizations to which large
        numbers of Digital employees belong?   For example, will
        Digital enforce the election rules of the IEEE on Digital's
        internal media?

        Bob

        [The following was posted in the SMAUG::DCU conference as
        Note 1.15. The memo expressly states that it is to be posted
        in multiple places for "broad visibility". -- RJF]

From:	ZKOMTS::ZKOMTS::MRGATE::"NEMTS::POWDML::A1::GLOVER.RON" 12-AUG-1994 15:58:47.81
To:	RECV::KILGORE
CC:	
Subj:	DIGITAL CREDIT UNION ELECTION                                          1

From:	NAME: Ron Glover                    
	FUNC:                                 
	TEL:                                  <GLOVER.RON AT A1 at POWDML at PKO>
To:	diane pitochelli @ogo,
	lisa demauro ross @jgo,
	bill kilgore @zko,
	paul milbury @mso,
	lois haskins @mso


    As you know, the Digital Credit Union (DCU) election is currently in 
    progress.  My office has received numerous inquiries regarding the 
    appropriate use of Digital systems and note conferences during DCU 
    elections.  Also, in prior DCU elections, we have had a large number of 
    complaints about the use of Digital's network for communications 
    concerning the DCU.
    
    Digital has existing Personnel Policies and Procedures that address the 
    proper use of Digital's network and notes conferences  and these are 
    supplemented by the standards I issued on March 7, 1994 that pertain to 
    DCU elections.  Digital has reviewed these policies and they remain as 
    stated for this election.
    
    The DCU has its own Election Campaign Rules.  Digital Equipment has 
    been made aware of these rules and in particular, the rule that 
    prohibits campaigning during the "quiet period", twenty-one days prior 
    to the completion of balloting.  In an effort to avoid claims that 
    Digital Equipment Corporation assets are being used in violation of the 
    DCU election rules and potentially causing harm to the DCU, Digital 
    will also prohibit campaigning during the twenty-one day "quiet 
    period."
    
    Therefore, from August 25, 1994 through September 15, 1994, DCU 
    candidates and their supporters may not campaign in any fashion at a 
    Digital facility or on Digital systems, networks, note files, or 
    conferences.  We define "campaigning" as any activity by candidates or 
    their supporters within a public medium during an election, intended to 
    support one or more candidates.
    
    We request that the DCU Notes File Moderator post this memo in the DCU 
    Notes File.  We will also post it in LIVEWIRE and elsewhere to ensure 
    broad visibility and awareness of this important notice.
    
    If there are any specific questions about particular communications or 
    concerning this memo, please feel free to contact my office.
    
    Regards.
    
    Ron Glover
    
    /ah

    re: last two
    
    Bob,
    
      Depending on the number of mouths you need to keep fed, I'd shut it
    all down immediately (I have nine mouths to feed).  Mr. Glover's memo
    is so vague as to warrant random interpretation and, worse yet, random
    application.  Based on the three gentlemen who were already shown the
    door, I'd play this situation on the conservative side.
    
      So, let's say everything gets write-locked and shutdown for the 21
    day period.  Perhaps many will complain suvh that the ludicrousness of
    this policy will be reviewed.  I can understand the concern Digital has
    regarding misuse of the network, but Mr. Glover provides *no*
    specifics,leaving it up to his interpretation....
    
    Charlie

    	Actually, I think it is the other way round. Digital notes files
    are explicitly *NOT* public unless there is EXARC approval and lots of
    precautions (haven't we had this discussion?), so discussion in the DCU
    conference would still be permitted.
    
    	I think the rule means that DCU cannot distribute ballot papers
    since these could not have such restricted visibility. In the absence
    of distributed ballot papers, who would be likely to win?

    	Actually, I think the policy should be rigorously applied, not only
    for DCU elections but for national elections too. No public discussions
    of possible names for a future president would be permitted for 21
    days before the elections.
    
    	This would save a lot of campaign money, and would also ensure that
    anyone who voted would have had 21 days for mature consideration. The
    average member of the public who votes without thought would probably
    have forgotten the election was taking place because of the 21 day
    moratorium, so you would only get the thinking people voting.
    
    	Of course there would be a slight bias. The incumbent president
    could conclude a nuclear proliferation treaty with Ruritania in those
    days, and in those circumstances it might be difficult to keep his name
    completely out of the press, but the incumbent has an advantage anyway,
    so it probably wouldn't change much.
    
    	And of course gradually the 21 day period could be extended...
    until it was impossible to talk about any presidential candidate in
    public.

re .19


It seems that only candidates and their supporters are 
gagged.  If you are positively against one or more 
candidates, you can say so, as long as you're not in favour 
of anyone else.



[I agree with the subsequent comments about the vagueness of
this proclamation]

    re: .23
    
    I interpreted it as forbidding even that much. 
    
    Which just proves the original point, that it's so vague it's
    dangerous.
    
    --bonnie

Not to mention unconstitutional.  Amendment #1, I believe.

8^)

Re: .25

Nope.  Doesn't apply within a business environment.

				Steve

    Since when can a business superseed laws/government???

re Note 2936.27 by PCOJCT::CRANE:

>     Since when can a business superseed laws/government???
  
        The point is that Digital is *not* (explicitly) saying what
        an employee can or cannot do or say outside of work.  Digital
        is simply saying that Digital's equipment and facilities,
        including Digital's in-house network, are not to be used in
        certain ways.

        Since presumably employees have (or could have) alternative
        means of communication regarding the DCU election, this
        hardly prevents exercise of free speech.

        Bob

    	Support the right to bear notes files/bulletin boards. Guns are
    obselete in a modern society. Anyway, as .26 points out, DEC can
    exclude any of these from its premises.

    
    >Since when can a business supersede laws/government?
    
      A business can't.  YOu're free to speak,  and DEC is free to 
    fire you...
    
      There was a case about 3 years ago where a fairly high profile
    raytheon(?) employee spoke his mind in public on some political issue,
    and was canned.   (I think it was here in Mass.)  
    
      I don't know the legal reasoning behind it,  but  he sued  and 
    lost.
    
    
    							-al
    

The first amendment reads

	"Congress shall make no law..."

not

	"Digital Equipment Corporation shall make no law..."


A consitution is a document describing the structure of a government, the
powers granted to it and the powers withheld from it.  It has absolutely
*no* application to the conduct of a corporation.  Nothing in it prevents
Digital from limiting (even arbitrarily and capriciously) our speech or
enforcing that limitation as it sees fit.  The nondisclosure agreement
that we all sign is the most obvious example.

Of course, jurisdictions from Congress to the local level can legislate
limitations on the conduct of an employer, though I am unaware of legis-
lation requiring corporate regulations to be rational and comprehensible.
Write your Congressman!

Steve

    A cororation is considered an "entity" and is not entitled to maker
    harsher rule`s or laws than what the constitution spells out. Just as
    states can not superseed federal law.

Yeah, right.

So, because (for example) there's no provision in the 
U.S. Constitution which would allow the government to 
dictate where I spend 40 hours per week, it follows that 
it is unlawful for DEC to make any rules along those lines.

This *is* the thrust of your argument, isn't it?

>        The point is that Digital is *not* (explicitly) saying what
>        an employee can or cannot do or say outside of work.  Digital
>        is simply saying that Digital's equipment and facilities,
>        including Digital's in-house network, are not to be used in
>        certain ways.
>
>        Since presumably employees have (or could have) alternative
>        means of communication regarding the DCU election, this
>        hardly prevents exercise of free speech.

    Well, I'm not sure its as clear cut as you imply. 
    
    A Digital lunch room is also a Digital facility. To what extent
    would you feel comfortable if a notice were to be put on each table
    indicating that the following list of topics is not to be discussed.
    
    Mind you we're not talking about someone having a megaphone but
    colleagues who are free to sit in at the table or not and leave
    when they want. The analogy with a notes conference is obvious.
    
    Take it one step furthur: you drive into a Digital parking lot and
    are confronted with a sign saying: "The following subjects may not
    be discussed at any time on these premises.".
    
    One question that crops up is "To what extent are the above mentioned
    facilities more or less facilities than this notes conference?".
    
    If participation is voluntary (which certainly applies to a notes
    conference) then I wonder...
    
    Some laws DO supersede any "business" legislation. For example, I'm
    pretty sure that Digital cannot mandate summary execution as an
    alternative to TFSO regardless of the possible financial attractiveness
    of such an option.
    
    Digital does of course have the option of removing the facility
    altogether. Digital also can mandate rules do prevent harm or
    discomfiture on employees or possible financial loss. But ownership of
    a facility does not give absolute rights about how that facility can or
    cannot be used. That applies to your house which may be subject to
    certain zoning laws and it applies to your car with which you have to
    observe traffic rules.
    
    re roelof
    
        Bob

The constitution is not the document that determines limitations on a
corporation.  Statutes enacted by the jurisdictions to which it is subject
are the relevant laws.  For example, the laws of Holland prohibit murder,
thus removing this from the corporation's range of downsizing options.
(What a relief, Roelof, eh?)  The same applies, I take it, in Massachusetts.
The US constitution does not mention murder.

The constitution grants you the right to "keep and bear arms", but this
would not prevent Digital from prohibiting the bringing of guns to work.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has been a part of the
constitution since shortly after the Civil War (1860-65, for you non-
Americans), but up until the First World War it was considered acceptable
to offer jobs in the public press with a specification of which ethnic
groups would not be considered.  And only in recent years have statutes
been enacted that explicitly prohibit discrimination in hiring.  (At that,
America is considerably out in front of most of the world in this regard.)

The point is that you cannot appeal to constitutional rights in a corporate
context in the absence of legislation applying those rights to the workplace.
The constitution is a document about what *government* does.  Period.

Steve

Since people seem open to supposition, what if the e-mail to Digital 
employees had been sent from a (say) compuserve account (or some other
network service provider's system).

Would the 3G's be in the same position as they are now?  Should they be?
Is their crime 'sending from' an internal account, or 'sending to'
internal accounts?  What if a non-digital employee credit union member
sent mail from an external account? 

	Joe

    I have been fascinated by this string, and learnt a lot about the law
    and the constitution, etc. (I hope most of it is accurate).
    
    So when I saw in .35:
    The constitution is a document about what *government* does.  Period.
    I thought I'd check it out. I was surprised how in line the
    Constitution must be with other institutions, including our own
    employer.
    
    My source...The American Heritage Dictionary of the English (sic)
    Language.
    
    
    constitution (n) ... The act or process of constituting ...
    
    constitute (v) ... To make up ...
    
    
    Hmmm....
    
    ok - here's the smiley :-}
    
    I did not quote all the meanings of each word. However, the meanings I
    did quote are the first for each word.

    Re: .32
    
    You are right.  
    
    The US Constitution limits the actions of corporations and individuals
    as well as those of the 50 States and the Federal Government.
    
    Neither DCU nor Digital may deprive you of life, liberty, or 
    property without due process of law.
    
    Now, which of these three do you claim to have been deprived
    of?
    
    Dave
    

RE: .37

The Constitution of the United States of America is the documented 
that constituted (made up; created) the USA.  Hence its name.


RE: first ammendment and free speech

As employees, we have a contract with Digital Equipment Corporation. 
As part of that contract, we agree to perform certain tasks for the 
Corporation and to abide by the policy and procedure rules of the 
Corporation.  Part of this includes agreeing to certain restrictions 
on rights such as free speech (e.g., the non-disclosure agreement). 
In return, the Corporation pays us our salaries.

Such agreements, in which one gives up rights or freedoms otherwise 
held in return for some compensation, are the whole basis for legal 
contracts.

--PSW