Conference 7.286::dcu

  I read that article and IMO the waived account fees is mainly a symbolic
gesture. I couldn't tell if the special deal on loans is significant; I suppose
it could be if you are deeply in debt. I thought the most valuable benefit 
mentioned is free financial counseling, which is available to all DCU members.
  I recognize that from DCU's standpoint these benefits are a major expend-
iture; DCU's head count of laid-off DECcies could easily reach 20,000 in a
few months.

I expect to see DCU's active membership decrease quite a bit.  DCU must
be more than competitive to keep people coming back.  With banks having
more offices/services and the like, DCU has to win on other fronts.

My experience is they are not competitive with the other CU's I use. 
With banks, it is more win some/lose some...

My expectation is that DEC looses 20k employees, DCU will loose roughly
10,000-15,000 members over the next year or two.  The only way DCU can
keep the numbers higher is being more attractive.

The NUMBER 1 reason why people use DCU, is because it is in their
building...  Pretty soon, 20,000 people will be close to DCU office.

Sobering thought...

	- mark

    As I'm not a DCU member anymore and I didn't get the latest issue of
    this newsletter, so I don't know the details of the "sensitivity to
    less fortunate members" which is under discussion.  I would note, in
    amidst my appreciation, that it is somewhat ironic for DCU to be
    solicitous of former DIGITAL employees' affairs, when they themselves
    have apparently been so deeply embroiled in causing at least some of
    them to BECOME former employees.  Someone deserves recognition for
    this.
    

    re: .3
    
    If you have any evidence that DCU is "deeply embroiled in causing"
    anyone to be discharged from Digital, please come forward with it to
    the SC.  To my knowledge, and to the knowledge of others on the SC,
    there is no connection and we've not found evidence of the connection
    to date.  We've not yet seen any real evidence.  We *have* spoken to
    Digital about it.  Basically, we were told that Digital does not
    discuss Personnel actions with outside parties, DCU included.
    
    Steve

    Was the DCU as an organization involved with the firing of the 3G's?
    It seems highly unlikely if not completely impossible.
    
    Were individuals who are either DCU employees or DCU directors
    involved with pressuring Digital to do something about the 3G's?
    That is quite possible.  It is sloppy language to equate this to
    "DCU involvement" in the firings, but I suspect that that was what
    was meant.  
    
    Regarding evidence of the same, please excuse me for quoting your
    own words back at you:  "We've not yet seen any real evidence" and
    "Digital does not discuss Personnel actions with outside parties".
    In other words, if there is evidence, it's where you cannot get at it.
    So it's no wonder you haven't seen any!
    
    I'll just close by noting that the personnel action that was taken
    against the 3Gs a couple of years ago (as well as myself and 3 others)
    was almost certainly instigated by a then-member of the DCU Board of
    Directors.  However, there is no evidence because Ron Glover chose
    to keep the identity of the complainant(s) secret.  Note that I'm not
    saying that the complainint(s) did anything wrong.  I'm just saying
    that the fact that there is no evidence is NO grounds to claim that
    they weren't involved.  Speculation is not always appropriate, but
    speculation is the only thing that is available to us when the only
    people who know the truth refuse to talk.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry
    
    PS -- I assume that the situation with the "Qualified Board" posters
    is the same?  That is, that you asked some people, they refused to
    answer, and so you've concluded that there's no evidence and dropped
    it?  Can you at least tell us who you asked about this?  E.g., did
    you ask Lisa DeMauro Ross from whom she got the posters that she was
    alleged to have passed out in office areas?

    re: .5
    
    As to "evidence" that might be kept secret at Digital, you're
    absolutely right.  If the evidence is at Digital and Digital refuses to
    let DCU get access to it, we can't go much further.  The SC has made a
    conscious decision to take actions based on fact as best we can.
    
    As for the "Qualified Board" stuff, I understand it would not be 
    appropriate for me to comment on certain things regarding that in 
    this forum.
    
    Steve

re: .4

Steve,

   First you urge people to please come forward with any info they might have.
   Then you admit that DIGITAL personnel will not be open with any information
  they might have.
   Do you not sense the potential risk to the Payroll Continuation Plan for
  anyone who might have such info?

   If you wish to state simply that the SC has no knowledge of any such
  involvements, that's easy enough to say without introducing the paradox
  which results from challenging it.

-Jack

re: .6, Steve
    
>    As for the "Qualified Board" stuff, I understand it would not be 
>    appropriate for me to comment on certain things regarding that in 
>    this forum.

On any particular grounds?
And, if this isn't an appropriate forum, can you suggest one which might
be appropriate so that we could reconvene on the matter there? Or are
you suggesting that the matter shouldn't be discussed period?

-Jack

    re my note .5:  
    
    I wasn't completely clear about which complaint from 2+ years ago I
    was talking about.  I was referring to the complaint that arose from
    posting the "Luther Document" in this notes file.  So far as I know,
    it was the only complaint that actually resulted in a personnel
    action against the 3Gs.  It was certainly the only event that has 
    ever resulted in a personnel action against me.  
    
    The reason I'm sure that it was made by a then-member of the DCU Board
    is because when I asked Ron Glover who made the complaint, he replied
    "You know who it is".  No I don't, I told him, and I still don't, but
    I assume that he meant that it was one or more DCU Board members.
    The odd part is that Ron actually quoted (in mail) from the complaint
    that he received, but wouldn't reveal whose words he was quoting.
    
    Again, I realize that there were a variety of other complaints that
    were made at the time -- including a number of complaints asking to 
    have violations of Digital policy stopped regarding the distribution
    of that year's version of the "Qualified Board" poster.  I am not
    aware that *any* of these other complaints actually resulted in any
    sort of personnel action, though of course I wouldn't necessarily know.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry
    
    PS -- Steve, I appreciate that you may know things about the "Qualified
    Board" flier that you can't talk about.  I hope you understand the
    frustration of those who want to see concrete evidence that the SC
    can take effective action about things like this.  It's not personal.

>    PS -- Steve, I appreciate that you may know things about the "Qualified
>    Board" flier that you can't talk about.  I hope you understand the
>    frustration of those who want to see concrete evidence that the SC
>    can take effective action about things like this.  It's not personal.

I'll ditto this.  Until I see results of the SC I'll keep asking for the 
who, what, where, when.

    re: the past few
    
    The nature of SC investigations is that, as a rule, they are
    confidential.  Sometimes the results and recommendations of the SC are
    made known.  Other times, the SC is not at liberty to even disclose
    that an investigation has taken place.  As an SC member, I sometimes
    have to walk that line.  If I say I can't discuss it, it can well be
    because it involves or could involve SC investigation and confidences.
    
    As to the paradox.  First, let me rephrase the paradox as I see it. 
    Basically, the SC can't recommend or do much unless there are some
    facts to work on.  So, if we are to do anything with respect to, for
    example, the termination of the 3G's as a result of actions taken by
    the DCU we'd need facts.  But, those facts might be confidential to
    Digital, so someone may be at risk if they were to divulge those facts.
    
    Since the nature of the SC is to maintain confidences, I expect we
    would stay true to that.  But, it would probably be inappropriate for
    DCU to receive Digital confidential information.  So, I wouldn't
    encourage anyone to do that.
    
    In fact, I was involved in a similar situation some years ago.  On the
    one hand, we could have gone to the SC (had it been active at that time,
    which apparently was not the case).  Instead, we went straight to the
    highest levels of management at Digital.  Did we get good results?  In
    a way, looking at what eventually happened, we didn't really see direct
    results or get comforting responses.  When you are in that kind of
    situation what you really want is for someone to kick *ss and take
    names.  But, eventually, gradually a funny thing happened.  Basically,
    most of the folks who may have had a hand in this situation have -- how
    can I put this delicately -- felt "encouraged," apparently, to "seek
    other opportunities" outside of Digital.
    
    As it happens, others that I was involved with have also left Digital,
    but I expect that, for the most part, their leaving was unrelated to
    this prior incident.  My point is that I have seen where working within
    Digital to solve a problem within Digital *can* work, although *how* it
    works may not be exactly what one would expect.  Within DCU, working
    within its systems also *can* work.
    
    Steve