Conference 7.286::digital

I read the article as I am a subscriber and I was astounded to see some of
the perks other companies had to offer in the area of child/elder care.

Liz

    It was on Good Morning America as well. IBM and SAS institute are the only
    computer companies in the top ten. IBM gives three years for maternity
    leave with guarantee of an equivalent job upon return. 
                

    ref .2
    >IBM gives three years for maternity leave with guarantee of an equivalent
    >job upon return.
    
    Do you know if only women can apply for this leave?  
    can any other qualified employee apply for it too?
    
    thank you,
    /Nasser
    

    Just another example of the continuing death spiral of DEC.  Any
    company which lays off its top performers  just because they happen
    to be in a politically incorrect business unit doesn't deserve to
    be on any list.

    
    Those other companies can afford to provide nice percs. 
    We're too busy paying no-ops high salaries.
    

    RE:-1. I strongly concur. 
    

re. Dick

AMEN.


Mark

    I don't know as how I would call the subject of this note a "perk".
    
    And I don't think having more money would necesssarily mean women
    would get a better deal.
    

    *Should* women get a *better* deal?  
    
    I am only speaking for myself, but DEC has been pretty darn good
    to this working woman (assuming I am willing to look at the whole
    picture).
    
    I never had children......I don't have a college degree.....I came
    in the door as a secretary and have managed to move to a job that
    I (usually) enjoy :-)  I'd like more money, but who wouldn't these
    days?  Perhaps I was fortunate enough to be hired at a time in DEC's
    history where the only thing limiting one's ability to move up or
    anywhere, was one's willingness to do the hard work to get wherever
    they wanted to be.
    
    I think the concept of 3 years maternity leave is wonderful if (and
    this can be a mighty big IF); the company could offer it and not have
    it impact the company negatively as far as the future of DEC is
    concerned.  I'm sure we could come up with quite a "wish list" if
    we tried, but is that feasible considering today's circumstances?
    Please understand, I applaud those couples who are willing to risk
    sacrificing the pace of their career growth so they can spend more
    time with children as they start/expand their families.....but is
    DEC in a position to make guarantees these days?  I'd like to think
    DEC will be here 3 years from now, but I sure wouldn't want to ask
    for that type of leave while watching folks still being escorted out
    the door.
    
    A little off track, but perhaps this will provide insight as to
    where I'm coming from......
    
    
    ********
    A few years back I was notified that I had been enrolled in a
    Management Awareness Program that would take 1 year to complete....
    1 to 2 days per month....off site.  I went to my manger and asked
    why she had enrolled me since I was not interested in moving into
    management.....she just smiled and said *she* thought it would be
    better for my career (she didn't want to hear "but I don't want
    to be a manager")   :-(
    
    Since a lot of money went into this course development I dutifully
    attended and I did learn enough to confirm what I'd known all
    along.....management is no day at the beach.  It wasn't until 4-5
    months into the course when we were studying the personnel/human
    relations component that I realized why I was there.  I was a female,
    over 40.....had almost 10 years with the company...and my manager
    probably didn't know what else to do with me :-(  I completed the
    course....got my little certificate......and then moved on into
    another group with I could be a happy camper and continue (hopefully)
    to be a hard working IC.
    
    There isn't a doubt in my mind that I was enrolled in that class
    to fill some sort of quota, and although I learned a lot, I still
    resent someone making that decision for me.  I was most appalled
    to find out that there were a few of my male counterparts who would have
    given anything to get enrolled in the course, but they were denied
    because I was filling the slot!!  Fortunately, a few of these
    gentlemen were eventually able to move into the management slots
    they desired, and most of them have been successful and humane
    managers.
    
    Maybe I've been fortunate to be in a locale/facility where the
    balance between males/females moving into management seems fairly
    balanced, I could be wrong...I never done an actual count to compare,
    but I do recognize most faces after all these years.....my instincts
    tell me I'm not too far off the mark.
    
    I realize the above is rather far afield from the base note regarding
    maternity leave.....I'm addressing some of the other noters who
    mentioned career advancement for women as an indicator of DEC being
    a good place to work.
    
    Karen
    

 
 >   Maybe I've been fortunate to be in a locale/facility where the
 >   balance between males/females moving into management seems fairly
 >   balanced, I could be wrong...I never done an actual count to compare,
 >   but I do recognize most faces after all these years.....my instincts
 >   tell me I'm not too far off the mark.
  
It would certainly be unusual...Unfortunately, I'd bet your instincts are
way off base.  Your locale/facility could, most likely, give you the
figures...It would clearly be a model to check if balance has been
achieved.

Barb  
   

    Barb:
    
    Why not check?  Because I'm not sure if anyone would provide 
    "exact" ratios.....and I'm on the phones 7 hours a day.  On my
    research time I did a walk around my entire floor on one level
    of the CSC counting managers in offices.....female managers out-
    numbered male line managers.
    
    Even if that weren't the case, *I* wouldn't have a problem with
    it....as I said I don't consider elevation to management a step up in
    my career advancement so I'm not interested in it.
    
    I would be concerned if I became aware that there were women who
    *were* being denied advancement if they were seeking it; assuming
    they were qualified.  If this is the case where you are located; 
    there are steps in place right now you can use to remedy the situation.
    
    I'm not saying working at DEC is Utopia these days...far from it;
    but I think all of us have to concentrate to make certain we separate
    things that would be nice to have from things we must have to do our
    jobs.
    
    Karen
    
    

    	Nobody said Digital wasn't a good place for working women...only
    that it's not currently listed as one of the best places. This is a
    business afterall, and the company has to make tradeoffs in trying to
    attract and keep the best people and yet not put itself out of business
    in the process. Can we afford to be a top company for working women? I
    certainly don't think so...just like I don't think we're among the
    leaders for working men or in general. Digital provides fairly
    competitive benefits, but they are certainly not the best. That's why
    you are free to leave if you can get a better total package somewhere
    else.
    	And for what it's worth, I hear a lot of complaining about
    ineqities for women, and I'm sure they exist in some places, but I've
    never seen any evidence of them here at Digital. I am male and work for
    a male who works for a woman who works for a woman.

    Some of you may be missing the point - this has only somewhat to do
    with benefits - it has a lot to do with how female employees are
    treated.  How many VP's in this company are female? Where does the
    "Glass Ceiling" hit here?  What jobs do women predominate in and what
    jobs are not as "open" to them?  How many senior engineering manages
    are women versus how many senior personnel managers?
    
    I agree that at this time we are all not being treated as well as we
    should, but this is a study about working women and the concerns that
    they have.

I guess my hidden point was this:

	Any ONE person can say that they see balance, great working
	conditions, it's a wonderful life and all.  However, to 
	generalize that over to the entire company is a mistake.
	It's NOT like that everywhere...

Furthermore:

	Pointing out these facts does not constitute the need to
	file a complaint nor even does it constitute complaining.
	Frankly, being told to go to greener pastures is quite
	annoying...it's that kind of attitude that closes down
	communications instead of encouraging them.

Lastly:

	The most costly thing the company could do at this point in
	time in this business climate would be to lose diversity.

Barb

    this note and its replies remind me of some of the questioning that
    has been taking place with the US Senate and the supreme court justice
    nominee.....
    
    on one day he when answering one senator's questions said we (refering
    to a minority race) don't want handouts we just want equality....
    
    two days later when answering another senator's question he said
    that he was proud of the work he'd done at EEOC because with the
    EEO/AA policys now inforce there was equality, then when asked in
    response what if a minority and no-minority were both equally
    qualified for a job the minority would get it because of EEO/AA and
    he said that's correct....
    
    well to me that sure sounds like a lot of someones are getting
    handouts at the expense of others....

    I agree that women should have the same opportunities as men for
    advancement, however to be correct, you should compare the ratio of the
    number of "men managers/all men employees"  to the ratio of the number 
    of "women managers/all female employees", this ratio is a better 
    statistical representation of these groups. The assumptions are that 
    both men and women are equally qualified for promotion to a managerial
    position and that the number of management promotions and/or
    appointments is finite. 
    
    Example:
    
    If there are 10 women employees in the plant and one of which is a
    manager, then the ratio is 1/10= 0.1.
    
    If there are 1000 men employees in the plant, of which 100 are
    managers, then this ratio is 100/1000= 0.1.
 
    Statistically speaking, you cannot have the same number of women
    managers as men since there are only a total of 10 women employees
    in the above example.
    
    However the same argument could be used in favor of the women if
    the total number of women exceeds the men population.
    
    As the previous example illustrates, the ratios used are the correct
    criteria to use. 
    
    fd. " Just Bored"
    

    Hang on there, any statistician can choose the ratio he wants.  Just
    watch.
    
    Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal for current employees, but for all
    persons who might want to compete for the job.   So the right ratio
    could be the ratio of women managers 
    
    	a) to women in the industry 
    
    	b) women in the labor force 
    
    	c) women who want to work at Digital
    
    	d) women in Digital currently at the level of the job or one level
    	   below (to allow for lateral moves)
    
    My point is that there is no "correct" comparison.  Equal opportunity
    is a vague phrase and none of us is empowered to make it precise.  That
    doesn't mean that people who have a vested interest shouldn't argue
    their case, but just that no one should be so naive as to accept any
    particular measure as "the correct" measure of compliance to EEO.
    
    These issues are decided (unfortunately) in the courts.
    
    Happy hunting,
    
    Dick

    RE: ... good company for working women... child care...etc.
    
    Ladies.
    There are some facts you have to face. One of them is that you cannot
    expect that Digital is heaven for women, as long as it is a part of 'the
    mens world'. Digital is a part of the society around...
    If you want to change the world, start with the father of your child.
    This is your responsibility. Make sure you let him do his part of the
    child care - and do your other � part. You owe it to your child.
    And it may create some benefits for all of you.
    The child will get time with *both* parents, something I se as
    IMPORTANT.
    The father(s) will gain some experience, and mentaly grow...
    You ...?
    And finaly - you may get what you request - a longer maternity leave at
    the end. Can you imaginge how fast issues regarding child care, would
    be solved, it the father had to take some responsibility here!!
    
    So make sure that you share responsibility (for the best of all parts)
    and don't expect your company to (easier) let you go into the old
    fashinod role of 'housewife'.
    
    It is not black and white like that - and not easy - but you have to 
    start the changes with yourself and your own family. 
    Instead of requesting longer leave, you should request - and demand -
    the father to take a part of the leave - as a start.
    
    britt 
    

    RE: -2
     You're obviously not familiar with statistics, the example I gave
     could be applied to any two groups you want to compare; be it oranges,
     cars or else. You have to normalize the figures you are comparing.
    
     fd. 
    

    re .19
    
    Wrong on both counts!
    
    I have been working professionally in statistics for 30 years both
    academically and in research activities.  And I know just how easy it
    is to use statistics to plead any case you want.  One of the classic
    texts for consumers of statistics is
    
    	"How to lie with statistics",  
    	author forgotten,  ca 1950
    
    The issue is that any two people can interpret a phrase like
    
    	"Equal Employment Opportunity" 
    
    just as they please and there is a statistical definition to suit each
    one.  Statistics are unsuitable for public debate until all the
    quibbles about the meaning of terms have been resolved.
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick
    
    The basic rule

    The book is "How to Lie with Statistics," by Darrell Huff, W. W. Norton
    and Company, Incorporated, 1954.

    Hi Dick, you may have been working in Stats. for 30 years, and if so
    that makes my assumption false, however if that is the case, you should
    know about probabilities, these are finite and exact deductions on
    specific cases, such as the example I previously mentioned:
    
    If you have 10 women employees and 1000 men employees in a company,
    with 100 managers, there is NOWAY you could have the same number of
    women managers, since you only have 10 total women employees, although
    this is a hypothetical case, it reflects upon the necessity to look
    at the total picture.  So, if you still do not agree, then please
    show us specifically how you would treat the specific example I 
    narrated in  my (-.2) reply. 
    
    fd.

    Rather than argue statistics in this note, are there
    suggestions from anyone on how DEC can improve? Do we even
    want to be a good place for women to work?
    
    I would like to feel that I worked for one of the best companies for women
    in the workplace.
    
    Have we ranked higher before? What has occurred to change our ranking?
    If we don't ask ourselves we'll never know. This is a challenge to
    our management.

    Nice quote on stats, (reputed to be made by Disraeli in a debate 
    in the UK House of Commons):
    
    "The Honourable Member uses statistics like a drunk uses a
     lamp-post..... for support rather than illumination ! "
    
    Still applies...
    
    :-))
    
    John
    
    
    

    Love it John !!

re: .23

Maybe we haven't done anything wrong.  We may have started out ahead of
most, but in the past few years, have done nothing while others have come
charging ahead.

Bob

    RE: -1
    Gentlemen.
    Oh yes, you have done most thing wrong.... what do you self mean you
    have done?
    Ahead of what? (Are we living in the same centuaray...)
    
    ~britt

    re: .27
    
    What I meant was that since at one time, Digital was supposed to be a
    good place for women to work, and now it apparently isn't, that it
    doesn't have to mean that Digital is now doing something wrong that it
    used to do right.  It could mean that we haven't changed with the
    times, hence other companies have gotten ahead, as much by our own
    standing still, as their moving forward.
    
    Bob

    
    What exactly do we mean by a company being "good for women to work
    for"?
                                                                       
    The basenote mentions certain benefits - childcare, women managers,
    benefits.
    Apart from the women managers issue, I would imagine that childcare
    and benefits could be appropriate for male employees as well.
    
    So apart from areas which are directly linked to job discrimination
    on the basis of gender, the general benefits of working for Digital
    affect all of us. And this removal from the list is a reflection of the
    benefits (or lack of them) that we ALL get (or don't) from our
    common employer.
    
    'gail
    
    
    

RE:.22

This is how *I* interpret the situation, and, why *I* think the whole
statistics thing has been agrued.

If you have 10 women and 1000 men working in a company, I would have to
bet that there wouldn't even be 1 woman manager.  Do you get it?  What's
missing from your formula that no one has mentioned is that you'd have
to first know how many women vs. men apllied to get into the company to
get any sense of why the demographics are the way they are.

We don't like to think that we can call everything "hunky dory" if the
way to say that we have "by population percentage" the same amount of
women managers as men managers, when all we need to do to keep things 
status quo is just not hire too many women.

Barb

    	I think what (.-2) said is correct. Since the article wasn't very
    specific on the criteria used to judge these companies, it is difficult
    to take the information "as is." However, one thing that was mentioned
    is that all those "top" companies have been proactive in providing day
    care or otherwise helping dual-income families with dependents manage
    that in some way...providing on-site day-care, extended maternal and
    paternal leaves, etc. There have been efforts to do these sorts of
    things at DEC which have not gotten very far. Does this mean DEC isn't
    as good a company for woman? Who knows? Is this a problem for male
    employees too? Probably. Should DEC be spending money and resources to
    improve this area right now? I don't think we can afford it.

    Thank you Gail, what makes anyone think that childcare, etc are womens
    issues?  I know of several men who are raising kids on their own. The
    wife eith gets screwed up on drugs and/or alcohol or they decide that
    family life isn't exciting enough anymore.
    
    Oh, and thank you Britt for telling us all how to run our home life. 
    You know us men, we get home plop our butts down on the couch and call
    for the missus to get us a cold beer.  What a joke!
    
    Mike

    OK folks -- take a deep breath and let it out slowly....
    
    We each have bad things in each of our lives, so the replies in here
    shouldn't be a competition to see whose life is worse than anothers.
    And I don't think the basenote was implying that men are worse off than
    women (or vice-versa)...
    
    Is DEC a good place for women to work???   I think so.  Is it a better
    place than another company? dunno -- it's truly personal, and needs to
    be addressed as such. After all, we each define "better" differently.
    
    Is DEC better for working women today than anytime in it's history?? 
    Dunno. I continue to hear from my work associates that DEC is always
    trading off the "security" of insuring we have jobs against higher pay,
    better benifits (there's that "better" word, again...), etc. 
    
    I think DEC is a better company than the one's I've previously worked
    for (and have consulted with while at DEC) because they at least (in my
    areas) treat women with a sense of professionalism -- heck, some of the
    best managers I worked with were women (but than again, some were men).
    Guess this means applying statistics to personalized ideologies is not
    just too hard, but kinda silly. After all, statistics are ways to try
    to predict future outcomes based upon previous behaviours (that is,
    forcast the future...) -- no guarantees.
    
    Oh well, off to the next meeting in life....  sigh....

    I might get stoned for this, but here are my thoughts:
    
    1- In terms of purely job-related issues, there should (and as far
       as I know ) there is no discrimantion (neither sexual, racial...)
       within DIGITAL
    
    2- Additional bennies are heavily influenced not only by 
       affordability but also by the economic and social environment
    
    3- Working women started basically to appear during World Wars
       After WWI there wasn't any econmic boom requiring them
       anylonger, hence no follow up.
       After WWII the economy boomed and needed everyone at work
       Hence, incentive to make women work attractive.
       Thru the industry or more directly (depending which country)
       the society made up for the loss of women "at home"
    
    4- Today, the situation has changed. From not enough people
       doing all the work it went to too many people for not
       enough work.
    
    5- A macho would say: "Women back home" !
    
    6- However, the macho's are gone as well. But the problems
       are still there:
       a) too many people for little work
       b) not enough people to take care of the family
    
    point 6b) is my personal assumption that the family is the
              society's basic building block !
    
    If you agree, than it is the society's responsibility to support
    the family in the family's job of sustaining and progressing the
    society and not a DIGITAL problem to favor or not favor child care
    etc..
    
    In more detail, I believe that "normally" a family (regardless of
    size) should TODAY be able to survive and progress with one
    members income and be able to take care of their kids, dogs, cats..
    In our world that could be the DEC salary.
    
    In the case of a "classic" family with two parents, it should be
    up to the parents to decide how to split the income generating versus 
    child raising, etc.. responsibilities.
    
    In the case where one parent is unavailable, the single parent
    should be able to make the same decision with "society" replacing
    the missing partner (not DIGITAL)
    
    Up to "society" to decide how to support the "classic" and less
    "classic" families amongst an enormous variety of possibilities.
    
    However, leaving child care and educational responsibilities totally
    with the "powers in place" representing "society", has proofen
    to be very successfull...... in and for totalitarian regimes!
    /fred
    
    

    RE:             <<< Note 1602.34 by BEAGLE::BREICHNER >>>
    >                           -< Basic rules ? >-
    >
    >I might get stoned for this, but here are my thoughts:
    >
    >1- In terms of purely job-related issues, there should (and as far
    >   as I know ) there is no discrimantion (neither sexual, racial...)
    >   within DIGITAL
    
         Not to throw the first stone, but this first "rule" brands you as
    a pervasively naive individual.  However, it would be nice if it was
    true...
    
                                         Greg

    re: .34
    
    	the concepts you mention are exactly(IMO) what have caused 
    our problems.....
    
    	we as a society have gone from "it's my responsibility" to
    "it's societys responsibility"....
    
    	the end results is that no one takes responsibility...

RE: 29  agree, RE: 31 (partly) agree
RE: Fred (34?) Agree to some extend, but real life is not based on all that
    'chooses' (Have you ever thougt of why women seems to make other "volantary
     chooses" than men?)
To all: my spell-checker is not available - please appologice, but my message
is more important than the spelling.

In my (scandinavian) home country, I saw this happend: By law, parents were 
allowed to take up to 20 days sick leave per year, if they had small children
(under the age of x years old). What do you think happened? Excatly, mothers
took sick leave when children were sick - the law made it 'easy for working
women'... they took up to 20 days a year (or less, depending on illness).
This law also made it 'easier for working men' - as they did not have
to cope with the problem, as their partners took up to 20 days...etc.
Some of you may guess what had to happend, 
to really make it easier for working women...

The law was changed - to 10 days for *each* parent. In case of
a single parent, all days were given to the single person. This was done to
forse shared responsibility for children.
This law made it easier - for the working women - etc. And in the long run, laws
change attitude - for everybody, inside and outside Digital.
This law (as all others related to such things), was demanded and puched by
women, and supported by a very few numbers of men. 
What is on the list of demands nowadays, is longer maternity leave, and better 
child care. What is really needed, to reach the target, is a shared leave,
stated by law. *That* will change the attitude.
With the overall bad economical situation (not talking about Digital), this
will not happen for a long while. And it will most unlikely happen that the law
will do a 50-50 rule - for the first coming centuary... 

We should not build illusjons about anything. We have a lot of nice policies in
this company. The policy says equal salary for equal quality, etc. cross
sex,race and religion. The pracsis is not nesasary such, but it is up to each
of us, to make sure it happens. This is a responsibility witch is not given
to the management only - but to every person having a batch#. And this goes
for all of the other policies, as well. 
It is naive to belive that this equal salary, etc. does exist. There is no
country in the world which has equal salay for men/women in equal quality
delivered work - to my knowledge. So why expect this to be the case within
Digital? Why should Digital differe from the society around? We can build
up castles of dreams, but it is wishful thinking, and plane illusions.

Does illusions serve ower egos? Could be..  Being a woman myself,
I have no need to build up illusions for this. I have - often - a strong need to
serche the (unpleasant) true. It does not take my motivation from me -
to face the reality. (Too) Many myths may demotivate me, but I have to
live with them, as well. I hate when men (and women - I have higher
expectations to women) tell me, that
the world is close to perfect, and about all this changes and revolutions which
have happened... and for sure, of course, Digital has it all - now...

Why not stick to what we are good to - computers. (It could not be further
away from human relations :-) This is what we are payed to, and what we 
really need to be good in- computers. Because we are so poore 
equiped with human related
knowledge, but so good with computers, we can not handle our own problems.
Let's face it. Get ride of all the illusions - we believe 
that managers are a race
we want to distingues us away from - managers are the root of all problems.
This is not true. If you want to belive that, that's a pity - mostly for
yourself, but it may effect others, as well.

This is moving away from the base note, but this time, I'm trigged by lack
of responsibility. Not nessesary in this note entry - but everywhere.

Let me make some hypotetic numbers:
I have been in Digital 10 years.
The company is 30 years old.
We are 100.000 employees.
My salary = factor(a), where a represent my salary/seniority

Question: 	What is my responsiblity for "the mess" ?

Answer:		(10/30) / 100.000 * factor(a)

Simple math. isn't it?


And don't tell me that , oh, yes, managers has a higher number for factor(a),
so 'they' are (more) responsible for what-ever.
That does not release you and me for ower responsiblity, does it?

Given some more hypotetic numbers:
You are a group of 10 persons.
You have 1(up to 5) manager(s)

One of your best qualified, and hoestliest, best, gurus, etc, are bad treated -
by your manager(s), or by somebody, who has the power of the title which gives
status.

What do you do? 
a) Spend your time talking with your coleegue, doing nothing productive,
   everybody are upset, the moral is low, you give him/her all your mental
   support, you blame your dummy manager(s) - and - etc. The colegue leaves, for
   whatever reason, and the rest of you stay... with your (growing) frustration
	or - do you
b) Face this problem as a reality, and do something else for what you want to
   belive in, which keeps the productivity going, and the moral high?
   - do you take any responsibility?

In case a) you in reality let your colegue down, and blame all of it to your
manager(s). You safely escape from the difficult situation. Your manager(s)
may not have been involved, but did the same as you did. So why blame 
him/her for your own weakness? I blame You for this - in first place. Your
    manager(s) secondly.

In case b) you have to take a risk. This risk is your responsibility.
If you want to belive that Digital is something more than good policies and
nice products, you have to give this value, yourself. Don't forget that
not everybody are managers, in fact, to my knowledge, the managers are (still)
a miniority  :-) Even if this was not true, it does not change YOUR (= OUR
SHARED) responsibility.

You may be scared to death for even thinking of doing such - but I'm scared 
to death for all this lack of responsibility, where 'everybody' blame
everybody on the level abowe.

Get ride of illusions - start with yoursef - and show that YOUR moral is high,
that YOU are responsible - which includes taking the risk of beeing alone .
There are *no* way, an angel will come to you, spread her wings over you,
protect you, and give you a life in heaven. There are *no* way, that YOU
are without responsibility for what_ever. There are *no* excuses for YOUR
lowe moral. If a colegue is badly and unfear treated - (given this is a fact -
and not rumors only) - everybody in the closest environment have to share
this responsibility. Where has the team-work gone? Or does that apply
to succes stories only? If a person is badly treated, it is a sympthom for the
hole group. YOU and ME are a part of this group - a large part. And do we
    allowe this to happens?
    Are we so focused on owr carriere, that we escape - are we politicians?
    (This is what you - and me - blame others to be, yes?)

Don't forget - that YOU are a TEAM member - YOU have to protect - and to
work for - our common future  - and please solve the customers
proplems in the meantime.



Am I clear?
/britt
	
	PS: One of the famous Norwegian authors (Ibsen) did write this:
		(bear over with my translation... I do my best)
	"If you take the life-lie from the average-man, you steel his content of
	life"


    	PS2:
    		I really want to belive that YOU are wonderful people, and
    YOU and ME add a lot to all this nice products and policies. I want to
    have a good manager - so I always go for it, as it makes life easier -
    for me - BUT; I have never, ever been so disappointed, as when colegues
    (we) let (each)others down. 
    

    Perhaps we could terminate this discussion by deleting the last three
    words of the title ..
    m
    

    re.36
    Guess I missed to express my original thought (which is the same than
    yours):
    The responsibility to plan your life (as far as you can plan) is with
    you,
    BUT (are you still with me ?)
    considering that if you made the choice to make your life plan fit
    with others (society), the same society has support responsibilities
    towards you.
    
    re.37
    Britt, I am not sure having understood your point of disagreement.
    If you mean that women make other choices than men, I guess it's
    normal, there indeed is a "Little" difference between men and women
    and as a frenchmen once said "Vive la petite difference" we wouldn't
    all be here......
    That thoses choices are limited and therefore conflicting from time
    to time is normal as well.
    (Sometimes I might have loved to carry a baby in exchange of having
    to bear the role of the "head and funder of the family" all the
    time....unfortunately science hasn't advanced that much yet. :-) )
     
    So what is the point ?
    
    I agree with most of the rest, but as it isn't that much related
    to the original topic (unless it changes according to the last
    pertinent .38 remark) we better discuss this over a beer at the
    next farewell drink (which do happen quite frequently now in VBO/ETC)
    (if you can wait for a loooooong time, lets meet at the welcome
    party!)
    /fred
    

	Re. .39

	Fred,

	What an easy way of brushing away all of the Britt's valid
	arguments. I must have heard it at least thousand times.

	I could add some less concrete comments on Britt's list, which
	I have faced every time when starting with a new job

		When the man doesn't understand, what the woman is saying,
		it's her fault, because she used so strange expressions.

		When the woman doesn't understand what the man is saying it's
		her fault again because she has no brains to understand.

	I could make this a very long list, but let's leave it.

	This is not specific to Digital so why bother?

	These things can only be changed by conscious efforts, and 
	the quality of an employer from the womens point of view can
	be measured from what has been done to compensate these negative
	attitudes. And it's a waste of valuable working time to fight to
	get over these problems.

	__Ritva
	Another woman from Nordic Countries

    Re .40:
    
    > What an easy way of brushing away all of the Britt's valid
    > arguments.
    
    I think there has been a misunderstanding here.  Fred did not brush
    away Britt's arguments.  Britt asked a question:  Have you ever thought
    of why women seem to make other "voluntary choices" than men?  Now,
    perhaps Britt meant to say something by this question.  I cannot say
    for sure.  Regardless of whether Britt meant to make a statement by
    asking a rhetorical question or Britt was just asking a question, Fred
    did not brush it away.  Fred answered it:  ". . . there indeed is a
    'Little' difference between men and women . . .".  And for the rest of
    Britt's note, Fred did not brush it away but even said "I agree with
    most of the rest . . .".
    
    So if you think Fred has brushed away Britt's arguments, I think you
    have misunderstood.  Fred was asked a question and answered directly
    and honestly.  If Britt intended some communication other than what was
    direct and apparent on the surface, then Fred simply missed it, rather
    than brushing it away.  A good way to handle that would be to explain
    what was missed.  That should be more productive than saying Fred
    brushed away the arguments, because that sounds like an accusation and
    could lead to problems.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Ritva,
    It was not my intention to brush anything away.
    If my comments where short and not addressing all of Britt's than
    this is due to:
    - I can't spend much time on noting
    - Noting is not ment to be  discussion between two people only
    
    I respect Britt as much as any other lady in DEC that I have the
    pleasure to know or to work with. (Some may even be able to confirm this)
    
    Cheers,
    Fred  

    re .41
    Thanks,
    I wrote .42 before having seen yours!
    /fred

	Re. .41 and .42

	Point taken. It was my reaction to that old frase which I have 
	heard so many times when serious discussions about womens (and mens)
	problems have been tried.

	To my opinion, there is even more than a small difference between 
	women and men, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse 
	as a result of upbringing, experiences etc. What I'm against is 
	putting people into categories in purpose to limit their choices
	in life according to sex, race, nationality or whatever.
	Or to be even more exact, I'm against using these things to cause
	pressure to other people and make their life more difficult. That
	excluded, people can have their opinions and it's not my problem.

	Accepting differences as a basis for the co-operation and not as a
	dividing factor is what I would like to see.

	Ritva

    In my opinion... although Digital has been on that
    list in the past, I never thought it deserved to be.  I don't think
    anything has changed (as far as working women/mothers), I just think
    that they have finally realized that Digital really isn't that great. 
    I really don't feel it has anything to do with the state of the
    company/economy now.  There is a difference between a working woman and 
    a working mother and I'm pretty sure the magazine is called Working Mother
    and the list pertains to working mothers (I may be wrong and I'm sure I'll
    be corrected if I am).  As a woman I think the company is "ok", but as 
    a mother, I think it stinks!! Usually the people who disagree with the 
    results of the list are people who are NOT "working mothers".
                      

    cheeeez.....no wonder some men discriminate......but, you know what, so
    do women, blacks, whites, Arabs, Jews, Asians, and on and on and
    on.....let's get back to work and try to make this a better company for
    all.

RE: 
The version of "Live the litle difference", has a Norwegian version
as well. We call it: "The small difference with the catastrophic consequences"
(The understatement in the sentence may be lost, so I explain that as well.
The meaning is this "the small difference" which we tend to blame our behavier
on,...")

Some may refer (claime) the biological difference, where I refer to 
the socialization -  (which I have experienced a lot of, BTW)
Time after time after time, I have been told *what* to do, what I *should*
have done, etc. and I have been given a pre-defined (biological defined) menu.
A kind of role play where the menu to choose from, is too
limited. Like eating in a restaurant where they have 2 menues - one
with prices, and one without prices, combined with some of the 'gourmetes'    
not included. But you are hungry - and have to combine it
with a budget - you want the pricebook as well as the full menu. You
don't want anybody to conclude in advance that you are vegetarian, do you?
Otherwise you cannot make choices - 
I *need* to know the cost of the choice, or I may choose a
very short-lived pleasure. The price may be a lot
more than I can effort, so I may end in prison... :-)   

What does this analogy mean? Where is the context?
Shortly, nobody can choose - without the full range of choices. 
Some choices may be hidden, as they are already filtered out.
If I'm not aware of this ... and how can I be, when it all is lined up,
pre-filtered, to fit my 'small biological difference'...

This was ment as a clause, not a big point in my entry, but after
reading replies, I had to explain what I meant - before everybody else have
    to explaine what I ment :-)

I have never seen that there is any real 'choice' 
by living *via* (/through) a man,  it is
not any "carrier" in life - some men tend to belive that a women should 
be pleased with the opportunity to make her carrier via the man -
(and some are...) 
and they belive it so strongly - from the deepest of their heart, so they 
can not imagine that some other women does not se it this
way - or even - that some men 
does not want - or need - the homesupporter...  (There are days, I really
would have liked/needed - this 'homesupporter', myself - but I have
not found any potential mife (not a typo, it is a word in my native language) ,
who I can convince that he would love to do this... for me... and for 
    some other reasons... ). 
(ALL respect to the home-service, but there is only *one* way men can show they
give something more than lip service to this - they have to *DO* it themselves)

I could have turned it around, and 
said, that it is very unfair of women, to expect  men, to be responsible
for the income of the hole family. That as well, is a shared 
responsibility. I could have said, that both may sacrifice something... but as 
long as choices are *real* choices, and not pre-defined roles, I don't se it as 
any sacrification -
it should bring a great value to both parts. And  less limited the menu is, 
greater the value....

But what do we put in front of everything... what do we value?
$$$ - Can we live without it? I have not tried (yet?), but I know 
that $$$ makes
power, and you/me can aquire most of everything, for money. $$$ is power. 
$ makes freedom - let you choose from the menu.... (And men tend to 
tell women, that $$$ does not mean *that* much :-)
(Regarding one income per family: I agree, as long as this is a real choice, 
and does not add extra taxes to be payed by others. (who pay the bill?)
If I need/want/choose a home-supporter - To do shoping, wash and iron my clothes,
take care of my every-thing - who pays it? Do I get taxe reductions?
No, I don't, and I don't want to pay for others tax reductions either.

(I can start another entry regarding what I mean about 1 income/1 family -
and who should be responsible for *that* choice... ,
and what this may implie for the no-income part - including children and any
'dependencies'... in case of the loss of the head-of-the-income. Nobody are
allowed to make other adults dependt on them. That is yet another 
    responsibility...)

To summarize my potential disagreement: 
I do know that I have been presented 
a menu of roles, which does not fit me. I do not claim this to the 'little
difference', but to the general unconsciousness for realities, and the tendency
to seek to myths and illusions. I want a full prices manu - and I'm 
prepared to pay
for my choices. - And nobody are allowed to make other 'dependant' on them...
The consequenses may be fare outside anybodys thoughts - in worst case... and
worst case may not be an exception...)


RE: Ritva (your first reply)
Don't be too advanced here - I tried once, but was trapped in my lack of
fluent English :-) Your English is fluent (but with some excotic prononciation)
, but I don't believe your point was taken. (I may be very wrong ?)
The different use of language, as you refere to, require that 'small
differences' are sorted out - *that* will take centuries :-) (Am I optimistic 
here?)
You have many good points, and I will take them up later (I need more time
for this...)

RE: Fred. 
As nobody did confirm your respect for me, I'll do it myself 
And I'm happy to say, that this is a bi-directional respect. 
(to the readers who do not know...:-) 
However, we may have different viewpoint... and why not ? That
makes life more interesting - to be allowed to express them, and not having to 
hide them. I'm sure we agree on this part(?)


Sorry, I did not mean to upset anybody - just a kind of "please, be aware 
your own responsibility. Do not claim *everybody* for *everything*". 

I, for sure, did NOT mean that all time spend on
notes-writing, was waste of time. The human needs consists of more than
what a computer can add to life content. Digital is more than nice
policies and products. People - wake up - YOU add value. Don't escape -
your value is more *needed* than ever before! Don't let us lull in with
this 'old-Digital' talk. However, I miss the 'old' as it gave me a very safe
feeling for my job - job-protection - and nothing to worry about.
Now, we don't feel 'safe' - and have to worry a lot for 
tomorrow, next week, next month... It brings a lot of difficult feelings, 
and the best thing (at least for me) to cope with this, is to get ride of
illusions - as many as possible. 

 I did not know if this came clearly out of my 
writings, so that's why I ended with "Am I clear?"

britt

    re: .47
    
    so exercise your choices...
    
    1) buy the restaurant and make the changes that you feel are needed...
    
    
    2) find another restaurant....

    There was an article in working women magazine which cited a 1990
    survey of 1243 working women.  56% said they prefer. if given a choice,
    to stay home with the kids.  This is up from 33% in 1986.  Does this
    say anything significant?  
    
    Also, if a man, upon meeting and dating a woman, told her that he
    wanted to stay at home with the kids when they have them-what do you
    think the reaction would be?
    
    Mike

    While the 56% number is interesting, without a breakdown by income it's
    not very informative.  Many women in the workforce are in low-paying
    dead-end jobs and are working due to economic necessity (i.e., they're
    in the same situation as many men).  I suspect that many, if not most,
    of these women would opt out if given the opportunity.
    
    Assuming that the 56% statistic applies to working women in general can
    get you into a lot of trouble.

    I just gave you what I read.  So if you want to overanylize it and
    scrutinize it , well then go ahead.  We at Digital seem to be very 
    good at that lately and it seems to be getting us nowhere fast.  Quite
    amusing (sic).
    
    
    I cook very well in many areas ;').
    
    
    Mike

I have always thought that, if I were to have kids, I would like to work half
days. I would also hope that the kids' father would like to work half days.  
This way each parent could have time alone with the kids, time away from the
family, and, of course, time together.

Now, economic reality may prevent the above scenario.  But it would be nice...

- Linda

    I like it, Linda.  I like it very much.
    
    
    Mike

    RE: 53
    
    It is up to you to make this happend.
    It is not a 'economic reality'

    RE: .49
    
    Mike...
    
    At this point, if my fiance were to ask me to quit my job and raise
    babies I would welcome it.  I have never been so stressed out or sick
    of business in my life....   Many of my female friends echo the same
    feelings.
    
    Now, how do I get DEC to double his income????
    
    Paula

    RE:
    A bit confused - but ladies, do you value yourself by the income of
    your partner? 
    If so, it is not fear, is it? If not so, I didn't get the point (it was
    not clear...) 
    
    Hmmm, strange things happening in US - they say... 
    
	Back to the base notes? Why should Digital be 'a good company for
    working women'?  Why not a good company for all of us?
    
    britt
    
PS: This does not meen I don't understand what a 'working woman' is - I
    just want you to give some reasons.... better than.. "some magazine..."
    etc.  I don't belive anything is better for women as long as women tend
    to value themselves from the mens point of view....

RE: 55 & 57

I do agree that one is responsible for the way one's life is lead.  However,
there are economic reasons why it is not feasible for each parent to work half
time in order to be with the kids, etc.

1. Digital does not allow half-time employees.  I know some women that tried
   for this when their maternity leave was over.  If women can't get this then
   neither can men. (BTW: IMO men should get paternity leave for the first 3 
   months after the baby is born. .... but I stray.)

2. Part time work generally does not pay as much as a full-time career.

3. Pay is important if you do not want to be always worrying about making
   ends meet.  (Note that I was actually envisioning a very equal set up
   between men and women.)

Granted there may be some places where the economic conditions would not
present such obstacles.  But where I live it is not that easy for a single
person to get ahead with just the one salary -- never mind trying for a family
on a single salary.

---

You are right, however, that we are straying from the original topic.  

IMO, Digital is not a bad place to work.  The salaries offered for both men
and women in the technical fields are controlled by salary ranges.  Everyone
has access to the salary range info. And you generally know what your co-workers
titles are so you can know what their salary range is and thus be able to, 
albeit roughly, compare your pay equality.

People do have to look out for themselves to make sure they are getting what
they want/deserve.  I don't think this is any different than any other company,
in fact, it's easier at DEC than at some other companies I can think of.

Can't speak for the non-technical positions...

BTW: I live in California, in so-called silly-valley. And no, I would never
     judge myself by the income of a man. :-}

- Linda

    re: .58
    
    There are two part-time employees in my group.  Both are women with
    small children.  One was a supervisor for our group.  When she returned
    from maternity leave she became a part-time individual contributor.
        John Sauter

re .58:

   You CAN'T even ROUGHLY guess your co-workers salary by knowing his/her
title.  With the range covering from $n to $n+25K or more there's just too
much room for variation.  I guess this MAY be possible in NYC if everyone
has to be maxed out to live above the poverty level, but most places (LA,
midwest, etc...) there are still huge differences.  Some people want the 
raise and don't mind staying at there current title while others want the
title with or without the higher pay.  Me, I want both :-)   :-)   :-)

Mike.

    
    Let me qualify my comment about my spouse-to-be's income.....
    
    If we were both offered an opportunity to double our income, there
    would be a fight for who got to stay home!  We both would love to.... 
    my comment about wanting to stay home and be supported was based on
    my own personal burn-out with high tech...

I'm usually a read-only noter here in DIGITAL, but Linda Blalock's reply in .58
gives wrong information.  I'm a software sr engineer, been in DEC since '79, and
have been part-time since my second child was born in '84.  I worked half-time
most of that time; have been at 30 hrs for over a year now.  There is no policy
that prevents this.  One must arrange it with one's boss(es) and coworkers on
an individual basis, as with so much in Digital.

When you work 20 or 30 hours, you get paid a correspondingly lowered amount.
Benefit levels are reduced if you work less than 30 hours - no LTD or health
insurance for example.  Vacation time is reduced proportionately.  Time-of-
service is not affected, but accrues as straight calendar time.

It can be very difficult.  Working part-time in a major software development
environment is NOT the same as working full-time, but less.  It is different.
The goals are different, the kinds of things that can be achieved are different.
For example, a half-time employee cannot be a supervisor.  It would be hard for
a half-time employee to lead a major development effort.  Still, a half-time
engineer can make a significant contribution by concentrating on a smaller
number of specific areas; this is analagous to a full-time engineer splitting
work time among several tasks.

A part-time engineer should have clear goals, shared between the engineer and
supervisors and managers.  It took time and was hard for me, and my management,
to figure all this out.  But it can be done, has been done.

Each of us decides on our own career and life goals, and how best to achieve and
balance all these goals.  It involves tradeoffs, whether you go for full-time
or part-time.  Decide what's important in your life, and live it.

I'm glad to know that there are some places in Digital that allow part-time work
I was told that the two women who tried for part-time work were denied because
the local management did not want to set a precedent within Digital.  Seems the
precedent was already there... If only they'd known.

Noting is pretty useful at times.

Thanks for the update.

- Linda

BTW: what office/group are you working out of?

    re: .63
    
    Assuming you were addressing me, I am in the DECforms development
    group, which is in CIS, which is in TNSG.  We are located in ZKO2-2.
        John Sauter

    
    There is at least one person in the TP software engineering group who
    is working part time after becoming a new parent. Perhaps the personnel
    department at TAY-1 can provide more information.
    
    I thought the corporate head-counting rules were changed a year or two
    ago, specifically to make it more reasonable to carry part-time
    people...
    

    I'm in TNSG as well, in TLE.  We've got lots of part-time people
    here (including my wife, who is a writer, and at least one man).
    We've had part-timers for several years, since the middle '80s.
    
    		-John Bishop

    er, John, your wife is at least one man?
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist....:-)
    
    	- andy

    Part-timers in TLE include
    
    	o	my wife (a writer)
    	o	several other women
    	o	one man 
    	o	possibly other people I don't know about
    
    I mentioned the man because it's not only women that want part-time
    work.
    
    Is this clearer?
    
    		-John Bishop