From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: austin.general
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:32:32 GMT
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cash.cs.utexas.edu

I have edited this both to concentrate on the points I wish to
disagree with and to make it marginally readable for those of
us with 80-column terminals.

In article <kumgjoINNrpo@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> stecz@hotwheel.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>I used to work for EDS, so I'd like to clarify some of this.....

>In article 20621@rpp386.lonestar.org, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F Haugh II) writes: > Just a few facts from EDS -

>> 	2). New employees were required to sign promisory notes
>> 	    obligating them to "re-pay" EDS for the value of
>> 	    their training should they leave.

>True, if you were in the Systems Engineering Training program (I was), 
>and you took the class, you were liable for thousands of dollars in 
>training costs.  This was because other companies would hire SE's just 
>out of class.  Some companies would even pay the promissory note to 
>hire new EDS SEs.  This wasn't designed to keep people from quitting 
>(although that was one result), it was to keep other companies from 
>hiring employees away.

Am I missing something?  It wasn't designed to keep people from
quitting, just to keep them from being hired by someone else?

I have always thought the "thousands of dollars worth of training"
bit was *way* overblown.  The word I got from ex-students who went
to work for EDS was that the training was *very* specific to what
EDS was doing and that in some cases it was as extensive as it was
to try to justify the promissary note.

"Job mobility" has always been a problem for high-tech companies.
Some, such as IBM, have tried to provide such a package of benefits
that would be hard to leave.  Others, such as TI, have used the
pension plan for the same sort of purpose.  Perot at EDS tried to 
use indenture.  I think it says something about the people involved.

>> 	3). Freedom of expression at EDS was completely
>> 	    stiffled.  Either you towed the party line or you
>> 	    left.

>Utter bullshit, the group where I worked, and the groups I worked 
>with, expected employees to do what ever it takes to get the job 
>done!  This required on the spot decision making and the responsibility 
>that goes with that.  Sometimes I made the wrong decision, and was 
>told that I did and why, but I wasn't "punished" for it.

I don't think this is a responsive answer.  What would have happened
if an EDS employee in the Perot era had written a letter to the
editor criticizing one of Perot's dabblings in international politics?
I don't *know* the answer to that question, but I think it is more on
point than the previous paragraph.

>A lot of EDS policy sound pretty militant (and maybe they are), but 
>they usually have a pretty good reason for it.  For instance, men 
>were not allowed to have facial hair (except mustaches).  This was 
>because most of EDS`s clients are in very conservative businesses 
>(banking, etc) and they wanted everyone at the company >to look 
>"professional" for clients that happen to be on site, and a long 
>scraggly beard doesn't fit the "conservative, professional" image.  
>That is the same reason for the men wearing dark suits, white 
>shirts, red ties, it fits the "conservative professional" image.  
>It isn't because Perot has a control fetish (he might, but that's 
>not the reason for the suits), it's because he wants to make a good 
>presentation to the client.

Someone should point all this out to managers at such radical,
customer-unfriendly companies as IBM and AT&T.  There, people dealing
directly with customers, on days they are dealing with customers,
are expected to dress appropriately.  People who *don't* deal
directly with customers have no reason for a dress code.

Back when I was teaching CS at the University of North Dakota, where
EDS recruited heavily, I urged my students to look elsewhere.  Some
of them went to EDS anyway.  The best I ever heard was "not as bad
as I thought it would be".  Some of them found it considerably worse.
The best and the brightest didn't go there in the first place.

I'm inclined to believe Perot has a control fetish.  In every case
where there was a choice between a carrot and a stick, he seems to
have chosen the stick.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)