From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 17 Nov 92 11:10:50 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <sei3TB2w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>
>> In article <3NXXTB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
>> 
>> > HAVING TO WRITE UP THEIR PRIVATE LIFE FOR THEIR COMPANY IS A TOTAL
>> > LIE!
>> >
>Bill Hardman

Bill Hardman in <024mtb3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> says:

An ethics officer is not an 'enforcer' in the context that they
go around 'slapping hands' and looking for situations of 
transgression.

Here is my reply broken into numbered steps with notes and
references added:

1. Ethics officer checks stats of all individuals and the 
organization.
	-HCOPL 7 MAR 1965R issue III _offences_and_penalties_
	the 21st misdemeanor listed states: "inadequate or
	declining income or traffic ina section, unit, department, org
	zone or division".
	-To know this the Ethics Officer must be tracking all
	organization statistics.

2. The EO tracks all statistics that are falling.
	-HCOPL 16 MAY 1965 issue II _indicators_of_orgs_
	"There is a probable long list of BAD indicators.  When 
	these are present Ethics becomes industrious in ratio to 
the number of bad indicators.

The first indications, good or bad, are statistics-the OIC
	graphs for units, sections, departments,  divisions
	and the org."
	-OIC stands for organization information center, and
	is where statistics and files are kept.
	-See also Ref. in 1. above.
	-Also the 5th misdemeanor listed: "Neglect or gross 
	errors resulting in the need to apply the Emergency formula
	to their person, section, unit, department, organization,
	zone or division."
	-the EO may use this to look for neglect and to apply
	penalties to thepersons personal life.

3. Assignes scientology ethics conditions to those individuals,
or groups thatdo not force thier stat to improve ("ethics bait").
	-HCOPL 29 APR 1965 issue III _ethics_review_
	"LEVELS OF ETHICS ACTIONS
	3. Requesting information by Ethics personnel.
	6. Talking to the person derogatorily.
	7. Investigation in person by Ethics.
	10. Investigation a person by interrogating a person by
	others about him.
	11. Asking others for evidence about a person.
	13. Assigning a lowered condition by limited publication.
	14. Assigning a lowered condition by broad publication.
	15. Investigation a person thoroughly in his or her own area."
	-HCOPL 1 SEP 1965 issue VII _ethics_protection_
	paragraph 9: ...But if a staff member isn't producing,
	shown by his bad statistic for his post, Ethics is fascinated
	with his smallest misdemeanor.
4. This ethics condition is punishment.
	-See Ref. on levels of ethics actions in 3. above.
	-More punishment may be found in:
	HCOPL 31 MAR 1965 _justice_policy_letters_corrections_
	(When applying the 'emergency' formula for a lowered statistic to
	a workgroup) "...that executive staff member, after the
	stage of promotion is passed in the formula, will request
	a Committee of Evidence be convened on the staff member
	under him whose noncompliance or actions caused the Emergency.

	Pay reduction, demotions, transfers,fines or dismissal 
	may only be done after a Committee of evidence"...
	-So for ANY action seenas neglect or an error causing a
	lower statistic, a person may be tried and recieve anything
	from less pay to dismissal.  This is drastic as scientology 
	staff make little money as stated in this newsgroup by
	scientologists and others.

5. It starts with writing up thier private life (I was refering to
'o/w write-ups').
	-An o/w write-up is writing down all of ones overt 
	unethical conduct and unethical conduct in neglecting to do 
	something.
	-This statement of mine is not true, it may not start
	this way.
	-Ref. HCOPL 29 APR 1965 issue III _ethics_review_
	Which lists 36 levels of ethics actions from noticing
	and silently inspecting something nonoptimum, to expulsion
	from scientology.
	-However, HCOPL 9 APR 1977R _correct_danger_condition_handling_
	has the individual assigned the danger condition write up
	o/w's before going on with the assignment.
	-This mandatory documenting of an employees personal life
	is illegal outside of a church, and I would not be supprised
	if it is illegal the way this organization carries it out.
	-The book _introduction_to_scientology_ethics_ is required
	reading for staff.  Page 64 of my copy states that a danger
	condition may be assigned to anyone whos job statistic has
	a down trend or a sharp drop.  From my experience, the trend
	isusualy the last 3 weeks.

6. o/w write-ups are about one's private life.
	-These are not just for the "tech" or counciling part of
	the church as they are included inthe policy references as
	HCOPL 2 MAR 1984 _o/w_write-ups_.  It was released under
	the same date and title as an HCOB which is the counciling
	technology.  This issue states: "The original of the o/w
	write-up must go into the person's pc folder, regardless of 
	whether or not any copy is additionally given to the MAA
	or Ethics Officer."
	-Definitions: pc folder is the record of counciling 
	services, pc is the pre-clear or person being councelled, 
	MAA is an ethics officer in the continental and higher parts
	of the church administration and stands for master at arms,
	o/w stands for overts and withholds, overts are the bad or
	evil a person does and the withhold is the suppression or
	coverup of the act after the fact.
	-We can see here that these are about the person's private
	life and that theyare used by and available to the 
	administrative officers of the church.

7. They are turned in to the ethics officer.
	-See 6 for policy quote.

8. The EO represents and reports to the head of his company
directly or via a department head.

9.As the EO represents his/her company, holding confessions (o/w's)
confidential is a conflict of interest.  They can not truly represent the
staff member who writes and turns in o/w's.

10. this gives emotional and legal leverage to the company over the
workers.  This is an unfair practice and could not be practiced
outside of a church as it is inherantly corrupt.  (People are after
all human - just look at any governing body the same size as scientology
and its problems.)


So Bill, show me where I have the facts wrong or start telling
the truth.

Eric Hill

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology