June 15, 2001 

BEWARE!

BIG  BROTHER

MAY  BE  WATCHING!

            The Code of Business Ethics that management has been attempting to persuade us to sign says, in part:  “While it is not the corporation’s current practice to review electronic mail messages stored on company computers, electronic networks and other information processing and storage devices, the McGraw-Hill Companies reserves the right to monitor and review the content of any such electronic mail messages for any business or legal purpose, without informing the sender or recipient of that electronic message, or the person in whose possession those files reside.” 

            Well, that’s not quite true. It is the corporation’s practice to invade our messages.  Bob Temme, Vice President of Labor Relations, admitted in a meeting with the Guild Wednesday that the corporation has snooped into company computers assigned to us.  The message here is to be careful about what you write, transmit or store on the electronic airwaves.  For the moment, anyway, you can’t count on any more privacy than you’d have with a written document tucked away in your file cabinet or in your desk.  Of course, even by the company officials’ own stated policy, they should have “probable cause” that something’s amiss to go searching. But, then again, they’re the very ones who are determining if there is “probable cause.”  And, if they don’t find anything, if you’re innocent as a newborn babe, you’ll probably just never hear about it.  They’ll probably figure “no harm, no foul.” 

            It’s very curious that the company would ask you to sign a Code of Ethics that says “it’s not the corporation’s current practice to review electronic messages” when, all the while, the company knows it is the current practice.  Sounds kind of unethical, doesn’t it? 

            Temme’s revelations about the electronic eavesdropping came during a session when the Guild was attempting to negotiate the Code of Ethics – after the fact.  When the company began seeking Guild signatures on the 2000 Code of Business Ethics early this year, Local Representative Bob Townsend alleged that the company hadn’t negotiated the document with the Guild. 

            Temme denied the allegation, saying the Code had been around for many years and suggested it was a result of negotiations.  He had to agree with Townsend, however, when our Local Rep suggested recent changes or additions to the code weren’t bargained.  One of those additions is McGraw-Hill reserving the right “to monitor and review the content of ... electronic mail messages for any business or legal purpose, without informing the sender or recipient of that electronic message, or the person in whose possession those files reside.” 

            The Code of Ethics as presented by Standard & Poor’s, generally, isn’t all that objectionable.  Most of it is pretty straightforward stuff, things that if you violated you could be disciplined for anyway, even without a Code of Ethics existing or a signature on the “affirmation statement,” as Temme likes refers to it.  Besides the thing about the electronic snooping language, which could use a lot of massaging, however, there’s a particularly troublesome item that says you have to “rat” on your co-workers if you’re aware they’re violating the ethics code. 

            There were some other things that caused Guild officials to raise their collective eyebrows, but Temme indicated they will be easily corrected.  There’s a line, for instance, that reads:  “Your future promotion and pay will depend on your demonstrated ability to do superior work.”  Well, we all know that the contract has a lot to say about what your future pay is going to be.  Certainly, management is free to pay you anything it sees fit over and above the contract minimums.  But the contract guarantees you a 4% increase next year, 3.75% in 2003 and 3.5% in 2004. They can’t take that away from you! 

            You don’t have to sign the affirmation statement.  Temme would like you to. But he realizes the code as it is now written hasn’t been negotiated and he can’t force a signature.  To show how intent McGraw-Hill is in getting signatures, however, Temme said it has become a condition of employment for non-Guild personnel.  He said six non-Guild people, who have refused to sign, will be terminated. 

 # # # # # # #