Maybe it wasn't a "man number" as in "male human being", but rather a "machine automation number number"? /s (but ya gotta admit, it DOES sound like something IBM would have, complete with redundancy!)
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 9:59 AM David Spiegel < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > You said: "...Just remarking that "man number" is conspicuously > gender-specific. ..." > True, but, you have to remember the historical context for it. > > You said: "...IBM has over 300,000 employees. Are the numbers required > to be unique? ..." > AFAIK, my number was unique in Canada. > My Retain ID had to be changed because someone else (probably an > American) already was using my Man Number to LOGON. > > Regards, > David > > On 2023-07-14 09:45, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 06:43:49 -0400, David Spiegel wrote: > >> EEOC is an American thing. In Canada, we have an equivalent. > >> > > Just remarking that "man number" is conspicuously gender-specific. > > > >> Please explain: "... Five digits isn't enough. ..." Enough for what? > >> > > IBM has over 300,000 employees. Are the numbers required to be unique? > > > >> (I think you're confusing employee number with SIN (equivalent to > >> American SSN). > > > >> On 2023-07-13 22:53, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 21:56:55 -0400, David Spiegel wrote: > >>>> When I worked at IBM Canada full time (1994-2002), our TSO Userids > were > >>>> XXnnnnn, where nnnnn was a person's "man number" (aka employee > number). > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
