BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Monday, April 30, 2012

Elaine Andrews' personal story

Gary Gwilliam contributed this video Elaine Andrews a former employee of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory who was fired in the wake of LLNL's transition from public to private control, shares her personal story of suffering and loss. She is one of 130 former workers of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who claim that illegal widespread layoffs specifically targeted the highest salaried senior staff members who were closest to retirement. Their claims against Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory vary from wrongful termination to age, race and disability discrimination. The discrimination lawsuit against Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which was filed May 2009, is set for trial October 2012 in the Alameda County Superior Court. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dTzqzarnK0&list=PL84D52B6EABEBE75C&feature=mh_lolz

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Both LLNL and LANL have a long history of blatant discrimination against older employees with seniority. It's become much worse since the for-profit LLC entities of LLNS and LANS took over.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, there is no such thing as "seniority" at LANL or LLNL, and never has been. Except perhaps in the minds of the "seniors." With the obvious exception of new employees requiring training, performance criteria do not and should not vary solely with age or time in position. If you are looking for a reason to claim discrimination, "seniority" ain't it. Might as well say "I should be allowed to coast - I earned it."

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that it must be emotionally devastating for many people to be laid off, and I can see that Elaine Andrews took her layoff very hard. In looking up information about the lawsuit, I found that Elaine Andrews was about 62 years old with 29 years at LLNL at the time of her layoff. According to the LLNL or UC pension tables, that works out to about a 75% of salary pension for life. Not too bad.

Again, being laid off can be an emotionally devastating experience, but I would hope that she could look on the bright side of things, too.

Anonymous said...

Again, being laid off can be an emotionally devastating experience, but I would hope that she could look on the bright side of things, too.

May 3, 2012 7:29 PM

Let's see how this "rests with you" when you get your ass kicked down the road.

Anonymous said...

"Let's see how this "rests with you" when you get your ass kicked down the road."

Again, I don't want to belittle the emotional impact of being laid off by Elaine Andrews and others. But I'm saying that there are a lot worse places to be than being laid off with a pension of 75% of salary. I'm sure that most people who are laid off in the US can't claim an immediate pension paying anything like that. Finally, if Elaine Andrews wants to work, this would be a wonderful opportunity to do some volunteer work for some non-profit that needs an experienced administrator, isn't it? After all, it's not like she needs the pay.

As for me, yeah, I would probably be feeling pretty bad after getting my "ass kicked down the road" in a layoff. But I'm pretty sure that after I got over the initial emotional impact I would be feeling much better when I realized that with a 75% of salary pension I would be free to do whatever I liked and go to work somewhere else not for the pay - but just for the enjoyment.

Anonymous said...

I would be feeling much better when I realized that with a 75% of salary pension I would be free to do whatever I liked and go to work somewhere else not for the pay - but just for the enjoyment.

May 4, 2012 7:33 AM

Well said. Now, if the hundreds of employees who can do that RIGHT NOW, without being laid off, would simply realize what you state, they'd be much happier.

Anonymous said...

You know, that 75%, doesn't tell the whole story. Consider the current 6-8% contribution to the pension,for example. Are there any other costs to factor in? Just curious if someone has a more complete picture.

Anonymous said...

I commend Ms. Andrews for having the courage to come forward and tell her story. I had been at LLNL 26 years at the time of the ISP and I and many of my peers were all afraid we would lose our jobs. The way management was deciding our fates in secrecy and not telling us what criteria they would use caused a lot of undue stress. I still remember that horrific day when they made long time LLNL employees pack up and then escorted them through the make-shift termination center. The relief I felt at being safe was completly overshadowed by the loss of my peers. Many of us suffered from what I'd call survivor's guilt for a long time. I hope the lawsuit is successful and those let go at least get something in exchange for the horrible way they were treated.

Anonymous said...

The point to me is there was a layoff policy for non-scientific personnel and it was not followed.

Anonymous said...

The retirement chart does not paint a complete picture.In my case it would appear quite rosy 50%
salary,but after a divorce takes half it takes a few years to recover.

Anonymous said...

While the video is a little compelling in the emotional state, I'll withhold judgement until I hear facts, not feelings. In other words, let it play out in the courts. Mr. Gwilliam seems intent to stir up the emotional side of the picture, which will be quite useful for the penalty phase of the trial, but I have not seen the evidence at this point that shows that older people were let go to keep less expensive and less qualified employees. When I see that, I'll join the chorus calling for the lynching. But until such time all I've seen so far are the personal observations of those laid off and no documentation that showed the favoritism or the age discrimination.

Anonymous said...

May 6, 2012 12:14 AM

Geez, a balanced, reasonable approach. You don't belong here.

Anonymous said...

"Geez, a balanced, reasonable approach. You don't belong here." - May 6, 2012 10:02 AM


Geez, a sarcastic, snarky comment. You definitely belong here.

Anonymous said...

Geez, a sarcastic, snarky comment. You definitely belong here.

May 7, 2012 10:32 PM

A little thin-skinned, are we? The first part of the comment was appreciative. The last was a little bit of irony (look it up if you have to).

Anonymous said...

You will not find documention. That was why it was done in secret. Age statistics will not tell the story either, as they jettisoned the disabled, or perceived disabled, not just the old.

Management did not hide their decisions to avoid lawsuits. The taxpayers pay for the lawsuits, so they don't care about that. They only hide information to protect their own jobs; to protect themselves from being the scapegoat.

As they (upper management) leave the lab , the stories may come out.

Rikki Ehlhardt said...

Elaine has a history of lawsuits. Ask her about Mike Kelly.

Blog Archive