I agree with the comment that the Managers who ran that illegal lay off
should be fired - starting with the LIRC committee comprised of:
Bruce
Warner, Art Wong, Gaby Odell, Marina Gonzalez, Bob Perko, and Renee
Breyer - high dollar folks of which at least one of them as been double
dipping since October 2007. They are an embarrassment to the Lab posing
as competent leaders -let them feel the pain of having your career
stripped out from under them - they are all over 50 - let them see how
quick they can find another job in this economy.
10 comments:
If that layoff were to happen now, with updated personnel polices, would it be "illegal"? The new policy is quite clear that anybody can be RIFd for any reason. Why can't LLNS lay off everybody over 50 if they should decide that's a good strategy?
This is a serious question, not intended to be inflammatory. Are there actual laws that control this somehow?
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967): http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
People over 40 are protected.
The irony is that they could make a policy to layoff everyone under 40 and it would be legal.
An employer can't write a policy that violates a person's civil rights...although some may try.
May 16, 2013 at 3:37 PM
You have no right. Out of money, your gone. It's as simple as that. No one in their right mind is going to keep people on they have no use for and can not afford to pay.
Bruce Warner, Art Wong, Gaby Odell, Marina Gonzalez, Bob Perko, and Renee Breyer...and etc...
Gaby Odell already retired/left the Lab about a year ago.
The rest of these people are laughing or will be laughing at our comments on this blog if they get to read them. Reason for their laughing? They are are high pay bosses, they are "valued" by the lab and they have high profile teams of lawyers to protect them.
It needs an iron hand of a director who has integrity to do a good cleaning out of many managers at the lab. At this present time, Perney ain't it.
If any if those have an MBA from a program other than Harvard or Stanford, they should be tarred and feathered and run out of town.
Just an observation or two:
Managers rarely fire managers (note the high manager to worker ratio), and
Support employees tax programmatic employees, so they will always have money (note the high support to programmatic ratio).
These two area increase overhead.
THOU WHO SHOUTS IN ALL CAPS: Maybe you should read the law? The Federal Law specifically states "The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination."
Now let's look at California (Fair Employment and Housing Act) "This law specifically provides protection from harassment or discrimination in employment because of: Age (40 and over)"
I am just curious in your rant if you can point me to where younger workers are protected (apart form you inner mind)? I am not arguing that there may be other laws protecting workers, but my understanding that there are no DISCRIMINATION laws (Federal or State) that protect workers under 40. After all, the lawsuit was about discrimination and the first comment in this was about firing everyone over 50 (which is illegal).
I may be naive and simple, but I just don't see how the anti-discrimination laws can be enforced, when the new LLNS policies allow use of almost any criteria in deciding RIFs. Suppose, for example, LLNS decided to go after employess with "low cost-effectiveness". It would be pretty easy to identify and RIF high-paid folks that aren't as productive as they used to be. A relatively high fraction of such folks would be "more mature". Would anti-discrimination laws really be effective in preventing this?
Post a Comment