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

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Should NNSA federalize the guard force?



In light of the news about behavior of contract guards at Y-12 and Los Alamos, the time could be right for a change.

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/08/y-12-security-time-to-give-federalized-guard-force-a-shot.html

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

It should have been armed Marines from day one with M-16 ready to do what they have to do at any time instead of that sissy college campus attitude. With the freaks of nature LLNL is hiring today from all over the world it won't be long before a terrorist slips by and sheet is going to hit the fan. Hell, there's more foreign nations on site than there is white people and they speak their own language in the hall ways so you have no clue what type of information is being exchange. We even have dig-bats with blue and green hair we nicknamed the smurf. It kind of like that show for SFC called oddities. Yes sir buddy, we got all those types on site.

Anonymous said...

I assume the poster at 8:24 is a troll, or at least I hope so. I would point out that the leaders of the Manhattan project had native languages that were not English. Science runs across political and geographical boundaries. The statement of military guards was followed by such ludicrous babble that it discredits the whole post in total.

Anonymous said...

Yes! All DOE LAB site's need Federal Security Police Officer, like the Federal OST. No more committee hearing and meeting in Congress. Each Lab has it own policy and rules if federal the CFR 1047 will be the same under one umbrella under DOE at all site's

1. Do Protective Force Officers (PFO) represent law enforcement for The Department of Energy (DOE).

Example: If their is an active shooter in a laboratory building on site, does DOE Protective Force Officers (PFO) with federal credential,
badges, emergency response officials, Q Clearance and wearing federal uniforms with Special Response Team (SRT) training have the
authority to stop the shooter or do they wait for local police to arrive?


2. If something goes wrong, like the accidental death of a hostage will DOE give their PFOs 100% support or will DOE separate
themselves from the incident and not accept responsibility of their officers?


3. An additional area that concerns all, is the disregard for safety and protection of the remaining security police force at the Laboratory.

After the reduction in our numbers due to the removal of nuclear material, we are currently being trained to perform
active shooter response and interdiction as required by the Department of Energy. We as a work force have no assurances of legal protection
should a life threatening situation present itself. We as a much reduced work force have not been offered any safety package that would support our
needs should an officer acting for the Department of Energy and National Labs., become maimed, crippled or killed while in the
performance of his/her duties. We have no guarantees that protect officers and his/her family financially if they are injured or killed on duty.

DOE, NNSA and Congress need to fix this NOW!

Anonymous said...

Good fit - both are illiterate.

Anonymous said...

Probably should NOT federalize the guard force (at least in Y12's case). After all, the U.S. constitution describes separation between church and state - and Y12 guards have been known to hang out with nuns...

Anonymous said...

Many of the guards in the security forces at the NNSA labs don't exactly instill confidence in their abilities to secure these labs. The old image of Mayberry's Barney Fife comes to mind.

Anonymous said...

DOE should not be running Nuclear labs in the first place, let alone hiring people to guard them.

Anonymous said...

Most of the guards employed by the NNSA complex are former military and are very well qualified. I have never seen one that reminds me of Barney Fife.

Anonymous said...

The sad reality is that if there were to be an active shooter in a building killing people the only thing the llns security guards can do is call 911 and set up a perimeter from a safe distance and wait for the police. There is no more SRT they have less ammo now and less protective gear immediately available. It was never SRTs job to protect lab personnel in the first place. The security force has been told that they are not police, they have zero authority, and no backing from LLNS. I believe they want to be proactive and help people but don't have the backing from spineless management. Most of them are prior military and have what it takes to accomplish the mission. Let's be honest, how far would you put it all at risk for LLNS? Just remember when we drive through the gate and present out badge to go to work and ignore or give a dirty look to that guy that's doing his job, maybe just once we can say good morning because that guy might say "screw management, I am going in and saving those people ".

Anonymous said...

Bergman don't read so good but she manage guards without military or book learning. She manage stuff good.

Anonymous said...

Is the rumor true that she and John are a team?

Anonymous said...

It was never SRTs job to protect lab personnel in the first place.

August 13, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Absolutely true. The only purpose for protective forces at DOE/NNSA sites is protection of classified matter and SNM. They are trained to repel and/or contain an attacking force, and to implement security rules regarding access to classified material and SNM. There is no police role and no training for it. Calling local law enforcement is absolutely the right action. Also the only constitutional one. Arguably the Posse Comitatus Act applies.

Anonymous said...

NNSA has done poor job with the national lab management. Case of the for profit corporate foxes watching the tax payer funded chickens.

Keep NNSA out of these sorts of decisions.

If needed, just give site security directly over to the DoD. Soldiers will know how to secure a site.

Anonymous said...

Most of the guards employed by the NNSA complex are former military and are very well qualified. I have never seen one that reminds me of Barney Fife.

August 12, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Seriously?! I think you need to get out more.

Anonymous said...

Most lab employees hate the security guards and anyone else in uniform or carrying a firearm. What do you think their reaction would be if they seen a soldier standing at the gate. Maybe we should have not security for one day. Then the bubble they live in would be popped and brought back to reality.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Bergman don't read so good but she manage guards without military or book learning. She manage stuff good.

August 13, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Bergman is in charge of guards that she never talks to. Doesn't attend any role calls or ever address any issues to them directly. She is just collecting a paycheck. Worthless !

Anonymous said...

Until the DOE realizes that contract personnel are motivated by providing a service for money and nothing more I believe the sites are at risk. There needs to be an understanding of human psychology, people operating in roles almost always conform to thier role. Security guards understand their limit of authority and distrust of their abilities and eventually if not always rise to the stereotypical role we all imagine. Thats not a judgment of the security guard's potential or past experience. Many have served with honor in military and law enforcement positions but will quickly understand and conform to their new role of Barney Fife especially if the financial advantage outwieghs the degradation of pride and self worth. These guys are not law enforcement even if they have been given "limited federal arrest authority" only for violations of 161K. They are security guards. Even though they carry weaponry equivalent to a military infantry unit and have training to use them they understand that they are just contract guards. This is extremely apparent in their lack of inclusion in HR 218, LEOSA. They can't even carry their credentials away from work and must drop them when they drop their weapon at the end of the day! At the end of the day theyre just well paid guards. They know this and will willingly fill the role theyre asked to fill.

Anonymous said...

I've never met a OST agent that wasnt proud of what he did and have great confidence in his ability and training. Conversly I've never met a SPO that had any real pride in his job or great confidence in the training he was given by DOE. The difference is the role. SPOs are contract guards and OST are Feds. Even though the requirements and authority for both are nearly identicle, they produce two extremely different products. I believe it to be the psychological advantage of understanding that the fed has the full backing of his govt and feels an identification in that role as a federal agent. A sense of pride and belonging to something greater to self. The guard on the other hand is no soldier, no officer of law enforcement. Just a civilian wearing a uniform, afforded no special trust or reason to identify with the greater cause. He gets his pay, that is his greater cause. To ensure the better security of critical government infrastucture contract guard positions should be limited to jobs where incompetence can be expected and not result in horrific consequences.

Anonymous said...

Posse Comatatus Act has not been an issue for several years now. Contract forces have been used to crush labor strikes and kill innocent people in this century. It only applies to federal troops, not even national guard. And if contract forces ever have to use force, the federal govt can say they acted outside the scope of their duties, after the fact. Pretty convenient for politicians

Anonymous said...

This is also why the protective forces for NNSA are a paper tiger. The personnel understand that the use of force option is and will be a personal responsibility accepted as a private un-sworn citizen acting in a psuedo-law enforcement role. The disavowment of ownership in that action by the federal powers are already set. Contract personnel understand that they will not have legal representation as an agent of the federal government acting in accordace with duties preformed in defense of national security. In every case where the NNSA / DOE can place blame on a contractor and distance themselves from accepting responsibility they will and have done so.

Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is that the PFOs at most DOE sites are well intentioned veterans and ex-police officers that believe they are entering into a better career field than the one they came from with the added sense of pride in continuing their service to their country. When they realize they have entered into a security guard job they stay for the pay. The allure of a federal agent status job motivates some to leave but most stay for the pay and conform to the role of contract guard. Once they sacrifice their pride for the pay and accept the status of "guard", they come to the job to catch up on their rest and look forward to doing something worthwhile in their off time. This could easily be changed with minimal cost to the taxpayer and without federalization if the Protective Force were given a little more trust and recognized as the valuable assets that they are. Give them a real title and some real authority and include them in HR218 as law enforcement. Let them carry a weapon off duty

Blog Archive