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
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Layoffs
So now that you have your new budget how many are they going to send out the gate, put on the EBA list?
117 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think NIF has already been purging Akima contractors under the radar for some time now. There was a big hit this past Friday ( Jan 10th). Not sure how many total.
There will not be a big layoffs announcement. Instead, each AD Directorate can lay you off anytime now. If you are old, have been at the Lab a long time, and your boss does not like you for whatever reasons, the handwriting is on the wall. Low level workers feel that they work under so much stress, as no one want to talk about what's going on and co workers stab each other behind their back to save their own job. It is very stressful environment now!
What does LLNS consider "old" for lay off purposes? What percentage of LLNS lay offs or EIT/EBA notifications are carried out by "out of the blue" managers not your long term manager? Is this the classic bad news notification technique?
Remember that each AD Directorate can lay off up to 50 employees and there is no need for WARN Act. They quietly locate and target those employees who they don't like and can get rid off based on lack of funding or lack of skill sets. I know for a fact that a highly competent employee was let go because the division leader did not want him to have the job. The employee was given 1 hour notice and was escorted out the gate! Very sad environment ! It could happen to everyone.
I suppose having a 3rd party deliver the bad news allows the 3rd party to play stupid and free of responsibility, while at the same time making the long term manager feel like he is not party to throwing his employee "under the bus". This technique is particularly useful when the lay off or EIT reasoning is baseless.
There will not be a big layoffs announcement. Instead, each AD Directorate can lay you off anytime now. If you are old, have been at the Lab a long time...the handwriting is on the wall.
January 20, 2014 at 5:59 PM
Just for info, from Wikipedia: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-202Code, 29 U.S.C. § 621 through 29 U.S.C. § 634 (ADEA), forbids employment discrimination against anyone at least 40 years of age in the United States (see 29 U.S.C. § 631(a)). The bill was signed into law in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
If you are let go "for cause" and you appeal the decision, your fate will be decided by a nebulous Dismissal Review Board (DRB) likely composed of the same folks that targeted you for dismissal in the first place. No you do not have "face your accuser" 6th amendment of the United States Constitution comparable rights folks. This is LLNS.
It is worse than simple crowd or mob psychology where individual responsibility is lost because the deed is carried out behind closed doors. Very sad indeed.
Each AD can lay off up to 50 employees and not trigger the WARN Act? Does that imply that each directorate is considered a separate company? I find that hard to believe but the lawyers are good at finding loopholes. I looked at the WARN act listing for 2014 and did not see Livermore listed. http://www.edd.ca.gov/Jobs_and_training/Layoff_Services_WARN.htm#ListingofWARNNotices
Directorates have been disappearing people in small numbers for the last year, that's nothing new. It's slimey and disgraceful, but LLNS will claim it's allowed by their new rules that are constantly being scrutinized and revised to provide "flexibility".
"...Each AD can lay off up to 50 employees and not trigger the WARN Act? Does that imply that each directorate is considered a separate company? ..."
Questions:
1. Has there been a layoff of =>50 employees in a 30 day period (CA Warn Act) lab wide independent of directorate within the last 24 months?
2. Is there any evidence to suggest LLNS has purposefully spread out lay offs to avoid Warn Act requirements and employee protections?
3. Are individual directorates or programs each authoring their respective EIT and EBA guidelines rather than a unified lab wide EIT and EBA guideline? (LLNS policies, procedures, and purported employee protections are not management selectable by directorate nor are they written as such)
4. Aren't the EIT and EBA account numbers identical and or funded by the same point source?
My experience is the EIT and EBA guidelines are purposefully written, managed, and monitored independent from other organizations for the following reasons:
A. to allow maximum flexibility to managers or programs with virtual "at will" discretion B. to avoid contrasting or conflicting program to program EIT and EBA implementation C. to possibly allow for a "work around" to the CA Warn Act 50 employee lay off within a 30 day period threshold D. avoiding a Warn Act declaration is good PR (short term) and keeps employees less situationally aware of pending lay offs and less prepared than they would otherwise be
I doubt anyone will ever find "evidence to suggest LLNS has purposefully spread out lay offs to avoid Warn Act requirements and employee protections" Those sorts of discussions would be behind closed doors, off the record, with everyone involved knowing that they are on shaky legal ground.
I agree it would be difficult to confirm such information informally. Testimony under oath in court might reveal such information. In such a scenario LLNS would attempt to blur such intent by suggesting no one individual had such intent or directive.
That place is getting worse and worse to work for. How can anyone who reads this blog ever want to come to work for LLNL or for that matter any lab who is managed by an LLC private contractor. Scooby, can you get more coverage somehow, like a facebook page? The word needs to get out. Maybe give the URL to this site to every congressmen and senator.
"That place is getting worse and worse to work for. How can anyone who reads this blog ever want to come to work for LLNL or for that matter any lab who is managed by an LLC private contractor. Scooby, can you get more coverage somehow, like a facebook page? The word needs to get out. Maybe give the URL to this site to every congressmen and senator."
Oh, come on.
I've worked at a number of places other than the Lab, and there's nothing unusual or horrific going on here. This places was cushy before transition and, in fact, is still a little more cushy than average. I'm astounded by all this whining over the loss of a state of relative privilege. I guess people do condition to their environment.
Newsflash--people get laid off in the private sector. It happens all the time. The majority of them aren't specifically deserving of that fate, either. And office politics can determine their fate, through no particular fault of their own.
It's called the real world. Deal with it or get dealt out by it.
And no, your congressman or senator doesn't care that your sense of entitlement is ruffled by life. Thankfully, most of the people I've met at LLNL aren't this pathetic.
"...And no, your congressman or senator doesn't care that your sense of entitlement is ruffled by life. Thankfully, most of the people I've met at LLNL aren't this pathetic..."
Another News Flash:
LLNS is contractually obligated to work within and abide by DOE/NNSA and CA guidelines and regulations. Departures from these guidelines and regulations are actionable.
If LLNS no longer wishes to abide by DOE/NNSA or CA requirements, they are free to vote with their feet.
Contractual obligations are binding. Sorry to upset your inexperienced mind.
January 21, 2014 at 2:38 PM
You think that only if you are very naive. Contracts can be interpreted, and that happens every day, in ways that might or might not invite challenges and lawyers. People tend to try to get away with whatever they think they can, and many times they succeed. I'll bet a million bucks that your personal interpretation of the contract requirements ("That's what it says!!", you'll cry) is not the interpretation LLNS lawyers will apply.
"Remember that each AD Directorate can lay off up to 50 employees and there is no need for WARN Act. They quietly locate and target those employees who they don't like and can get rid off based on lack of funding or lack of skill sets." - 6:55 pm
Are these carefully numbered "less than 50" groups of employes in each Directorate who are being stealthily laid off also getting their earned severance when escorted out the door?
If they are LLNS staff and laid off due to lack of funds, wouldn't that be exactly like a RIF, which must pay out severance per the lab contract?
If LLNS employees are laid off "for cause" there is no severance pay and when the laid off employee attempts to collect unemployment, LLNS will likely contest it. If LLNS successfully contests your unemployment, their "reserve account" is not charged for any outgoing benefits to that laid off LLNS employee.
I don't think any of the layoffs are "for cause", which is basically being fired. Perhaps someone who has been kicked out the gate can correct me if this is not the case.
A lay off due to alleged funding reductions alone is not a "for cause" lay off and that former employee shouldn't have any unemployment challenges by LLNS.
January 21, 2014 at 12:12 PM said... "That place is getting worse and worse to work for. How can anyone who reads this blog ever want to come to work for LLNL..."
The best don't, not anymore, and some of the best who were here have already left. The LLNL sun has been setting for some years now, and the back stabbing and back room plotting are symptomatic of the advancing decay.
I've only heard about one supervisor and one group leader ever EBA in 32 years at LLNL. Does that give you any idea of the inequality. Oh and both are still there one doing a menial job and the other just doing time.
"I've only heard about one supervisor and one group leader ever EBA in 32 years at LLNL. Does that give you any idea of the inequality. Oh and both are still there one doing a menial job and the other just doing time."
Becoming a GL is a dangerous choice. The position pays little to nothing, yet requires considerable time and is unpredictably disruptive to one's work schedule. But most importantly, serving as GL inevitably means that one's technical skills will diminish, so it becomes harder to remain funded. There is no priviledge here. I know of GLs who have been EBA'd partly or wholly during or after their term of service.
LLNS is doing the same thing that's done every day in the "real world". Companies lay people off, and they do it in the way they decide is best for the company and within the restrictions of applicable law.
We've had an exceptionally good deal at the labs for a very long time. Management chose to avoid layoffs at (almost) all cost. That had great benefits in terms of retention and loyalty, but it also had the downside of accumulating a certain amount of deadwood. In an environment of decreasing budgets, layoffs are unavoidable. And the company is going to try to the best they can to live on (which is a big benefit to those who remain).
So, yeah, it's sad that we now have to work at a lab where getting laid off is a possibility. But that's only because we had it so good for so long.
We should not expect sympathy for being reduced from a sweetheart deal to the norm.
Depends what went into our thinking when we signed on in the first place. A sweetheart deal was part of the deal, and if it had not been then we might have made different choices.
"...We should not expect sympathy for being reduced from a sweetheart deal to the norm..."
I agree with post 1-22-14 12:02pm. We wouldn't buy a car, acquire a home mortgage, or enter into any contract if one party could change the terms after the fact. That is usually referred to as "bait and switch". As the previous person said, knowing one party (LLNS) could change the terms of employment on the fly, might have led to other decisions being made in 2007. Some might have left the lab, selected TCP2, or changed assignments within the lab.
If you live in a world where you think no employer should be able to change the terms of your job after you accept it, you are a coddled, self-absorbed, naive fool. Get over yourself. Your Mommy was wrong; you are NOT special.
"The position pays little to nothing, yet requires considerable time and is unpredictably disruptive to one's work schedule. But most importantly, serving as GL inevitably means that one's technical skills will diminish, so it becomes harder to remain funded. " (9:32 am)
Say what? I know plenty of Group Leaders (GLs) that live off "overhead" management accounts for all their charge code time and never work on any technical projects or bring in a single dime of lab funding.
In the past (pre-LLC), this type of activity by managers was rare but it seems to be much more common today. The lab seems to even encourage GL's to spend 100% of their time "managing" their staff and charging to the "overhead" accounts.
The new team of LLC executives seem to believe that "managing" is the most important deliverable being produced by the lab. Producing good science is a distant second.
"Depends what went into our thinking when we signed on in the first place. A sweetheart deal was part of the deal, and if it had not been then we might have made different choices.
January 22, 2014 at 12:02 PM"
Give me a break. You are not special, there is nothing about you that is any different from any other worker in the real world, there is nothing special about LLNL or any of the DOE labs, the free market has spoken and you lost. You got that? It is time to live up to reality. We could replace every worker at LLNL with ones that would work 1/5 of your salary, do a better job, and would would post how great the place is on every single blog on the internet. Why not just outsource the whole dam place. We could save huge amounts of money. You need to stop whining and join the real world! There is nothing that is done at LLNL and that could not be done far cheaper and far better elsewhere. Hell why we are at it there is nothing in the United States that could not be done cheaper and far better elsewhere. No one in America is special and it is time the United States is welcomed to the Real World. You are not a special snowflake, you not better than anyone else and you nor anyone else in the United States is just entitled to a nice salary. You got to earn in the FREE MARKET and guess what folks, when the contract changed you LOST. Learn it, live with it, feel it, own it, and move on. We are tied of all the whining, man up and join management or shut up and follow. The same is true for the United States, it is looking more and more like the FREE MARKET has spoken and America lost, or at least some of us in the United States lost. PBIs baby.
The employer LLNS also feed the NNSA said terms of employment in their quest to attain the contract and to woo UC employees their way. Your mommy references don't serve your argument.
Amazing that LLNS managers always invoke "free market" theory in the attempt to shield their near zero deliverable purpose at the lab. They would not exist if not for the innovators. Parasites don't benefit from devouring their host, but at LLNS the feedback loop is exceptionally long for the parasites to grasp.
The new budget that is currently being passed by both the House and Senate will cut LDRD funding for both LLNL and LANL. The 8% that was allowed will be cut back to 6% starting with this fiscal year (Oct 1st, FY2014). That's a 25% cut that LDRD projects will now have to handle.
January 22, 2014 at 9:22 PM has smoked too meth, and needs a downer to go to sleep. He's probably on the EBA list now and waiting for the tap on the shoulder. I feel sorry for him.
Give me a break. You are not special, there is nothing about you that is any different from any other worker in the real world, there is nothing special about LLNL or any of the DOE labs, the free market has spoken and you lost. You got that? It is time to live up to reality. We could replace every worker at LLNL with ones that would work 1/5 of your salary, do a better job, and would would post how great the place is on every single blog on the internet. Why not just outsource the whole dam place. We could save huge amounts of money. You need to stop whining and join the real world! There is nothing that is done at LLNL and that could not be done far cheaper and far better elsewhere. Hell why we are at it there is nothing in the United States that could not be done cheaper and far better elsewhere. No one in America is special and it is time the United States is welcomed to the Real World. You are not a special snowflake, you not better than anyone else and you nor anyone else in the United States is just entitled to a nice salary. You got to earn in the FREE MARKET and guess what folks, when the contract changed you LOST. Learn it, live with it, feel it, own it, and move on. We are tied of all the whining, man up and join management or shut up and follow. The same is true for the United States, it is looking more and more like the FREE MARKET has spoken and America lost, or at least some of us in the United States lost. PBIs baby.
This is not the free market speaking. This is all the one-percenters reaping benefits disproportionate to their contribution, plus gaming the system with offshore manufacturing and services, which cumulatively result in a smaller tax base, which in turn leaves facilities like ours starving for funds. It's all part of the race to the bottom.
LLNS is doing the same thing that's done every day in the "real world". Companies lay people off, and they do it in the way they decide is best for the company and within the restrictions of applicable law.
LLNL is not the "real world."
Real world companies lay off managers in rough proportion to other employees. LLNL does not do this. LLNL lays off managers by promoting them to newly created positions because no one else wants to hire them.
Real world companies do everything they can to control costs. LLNL does not do this. Overhead remains out of control at LLNL. There is no effort to control costs, except for endless working groups that accomplish nothing.
Real world companies have a bottom line. If they do not meet the bottom line, they fail. LLNL does not do this. LLNL considers much of its funding to be an entitlement from the government.
Real world companies hold managers accountable for meeting the goals of the company. LLNL does not do this. When LLNL managers do not meet their goals, they simply create a new set of goals that they will never meet (with fancy VG's and "A lists").
Sorry but LLNL is acting like a company in the real world. The thing is that LLNL does not have have the same type of customers that real world has so they have to adapt according to the needs of the market that it is in. As for getting money from the government, I say so what, lots of private companies get there money from the government. Look at Lockheed Martin, and many other defense contractors. There is a contract, if the contract is kept the company, in this case LLNLs gets paid and renewed, just like every other private company out there. If they have to get rid of people to do this than how is that different from every other business? If you have a problem with management that is your own personal problem, so either join them, get out or shut up.
That is definitely an effective way to navigate the current LLNS world. However, that's a very self-interested strategy. If you care about the mission, the institution, and the country I think it is important to try and shape and change things where possible.
I don't believe it is as bleak and severe a set of choices as you have portrayed.
"If you care about the mission, the institution, and the country I think it is important to try and shape and change things where possible."
LLNLs does care about the mission, the institute and the country and that is why it was given the contract. The contract had very specific goals to be meet, presumably these goals benefit the institute, the mission and the country. What is so hard to understand about that?
Unfortunately it becomes problematic to "shape and change things" when LLNS is awarded contract extensions for subpar performance and rubber ruler goals.
LLNS cares about money, up-front and back-door for the constituent companies that participate. And that inevitably moves thinking horizons inwards towards short-term goals, like the recent emphasis on work for others. No doubt Parney was hired because of his experience and contacts in that world, and look for a new director with a similar perspective that views the lab as a high-tech work shop.
Oh you mean look for a director with self-delusions of creating real value for their WFO stakeholders? Those companies are getting bamboozled. I hope they don't expect anything out of the labs, because they aren't going to get much. Maybe they get to write it off as a loss for tax reasons.
Oh you mean look for a director with self-delusions of creating real value for their WFO stakeholders? Those companies are getting bamboozled.
January 24, 2014 at 8:02 AM
You show your ignorance. WFO sponsors are not "companies." They are other US government agencies. Private company sponsorship arrangements are called "funds-in agreements."
WFO sponsors can be other government agencies such as the Army,Airforce, Navy, etc. It also includes private companies, university, state agencies. So WFO sponsors can include companies who need our expertise to help them. Your reference of private company sponsorship arrangements are called "funds -in- agreements" applies to a special agreement called CRADA. Any private company can provide funding to the Lab to perform work.
You are wrong. Please read the DOE Order on WFO. CRADA's are entirely separate from funds-in agreements. For the latter, there need be no "cooperative" nature to the agreement - simply fee paid for work done. WFO is strictly government.
In reference to 1/24 @ 5:48AM LLNS sure works around the WARN Act. Individual Directorate has quietly laid off people. If they keep it under 50 employees, there is no need to make the announcement. Furthermore, if you look around, a lot of people who simply disappear from their office or desk. Because of the manner the management carry out the purge,you will not know about these people unless you are their friends.
Their technique is to call you in the office,tell you that there is no funding to support you, and you are escorted out the gate by the HR and other supervisor. You cannot pack your personal belongings as they will have someone to pack your stuff and send it to you. The present work environment is stressful in that workers do not know their fate. A lot of office politics involved and the reasons to lay you off are made up by managers who do not want you around.
That is incorrect. As a former labbie working for a private company, I just spoke with an insider the other day about a WFO contract with a group inside the lab. That is WFO, not CRADA - CRADA is a different arrangement entirely. You pay your money, you get your work.
That is incorrect. As a former labbie working for a private company, I just spoke with an insider the other day
January 24, 2014 at 7:12 PM
OK, sloppy terminology by the "insider" and lack of specific understanding of the DOE Orders and the policies that flow from them. Understandable, but not correct.
adding to 5:17pm's comment: Real world companies view their employees as assets. If they invest 100k in training and clearances, they will not just fire and replace them due to age or disability. To LANS however, It was the taxpayers that spent the 100k, not them. Fire away.
hmm.. "I've worked at a number of places other than the Lab, and there's nothing unusual or horrific going on here. " Your statement may be true for you, but your statement is not a sound argument given how other employees are treated. In time, you will be awakened.
"I've worked at a number of places other than the Lab, and there's nothing unusual or horrific going on here. "
One can swim in the ocean and never be attacked by a Great White Shark too. Does that mean Great White Sharks do not exist? To pursue their questionable employment practices, LLNS uses misinformation, isolation, intimidation, and retaliation. Figuratively speaking, LLNS doesn't want a "no swimming, sharks spotted in these waters" sign on their corporate beach. It is bad PR and damages $ contract extension opportunities.
I think the truth is, LLNS is doing exactly what Congress and the last two administrations wanted it to do. That may be stupid and short-sighted, but it is what it is.
".. A lot of office politics involved and the reasons to lay you off are made up by managers who do not want you around..."
Your observation is correct. Egotistical "command and control" managers will make things up about you if he sees you as a threat to his position. If challenged, they take refuge with Staff Relations, their ever-present safety net.
I've observed this as well. It's amazing to me that all this "making things up" seems to have no repercussions for the manager in question. At some point it would seem that Staff Relations (or the greater institution, or it's overseers) would realize that an environment where people in power are emboldened to just make stuff up, is going to have legal repercussions to us at some point.
Once a manager decides to "make things up" it is not just that one manager who may face repercussions. If the impacted employee contests the actions of that manager, the AD will eventually have to weigh in and you can guess how that goes. As near to an involuntary reflex response, the AD will side with the manager. If the employee is fired through the actions of the AD, given the choice, the lower level managers play defense for the AD decision. Only lawsuits, legal testimony, or outside agency intervention trip up this tactic. In other words, it becomes institutional repercussions and is very short sided and demonstrates poor leadership.
This blog should begin to identify and track common tactics or patterns systematically used by LLNS management against LLNS EIT or EBA employees for the purpose of cultivating a "for cause" lay off paper trail.
Just a few examples:
1. How many EITs or EBAs were initially told there programmatic funded job or funding for it "went away", then once out, later to learned their appraisals claimed poor performance or poor conduct?
2. How many EITs or EBAs were given example 1 information from managers OTHER than their traditional or long term manager?
3. How many EITs or EBAs (including exempt classifications) had their work hours or attendance tracked down to the hour or minute with penalties for even minor deviations?
4. How many EITs had their sick leave or vacation leave excessively scrutinized?
5. How many EITs or EBAs received a "letter of warning" AFTER transition into EIT or EBA status?
6. How many managers unilaterally decided to skip the SHRM required "DRAFT" performance appraisal (PA) of EITs or EBAs without informing the employee?
7. How many EITs or EBAs received FINAL PAs that were factually inaccurate including deletions of long established SKAs.
8. How many EITs or EBAs were purposefully information isolated from others with the same EIT or EBA status?
9. How many employees were outspoken, "crossed" a manager", or filed formal grievances, before they became EIT or EBA employees?
10. Other?
I hope SPSE is on top of this for both member and non-member benefit. My observation is there are indications of a common game plan by LLNS management with Staff Relations guidance, that supports eventual lay offs or dismissal justification.
EITs are instructed to find work or face an individual RIF if they don't find a programatic assignment in a "reasonable period of time" (left undefined). Most assignments are not posted, and DTED took full advantage of this fact with or without engineering AD approval.
Being EIT status is advertised by the engineering AD as a "normal" status at LLNS (?).
Within the domain and responsibility of the engineering AD:
DTED senior management unequivocally informed its division employees in meetings, verbally only of course, no paper trail, that all upcoming DTED assignments had to be pre-approved by senior DTED management first, with clear priority for DTED employees.
Departures from this declaration, by giving assignments to SKA qualified EITs or EBAs outside of DTED, were met with intense disgust and lecturing to the violating programmatic managers. This policy continued even when senior WCI managers directly attributed slipping deliverables and shot schedules in HEAF to insufficient EE or E tech support. DTED runs HEAF and most of Site 300, and is overweight in ME and M techs you see. Where is the AD leadership?
EIT status is normal? It is no wonder why Dr. Steve Patterson left his engineering AD position and the lab. Stand up guy that Steve.
Really, EIT status is "normal"? Who would want to take a job that required him to periodically scramble for new work or else be layed off? If you want to be an independent contractor, there are better ways to plug in to a larger network and enjoy some stability, but meanwhile one of the historical draws to working at the lab was stability. Crazy.
Agreed. The engineering AD owns the "EIT status is normal" characterization. It is anything but normal and those unfortunate enough to be an EIT or EBA are treated as 2nd class employees or worse however you slice it. We can and should do better.
"If you live in a world where you think no employer should be able to change the terms of your job after you accept it, you are a coddled, self-absorbed, naive fool. Get over yourself. Your Mommy was wrong; you are NOT special."
I think I am actually ! I went to the top engineering and physics department on the West Coast, did world class, one of a kind science, published in world class journals, significantly advanced the state of my field, and was hired at the Lab to do world class science and engineering.
Yes I am special and you morons better pay attention, because without us "special" people the Labs (LLNL, Sandia, LANL) will go down the toilet.
The preacher of "real world" instruction may not comprehend your point 1-25-14 8:16pm. He doesn't understand the "golden goose" concept of project innovation or value to the labs you are attempting to explain. You are only a subservient resource to him, tools in his imaginary tool box are not suppose to have employment expectations.
You are only a subservient resource to him, tools in his imaginary tool box are not suppose to have employment expectations.
January 25, 2014 at 8:44 PM
You can have all the "employment expectations" you want. Your employer (i.e., the one who pays you, or not) also has expectations for you. Those are more important to him than yours. Guess who wins?
A highly placed person in an unnamed directorate told me honestly, "I'll deny I ever said this, but if you or I apply for a posted opening in WCI, they will find plausible reasons to not talk to you. But the real reason will be because we are too old. They only want to hire young cheap people who will be around for a long time". That is what you are up against as an EIT/EBA, and nothing is what it seems. The only recourse is a lawsuit, but that is a long uncertain path.
I agree absolutely with posted 1/25 @ 10:29pm. That is happening at every directorate at LLNS. I see that they hire new, younger, or select younger people in those open positions even though the new employees are inexperience and need to be trained by the older workers. When you asked the managers why they cannot consider you, they implied that they need a younger work force to prepare for the future.
I know people have been passed over many positions because of their age. The managers will give you double talks about their selection. I always thought that older workers have so many experience and skills to offer, including updated new skills to be in this modern work force. However, many lab managers have the mentality that if you are over 55, you are no longer needed and they find way to discourage you to stay. They deny you jobs that you know you could do very well, but for your age. I feel very sympathetic for people in EBA or EIT list because most of the times, they are the victims of office politics or leadership change in their department. Some on EBA are due to funding problem; but others are due to petty office politics.
All the EITs and EBAs I've seen are 50 or 60 somethings. This is probably why some of the tactics described in the 1-25-14 5:25pm post are being used. Staff Relations must think certain employment "trip wires" will trump age discrimination claims.
I don't think older workers are valued at LLNS. For example, after the SSVSP employees left, the lab started "deliberate operations". That can be problematic after you lose portions of your knowledge base.
In this current lay off period, LLNS 300 series employees in the "buddy loop" slipped themselves into 500 series jobs with no threat or expectation of demotion to a 500 series classification. In contrast, 300 series EIT or EBA employees in political disfavor, are immediately threatened with demotion if placed in a 500 series position. The 300 series employees tend to be much older than 500 series employees.
It is no wonder why management has actively blocked steps for EITs and EBAs to identify and communicate with each other. I know engineering attempted to use EIT and EBA "privacy concerns" as an excuse to block the release of names and locations of fellow EITs and EBAs. When one EIT acknowledged this concern, and suggested EITs and EBAs must "opt in" to such a group to consider and address privacy concerns, the management response was they were still not going to allow it...
I know the name of the WCI gatekeeper who squashed my move over there after it had already started (and even been given an interview date), and talking to him he let slip something he should not have regarding age. I kept careful notes of all these interactions, I have all the emails saved on my personal hardware offsite, and he ought to be fired for cause before someone sues the lab over yet another age discrimination case. What they are doing is illegal, and may cost LLNS an enormous amount of money. If there is another lawsuit, I hope I hear about it because I will feel compelled to take my information to the lawyers.
I think many LLNS managers have secretly put the kibosh on programmatic assignments and because most of these assignments are not formally posted (paper trail concern), it leaves room for unchecked and malicious management practices. Where is SHRM on this? Cricket, cricket. I don't think the courts will allow SHRM to plead ignorance. SHRM is complicit and provides the framework for these management maneuvers.
Have a good read of all the checks, balances, and guidelines for constructing a posting, interviewing for a posting, and justifications required to select an individual for a posting over others in the pool.
Now compare that process with how EITs and EBAs are treated. We are second class employees blowing in the wind and not afforded the same employment opportunities or protections as non EITs or non EBAs. Is anyone paying attention I wonder?
You can look up the written differences, but in practice they are only different "color of lipstick" distinctions on a set of undeserving and stigmatized employees illegally placed in a domain outside of normal employment policies and protections. The EIT and EBA states, are simply different phases within this domain where these employees are processed and packaged for eventual layoffs or dismissals. Unfortunately this is not an exaggeration.
Employee In Transition = you are paid by your directorate from a special overhead account, Employee Between Assignments = you are paid by the lab from a labwide overhead account and have obligations to look for jobs, your resume goes into "the brokerage", etc.
EIT and EBA are just a way to keep from immediately laying off employees who lose funding, thus pretending that the lab actually wants to keep them on and find them new jobs. Anyone placed in those categories should consider him/herself already gone, and count themselves lucky for whatever paid time they have left to find a job outside the lab. Simple logic. Employees should stop pretending, and be thankful the lab continues for a while to pretend.
Staff Relations and SHRM are for the management. They never do anything to truly help employees. They write policy to protect Lab management, so don't count on them to help you. Be careful when you talk to them.
For the last few years since 2007, I have come to the conclusion that if you are over 55,60, etc...it does not matter if you are working hard and perform well, your position is not protected. The managers who are in charge of you find ways to be critical of your work; it does not matter that you have had a stellar career and have been well regarded by others. They want to get rid of you by (1) encourage you to take early retirement, and if you decide to stay , they than (2) write your PA with made up reasons why you need to improve certain areas; (3) slowly, they take away your work and give to the new hires, so now you don't have enough work to keep you busy; just do whatever they ask you to do. Then you become an EBA even though they have funding to hire new employees. It is a slow death that they can destroy your morale and you eventually quit on your own or they terminate you for lack of funding. It is sad that for many older workers,they spend their entire career at the Lab because they believe in what they do,but in the end, they are discarded and no longer value by the management because they reach to certain age.
January 26, 2014 at 10:07 AM, I'm sure many have. My situation was particularly galling because the position was posted and I had already been given an interview date, and I even had some internal supporters, but then it was squashed. I never got a direct answer as to why, but what the gatekeeper did say (probably inadvertently) was enough to explain it. Totally, blatantly illegal. I hope someday I have reason to contribute all this to a lawsuit, though as it turned out I'm glad I did not go over there and I'm happy with where I wound up.
"I know people have been passed over many positions because of their age."
I am a 50-something at LLNL and I was passed over in a hiring decision due to my age. The hiring manager told me that I was considered by one other on the hiring committee to be "too senior" to be hired into the position. I respect that hiring manager for his honesty, and I am not going to make a stink about the unlawful discrimination, but if asked to testify under oath about the matter, I would certainly do so.
For the mostly 50+ aged people who are being secretively "RIF'ed" by LLNS management in lab wide number probably high enough to violate the federal WARN Act, I have one critical question...
...Are these employees given their severance payments when they are suddenly escorted out the front gates?
If not, then I see a huge legal suit getting ready to be handed to lab upper management. What's the story on severance for these older employees who are kicked out the front door due to a lack of funding?
What are the criminal and civil penalties for large companies that violate the WARN Act? - i.e., the federal Act requiring 60 day warning notice for possible layoffs and the payment of accumulated severance for those subsequently laid off.
Is it something that a lawyer or the EEOC and other government labor entities might find worthwhile to officially investigate?
If LLNS and other NNSA labs are breaking the law in violation of the WARN Act then it's time to find out. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I've been an employee of LLNL for decades. My sense is these managers think they are untouchable and this is the root of the problem. Unless and until these folks no longer find refuge in LLNS Staff Relations and their legal battle "hired hands", nothing will change for the better. Anyone at LLNL long enough knows why the "Tiger teams" were taken seriously. It is because some contractor employees were prosecuted for their actions. Check it out for yourselves.
"....Are these employees given their severance payments when they are suddenly escorted out the front gates? .."
No. Some of these multi-decade employees are rapidly "escorted out the gate" for trumped up "for cause" reasons. Not only are these employees denied severance pay, their CA application for unemployment is challenged LLNS. Fortunately for the employee, the appeal hearings are recorded, and testimony of LLNS managers (perjury?) are available for future litigation or DOE review.
If one or more LLNS managers are prosecuted for malicious conduct, the others will confess straight away for individual CYA motivations. At that point, the LLNS "circle the wagons" strategy will fall apart.
Deny employee's severance paid is another tactic for LLNS to save money. There are so many unjust actions carrying out by managers at all levels, from the supervisor to the highest level of management. The reasons they all can get away with it because employees are afraid of retaliation , and the manner the actions are carrying out so you don't find out about them until it is too late! People are afraid to say anything!
"... The reasons they all can get away with it because employees are afraid of retaliation , and the manner the actions are carrying out so you don't find out about them until it is too late! People are afraid to say anything! ..."
LLNS knows their employees are afraid and this shields them from outside inquiry. It wouldn't take but a few employees to speak out on what is happening before the information barrier collapsed. This is why LLNS can not afford employment practice leaks.
When employees are targeted for a "for cause" dismissal, the transcripts, testimony, and support documents are reviewed by a dismissal review board (DRB) composed of purposefully unidentified LLNS managers. The accused employee is not allowed to face his DRB accusers nor is he allowed to review DRB support documentation or testimony. Who do you think is on the DRB and making the employment termination decisions?
As said in an earlier post, the threat of prosecution by a "Tiger Team" finding in the 1990s was the catalyst for swift LLNL compliance. Cooperation with the Tiger Teams wasn't because of a spontaneous and institution wide renewed interest or concern for the health of our environment.
In that time frame, a senior Engineering manager at LLNL made false entries in an AVLIS environmental report sent to an outside environmental agency. When this fact was uncovered by the agency and LLNL, this senior Engineering manager was swiftly removed from his AVLIS assignment and became a "building coordinator" 1/2 mile across the lab.
"...If LLNL had truly taken that falsification seriously they would have fired that manager..."
There are disciplinary actions for managers and disciplinary actions for worker bees, and the two do not always match.
More than 50% of the old AVLIS Engineering Team work in NIF now and might know what happened to the manager in question beyond his new assignment as building coordinator in a distant engineering building.
He was NOT fired, and eventually he was promoted to a classification above his AVLIS management classification level. Later NIF hired him too. No mystery DRB or dismissal for this management club member, just a short rough patch is all.
I am going to sue the the lab for age discrimination. The average age at the lab is 54. I have sucked the life out of the lab for thirty years and they don't care about me. Boo-hoo! I found a place that pays good money and I do not have to perform. Lived a lie now it has come home to roost! I guess now you would want to take back all those overvalued cruises, cars, homes, kids education, third wife, motorcycle and boat for a little security in the twilight years of your life. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dance with the devil and you get burned.
POS may have left a autobiographical post. Perhaps the blog is the only place where he can tell the world about what happned to to him.
Well at least we know his life story now. Lets see does it happen to go something like this?
You got fired before you turned 54. Your first wife left you for engineer, you second wife left you for a scientists, and your third wife left you for your trusted divorce lawyer from the first two wives. You lost a large sum of money on the housing market trying to flip houses after you got fired. Also you where so convinced that you where going to get rich off bond market by speed day trading that you took a bunch of cruises and bought a bunch of cars. The cars are all sold now or went to the ex-wives. To become manly again you bought a motorcycle but crashed it driving out of the dealers lot on the first day. "I guess now you would want to take back all those days you wasted at the lab back" You lived a lie and now it has come home to roost! You are now left with nothing and are broke, bitter and crazy. This would really explain what drives you to post such insane drivel on the blog and use a moniker POS. You really need to seek help.
All the posters on this site know it anyway, but man, you are one sick puppy. I hope your local police have been informed about your aberrant behavior. I believe you pose a danger to anyone close to you.
Maybe POS is an NSA contractor monitoring blogs and trying to coax out extreme left-wing home-grown domestic terrorists by spouting right-wing messaging.
Maybe you could send me to the oven that would eliminate my point of view. Sieg Heil!!! I will now quote the great Russell Means. "We all live on the reservation now" My question to you is, how does it feel?
117 comments:
I think NIF has already been purging Akima contractors under the radar for some time now. There was a big hit this past Friday ( Jan 10th). Not sure how many total.
There will not be a big layoffs announcement. Instead, each AD Directorate can lay you off anytime now. If you are old, have been at the Lab a long time, and your boss does not like you for whatever reasons, the handwriting is on the wall. Low level workers feel that they work under so much stress, as no one want to talk about what's going on and co workers stab each other behind their back to save their own job. It is very stressful environment now!
What does LLNS consider "old" for lay off purposes?
What percentage of LLNS lay offs or EIT/EBA notifications are carried out by "out of the blue" managers not your long term manager? Is this the classic bad news notification technique?
Sounds like a change of tactics to protect LLNS from lawsuits, or try to do so.
Remember that each AD Directorate can lay off up to 50 employees and there is no need for WARN Act. They quietly locate and target those employees who they don't like and can get rid off based on lack of funding or lack of skill sets. I know for a fact that a highly competent employee was let go because the division leader did not want him to have the job. The employee was given 1 hour notice and was escorted out the gate! Very sad environment ! It could happen to everyone.
I suppose having a 3rd party deliver the bad news allows the 3rd party to play stupid and free of responsibility, while at the same time making the long term manager feel like he is not party to throwing his employee "under the bus". This technique is particularly useful when the lay off or EIT reasoning is baseless.
There will not be a big layoffs announcement. Instead, each AD Directorate can lay you off anytime now. If you are old, have been at the Lab a long time...the handwriting is on the wall.
January 20, 2014 at 5:59 PM
Just for info, from Wikipedia: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-202Code, 29 U.S.C. § 621 through 29 U.S.C. § 634 (ADEA), forbids employment discrimination against anyone at least 40 years of age in the United States (see 29 U.S.C. § 631(a)). The bill was signed into law in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
January 20, 2014 at 5:59 PM
If you are let go "for cause" and you appeal the decision, your fate will be decided by a nebulous Dismissal Review Board (DRB) likely composed of the same folks that targeted you for dismissal in the first place. No you do not have "face your accuser" 6th amendment of the United States Constitution comparable rights folks. This is LLNS.
It is worse than simple crowd or mob psychology where individual responsibility is lost because the deed is carried out behind closed doors. Very sad indeed.
Great time to leave if you can.
Each AD can lay off up to 50 employees and not trigger the WARN Act? Does that imply that each directorate is considered a separate company? I find that hard to believe but the lawyers are good at finding loopholes. I looked at the WARN act listing for 2014 and did not see Livermore listed.
http://www.edd.ca.gov/Jobs_and_training/Layoff_Services_WARN.htm#ListingofWARNNotices
"Co workers stab each other behind their back to save their own job. It is very stressful environment now!"
It has been this way for quite some time. I was stabbed by a long-time colleague. It is during these times that we learn a co worker's true colors.
Directorates have been disappearing people in small numbers for the last year, that's nothing new. It's slimey and disgraceful, but LLNS will claim it's allowed by their new rules that are constantly being scrutinized and revised to provide "flexibility".
"...Each AD can lay off up to 50 employees and not trigger the WARN Act? Does that imply that each directorate is considered a separate company? ..."
Questions:
1. Has there been a layoff of =>50 employees in a
30 day period (CA Warn Act) lab wide independent
of directorate within the last 24 months?
2. Is there any evidence to suggest LLNS has
purposefully spread out lay offs to avoid
Warn Act requirements and employee protections?
3. Are individual directorates or programs
each authoring their respective EIT and EBA
guidelines rather than a unified lab wide EIT
and EBA guideline? (LLNS policies, procedures, and
purported employee protections are not
management selectable by directorate nor are they
written as such)
4. Aren't the EIT and EBA account numbers identical
and or funded by the same point source?
My experience is the EIT and EBA guidelines are purposefully written, managed, and monitored independent from other organizations for the following reasons:
A. to allow maximum flexibility to managers or
programs with virtual "at will" discretion
B. to avoid contrasting or conflicting program to
program EIT and EBA implementation
C. to possibly allow for a "work around" to the CA Warn
Act 50 employee lay off within a 30 day period
threshold
D. avoiding a Warn Act declaration is good PR (short
term) and keeps employees less situationally
aware of pending lay offs and less prepared than
they would otherwise be
I doubt anyone will ever find "evidence to suggest LLNS has purposefully spread out lay offs to avoid Warn Act requirements and employee protections" Those sorts of discussions would be behind closed doors, off the record, with everyone involved knowing that they are on shaky legal ground.
I agree it would be difficult to confirm such information informally. Testimony under oath in court might reveal such information. In such a scenario LLNS would attempt to blur such intent by suggesting no one individual had such intent or directive.
That place is getting worse and worse to work for. How can anyone who reads this blog ever want to come to work for LLNL or for that matter any lab who is managed by an LLC private contractor. Scooby, can you get more coverage somehow, like a facebook page? The word needs to get out. Maybe give the URL to this site to every congressmen and senator.
Attracting new employees for a few resume building years might not be too badly harmed, but retaining them will become increasingly difficult.
"That place is getting worse and worse to work for. How can anyone who reads this blog ever want to come to work for LLNL or for that matter any lab who is managed by an LLC private contractor. Scooby, can you get more coverage somehow, like a facebook page? The word needs to get out. Maybe give the URL to this site to every congressmen and senator."
Oh, come on.
I've worked at a number of places other than the Lab, and there's nothing unusual or horrific going on here. This places was cushy before transition and, in fact, is still a little more cushy than average. I'm astounded by all this whining over the loss of a state of relative privilege. I guess people do condition to their environment.
Newsflash--people get laid off in the private sector. It happens all the time. The majority of them aren't specifically deserving of that fate, either. And office politics can determine their fate, through no particular fault of their own.
It's called the real world. Deal with it or get dealt out by it.
And no, your congressman or senator doesn't care that your sense of entitlement is ruffled by life. Thankfully, most of the people I've met at LLNL aren't this pathetic.
"...And no, your congressman or senator doesn't care that your sense of entitlement is ruffled by life. Thankfully, most of the people I've met at LLNL aren't this pathetic..."
Another News Flash:
LLNS is contractually obligated to work within and abide by DOE/NNSA and CA guidelines and regulations. Departures from these guidelines and regulations are actionable.
If LLNS no longer wishes to abide by DOE/NNSA or CA requirements, they are free to vote with their feet.
You and people like you are exactly why this country is going down the shit chute at Mach 1. Have a good day.
January 21, 2014 at 1:06 PM
Dealing with reality is less effective than whining about it??
Don't get so emotional. Contractual obligations are binding. Sorry to upset your inexperienced mind.
Contractual obligations are binding. Sorry to upset your inexperienced mind.
January 21, 2014 at 2:38 PM
You think that only if you are very naive. Contracts can be interpreted, and that happens every day, in ways that might or might not invite challenges and lawyers. People tend to try to get away with whatever they think they can, and many times they succeed. I'll bet a million bucks that your personal interpretation of the contract requirements ("That's what it says!!", you'll cry) is not the interpretation LLNS lawyers will apply.
"Remember that each AD Directorate can lay off up to 50 employees and there is no need for WARN Act. They quietly locate and target those employees who they don't like and can get rid off based on lack of funding or lack of skill sets." - 6:55 pm
Are these carefully numbered "less than 50" groups of employes in each Directorate who are being stealthily laid off also getting their earned severance when escorted out the door?
If they are LLNS staff and laid off due to lack of funds, wouldn't that be exactly like a RIF, which must pay out severance per the lab contract?
Anyone know the score on this point?
If LLNS employees are laid off "for cause" there is no severance pay and when the laid off employee attempts to collect unemployment, LLNS will likely contest it.
If LLNS successfully contests your unemployment, their "reserve account" is not charged for any outgoing benefits to that laid off LLNS employee.
"for cause" = alleged poor performance and or poor conduct by the employer
I don't think any of the layoffs are "for cause", which is basically being fired. Perhaps someone who has been kicked out the gate can correct me if this is not the case.
A lay off due to alleged funding reductions alone is not a "for cause" lay off and that former employee shouldn't have any unemployment challenges by LLNS.
If you are blacklisted by LLNS you are likely to be laid off for cause.
sorry, no facebook page. please feel free to start one. senators already know this blog
"for cause" = alleged poor performance and or poor conduct by the employer
January 21, 2014 at 8:24 PM
I'm sure you meant "employee" rather than "employer" and your simple mistake completely reversed your point. Try to proofread before you post.
Interesting how managers are appointed, inserted, and assigned, never EBA.
Would be nice to have a thinning out of managers to reflect actual need & past work force reductions labor cuts.
January 21, 2014 at 12:12 PM said...
"That place is getting worse and worse to work for. How can anyone who reads this blog ever want to come to work for LLNL..."
The best don't, not anymore, and some of the best who were here have already left. The LLNL sun has been setting for some years now, and the back stabbing and back room plotting are symptomatic of the advancing decay.
January 22, 2014 at 5:29 AM
I've only heard about one supervisor and one group leader ever EBA in 32 years at LLNL. Does that give you any idea of the inequality. Oh and both are still there one doing a menial job and the other just doing time.
Improved?
"for cause" = employee poor performance and or poor conduct alleged by the employer
Could have been worded better earlier yes, but it is unlikely the "employee" would allege poor conduct or poor performance of himself.
January 22, 2014 at 5:29 AM
"I've only heard about one supervisor and one group leader ever EBA in 32 years at LLNL. Does that give you any idea of the inequality. Oh and both are still there one doing a menial job and the other just doing time."
Becoming a GL is a dangerous choice. The position pays little to nothing, yet requires considerable time and is unpredictably disruptive to one's work schedule. But most importantly, serving as GL inevitably means that one's technical skills will diminish, so it becomes harder to remain funded. There is no priviledge here. I know of GLs who have been EBA'd partly or wholly during or after their term of service.
January 21, 2014 at 12:29 PM - Hear Hear!
LLNS is doing the same thing that's done every day in the "real world". Companies lay people off, and they do it in the way they decide is best for the company and within the restrictions of applicable law.
We've had an exceptionally good deal at the labs for a very long time. Management chose to avoid layoffs at (almost) all cost. That had great benefits in terms of retention and loyalty, but it also had the downside of accumulating a certain amount of deadwood. In an environment of decreasing budgets, layoffs are unavoidable. And the company is going to try to the best they can to live on (which is a big benefit to those who remain).
So, yeah, it's sad that we now have to work at a lab where getting laid off is a possibility. But that's only because we had it so good for so long.
We should not expect sympathy for being reduced from a sweetheart deal to the norm.
Depends what went into our thinking when we signed on in the first place. A sweetheart deal was part of the deal, and if it had not been then we might have made different choices.
"...We should not expect sympathy for being reduced from a sweetheart deal to the norm..."
I agree with post 1-22-14 12:02pm. We wouldn't buy a car, acquire a home mortgage, or enter into any contract if one party could change the terms after the fact. That is usually referred to as "bait and switch". As the previous person said, knowing one party (LLNS) could change the terms of employment on the fly, might have led to other decisions being made in 2007. Some might have left the lab, selected TCP2, or changed assignments within the lab.
January 22, 2014 at 4:09 PM
If you live in a world where you think no employer should be able to change the terms of your job after you accept it, you are a coddled, self-absorbed, naive fool. Get over yourself. Your Mommy was wrong; you are NOT special.
"The position pays little to nothing, yet requires considerable time and is unpredictably disruptive to one's work schedule. But most importantly, serving as GL inevitably means that one's technical skills will diminish, so it becomes harder to remain funded. " (9:32 am)
Say what? I know plenty of Group Leaders (GLs) that live off "overhead" management accounts for all their charge code time and never work on any technical projects or bring in a single dime of lab funding.
In the past (pre-LLC), this type of activity by managers was rare but it seems to be much more common today. The lab seems to even encourage GL's to spend 100% of their time "managing" their staff and charging to the "overhead" accounts.
The new team of LLC executives seem to believe that "managing" is the most important deliverable being produced by the lab. Producing good science is a distant second.
"Depends what went into our thinking when we signed on in the first place. A sweetheart deal was part of the deal, and if it had not been then we might have made different choices.
January 22, 2014 at 12:02 PM"
Give me a break. You are not special, there is nothing about you that is any different from any other worker in the real world, there is nothing special about LLNL or any of the DOE labs, the free market has spoken and you lost. You got that? It is time to live up to reality. We could replace every worker at LLNL with ones that would work 1/5 of your salary, do a better job, and would would post how great the place is on every single blog on the internet. Why not just outsource the whole dam place. We could save huge amounts of money. You need to stop whining and join the real world! There is nothing that is done at LLNL and that could not be done far cheaper and far better elsewhere. Hell why we are at it there is nothing in the United States that could not be done cheaper and far better elsewhere. No one in America is special and it is time the United States is welcomed to the Real World. You are not a special snowflake, you not better than anyone else and you nor anyone else in the United States is just entitled to a nice salary. You got to earn in the FREE MARKET and guess what folks, when the contract changed you LOST. Learn it, live with it, feel it, own it, and move on. We are tied of all the whining, man up and join management or shut up and follow. The same is true for the United States, it is looking more and more like the FREE MARKET has spoken and America lost, or at least some of us in the United States lost. PBIs baby.
The employer LLNS also feed the NNSA said terms of employment in their quest to attain the contract and to woo UC employees their way. Your mommy references don't serve your argument.
Amazing that LLNS managers always invoke "free market" theory in the attempt to shield their near zero deliverable purpose at the lab. They would not exist if not for the innovators. Parasites don't benefit from devouring their host, but at LLNS the feedback loop is exceptionally long for the parasites to grasp.
The new budget that is currently being passed by both the House and Senate will cut LDRD funding for both LLNL and LANL. The 8% that was allowed will be cut back to 6% starting with this fiscal year (Oct 1st, FY2014). That's a 25% cut that LDRD projects will now have to handle.
Not looking good...
January 22, 2014 at 9:22 PM has smoked too meth, and needs a downer to go to sleep. He's probably on the EBA list now and waiting for the tap on the shoulder. I feel sorry for him.
Give me a break. You are not special, there is nothing about you that is any different from any other worker in the real world, there is nothing special about LLNL or any of the DOE labs, the free market has spoken and you lost. You got that? It is time to live up to reality. We could replace every worker at LLNL with ones that would work 1/5 of your salary, do a better job, and would would post how great the place is on every single blog on the internet. Why not just outsource the whole dam place. We could save huge amounts of money. You need to stop whining and join the real world! There is nothing that is done at LLNL and that could not be done far cheaper and far better elsewhere. Hell why we are at it there is nothing in the United States that could not be done cheaper and far better elsewhere. No one in America is special and it is time the United States is welcomed to the Real World. You are not a special snowflake, you not better than anyone else and you nor anyone else in the United States is just entitled to a nice salary. You got to earn in the FREE MARKET and guess what folks, when the contract changed you LOST. Learn it, live with it, feel it, own it, and move on. We are tied of all the whining, man up and join management or shut up and follow. The same is true for the United States, it is looking more and more like the FREE MARKET has spoken and America lost, or at least some of us in the United States lost. PBIs baby.
This is not the free market speaking. This is all the one-percenters reaping benefits disproportionate to their contribution, plus gaming the system with offshore manufacturing and services, which cumulatively result in a smaller tax base, which in turn leaves facilities like ours starving for funds. It's all part of the race to the bottom.
January 23, 2014 at 1:54 PM
Is that you Bret Knapp?
Is that you Bret Knapp?
January 23, 2014 at 4:50 PM
Nah, can't be. There is not one mis-spelling in this diatribe.
LLNS is doing the same thing that's done every day in the "real world". Companies lay people off, and they do it in the way they decide is best for the company and within the restrictions of applicable law.
LLNL is not the "real world."
Real world companies lay off managers in rough proportion to other employees. LLNL does not do this. LLNL lays off managers by promoting them to newly created positions because no one else wants to hire them.
Real world companies do everything they can to control costs. LLNL does not do this. Overhead remains out of control at LLNL. There is no effort to control costs, except for endless working groups that accomplish nothing.
Real world companies have a bottom line. If they do not meet the bottom line, they fail. LLNL does not do this. LLNL considers much of its funding to be an entitlement from the government.
Real world companies hold managers accountable for meeting the goals of the company. LLNL does not do this. When LLNL managers do not meet their goals, they simply create a new set of goals that they will never meet (with fancy VG's and "A lists").
Very accurate synopsis.
"January 23, 2014 at 5:17 PM"
Sorry but LLNL is acting like a company in the real world. The thing is that LLNL does not have have the same type of customers that real world has so they have to adapt according to the needs of the market that it is in. As for getting money from the government, I say so what, lots of private companies get there money from the government. Look at Lockheed Martin, and many other defense contractors. There is a contract, if the contract is kept the company, in this case LLNLs gets paid and renewed, just like every other private company out there. If they have to get rid of people to do this than how is that different from every other business? If you have a problem with management that is your own personal problem, so either join them, get out or shut up.
"either join them, get out or shut up"
That is definitely an effective way to navigate the current LLNS world. However, that's a very self-interested strategy. If you care about the mission, the institution, and the country I think it is important to try and shape and change things where possible.
I don't believe it is as bleak and severe a set of choices as you have portrayed.
Does LLNS have a "work around" to the CA Warn
Act 50 employee lay off notice within a 30 day period by isolating such layoffs by directorate?
"If you care about the mission, the institution, and the country I think it is important to try and shape and change things where possible."
LLNLs does care about the mission, the institute and the country and that is why it was given the contract. The contract had very specific goals to be meet, presumably these goals benefit the institute, the mission and the country. What is so hard to understand about that?
Unfortunately it becomes problematic to "shape and change things" when LLNS is awarded contract extensions for subpar performance and rubber ruler goals.
LLNS cares about money, up-front and back-door for the constituent companies that participate. And that inevitably moves thinking horizons inwards towards short-term goals, like the recent emphasis on work for others. No doubt Parney was hired because of his experience and contacts in that world, and look for a new director with a similar perspective that views the lab as a high-tech work shop.
Oh you mean look for a director with self-delusions of creating real value for their WFO stakeholders? Those companies are getting bamboozled. I hope they don't expect anything out of the labs, because they aren't going to get much. Maybe they get to write it off as a loss for tax reasons.
Oh you mean look for a director with self-delusions of creating real value for their WFO stakeholders? Those companies are getting bamboozled.
January 24, 2014 at 8:02 AM
You show your ignorance. WFO sponsors are not "companies." They are other US government agencies. Private company sponsorship arrangements are called "funds-in agreements."
WFO sponsors can be other government agencies such as the Army,Airforce, Navy, etc. It also includes private companies, university, state agencies. So WFO sponsors can include companies who need our expertise to help them. Your reference of private company sponsorship arrangements are called "funds -in- agreements" applies to a special agreement called CRADA. Any private company can provide funding to the Lab to perform work.
You are wrong. Please read the DOE Order on WFO. CRADA's are entirely separate from funds-in agreements. For the latter, there need be no "cooperative" nature to the agreement - simply fee paid for work done. WFO is strictly government.
In reference to 1/24 @ 5:48AM
LLNS sure works around the WARN Act. Individual Directorate has quietly laid off people. If they keep it under 50 employees, there is no need to make the announcement. Furthermore, if you look around, a lot of people who simply disappear from their office or desk. Because of the manner the management carry out the purge,you will not know about these people unless you are their friends.
Their technique is to call you in the office,tell you that there is no funding to support you, and you are escorted out the gate by the HR and other supervisor. You cannot pack your personal belongings as they will have someone to pack your stuff and send it to you. The present work environment is stressful in that workers do not know their fate. A lot of office politics involved and the reasons to lay you off are made up by managers who do not want you around.
That is incorrect. As a former labbie working for a private company, I just spoke with an insider the other day about a WFO contract with a group inside the lab. That is WFO, not CRADA - CRADA is a different arrangement entirely. You pay your money, you get your work.
Understood 1-24-14 7:09pm. Respect for those laid off is absent at LLNS. Responses to 1-21-14 9:20am would be useful too.
That is incorrect. As a former labbie working for a private company, I just spoke with an insider the other day
January 24, 2014 at 7:12 PM
OK, sloppy terminology by the "insider" and lack of specific understanding of the DOE Orders and the policies that flow from them. Understandable, but not correct.
adding to 5:17pm's comment:
Real world companies view their employees as assets. If they invest 100k in training and clearances, they will not just fire and replace them due to age or disability. To LANS however, It was the taxpayers that spent the 100k, not them. Fire away.
Soirry, I meant LLNS not LANS.
hmm..
"I've worked at a number of places other than the Lab, and there's nothing unusual or horrific going on here. "
Your statement may be true for you, but your statement is not a sound argument given how other employees are treated. In time, you will be awakened.
"I've worked at a number of places other than the Lab, and there's nothing unusual or horrific going on here. "
One can swim in the ocean and never be attacked by a Great White Shark too. Does that mean Great White Sharks do not exist? To pursue their questionable employment practices, LLNS uses misinformation, isolation, intimidation, and retaliation. Figuratively speaking, LLNS doesn't want a "no swimming, sharks spotted in these waters" sign on their corporate beach. It is bad PR and damages $ contract extension opportunities.
Weak or absent contract oversight has served to embolden LLNS management in negative ways every year since they took over in 2007.
I think the truth is, LLNS is doing exactly what Congress and the last two administrations wanted it to do. That may be stupid and short-sighted, but it is what it is.
".. A lot of office politics involved and the reasons to lay you off are made up by managers who do not want you around..."
Your observation is correct. Egotistical "command and control" managers will make things up about you if he sees you as a threat to his position. If challenged, they take refuge with Staff Relations, their ever-present safety net.
I've observed this as well. It's amazing to me that all this "making things up" seems to have no repercussions for the manager in question. At some point it would seem that Staff Relations (or the greater institution, or it's overseers) would realize that an environment where people in power are emboldened to just make stuff up, is going to have legal repercussions to us at some point.
Once a manager decides to "make things up" it is not just
that one manager who may face repercussions. If the impacted employee contests the actions of that manager, the AD will eventually have to weigh in and you can guess how that goes. As near to an involuntary reflex response, the AD will side with the manager. If the employee is fired through the actions of the AD, given the choice, the lower level managers play defense for the AD decision. Only lawsuits, legal testimony, or outside agency intervention trip up this tactic. In other words, it becomes institutional repercussions and is very short sided and demonstrates poor leadership.
These last few posts are applicable to Sandia and LANL also.
This blog should begin to identify and track common tactics or patterns systematically used by LLNS management against LLNS EIT or EBA employees for the purpose of cultivating a "for cause" lay off paper trail.
Just a few examples:
1. How many EITs or EBAs were initially told there
programmatic funded job or funding for it "went
away", then once out, later to learned their
appraisals claimed poor performance or poor
conduct?
2. How many EITs or EBAs were given example 1
information from managers OTHER than their
traditional or long term manager?
3. How many EITs or EBAs (including exempt
classifications) had their work hours or attendance
tracked down to the hour or minute with penalties
for even minor deviations?
4. How many EITs had their sick leave or vacation
leave excessively scrutinized?
5. How many EITs or EBAs received a "letter of
warning" AFTER transition into EIT or EBA status?
6. How many managers unilaterally decided to skip
the SHRM required "DRAFT" performance
appraisal (PA) of EITs or EBAs without informing
the employee?
7. How many EITs or EBAs received FINAL PAs that
were factually inaccurate including deletions of long
established SKAs.
8. How many EITs or EBAs were purposefully
information isolated from others with the same
EIT or EBA status?
9. How many employees were outspoken, "crossed" a
manager", or filed formal grievances, before they
became EIT or EBA employees?
10. Other?
I hope SPSE is on top of this for both member and non-member benefit. My observation is there are indications of a common game plan by LLNS management with Staff Relations guidance, that supports eventual lay offs or dismissal justification.
EITs are instructed to find work or face an individual RIF if they don't find a programatic assignment in a "reasonable period of time" (left undefined). Most assignments are not posted, and DTED took full advantage of this fact with or without engineering AD approval.
Being EIT status is advertised by the engineering AD as a "normal" status at LLNS (?).
Within the domain and responsibility of the engineering AD:
DTED senior management unequivocally informed
its division employees in meetings, verbally only
of course, no paper trail, that all upcoming DTED assignments had to be pre-approved by senior DTED management first, with clear priority for DTED employees.
Departures from this declaration, by giving assignments to SKA qualified EITs or EBAs outside of DTED, were met with intense disgust and lecturing to the violating programmatic managers. This policy continued even when senior WCI managers directly attributed slipping deliverables and shot schedules in HEAF to insufficient EE or E tech support. DTED runs HEAF and most of Site 300, and is overweight in ME and M techs you see. Where is the AD leadership?
EIT status is normal? It is no wonder why Dr. Steve Patterson left his engineering AD position and the lab. Stand up guy that Steve.
Really, EIT status is "normal"? Who would want to take a job that required him to periodically scramble for new work or else be layed off? If you want to be an independent contractor, there are better ways to plug in to a larger network and enjoy some stability, but meanwhile one of the historical draws to working at the lab was stability. Crazy.
Agreed. The engineering AD owns the "EIT status is normal" characterization. It is anything but normal and those unfortunate enough to be an EIT or EBA are treated as 2nd class employees or worse however you slice it. We can and should do better.
"If you live in a world where you think no employer should be able to change the terms of your job after you accept it, you are a coddled, self-absorbed, naive fool. Get over yourself. Your Mommy was wrong; you are NOT special."
I think I am actually ! I went to the top engineering and physics department on the West Coast, did world class, one of a kind science, published in world class journals, significantly advanced the state of my field, and was hired at the Lab to do world class science and engineering.
Yes I am special and you morons better pay attention, because without us "special" people the Labs (LLNL, Sandia, LANL) will go down the toilet.
The preacher of "real world" instruction may not comprehend your point 1-25-14 8:16pm. He doesn't understand the "golden goose" concept of project innovation or value to the labs you are attempting to explain. You are only a subservient resource to him, tools in his imaginary tool box are not suppose to have employment expectations.
Yes I am special and you morons better pay attention, because without us "special" people the Labs (LLNL, Sandia, LANL) will go down the toilet.
January 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM
Your only salvation is that because of your crowing, you won't hear it coming.
You are only a subservient resource to him, tools in his imaginary tool box are not suppose to have employment expectations.
January 25, 2014 at 8:44 PM
You can have all the "employment expectations" you want. Your employer (i.e., the one who pays you, or not) also has expectations for you. Those are more important to him than yours. Guess who wins?
"Those are more important to him than yours"
Managers with experience and true leadership skills understand the flaw in this position.
A highly placed person in an unnamed directorate told me honestly, "I'll deny I ever said this, but if you or I apply for a posted opening in WCI, they will find plausible reasons to not talk to you. But the real reason will be because we are too old. They only want to hire young cheap people who will be around for a long time". That is what you are up against as an EIT/EBA, and nothing is what it seems. The only recourse is a lawsuit, but that is a long uncertain path.
I agree absolutely with posted 1/25 @ 10:29pm. That is happening at every directorate at LLNS. I see that they hire new, younger, or select younger people in those open positions even though the new employees are inexperience and need to be trained by the older workers. When you asked the managers why they cannot consider you, they implied that they need a younger work force to prepare for the future.
I know people have been passed over many positions because of their age. The managers will give you double talks about their selection. I always thought that older workers have so many experience and skills to offer, including updated new skills to be in this modern work force. However, many lab managers have the mentality that if you are over 55, you are no longer needed and they find way to discourage you to stay. They deny you jobs that you know you could do very well, but for your age. I feel very sympathetic for people in EBA or EIT list because most of the times, they are the victims of office politics or leadership change in their department. Some on EBA are due to funding problem; but others are due to petty office politics.
All the EITs and EBAs I've seen are 50 or 60 somethings. This is probably why some of the tactics described in the 1-25-14 5:25pm post are being used. Staff Relations must think certain employment "trip wires" will trump age discrimination claims.
I don't think older workers are valued at LLNS. For example, after the SSVSP employees left, the lab started "deliberate operations". That can be problematic after you lose portions of your knowledge base.
In this current lay off period, LLNS 300 series employees in the "buddy loop" slipped themselves into 500 series jobs with no threat or expectation of demotion to a 500 series classification. In contrast, 300 series EIT or EBA employees in political disfavor, are immediately threatened with demotion if placed in a 500 series position. The 300 series employees tend to be much older than 500 series employees.
It is no wonder why management has actively blocked steps for EITs and EBAs to identify and communicate with each other. I know engineering attempted to use EIT and EBA "privacy concerns" as an excuse to block the release of names and locations of fellow EITs and EBAs. When one EIT acknowledged this concern, and suggested EITs and EBAs must "opt in" to such a group to consider and address privacy concerns, the management response was they were still not going to allow it...
I know the name of the WCI gatekeeper who squashed my move over there after it had already started (and even been given an interview date), and talking to him he let slip something he should not have regarding age. I kept careful notes of all these interactions, I have all the emails saved on my personal hardware offsite, and he ought to be fired for cause before someone sues the lab over yet another age discrimination case. What they are doing is illegal, and may cost LLNS an enormous amount of money. If there is another lawsuit, I hope I hear about it because I will feel compelled to take my information to the lawyers.
Hello January 26, 2014 at 9:31 AM post,
I think many LLNS managers have secretly put the kibosh on programmatic assignments and because most of these assignments are not formally posted (paper trail concern), it leaves room for unchecked and malicious management practices. Where is SHRM on this? Cricket, cricket.
I don't think the courts will allow SHRM to plead ignorance. SHRM is complicit and provides the framework for these management maneuvers.
Have a good read of all the checks, balances, and guidelines for constructing a posting, interviewing for a posting, and justifications required to select an individual for a posting over others in the pool.
Now compare that process with how EITs and EBAs are treated. We are second class employees blowing in the wind and not afforded the same employment opportunities or protections as non EITs or non EBAs. Is anyone paying attention I wonder?
What is the technical difference between an EIT and an EBA?
You can look up the written differences, but in practice they are only different "color of lipstick" distinctions on a set of undeserving and stigmatized employees illegally placed in a domain outside of normal employment policies and protections. The EIT and EBA states, are simply different phases within this domain where these employees are processed and packaged for eventual layoffs or dismissals. Unfortunately this is not an exaggeration.
Employee In Transition = you are paid by your directorate from a special overhead account, Employee Between Assignments = you are paid by the lab from a labwide overhead account and have obligations to look for jobs, your resume goes into "the brokerage", etc.
"...What is the technical difference between an EIT and an EBA?.."
Were you looking for an account charged and who pays EIT and EBA distinction?
EIT and EBA are just a way to keep from immediately laying off employees who lose funding, thus pretending that the lab actually wants to keep them on and find them new jobs. Anyone placed in those categories should consider him/herself already gone, and count themselves lucky for whatever paid time they have left to find a job outside the lab. Simple logic. Employees should stop pretending, and be thankful the lab continues for a while to pretend.
Staff Relations and SHRM are for the management. They never do anything to truly help employees. They write policy to protect Lab management, so don't count on them to help you. Be careful when you talk to them.
For the last few years since 2007, I have come to the conclusion that if you are over 55,60, etc...it does not matter if you are working hard and perform well, your position is not protected. The managers who are in charge of you find ways to be critical of your work; it does not matter that you have had a stellar career and have been well regarded by others. They want to get rid of you by (1) encourage you to take early retirement, and if you decide to stay , they than (2) write your PA with made up reasons why you need to improve certain areas; (3) slowly, they take away your work and give to the new hires, so now you don't have enough work to keep you busy; just do whatever they ask you to do. Then you become an EBA even though they have funding to hire new employees. It is a slow death that they can destroy your morale and you eventually quit on your own or they terminate you for lack of funding.
It is sad that for many older workers,they spend their entire career at the Lab because they believe in what they do,but in the end, they are discarded and no longer value by the management because they reach to certain age.
January 26, 2014 at 10:07 AM, I'm sure many have. My situation was particularly galling because the position was posted and I had already been given an interview date, and I even had some internal supporters, but then it was squashed. I never got a direct answer as to why, but what the gatekeeper did say (probably inadvertently) was enough to explain it. Totally, blatantly illegal. I hope someday I have reason to contribute all this to a lawsuit, though as it turned out I'm glad I did not go over there and I'm happy with where I wound up.
"I know people have been passed over many positions because of their age."
I am a 50-something at LLNL and I was passed over in a hiring decision due to my age. The hiring manager told me that I was considered by one other on the hiring committee to be "too senior" to be hired into the position. I respect that hiring manager for his honesty, and I am not going to make a stink about the unlawful discrimination, but if asked to testify under oath about the matter, I would certainly do so.
I believe many will be willing to testify "January 27, 2014 at 12:03 PM", I truly do.
For the mostly 50+ aged people who are being secretively "RIF'ed" by LLNS management in lab wide number probably high enough to violate the federal WARN Act, I have one critical question...
...Are these employees given their severance payments when they are suddenly escorted out the front gates?
If not, then I see a huge legal suit getting ready to be handed to lab upper management. What's the story on severance for these older employees who are kicked out the front door due to a lack of funding?
What are the criminal and civil penalties for large companies that violate the WARN Act? - i.e., the federal Act requiring 60 day warning notice for possible layoffs and the payment of accumulated severance for those subsequently laid off.
Is it something that a lawyer or the EEOC and other government labor entities might find worthwhile to officially investigate?
If LLNS and other NNSA labs are breaking the law in violation of the WARN Act then it's time to find out. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
What are the criminal and civil penalties for large companies that violate the WARN Act?
January 27, 2014 at 8:55 PM
Are you too lazy to look it up?
I've been an employee of LLNL for decades. My sense is these managers think they are untouchable and this is the root of the problem. Unless and until these folks no longer find refuge in LLNS Staff Relations and their legal battle "hired hands", nothing will change for the better. Anyone at LLNL long enough knows why the "Tiger teams" were taken seriously. It is because some contractor employees were prosecuted for their actions. Check it out for yourselves.
What is a "tiger team"?
"....Are these employees given their severance payments when they are suddenly escorted out the front gates? .."
No. Some of these multi-decade employees are rapidly "escorted out the gate" for trumped up "for cause" reasons. Not only are these employees denied severance pay, their CA application for unemployment is challenged LLNS. Fortunately for the employee, the appeal hearings are recorded, and testimony of LLNS managers (perjury?) are available for future litigation or DOE review.
If one or more LLNS managers are prosecuted for malicious conduct, the others will confess straight away for individual CYA motivations. At that point, the LLNS "circle the wagons" strategy will fall apart.
Deny employee's severance paid is another tactic for LLNS to save money. There are so many unjust actions carrying out by managers at all levels, from the supervisor to the highest level of management. The reasons they all can get away with it because employees are afraid of retaliation , and the manner the actions are carrying out so you don't find out about them until it is too late! People are afraid to say anything!
"... The reasons they all can get away with it because employees are afraid of retaliation , and the manner the actions are carrying out so you don't find out about them until it is too late! People are afraid to say anything! ..."
LLNS knows their employees are afraid and this shields them from outside inquiry. It wouldn't take but a few employees to speak out on what is happening before the information barrier collapsed. This is why LLNS can not afford employment practice leaks.
When employees are targeted for a "for cause" dismissal, the transcripts, testimony, and support documents are reviewed by a dismissal review board (DRB) composed of purposefully unidentified LLNS managers. The accused employee is not allowed to face his DRB accusers nor is he allowed to review DRB support documentation or testimony. Who do you think is on the DRB and making the employment termination decisions?
As said in an earlier post, the threat of prosecution by a "Tiger Team" finding in the 1990s was the catalyst for swift LLNL compliance. Cooperation with the Tiger Teams wasn't because of a spontaneous and institution wide renewed interest or concern for the health of our environment.
LLNL took the Tiger Team mission very seriously.
In that time frame, a senior Engineering manager at LLNL made false entries in an AVLIS environmental report sent to an outside environmental agency. When this fact was uncovered by the agency and LLNL, this senior Engineering manager was swiftly removed from his AVLIS assignment and became a "building coordinator" 1/2 mile across the lab.
If LLNL had truly taken that falsification seriously they would have fired that manager.
"...If LLNL had truly taken that falsification seriously they would have fired that manager..."
There are disciplinary actions for managers and disciplinary actions for worker bees, and the two do not always match.
More than 50% of the old AVLIS Engineering Team work in NIF now and might know what happened to the manager in question beyond his new assignment as building coordinator in a distant engineering building.
He was NOT fired, and eventually he was promoted to a classification above his AVLIS management classification level. Later NIF hired him too. No mystery DRB or dismissal for this management club member, just a short rough patch is all.
I am going to sue the the lab for age discrimination. The average age at the lab is 54. I have sucked the life out of the lab for thirty years and they don't care about me. Boo-hoo! I found a place that pays good money and I do not have to perform. Lived a lie now it has come home to roost! I guess now you would want to take back all those overvalued cruises, cars, homes, kids education, third wife, motorcycle and boat for a little security in the twilight years of your life. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dance with the devil and you get burned.
POS
"POS
January 29, 2014 at 4:00 PM"
POS may have left a autobiographical post. Perhaps the blog is the only place where he can tell the world about what happned to to him.
Well at least we know his life story now. Lets see does it happen to go something like this?
You got fired before you turned 54. Your first wife left you for engineer, you second wife left you for a scientists, and your third wife left you for your trusted divorce lawyer from the first two wives. You lost a large sum of money on the housing market trying to flip houses after you got fired. Also you where so convinced that you where going to get rich off bond market by speed day trading that you took a bunch of cruises and bought a bunch of cars. The cars are all sold now or went to the ex-wives. To become manly again you bought a motorcycle but crashed it driving out of the dealers lot on the first day. "I guess now you would want to take back all those days you wasted at the lab back" You lived a lie and now it has come home to roost! You are now left with nothing and are broke, bitter and crazy. This would really explain what drives you to post such insane drivel on the blog and use a moniker POS. You really need to seek help.
January 29, 2014 at 4:00 PM
All the posters on this site know it anyway, but man, you are one sick puppy. I hope your local police have been informed about your aberrant behavior. I believe you pose a danger to anyone close to you.
Maybe POS is an NSA contractor monitoring blogs and trying to coax out extreme left-wing home-grown domestic terrorists by spouting right-wing messaging.
Scooby can you lost the IP of the last pos post?
this thread reeks
Scooby can you lost the IP of the last pos post?
January 30, 2014 at 4:45 PM
Oh Christ, what are you, the Gestapo? Get a life. The guy is sick. Leave him alone.
Maybe you could send me to the oven that would eliminate my point of view. Sieg Heil!!!
I will now quote the great Russell Means. "We all live on the reservation now" My question to you is, how does it feel?
POS
Post a Comment