BLOG purpose

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

Friday, August 22, 2014

Experiences with LLNS Staff Relations?

Experiences with LLNS Staff Relations?

How would you rate the new Staff Relations Division Leader and how does she compare to Bob (retired) in terms of objectivity, patience, or work style? Be constructive please.

August 20, 2014 at 8:11 AM


comments:
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I'm not being rude....I didn't know we had a new SRDL.
August 21, 2014 at 1:16 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Bob retired from Staff Relations nearly a year ago.
August 21, 2014 at 5:11 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Bob Perks was a lamb compare to Jennifer S. This woman lies to her teeth. She hides her claws and fangs very well, until you have a complaint against the lab. I had personal experience with her. She only works for the lab. Fortunately I was well represented by the SPSE and won the case. This shows that the LLNL nowadays only can afford to have a lawyer without integrity to deal with its employees.
August 21, 2014 at 6:24 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I didn't agree with Bob on most matters involving LLNS policy and employment practices but he was approachable, polite, and professional.
August 21, 2014 at 8:24 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
You're not being rude for not knowing there was a "new" Staff Relations Division Leader. It's because the position was never posted!! It was just given to Szutu. Of course, that's o.k. if you are a lawyer, because Lawyers don't have to follow the rules. Where was HR and why do they condone and allow this type of activity?

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"...It's because the position was never posted!! It was just given to Szutu. Of course, that's o.k. if you are a lawyer, because Lawyers don't have to follow the rules. Where was HR and why do they condone and allow this type of activity?..."

SHRM is suppose to insure compliance with DOE, NNSA, state, other federal regulations and policy, and of course LLNS internal policies. Difficult to accomplish when SHRM is subservient to Staff Relations.

Anonymous said...

Szutu is the new SHRM Director? I've only heard rumours about her including an affair with a former LLNL Director. Nothing positive, but since LLNS came in, Staff Relations has taken on an even more distrustful personna.

Anonymous said...

The new SRDL has exercised poor judgement with a pattern of shortsighted "solutions" and her interactions with employees are regularly insensitive and combative.

Anonymous said...

"...an affair with a former LLNL Director..."

I don't see how an alleged relationship with a former Director relates to this topic unless there is a compelling connection to her Staff Relations decisions and the alleged relationship. Please clarify.

Anonymous said...

"...since LLNS came in, Staff Relations has taken on an even more distrustful personna..."

You can bet Staff Relations was a key contributor to this DOE 708 complaint against LLNS. Abusing their authority to harass and fire an employee. All for what? A DOE/NNSA review, low employee morale, and a neon sign for job seekers saying look elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

The only professional at the NNSA labs "working for you" is your OWN private lawyer.

Do not trust anyone from HR or Legal. Don't be a fool.

Anonymous said...

"...The only professional at the NNSA labs "working for you" is your OWN private lawyer. Do not trust anyone from HR or Legal..."

You offer a sound individual solution path yes, an institutional solution path no. Why not systematically address root causes so all employees benefit?

Anonymous said...

Szutu is the new SHRM Director? I've only heard rumours about her including an affair with a former LLNL Director. Nothing positive, but since LLNS came in, Staff Relations has taken on an even more distrustful personna.

August 22, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Anastasio? Get me a vomit bag!

Anonymous said...

What are the Lawrence Livermore Lab policies regarding such relations? Aren't the individuals involved required to declare such relations to the security department?

Anonymous said...

"...Disciplinary Actions for Misconduct

An agency may discipline an employee who engaged in consensual adulterous behavior for conduct unbecoming of a federal employee. Suspension is the typical punishment for such misconduct, but removal may be justifiable under certain circumstances..."

"...Employees can also be removed on a charge of improper conduct if their extramarital affair interferes with the agency’s mission. It does not matter if the extramarital affair or sexual misconduct occurred only while the employee was off duty or if the person he or she was sleeping with was not a co-worker. That’s the conclusion the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reached in Brown v. Dep’t of the Navy (2000)..."

"...Security Clearance

Even if federal employees with a security clearance are able to keep an extramarital affair from a spouse, they will have a harder time keeping that secret from the government, especially when their clearance comes up for review. Adultery is the kiss of death for federal employees with security clearances; it is very hard to prove to Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) administrative judge that an employee who engaged in adulterous conduct does not pose a threat to national security given the individuals’ susceptibility to coercion related to the affair..."

Anonymous said...

An agency may discipline an employee who engaged in consensual adulterous behavior for conduct unbecoming of a federal employee.

Can an employee be disciplined if it is a homosexual affair, or would such discipline be a sign of intolerance and hatred?

I don't get it. Shouldn't we celebrate adultery as an alternative lifestyle? Shouldn't we have an adultery pride month with lots of colorful flags? What right does the government have to punish two people who love one another?

I'm serious. If adultery is "unbecoming of a federal employee," then why isn't the same true for homosexuality? Adultery is more normal. More people engage in adultery than homosexuality.

Why is some sexual behavior between consenting adults considered bad, while other sexual behavior between consenting adults considered good? True. Adulterers are breaking their spousal vows, but so do people who get divorced. Should the government punish divorced people too?

Anonymous said...

Divorce is declared in the clearance process. It is the undeclared relations that is problematic if you hold a Q Clearance given the "susceptibility to coercion" and you know it. Why cloud the issue?

Anonymous said...

A relationship with a manager would present the obvious and typical presumption. That would be one of favoritism. Someone who would unfairly be promoted rather than earn the promotion through merit.

Anonymous said...

I've dealt with Szutu, she's a company woman through and through, and given the present climate at the lab she is a perfect choice for the job. Also, she is probably the only choice. Who else would want the job?

Anonymous said...

"...That made absolutely no sense whatsoever..."

If you don't like the rules to acquire and retain a Q clearance explain your "logic" to DOE.

Anonymous said...

"If you don't like the rules to acquire and retain a Q clearance explain your "logic" to DOE.

August 25, 2014 at 7:32 AM"

Gays can get a clearance, so what is your point?

Anonymous said...

"...A relationship with a manager would present the obvious and typical presumption. That would be one of favoritism. Someone who would unfairly be promoted rather than earn the promotion through merit..."

Agreed. Additionally a married manager's affair places all employees within the manager's work area in an awkward, complicit, and or job compromising dilemma when the spouse calls or shows up in the work area.

Anonymous said...

Had some dealings with Ms. Szutu. As with all Staff Relations personnel, they are there to protect their employer, not the employee. That said, IMHO her quotient of schadenfreude looms large.

Anonymous said...

"...I've dealt with Szutu, she's a company woman through and through, and given the present climate at the lab she is a perfect choice for the job. Also, she is probably the only choice. Who else would want the job?..."

We don't know if she was the best or "only choice" since the SRDL opening was not posted. Time will tell if the climate at LLNS was a good match to the selected SRDL or a LLNS strategic miscalculation.

Anonymous said...

Szutu is perfect for the job. She clearly understands the mission of that department: Protect LLNL. I have dealt with this person, LLNL needs a Staff Relations that is unbiased and has no connection to the rest of the site. Their office/building should be off site. As far as reporting inappropriate relationships to security made me laugh. At one point it was just as bad if not worse than the rest of the site.

Anonymous said...

1. "...She clearly understands
the mission of that
department: Protect LLNL..."

2. "...LLNL needs a Staff
Relations that is unbiased
and has no connection to the
rest of the site..."

"Protect LLNL" or be "unbiased"?
Why don't you pick the first one instead of contradicting yourself.

With your logic, all employees with workplace concerns
should immediately hire a lawyer or file an external complaint with the DOL or DOE. This is your grand plan for the reputation of LLNS and its impact to our lab missions? The shortsighted mentality of a "for profit" LLC for sure.

Anonymous said...

"...As far as reporting inappropriate relationships to security made me laugh..."

What exactly is funny about it? Do you have a security clearance? If yes, perhaps it is time for the web refresher.

Anonymous said...

LLNS Personnel Policy Manual
SECTION D - “Regulations on Employee Conduct”

VII.4 Conflicts of Interest Created by Certain Personal Relationships

A near relative is defined as an employee’s spouse, registered domestic partner, parent, children, children of registered domestic partner, siblings, grandparent, grandchild, and step relative and in-laws in the same relationships. This provision also covers other persons residing in the employee’s household.

A consensual relationship is defined as one in which two individuals are involved by mutual consent in a romantic, physically intimate, and/or sexual relationship.

Certain close personal relationships between employees in the workplace - whether because the individuals are near relatives or are involved in a consensual relationship - can create the potential for conflicts of interest when one individual has responsibility for supervising, directing, overseeing, evaluating, advising, or influencing the employment of the other.

In order to avoid potential conflicts, employees are required to inform their supervisor (or hiring department in the case of transfers) of any near relative or consensual relationship in advance of any appointment where two employees would have the same immediate supervisor, where one employee would have supervisory responsibility for or be responsible for the work assignments of the other, or where the two would have close working relations.

Furthermore, when two employees commence a consensual relationship under circumstances in which one employee has supervisory, oversight, evaluative, or advisory responsibilities with respect to the other, each individual is under an obligation to inform his or her supervisor or other management of the relationship and cooperate in actions to prevent or mitigate any such potential conflict of interest. Means for Laboratory Management in its discretion to prevent or mitigate such conflicts may include, but are not limited to:
Transfer of either or both individuals to another position;
Transfer of supervisory, oversight, evaluative, or advisory responsibilities to another employee or team of employees; or
Providing an additional layer of oversight to the supervisory role.

Anonymous said...

LNS Personnel Policy Manual
Section B - “Recruitment, Selection, and Hire”

III.5 Near Relatives and/or Consensual Relationships

The Laboratory recognizes that close personal relationships between employees are a rewarding aspect of Laboratory life. However, the Laboratory also recognizes its responsibility to safeguard employees from real or perceived favoritism, bias, conflicts of interest, or unethical behavior on the part of other employees. In particular, consensual relationships in the workplace (as defined below) can easily evolve into a situation where one employee alleges that another has engaged in sexual harassment or favoritism in violation of LLNS Personnel Policy Manual Section D.II.4, “Harassment Free Workplace”.

III.5.2 Required Approvals and Disclosures

Approval by the SHRM AD or designee is required prior to the appointment of near relatives or employees in consensual relationships into positions in which they would have:
A supervisory relationship with each other,
The same immediate supervisor, or
Close working relationships.

Likewise, an employee is required to notify the SHRM AD or designee if he/she becomes a near relative to, or engages in a consensual relationship with another employee where any of the specified work relationships exist. This policy applies to employees/appointees in all appointment codes.

III.5.2.1 Approval Criteria

The employment of a near relative or employee in a consensual relationship or maintenance of any of the specified work relationships normally will not be approved when:
A supervisory relationship would exist, such as:
An employee would be the immediate supervisor of the other employee;
An employee would have supervisory responsibility or would be responsible for the work assignments of the other employee; or
Employees would have the same immediate supervisor.

An employee may not participate in the processes of review and decision-making on any matters concerning appointment, promotion, salary, retention, or termination of another employee who is a near relative or with whom they are in a consensual relationship.

Anonymous said...

The random, irregular, falling into bliss with strangers to enliven ones otherwise constant lives does not constitute an relationship, unless the participants think it does. Catch and release rules can apply. You aren't landing the fish, only enjoying the sport.

Regularly catching the same fish may constitute a relationship.

Anonymous said...

"...The random, irregular, falling into bliss with strangers to enliven ones otherwise constant lives does not constitute an relationship, unless the participants think it does. Catch and release rules can apply. You aren't landing the fish, only enjoying the sport.

Regularly catching the same fish may constitute a relationship..."

If you are not married perhaps. Random or continuous (continuous more so) an adulterous relationship places a married individual, in a vulnerable position.

Anonymous said...

Actually an adulterous relationship places the married and the other married or unmarried individual in a vulnerable position too.

Anonymous said...

"...The shortsighted mentality of a "for profit" LLC for sure..."

Locust don't care about next years crop. As has been said, LLNS has adopted a "setting sun" behavior. Very unfortunate. It is time for LLNS to go and I don't think DOE or NNSA need much more convincing.

Anonymous said...

Regularly catching the same fish may constitute a relationship..."


Napoleon Dynamite caught a delicious bass.

Anonymous said...

If we are to judge adulterous behavior for Staff Relations managers, we should be willing to apply this same judgement elsewhere for LLNS management. If we do, no doubt other LLNS managers will fall out of the self proclaimed "alpha male" tree.

Anonymous said...

The Ten Commandments rarely apply to LANS managers.

Anonymous said...

Indeed

Anonymous said...

Beginning January 1,on University campuses, such as LBNL, enibriated participants cannot in law give consent.

Intimacy is now a violation of University policy if active consent is not given.

"The heretofore productive enterprise of enibriation-initiated human concupisence is expressly prohibited"

The teetotalers triumphed at last.

Anonymous said...

"...The teetotalers triumphed at last..."

Sounds like a policy to minimize abuse while one or more students are intoxicated. A sound protective measure long over due.

Unfortunately intoxication is not the only way to prey upon those in compromising situations.

A lab manager married or not, can prey upon lab interns, post docs, subordinates, or college students. No alcohol required, just inexcusable alpha male (usually) behavior in the workplace.

Blog Archive