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, January 16, 2015

Bob and Jennifer


How do Bob (retired) and Jennifer compare in their Staff Relations roles in terms of people skills, emotional intelligence, situational empathy, objectively, and ability to work with LLNS employees in good faith?

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Given the NNSA FOIA response below on Staff Relations:

“...No records found, as LLNL stated that Staff Relations did not provide records to NNSA related to the Performance Evaluation Report..."

LLNS Staff Relations "objectivity", "working in good faith", or any other desirable performance metric are not on the NNSA oversight evaluation radar. So there's that.

What kind of oversight entity allows the evaluated to provide records at their discretion? Answer: An entity that is less an active evaluator and more of a passive transcriber.

Anonymous said...

They're both just paid hacks (Lawyers) for LLNS there to do LLNS' bidding. Situational empathy is NOT a skill found in their toolbox

Anonymous said...

Did not work with Bob, but did work with Jennifer a bit years ago (pre-LLNS). She was empathic, so I know she is capable of that. Now that she runs the place, I would not be surprised to find that she tows the management line. No one with a clue goes to Staff Relations expecting a fair and reasonable resolution, not nowadays. They exist to protect management and LLNS, and if that is consistent with your goals, great. If not, they will oppose you.

Anonymous said...

Staff Relations is an organization for all practical purposes has infinite resources, no fear of blow back to their own attorney careers, and no feedback loop outside the LLC. The NNSA field office is officially out to lunch here. No good can come from this for a LLNS employee looking for a forum to raise any concerns whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Staff Relations has always been by management and for management. Employees were reluctant to raise concerns prior to LLNS and far less so after LLNS.

Anonymous said...

I agree. So how does such a reality help the Complex avoid a future environmental disaster, a pattern of mismanagement, account fraud, etc., if reporting such things only has negative and immediate blow back to the DOE Contractor Employee reporting it?

Anonymous said...

I agree. So how does such a reality help the Complex...?

January 23, 2015 at 3:43 PM

It doesn't, at all. You expected some other answer? Who do you think is going to be horrified enough (and powerful enough) to do anything about it? NO ONE. Get a clue.

Anonymous said...

"...Who do you think is going to be horrified enough (and powerful enough) to do anything about it? NO ONE. Get a clue..."

"...Faiulure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA)

Failure modes effects analysis is a step-by-step approach for identifying all possible failures in a design, a manufacturing or assembly process, or a product or service..."

Experienced LANSLLNS employees conditioned to keep their heads down can lead to other WIPP like failures for fear of casting an opposing opinion on conceptual or modified designs or procedures.

Apparently, this risk is acceptable to senior LANSLLNS management, NNSA, DOE, the DOE IG. There is always ~$0.5 Billion for a clean up, it is just a matter of fund reallocation...

Independent of what LANSLLNS employees think or care about Staff Relations or its employee victims, they are learning the hard way of the institution wide blow back for disasters like WIPP, that are seemingly unrelated to their Lab careers and future job stability. Are you getting a clue now? Perhaps not.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, Jennifer is a bully and her conduct is unprofessional. She is hurting the lab.

Anonymous said...

A "bully" with no challenges or consequences for such deplorable conduct is never a good thing in the school yard or at the lab. Yes LLNS Staff Relations is casting a bad PR stench like never before.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, Jennifer is a bully and her conduct is unprofessional. She is hurting the lab.

January 24, 2015 at 3:45 PM

It has become very fashionable to call "bully" on everything that upsets you and to expect the world to be outraged. The current narrative is grade-school cry-baby nonsense. I remember when the correct parental response (the one I got) to being "bullied" was "get some guts and fight back, or you will always be bullied." I did and it stopped. Just like that. Or, you can run to Mommie.

Anonymous said...

"...I remember when the correct parental response (the one I got) to being "bullied" was "get some guts and fight back, or you will always be bullied." I did and it stopped. Just like that..."

Sorry, but your simple schoolyard bully solution can not be directly applied to the business practices of LLNS Staff Relations or any other abusive open loop LLNS manager. Why? Because the actions of Staff Relations and complicit managers are shielded from blow back by design. It is a game of monopoly where SR has complete control of the players, the rules, and the outcome. As a result, solving the problem "at the
lowest level possible" is not a viable employee option.

Yes an employee can "fight back" with an attorney, but this brings us full circle back to the 3:45pm "she is hurting the lab" comment.

I hope you are not suggesting that one after the other broadcast nationally via social media, employee lawsuits or complaints, are a net benefit to the reputation of LLNS or our ability to recruit and retain employees with other career options. This I believe is the essence of the "she is hurting the lab" comment.

Anonymous said...

"...It has become very fashionable to call "bully" on everything that upsets you and to expect the world to be outraged..."

No, not everything, and not the world, but there are interested employees, agencies, and communities. Your callous response over LLNS employee concerns is straight out of the "it is the victims fault/attack his or her credibility" playbook.

Anonymous said...

So now, not only should "bullying" be outlawed, but also "callousness"? It must be hell to go through life being so disappointed with the world and your place in it.

Anonymous said...

"...So now, not only should "bullying" be outlawed, but also "callousness"? It must be hell to go through life being so disappointed with the world and your place in it..."

"Bullying" and "callousness" "outlawed"? This is your lucid deduction of the Staff Relations post comments? Doing the bong and blog routine are you, or just another take a comment to the extreme tactic in the attempt to discredit, or both?

Anonymous said...

Nope, just disgusted with calling people "bully" or "callous." Grade-school crybaby behavior. Thin skin disease is epidemic these days.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you have an employee perspective or full appreciation of the LLNS Staff Relations impact on employee morale or work environment. The word "bully" is just one descriptor of poor business practices in Staff Relations. However, if you prefer "gross mismanagement" and "abuse of authority" in reference to Staff Relations that works, and theses terms are accepted DOE contractor complaint descriptors.

I suspect though it is not particular words that you find unacceptable or "crybaby" like, that is just low hanging debate fruit. It is ANY criticism of Staff Relations and LLNS management which you find unpalatable. You are entitled to such a viewpoint, just be honest about it. No worries.

Anonymous said...

I suspect though it is not particular words that you find unacceptable or "crybaby" like, that is just low hanging debate fruit. It is ANY criticism of Staff Relations and LLNS management which you find unpalatable.

January 25, 2015 at 3:06 PM

No, just the words, because words suggest mind-set, and mind-set suggests mentality, as in victim mentality, which I find reprehensible. If you want to mount an adult, reasoned, forward, and aggressive fight against "Staff Relations and LLNS management" then go for it, but try to stop the whining part.

Anonymous said...

"...If you want to mount an adult, reasoned, forward, and aggressive fight against "Staff Relations and LLNS management" then go for it, but try to stop the whining part..."

If the "whining" is disturbing to you, why not take the next step and navigate through a concrete example of such an "adult", "reasoned", "forward", and "aggressive fight"? One that is not reprehensible to you, but please be specific.

Anonymous said...

To 1-25-15 8:25pm,

The topic here is:

"...Bob and Jennifer

How do Bob (retired) and Jennifer compare in their Staff Relations roles in terms of people skills, emotional intelligence, situational empathy, objectively, and ability to work with LLNS employees in good faith?..."

I am sorry this topic does not meet your blog topic expectations and that you find its comments to be childish and reprehensible.You may elect not to read the comments.

I'm sure there are a few senior managers at LANSLLNS that do not want their conduct publicly evaluated, just ask former LANL Deputy Director Beth Sellers. With your logic, any LANL contractor complaining about unfair bidding and "conflict of interest" are just "reprehensible" "crybabies". You may communicate such a viewpoint to the DOE IG if you wish, but I don't recommend it.

Blog Archive