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

Monday, March 23, 2015

Does LLNS Staff Relations and LLNS Senior Management have "free rein"?

"Does LLNS Staff Relations and LLNS Senior Management have "free rein" to do what they wish to any employee at any time without potential risk to the LLNS annual DOE/NNSA "award fee"?

Neither the LLNS Staff Relations employment practices, or the LLNS employee grievance system are evaluated or graded as part of the NNSA Livermore Field Office annual "Performance Evaluation Report.” As such, LLNS Staff Relations employment practices and endorsement of said business practices from LLNS Senior Management, are not accountable by any established metric in any systematic predefined annual review to either the DOE or the NNSA.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

A colossal oversight in light of the LANSLLNS WIPP $500 Million screw up. What lab employee is going to ever speak up about anything going forward? Staff Relations and the LLC have no skin in the game in terms of impact to their award fee, so its open season on any employee LANSLLNS management dislikes.

The NNSA evaluators haven't connected the dots. If the NNSA absorbs the WIPP financial burden, the Contractors are effectively enabled to do more of the same. What a grand NNSA strategy to minimize accidents and contractor mismanagement in the future.

Anonymous said...

"Staff" Relations is a huge misnomer. I seriously question which LLNS staff has ever been assisted, or their cause addressed in neutral environment to move their issue forward.

Anonymous said...

Fox watching the hen house.

Anonymous said...

"...Fox watching the hen house..."

Agreed, but such a relationship can have greater unanticipated consequences when left to run open loop and off the NNSA evaluation radar as it does.

Anonymous said...

"Does LLNS Staff Relations and LLNS Senior Management have "free rein" to do what they wish to any employee at any time without potential risk to the LLNS annual DOE/NNSA "award fee"?

More meaningful and descriptive than the "LLNS" acronym for the LLC, Bechtel National, the University of California, Babcock and Wilcox, the Washington Division of URS Corporation, and Battelle, along with on site senior managers, have "..."free rein" to do what they wish to any employee at any time without potential risk to the LLNS annual DOE/NNSA "award fee"...".

Staff Relations employment practices are inexcusable, biased, enable continued mismanagement, and create greater manager-employee polarization, but they are not the puppet masters. Are they?

Bechtel National, the University of California, Babcock and Wilcox, the Washington Division of URS Corporation, and Battelle, are each complicit to what happens at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. A focus on Staff Relations alone is insufficient and ill-advised.

Anonymous said...

The major misunderstanding here is that "Staff Relations" has anything to do with "helping" employees. It is a mistaken assumption based on no facts whatsoever. Somehow all the smart people on this blog have apparently fallen for a fairly obvious and not very unique scam.

Anonymous said...

"...The major misunderstanding here is that "Staff Relations" has anything to do with "helping" employees..."

Not exactly. The employee grievance and non-reteliation policies exist on paper but are not implemented as written. These policies merely exist for 20,000 ft. DOE/NNSA and DOL fly overs. The Staff Relations organization is a fraud or a "scam" given their failure to impartially execute these written employee protections and policies. By the same criteria, SHRM is a fraud and a "scam". This reflects badly on LLNS corporate members Bechtel National, the University of California, Babcock and Wilcox, the Washington Division of URS Corporation, and Battelle. Is this how they run their respective companies too?

Anonymous said...

The Staff Relations organization is a fraud or a "scam" given their failure to impartially execute these written employee protections and policies.

March 25, 2015 at 9:21 AM

Again a fundamental misunderstanding. Staff Relations not following written policies is not a "failure" at all, it is a success, accomplishing exactly what management wants them to do. You yourself admit that "these policies merely exist for 20,000 ft. DOE/NNSA and DOL fly overs." Are people really that gullible?

Anonymous said...

I don't follow your logic. LLNS employees have used Staff Relations in good faith. Skillng, Lay, and Madoff didn't follow the rules either. Does that mean all those Enron employees, retirees, and investors were just "gullible" and therefore somehow deserving of their financial loses?
Please clarify your point.

Anonymous said...

"...not following written policies is not a "failure" at all, it is a success, accomplishing exactly what management wants them to do..."

This persons point is manipulation and fraud are positive attributes for LLNS Staff Relations to be proud of. The opinion of 3-25-15 1:32pm should be noted as such.



Anonymous said...

I don't follow your logic. LLNS employees have used Staff Relations in good faith.

March 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM

That is exactly the point: the "faith" of those who did so "in good faith" was stupidly misplaced. They were naive and gullible in expecting the organization to do what it said it would do. Hey folks, THEY LIED!! Get over it and resolve to never be so gullible again. Yes, there is a point at which the gullible fools "deserve" what they get. Grow up. Learn to be suspicious of ANYONE who claims to have your best interests at heart. THEY USUALLY DON'T!!

Anonymous said...

How was staff relations able to cover up the whole Tomas Diaz de la Rubia mess? Why wasn't this made public since in involved the misuse of laboratory money?

Anonymous said...

"...They were naive and gullible in expecting the organization to do what it said it would do..."

DOE, NNSA, DOL, and DFEH, have the same expectations of LLNS as you put it, the "naive and gullible" lab employees have of LLNS.

Your solution is don't trust LLNS or Staff Relations and if an issue comes up that must be addressed, immediately file a lawsuit against LLNS and encourage all other employees as savvy as you to do the same with no interim step or proposed solution. This is your grand plan?

You appear overly excited about the ability of Staff Relations to "get over" on employees and critical of lab employees trying to take measured steps to resolve employment practice issues in a logical order at the lowest level possible. Why is that?

What do you think a judge, jury, or investigative body will say when you tell them you elected not to "exhaust all means" to communicate your employment concern to your managers or Staff Relations first? How do you think Staff Relations will respond to such to a "surprising" revelation? They will respond with theatrical shock, dismay, and with deep regret that you refused to allow management to address the concern "at the lowest level possible" as expected.

External resolution will often be necessary, but it won't be considered an acceptable first step in many cases. Staff Relations, Bechtel National, the University of California, Babcock and Wilcox, the Washington Division of URS Corporation, and Battelle (a.k.a LLNS), will need to be in the loop early on. There is an appropriate point to externally resolve the issue through State or Federal agencies or in court if an issue is unresolvable with LLNS management. The decision to participate in a Staff Relations grievance process or to raise a concern internally in any form is not a simple and "naive" decision as you might think, so I'd use the word "naive" very carefully.

Blog Archive