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

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Salary facts


"OFCCP Announces Proposed Rule Barring Contractor Pay Secrecy Policies, Retaliation"

"...Sept. 15 — The Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Sept. 15 announced a proposed rule under Executive Order 11,246 that would prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from maintaining pay secrecy policies and from discriminating against employees and applicants who discuss, disclose or inquire about compensation.

“Workers cannot solve a problem unless they are able to identify it,” OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu said in a statement. “And they cannot identify it if they aren't free to talk about it without fear of reprisal.”

According to a notice of proposed rule-making (RIN 1250-AA06) published in the Sept. 17 Federal Register (79 Fed. Reg. 55,712), contractors must incorporate the new nondiscrimination requirement into their employee manuals or handbooks, as well as disseminate it to employees and applicants..."

http://www.bna.com/ofccp-announces-proposed-n17179895170/

http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/PayTransparencyFactSheet.html

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Has this rule been adopted?

Rules like this serve as entitlement enablers for lawyers. Have fun with this. Years of entitlements...

Anonymous said...

"...Rules like this serve as entitlement enablers for lawyers. Have fun with this. Years of entitlements..."

Not true. The move to make salaries of Contractors funded by the Federal Government transparent, is very consistent with new business model changes proposed by DOE/NNSA for Contractors of LANL and LLNL and the mission objectives of these Labs going forward.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that suckling at the tit of controversy is not an automatic entitlement for lawyers?

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that suckling at the tit of controversy is not an automatic entitlement for lawyers?

April 9, 2015 at 9:13 PM

If you are ever at the losing end of some controversy, I guess you'll be hiring a lawyer, no?

Anonymous said...

I will be using such a controversy as lawyer bait. They can't help themselves.

Whether or not I care about the outcome will only be known to me.

Anonymous said...

This is bad for lab employees. It means our compensation will be public knowledge, and drive download pressure on wages. The public will be "outraged" at all of the "government employees" making $100,000-$200,000 a year, lumping us in with Long Island cops--not realizing that most of us would make much more in industry.

Anonymous said...

April 12, 2015 at 9:41 AM is absolutely correct. If the intent is to focus public attention on exorbitant manager salaries, it will backfire since there are comparatively few managers, compared to regular employees in the "$100,000-$200,000 a year" range, which most people in the country will also consider exorbitant. It is generally not smart tactics to point to your own good fortune (compared to most of your audience) when decrying that of others.

Anonymous said...

So the argument against salary statistic disclosures by 4-digit classification over time is the general public allegedly, will not compare lab salaries to those of equally educated and experienced employees in similar job markets? Hmm. Do you think the general public believes medical physicians don't make more than workers in the general public too?

I suppose salary disclosure statistics made public as relative sets of 4-digit classification code magnitudes over time would be acceptable?

In other words, "ABC.2" classification code salaries and growth normalized to "XYZ.2" classification code salaries and growth over time. No actual salary figures needed here, just sets of 4-digit classification code salary statistics normalized as relative magnitudes over time pre and post LANSLLNS.

Anonymous said...

So the argument against salary statistic disclosures by 4-digit classification over time is the general public allegedly, will not compare lab salaries to those of equally educated and experienced employees in similar job markets? Hmm. Do you think the general public believes medical physicians don't make more than workers in the general public too?

April 13, 2015 at 11:32 AM

The "general public" does not have the education or the interest to do any such comparison. The "general public" knows what doctors do, and in general reveres them and does not begrudge their salaries. They have not a clue what scientists do, and certainly won't generally agree that they should get large salaries because what they do helps the "general public" like doctors.

Why don't you admit that you just want this data because you are sure that you can use your insider knowledge to crack the code and thereby have a way to point the finger at people you consider are overpaid? Your agenda is patently obvious. Your claim to be solely interested in the public good is laughable.

Anonymous said...

"...Why don't you admit that you just want this data because you are sure that you can use your insider knowledge to crack the code and thereby have a way to point the finger at people you consider are overpaid? Your agenda is patently obvious. Your claim to be solely interested in the public good is laughable..."

Again another failed attempt to suggest all benefits of lab wide salary disclosures are exclusively for the benefit of an individual so that this persons character and motives can be isolated and attacked. Sorry, but the DOL has stated salary disclosures of Federal Contractors has merit, and should be a viable and retaliation free option for Lab employees.

Your own fears of Lab wide salary transparency are not supported. From the DOL perspective, a "cracked code" would not be required, since lab employee salaries could be released as an unencrypted data set.
Still laughable?

I doubt that DOE or NNSA would willing to expend the BW to determine if "Billy" is making too much compared to "Bob" at either Lab. However, given their
disappointment with the for-profit NNSA Lab business models, the 4-digit classification salary trending could be a very important tool for new or modified NNSA Contractor terms, funding direction, and funding expectations.

Anonymous said...

the 4-digit classification salary trending could be a very important tool for new or modified NNSA Contractor terms, funding direction, and funding expectations.

April 13, 2015 at 3:32 PM

Oh, just give it up already. It is not going to happen, regardless of what DOL says. Go find another windmill.

Anonymous said...

"...Its not going to happen..."

Sorry, but here is a DOL refresher just for you:

"Salary facts"

"OFCCP Announces Proposed Rule Barring Contractor Pay Secrecy Policies, Retaliation"

"...Sept. 15 — The Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Sept. 15 announced a proposed rule under Executive Order 11,246 that would prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from maintaining pay secrecy policies and from discriminating against employees and applicants who discuss, disclose or inquire about compensation.

“Workers cannot solve a problem unless they are able to identify it,” OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu said in a statement. “And they cannot identify it if they aren't free to talk about it without fear of reprisal.”

According to a notice of proposed rule-making (RIN 1250-AA06) published in the Sept. 17 Federal Register (79 Fed. Reg. 55,712), contractors must incorporate the new nondiscrimination requirement into their employee manuals or handbooks, as well as disseminate it to employees and applicants..."

http://www.bna.com/ofccp-announces-proposed-n17179895170/

http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/PayTransparencyFactSheet.html

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but here is a DOL refresher just for you:


Sept. 15 — The Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Sept. 15 announced a proposed rule

April 14, 2015 at 8:21 AM

So, where has the "proposed" rule been since last September? Yep. Dead.

Anonymous said...

This is bad for lab employees. It means our compensation will be public knowledge, and drive download pressure on wages. The public will be "outraged" at all of the "government employees" making $100,000-$200,000 a year, lumping us in with Long Island cops--not realizing that most of us would make much more in industry.
April 12, 2015 at 9:41 AM

A few points.
The public will be outraged, especially of all those over $250k.
But then will come to their senses once they see the lengths LLNL has taken to overly promote women into this high salary category.
I don't think anybody reasonable person would ever think the average salary of all LLNL employees would be higher on the outside.

Anonymous said...

"...This is bad for lab employees. It means our compensation will be public knowledge, and drive download pressure on wages. The public will be "outraged" at all of the "government employees" making $100,000-$200,000 a year, lumping us in with Long Island cops--not realizing that most of us would make much more in industry..."

Hmm. I don't recall public outcry over lab salaries during the transparent lab salary UC/LLNL days directly resulting in reduced salaries or reduced salary growth here (?). I guess I must have missed the lab wide salary Public Outrage Downward Correction Factor (PODCF) page in the Lab Power Point salary presentations every year. What are the odds?

Anonymous said...

Hmm. I don't recall public outcry over lab salaries during the transparent lab salary UC/LLNL days directly resulting in reduced salaries or reduced salary growth here

April 14, 2015 at 3:34 PM

That's because it wasn't really "public." Just available in the public library, where no one went to look at it except the already disgruntled employees.

Anonymous said...

The public will be outraged, especially of all those over $250k.
But then will come to their senses once they see the lengths LLNL has taken to overly promote women into this high salary category.

April 14, 2015 at 2:24 PM

The "public" will not see, or understand "the lengths LLNL has taken to overly promote women into this high salary category" or any other details. They will simply see a lot of self-important scientists making much more money than they are apparently worth, doing things none of them see as important or valuable. It might be an important lesson in humility for LANS/LLNS employees.

Anonymous said...

... from maintaining pay secrecy policies and from discriminating against employees and applicants who discuss, disclose or inquire about compensation.

Does this rule require disclosure of all salaries, or just say that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee who chooses to disclose their own salary to others, ask about compensation policy, etc?

Anonymous said...

Does this rule require...

April 14, 2015 at 8:55 PM

It doesn't "require" anything since it is just a "proposed" rule that has disappeared for 7 months. Don't get your knickers in a knot.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for caring about my knickers.

"Would such a rule..."

or

"Does the proposed rule..."

Anonymous said...

Well, April 14, 2015 at 8:55 PM asked "Does this rule..." implying that there is in fact a "rule" which there is not.

Anonymous said...

There is no rule. It was once a whisper and nothing more. Enacting and enforcing a rule would probably require other overpaid bureaucrats to actually do something.

Blog Archive