Apparently there are more problems at Sandia Labs:
https://TheSandiaTreatment.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
29 comments:
A lot of this sounds fishy. Sandia has some issues for sure but a number of these issues are
actually reverse from what I have heard.
Not interesting. Stay out of this blog.
I checked out this site. The post about non-Christian or secular employees suffering discrimination or reduced career advancement is spot on. That is actually the main reason I left. It was more than a bit obvious that Mormon or evangelical employees would be promoted much faster than anybody else, even with interior performance. I also observed the reported executive/employee church talk taking place during working hours. The message was clear.
It is accurate. There are a host of other problems. Everything is getting worse too.
Its interesting and true. Im glad someone had the guts to put up the manager wall of shame.
I would like to know which of the labs had the most employee lawsuits. I would guess Sandia. I think they try to manage their reputation but the number of lawsuits would say they're not successfully doing that.
Or maybe it's Hanford after reading today's post.
I think Sandia is very conservative socially so I tend to believe the blog.the question is do you have to be male christian to make it up a few levels in management?
This sounds a bit off to me, if you know what I mean.
So almost every place I’ve ever worked had the high school like cliques (had to play golf, had to go to the same church, had to know so and so, had to be involved in some social club). If you don’t believe business or even the scientific community has a networking component that effects your success, you are very naive. This just sounds like another example.
@7:19 p.m. There's a difference between cliques that are open to all (golf) and cliques that are closed to some (women, Muslims). We shouldn't stand for the cliques that exclude some. Usually those comments are made by the people who control power and want to keep the status quo.
Cliques have no place in business. Allowing them is like saying you 10 people get a good economic life and chance for advancement. You two, sorry. It's not about being naïve. It's about basic decency.
Shall we do cliques by IQ then. You 10 smart people get all the opportunities and the lesser folk can feed on the table scraps.
8/29/2019 7:57 PM
In case you haven't noticed that's how the real world works. Generally, "smarter" means "more competent." Higher competence = higher value to the employer = higher pay. Why would any employer not follow that plan?
I’m glad to see sarcasm is not a dead language. The point is that there is always a standard used for hiring, promotion, etc. You just feel yours most justified. I do not disagree but you must find it a little strange to disregard all other Social constructs for your one standard. I’m sorry to report but relationships and who knows you as how you performed specifically for them and what they believe your character is has been driving outcomes since the beginning of human interaction.
" believe your character is has been driving outcomes since the beginning of human interaction."
I am sorry but this sounds very close to justification of "white male privilege". Slavery was also part most of the history of human interactions, women having less rights, also part of the most of the history of human interactions. Just because certain things have been around since the beginning of human interactions does not justify them. Who decides what merit is, who decides which
cliques are powerful, who decides who is better than others? It is the people that are already in control and they decide in such a way that keeps them in control.
8/31/2019 5:25 AM
Was that supposed to be a coherent post?
It is the people that are already in control and they decide in such a way that keeps them in control.
8/31/2019 11:21 AM
And you propose to change that by putting you in control?
You just want a transfer of power. You have no better approach. Have you ever hired just on a resume without a recommendation, without a deeper understanding of someone’s capabilities and character? You might as well just roll the dice, you would have better luck. What does objective merit look like? Can’t be their resume. That is biased. Can’t be their “annual reviews”, also biased. Face it, the world is full of bias. All you can do is make the objectives such that the person making the decisions has a reason to hire good people and be successful. If he, or she, does not they will fail and be fired or if the entire organization is flawed then it will fail.
9/01/2019 2:14 PM
Spoken like someone who has never been a manager.
Manager for 20 years of one of the few LANL groups/divisions that weathered the most recent attempts to destroy LANL by the NNSA. My guess is you have never hired a single person and been responsible for anything at our lab. I’m just not blinded by your identity politics.
9/02/2019 5:31 AM
9/01/2019 7:22 PM here. It appears my resume is exactly the same as yours. Go figure.
9/02/2019 5:31 AM
You are one of the problem managers, a "good" LANA managers does what NNSA wants, sees the writing on the wall and bends to the reality that the place has become. Sure there are a few holdout managers but they seen as problems, blacksheeps, those that do not get it. In other words not real managers.
By the way the only thing you are responsible for is to make sure there are no safety or security incidents. That is all or at least the driving force at the labs and when that is your driving force merit becomes a very odd thing to define.
"You just want a transfer of power. You have no better approach. Have you ever hired just on a resume without a recommendation, without a deeper understanding of someone’s capabilities and character? You might as well just roll the dice, you would have better luck. What does objective merit look like? Can’t be their resume. That is biased. Can’t be their “annual reviews”, also biased. Face it, the world is full of bias. All you can do is make the objectives such that the person making the decisions has a reason to hire good people and be successful. If he, or she, does not they will fail and be fired or if the entire organization is flawed then it will fail.
9/01/2019 2:14 PM"
You have made some attempt to address the issue but it is a bit odd. A resume, at least for science or engineering is actually a very good way to hire people, it should have school, publications, grades, advisor act. If these are good it likely speaks to the persons capabilities and character. Of course letters are also valuable because it reveals more information. It is rather are to find someone with a good resume that also gets bad letters. In some cases you can have a so so resume but the letters can reveal hidden talents or potential.
In my experience the best people are now hired from outside the NNSA system where they have to respond to some kind of add. The worst people are often lab lifers, who came in as students and never left the lab systems. They figured out lab politics and become part of the systems from a very young age. Many of very weak resumes and little to no skill but have leaned the ways shmoozing and bowing down to the right managers. Failure is only defined by funding and there is always some money floating around so everyone gets funded.
The other thing these people learn is to get rid of the good people, because they are a threat. In this system you get your postmodern management which states that merit and quality are biased and have no meaning, resumes mean nothing neither do the schools the people come from. They go further and state how the world of the lab has changed and you need people that adapt to changes and nothing has any meaning anyway because the sun was in my eyes, whatever you choose it amounts to the same, absolutely nothing. So with that in mind there is no reason to hire good, people just hire bad people that suck up to management, because it does not matter, what we do does not matter, why we do it does not matter, there is only short term ease and comfort. Don't rock the boat many people have a good thing going.
"Face it, the world is full of bias."
So we shouldn't try to fix any problems that the world is full of? I'd guess you've never been held back by bias, so frankly, you probably don't care.
"All you can do is make the objectives such that the person making the decisions has a reason to hire good people and be successful. If he, or she, does not they will fail and be fired or if the entire organization is flawed then it will fail."
Look around at the labs. They are failing. Budget overruns on many projects, poor morale, poor management, declining benefits and pay, safety issues. Why the nation puts up with us is beyond me. Why anyone young joins the company is a real head-scratcher. Future == failure.
I'm glad to see people talking out about the problems at the different labs. It's through outside inspection that maybe things will finally improve.
9/02/2019 7:57 PM
Your spelling and grammar mistakes made me stop reading your post halfway through. Too bad. I hope you are not really a manager.
"Your spelling and grammar mistakes made me stop reading your post halfway through. Too bad. I hope you are not really a manager."
Thank you, and remember don't rock that boat as many people have a good thing going. The less you read, the less you know the better.
8:19am. I agree with you mostly but understand the policies that NNSA and the Lab have in place make it almost impossible to fire someone unless you are just going to be underhanded about it and yes that does happen. I won’t play that game. So what is the outcome when you combine that with declining morale? People that can leave, will leave. People that can’t because they are not attractive to other employers will stay and you can’t fire them unless they literally stab someone. For all the non managers on the blog, I appreciate your opinion but this is fact.
Seperate topic reply, I understand the concept described that a scientist or engineer “should” be able to be hired on a resume alone but we don’t work alone. We work as teams. Also you cannot read a persons work ethic. I have more than one personal case study where the resume and references were perfect and the employee was a dud (lazy, unskilled, or could not work in a team) and yes as the manager I take responsibility. A successful hire by resume and reference alone in my 20 years hiring well over 700 people in technical positions is less than 50%. That includes hires across all demographics. Just because some managers discriminate does not mean all do. All I’m trying to add to the conversation is that a TRUSTED reference is a very valuable predictor of outcomes and should not be thrown out as a method because some bad person became a manager and did bad things.
@11:01 PM
It seems like the whole point of the website that is referenced is that many employees ARE getting fired or forced out the door simply for speaking up. Being employed at one of the labs, I know that there is dead weight and frequently there isn't much to do about it. I also have seen a lot of people pushed out for no apparent reason. That includes solid employees.
But pushing peeps out the door in retaliation is harsh by any measure. I am becoming more of a believer in deprivatizing management of the labs. It costs $ to investigate management abuses, so a for profit company has very little incentive to do that. Until it impacts their bonuses.
Hey 11:01 PM!
Your comment is the most sensible so far! You are right about permanent dead weight
and decent people being pushed out (indirect firing). That was the case at LLNL when I was there.I should add that I am surprised why they let people in management that just don't like people.
I understand the concept described that a scientist or engineer “should” be able to be hired on a resume alone but we don’t work alone. We work as teams.
9/03/2019 11:01 PM
You seem intelligent, so I'm going to assume that your juxtaposition of two meanings of the word "alone," pretending they are the same, is just you trying to be clever to try to hook the readers' emotions, but failing miserably. Maybe you're not as intelligent as you think you are.
“You seem intelligent”?
"I would have to lose 60 IQ points to be classified as smart“
Post a Comment