Skip to main content

Case of favoritism?

Image
By scooby
Anonymously contributed:

Before Oct. 1, any hire that LLNS wanted, LLNS got. They had their own abbreviated hire form and they set the salary. Hire packages went directly to LLNS and LLNS made the hire offers. LLNL’s HR department was not in the loop.

In my area, we were “forced” (told) to hire a spouse of a LLNS employee even though we had interviewed better qualified candidates. We suggested a start salary, but LLNS offered more. This was found out after the spouse began. LLNS never mentioned this to us. Also, we were told to pay the spouse for transit time.

Yes, LLNS spouses were excluded from VSSOP, as was everyone who had less than one year of service.

Have you seen cases like these? Speak up!

Comments

Anonymous said…
Favoritism has been a way of life at LLNL even before LLNS. I cannot tell you how many opportunities were taken away from me as a qualified applicant in COMP. In every case, either the posting requirements changed on the fly, a group pretended they could not make up their mind or there is a "change" in priorities for this job, just to hear later that a favorite someone got hired.
How do you combat that?
5/12/2008 4:11 PM
Anonymous said…
Jump ship. That is the only way to save yourself.
5/13/2008 7:11 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more