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
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Have you heard from the attorneys?
anonymously suggested topic:
would the person who contacted the law firm report back any news?
To think the Lab can be sued for having a layoff is nonsense. However, you need to pay close attention to the details of how it is being implemented. Your best hope is that the Lab is bending its own polices on who is selected.
Posters 5:34 & 8:46 my request letter to attorneys did not go unanswered. The post was removed from the blog so I figured nobody cared. Poster 5:34 reminds me of an individual that works in staff relations. 8:46 is closer to the advice that I received from two law firms. One class action law firm bluntly said prove age discrimination and they will move forward. We will see what develops. Things I did find out 300 series exempt individuals that do not supervise more then 50 percent of work time by California law are not exempt employees; they truly should be classified as non-exempt individuals. Do some searches on google regarding this California employment issue you may be surprised what you find. LLNS will be reorganizing job classifications soon. Poster 5:34 I do not see in the separations portion of the Polices and Procedures Manuel that you can exclude an entire program of like in kind individuals (NIF) a 500 series is a 500 series with similar job responsibilities wherever they may reside at the LAB. PPM says that you can exclude on SKA at some management level. So are we saying that all the 500 series technicians on NIF have better SKA’s ? Then any other 500 series at the LAB? Stay tuned. At the end of May (5:34) you may be right, but it never hurts to get outside help now and then instead of listening to the kool-aid being dispensed by management.
For those of you (except 200s) who think that seniority is the key factor in determining layoffs within a four digit classification, you should read the details of the Lab's Layoff Policy.
III.2.3 Order of Layoff
The order of layoff for career employees in the same classification (defined as the four digits of the title code) within a unit is in inverse order of Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC seniority except that the department head may retain employees irrespective of seniority who possess special skills, knowledge, or abilities that are not possessed by other employees in the same classification with greater seniority, and that are necessary to perform the ongoing function of the department. All such exceptions are documented and reviewed by the Human Resources Manager.
This appears to be a general approval to use SKAs as the determining factor, not seniority. With this type of exception, management's ability to keep whomever they desire is limited only by their writing ability and imagination.
I think it makes sense to have that sort of flexibility. Most everyone on this blog claim they work at the Lab out of a sense of patriotism. I would argue the patriotic thing to do is step out of the way of the guy who has special skills and put aside your selfish, unpatriotic desire to keep your job. Just keep telling yourself "It's for the good of the country".
6 comments:
...no...there is nothing here/there.
You have no case therefore no class action suit. Move on to the next level of your life, please.
To think the Lab can be sued for having a layoff is nonsense. However, you need to pay close attention to the details of how it is being implemented. Your best hope is that the Lab is bending its own polices on who is selected.
Posters 5:34 & 8:46 my request letter to attorneys did not go unanswered. The post was removed from the blog so I figured nobody cared. Poster 5:34 reminds me of an individual that works in staff relations. 8:46 is closer to the advice that I received from two law firms. One class action law firm bluntly said prove age discrimination and they will move forward. We will see what develops. Things I did find out 300 series exempt individuals that do not supervise more then 50 percent of work time by California law are not exempt employees; they truly should be classified as non-exempt individuals. Do some searches on google regarding this California employment issue you may be surprised what you find. LLNS will be reorganizing job classifications soon. Poster 5:34 I do not see in the separations portion of the Polices and Procedures Manuel that you can exclude an entire program of like in kind individuals (NIF) a 500 series is a 500 series with similar job responsibilities wherever they may reside at the LAB. PPM says that you can exclude on SKA at some management level. So are we saying that all the 500 series technicians on NIF have better SKA’s ? Then any other 500 series at the LAB? Stay tuned. At the end of May (5:34) you may be right, but it never hurts to get outside help now and then instead of listening to the kool-aid being dispensed by management.
For those of you (except 200s) who think that seniority is the key factor in determining layoffs within a four digit classification, you should read the details of the Lab's Layoff Policy.
III.2.3 Order of Layoff
The order of layoff for career employees in the same classification (defined as the four digits of the title code) within a unit is in inverse order of Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC seniority except that the department head may retain employees irrespective of seniority who possess special skills, knowledge, or abilities that are not possessed by other employees in the same classification with greater seniority, and that are necessary to perform the ongoing function of the department. All such exceptions are documented and reviewed by the Human Resources Manager.
This appears to be a general approval to use SKAs as the determining factor, not seniority. With this type of exception, management's ability to keep whomever they desire is limited only by their writing ability and imagination.
May 7, 2008 6:41 AM
I think it makes sense to have that sort of flexibility. Most everyone on this blog claim they work at the Lab out of a sense of patriotism. I would argue the patriotic thing to do is step out of the way of the guy who has special skills and put aside your selfish, unpatriotic desire to keep your job. Just keep telling yourself "It's for the good of the country".
Post a Comment