Anonymous said:
For those of you who fell victim to the ISP and have not spoke with the attorney's, here is the information:
GWILLIAM, IVARY, CHIOSSO, CAVALLI & BREWER
P.O. BOX 2079
OAKLAND, CA. 94604
(510) 832-5411 ext. 257. Ask for Winston.
There IS something we can do in a 'team effort' to fight the UNFAIR treatment we received!!!!!!
12 comments:
Well if the rumor of LLNL to be down to 3,500 by 2010 is true you guys better get to work quick. I doubt any lawyer will do you any good since there's a clause that says if there are no funds they don't have to keep you. They'll keep who they want and that's the end of the story. We've been there and done that haven't we. You're wasting your time.
Thank you for posting this information Scooby-Happy New Year. You have done an awesome job as moderator on this blog!! Thank you for your continued efforts.
Thank you for your kind words.
I am one of the career workers LLNS management tossed out the gate last may. LLNS said the lay off would be based on seniority for non- 200 series employees. THEY LIED !
Many of us that had 25 or more years of dedicated service were laid off because of our age. LLNS kept the younger employees that had less seniority. There is a law against that. It is called age discrimination.
Many of us have joined together and are challenging our lay off. If you are being treated unfairly by LLNS or if you are a older worker laid off last May and feel there is a age discrimination issue, don't lay down. Challenge management. File a grevience or hire a lawyer.
It's true LLNS violated their own policy in regards to the "seniority" based layoff groups by retaining younger less skilled employees while "releasing" older and more skilled employees. In fact, at least one group of younger employees were retained in secret. This was not revealed until AFTER the layoff last May. This group was also allowed to take advantage of the VSP while still retaining their jobs. All NIF non-200's were not allowed this luxury. This was clearly against LLNS policy.
Fight back - what they did was wrong and illegall!
Firing long time workers over the age of 50 is a well know practice used by many crooked companies to reduce costs. In most cases, it is very difficult to legally prove age discrimination, even though it clearly has occurred.
Of course, those in the executive suites are always immune to this practice. In fact, they are rewarded for carrying it out.
January 5, 2009 11:01 AM
I am over fifty and they didn't fire me. I must be pretty good!
Hey Jan. 5, 2009 8:00 pm
Sounds like you were pretty good at bringing the boss coffee and donuts. You were probably pretty good at mowing his lawn, laughing at his stupid jokes, etc.
I was 60 years old and had over 25 years of service to LLNL. I was very good at doing my job and being dedicated to the mission of LLNL. I was not good at sucking up to the bosses, especially the new management. I never wanted to be a suck up. Not my style.
The new LLNS management laid me off in May. In some work groups, the younger employees that had less seniority got to keep their jobs. The older employees were sent home and told to never come back. Seems to me that is age discrimination.
"I never wanted to be a suck up."
So what you are really saying is they dumped you because you wouldn't suck up, not because of your age. Oops. Guess you won't be joining in the age discrimination suit but rather the suck-up discrimination suit. I think your chances are slim at best. I have to go suck up to the boss now so I can collect my 100k/year salary.In leaving I wish you good luck in your struggle for equality.
Just FYI the lawsuit is about much more than age discrimination. It will include all facets of discrimination: Race, Gender, Age,
Disability,and Veterans. Having seen the people axed by the lab I would say they have a case. If they don't then everyone still working there is in deep trouble.
If there was a chance at the law suit winning the lawyers would NOT be asking for money "up front."
I wonder if you ever hired an attorney. All of them require some type of retainer and in this case they are willing to waive that. Clearly you don't have the facts straight.
Post a Comment