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...
Comments
I beleive that LLNS management discriminated against me and many other older workers when they told us to pack up and get out now. One worker had 38 years of service and was laid off. In many work groups, the younger workers with less seniority got to keep their jobs.
There is a law against age discrimination in the workplace. The law firm representing us will be successful.
Just a point to ponder: Average age at the laboratory, like several other labs and DOE sites is 50 or more. Could skew the % over 40 approach.
The system was not perfect. Due to some incomepetent senior managers, who should have been ISP'd themselves, a few mistakes were made. However, if you lived on the EBA list, were an assistant to someone else, or hadn't received a raise for a while, getting rid of you was good for the Lab.
While the TCP1 pension does not come out of the LLNL operating budget or the for-profit earnings, it is a financial concern which LLNS must carefully monitor. Therefore, by kicking out the workers in their late 40's to mid 50's, LLNS reduced any future funding risks that TCP1 might encounter. It adds an extra margin of safety.
In the case of workers too young to start pulling their pension, it also allows LLNS to not have to pay retirement medical, which is a cost that comes from the annual operating budget. If you don't elect to start receiving your pension payments within 120 days of leaving LLNL, you don't get medical retirement. Only workers in their late 50's to early 60's would probably want to start taking the retirement checks. Thus, targeting workers in their late 40's to mid 50's benefits the LLNL budget.
Companies all over America play this game with older workers. It's not right, but it is very common.
You seem to know little about any of the people that were let go or what skilled contributers to the LLNL workforce these individuals were. I'll assume you've been sheltered in management or NIF.
I can name 8 individuals that did not fit within your narrow minded description of why people were let go. The funny part is several of them were hired back and one refused to come back. Sounds like UM did not have a clue to the daily needs of the programs.
As someone earlier has said, there were a few mistakes. In addition to the EBAs etc., there were also some who possessed skills that were in excess of the Lab's needs. If you were a 200 in this category, it supposedly was decided by who was better. In the other classifications, it was nothing but seniority. If some were hired back, my guess is that management misjudged what was needed. Usually this was the hourly work force.
"The perception seems to be that these workers were incompetent, lazy, and should have been gone long ago.Frankly the opposite is true.These are individuals you went to if something needed to be done yesterday and delivered today. They also have employment records to back up that assertion."
ISP'd response:
Thank you!!!!
Another anonymous statement:
"I'd like to know more about those employees who feel they were discriminated against. Before you were laid off, were you highly ranked? Were you ever EBA? What did they end up doing with your position, were they able to get along without you? Tough questions to answer, but it would shed some light as to whether or not you really have a case."
This ISP's repsonse:
Hear more? Okay...try being moved up quickly in the ranking process for the past 7 years. Stellar PA's! Have them in hand in fact :-)
Moved up through HARD work, good ethics not by being a 'yes' person, quite the opposite-challenged many of the 'old ways'(and received numerous awards) for implementing newer/cost effective measures in how we were doing business as our group was greatly understaffed for at LEAST 5 of the years I was an integral part of the 'team'!! Nope...Never been EBA'd and as to getting along w/o me?? 2 people are currently 'trying' to 'keep up' and basically have given up even trying to do 1/2 the workload I previously performed!!
FACT:....much of the 'deadwood' still remains within LLNS as the 'key' performers for many groups were laid off!!
Management has made several mistakes since they took over in Oct. 2007. They made many mistakes in the layoff of older career employees in May and the law firm representing the older workers that were kicked offsite will prove there was age discrimination in the May layoff.
I know a few older former employees that had between 33 and 38 years of faithful service that were told to pack up and get out now. Management then handed their workload over to flex term employees that were younger and less experienced.
I am not an attorney but I have read many articles on age discrimination. I have also read the federal 1967 law that protects older workers. It appears that in some work groups there was age discrimination in the May layoff.