Anonymous said...
"My guess is this collapse is not very far away. Maybe another year or two. Three at most. Any worker bee with a brain should be able to see this coming by now. The smart worker bees will begin moving to a more healthy hive ASAP."
April 5, 2009 7:54 PM
"My guess is this collapse is not very far away. Maybe another year or two. Three at most. Any worker bee with a brain should be able to see this coming by now. The smart worker bees will begin moving to a more healthy hive ASAP."
April 5, 2009 7:54 PM
Comments
What to do, what to do?.... maybe it's time to just go back to bed and wait until morning. I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
Some of the older people will have to hang on just to make the most of their pension. You younger folks should be looking for a place with a future.
Under most situations the Lab needs to provide 120 days notice of a layoff. Layoffs are an administrative hassle.
Don't expect the 6-month windfall like last year, but it would be in LLNS advantage to get as many out as soon as possible.
Someone check the Personnel Policy ... I thought they changed layoff notification to 30 days.
Also, heard that they are laying off a few each month (under the threshold that triggers WARN act, headlines, etc).
The layoff policy was changed AFTER the layoffs were done last year. The big thing was the 200 series are now limited to 30 days notice, just like the non 200 series. Up to two weeks pay MAY be given in lieu of not giving the full 30 days notice.
All the WARN act accomplished was to tell you if you were in a pool that was not exempt from the layoff. Maybe the folks at NIF won't be excluded from the games when the next budget hatch falls.
Was the serverance changed with the max 30 day notification ?
"Was the severance changed with the max 30 day notification ?"
My answer applies to a layoff, not on a voluntary incentive (and good luck to those who think we'll ever see another buy out):
All of the various values for the 200 series that were based on years of service were eliminated. Remember that NNSA didn't like the fact that the lab was going to pay out up to 6 months of pay for folks that had been here 20+ years In the involuntary layoffs, no severance payouts beyond the base 10 year service were paid out. People were supposed to hang out at the Sunshine building until their "sentence" was completed.
The non-200 series people were always limited to a 30 day notice and if I recall correctly, were always limited to UP TO and additional 2 weeks of pay in lieu of notice. That means that when the lab lays you off, 200 or non-200, you get 30 days notice and 2 weeks of pay. Now if they march you out the door the same day as giving you notice, they MAY give you an additional 2 weeks of pay in lieu of the absence of notice.
So all of this means:
1. Cheaper for NNSA and the lab.
2. Security doesn't have to worry about disgruntled employees being forced to hang out at the perimeter of the lab.
It's win/win for NNSA/LLNS and lose lose for the employee.
There may be a problem with changing severance for those who were excluded from the last voluntary separation. it might be possible to make the case that they were treated unequally in that they were denied severance while others were paid.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955194n
The 30 day notice / 2 weeks pay provision applies to INVOLUNTARY separation.
The VSIP and Layoff policy are 2 different animals.
The VSIP took the numbers that were in effect at that time for involuntary separation for the 200 series (x years service = x weeks pay) and dangled that as a carrot to leave.
If you complain that you were excluded from the carrot the lab may state "true, but you were NOT laid off for 6 months and thus from a financial point of view, you got the same amount of money - it just took 6 months to get it."
I think it would be difficult for someone to sue about that issue. But if you see a starving lawyer on the corner, hire him to take the case.
And it bears mentioning that the change of the layoff policy changed AFTER the layoffs in 2008 were completed so there could be no argument by those that had been laid off that there was a policy change. There was a policy change, but that was made after they were no longer employed at the lab.