Sunday, September 13, 2009
Why bother?
Well, I was asked to give my supervisor an update of my PA input to reflect my doings for the past couple of months. I did so, but I kept wondering "why bother?". We all know that the folks at UC actually took a pay cut (OK, LBL was excluded - but our "substantially equivalent in the aggregate" is for UC - NOT LBL). My thinking is we'll be lucky if we don't take a cut, much less get a raise at all. However, where you rank may be more important than you think. Most companies (for profit or not) choose the "poor performers" or those in the lower 10%-20% of the performance appraisals. So, maybe ranking is important. Who knows?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I thought "substantially equivalent in the aggregate" only holds with respect to benefits, most particularly TCP-1 pension. It's not like the UC system has ever been part of the market surveys used for the national lab salary increases.
Given the federal budget and general economy, it sure seems it will be a small package.
Never has been and will never be at LLNS. Its all about who you know, not what you did!
Now back to work, it might improve your PA position!
LOL!
Low rank ==> future RIF candidate.
That's the only reason to worry about this year's PA, but it is a very big reason. LLNL will continue to downsize.
Let's hope so, 10:36. If the last one was any indication, plenty of good contributors will be cut because they are not kissing the right butts. I'd rather see the dead wood go than the real talent. And this goes from the physicists to the custodians.
Of course now that I just posted that I realized that PAs are in themselves political tools and are sometimes not representative of actual work done.
Mine always have been accurate (good and bad) but then I am not a political animal and tend to not piss off the management (and I have a good GL).
Good luck. Your input may count. OR perhaps the decision(s) has already been made.
My ranking was always high and my performance, as recorded in my PAs, good to excellent (tending to excellent). For my almost 29 years of service to LLNL, UC, and the nation I got ISP-ed last year. I received excellent input for my PA from others last year, but my management gave me neither a PA nor performance discussion last year.
I didn't kiss any butts. People I know who did and do are still there. Clearly, I was naive in thinking my contributions, accomplishments, performance, and value to the ongoing success of the program would be fairly communicated to the new upper management and protect me from the ISP.
Now I think far less kindly of my former management.
PAs were always political.
I'm retired now, so can't tell you about current LLNS, but can address LLNL from actual experience:
Lack of independence and Integrity. Lack of support by managers who just advanced their friends.
Hazard Control was paid by the Programs, who felt they owned them, and did not reward honest effort. They'd really prefer that HC did nothing, or just rubber stamped everything.
IF you did your job, and suggested that unsafe
conditions be fixed you were not popular, and got a bad PA. If you were incompetent, and lazy you did better, especially if you were a glad hander, and approved things quickly. If you didn't understand it, you could avoid time consuming reviews.
After just a few years the brown noses were paid much more, even when performance could be measured.
One good thing was that when LLNS came in, they demoted several of the ineffective leaders. But I believe they still work there. Bosses, even former bosses, are not subject to the same treatment as worker bees.
Is your PA fair?
Post a Comment