Sunday, October 25, 2009
What happened to callbacks?
I was laid off due to the ISP. Unable to find work I have taken another job at LLNL at half my old pay. To my shock my old departments org chart is as big as it was before the ISP. LLNS has filled all the laid off workers positions with matrixed engineering people. I have the proof! How can they do that? What happened to callbacks? Is anyone looking into this? Does DOE provide any oversight for LLNS and if so who can be contacted?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes, they targeted people. If you were old, or had some kind of issue, they took that time as an opportunity to get rid of you.
I saw my job reposted a few months after they layed me off. It doesn't matter that they have so spend 100k+ to rebadge and retrain. That is the taxpayers problem, not theirs.
Actually, I don't think there is anything in the contract stating LLNS has to keep anyone.
They can fire the entire employee base and replace them with H-1B visa employess from India if they want to. Only union employees might be protected.
Of course, it would be immoral and unethical and a security risk, but that does not matter in today's business climate.
They have hired quite a few people back that were laid off and some refused to come back because they found better jobs where they got treated better, but I will say this. If you were worth a hill of beans and your job was posted, they'd have brought you back on even if it was as an IAP employee. Then on the other hand I know some very good people who got laid off, there job was posted but because they needed a place for a PhD doing a tech's job, the tech never got hired back. It's all a matter of who they want and who they don't for any reason. No one is secure anymore except ULM.
If your organization hired new people to do your job, it was because they didn't want you.
There were some mistakes made in ISPing the wrong employees, but for the most part the Lab trimmed its deadwood. If it had been doing that regularly, like most well managed organizations, the massive layoffs of 2008 could have been avoided.
My morale is affected when I see good people laid off. It is also affected when I see incompetent employees remain employed.
GM has backed himself into a corner with promises of no layoffs, but the best thing he could do for the Lab is trim another 2-5% of the work force--including the bottom ULM.
To poster October 26, 2009 10:07 PM, I'm sick and tired of hearing the ISP'd employees called 'deadwood.' Certainly there were some, but the majority of us were solid workers with years of excellent PAs. The truth of the matter is, we were older workers getting close to retirement and ULM wanted to save themselves money on our salaries and benefits. They also cut those who they considered a risk (i.e., those who reported safety/security/financial issues) and those who spoke up against unfair treatment. With all the complaining on this site about all the negative changes made by ULM, doesn't that sound more like the truth than accusing good people of being deadwood?
Depending on the number of years worked at the Lab, terminated employees were supposed to have up to three years right to rehire. That means that if you are even minimally qualified for a posted position, by their own policy they have to interview you. Well, they've played that game in their usual fashion as well. I've applied for a number of positions in the past 17 months for which I'm more than qualified. And guess what? No interview, no phone call, no nothing. I'm getting a bit hungry now to get back to work. The job market is insanely tight right now. So, yes, I would go back to the pit for a few more years to improve my retirement situation. My mindset would be like those who remain there--it's just a job, a means to an end.
In my recollection of the ISP policy, you may have legal recourse and if you have sufficient funds available to press your case (more than LLNS), you may be able to recover a substantial fraction of the cost of doing so.
October 28, 2009 8:20 AM
Clearly there were mistakes in who was whacked during ISP. Comp was the biggest problem that I saw, due to that fact the their DLs and other ULM had no idea what their matrixed employess actually did.
On the other hand, the complaint that older employees were targeted because of their age is nonsense.
Although I was not part of the final decisions, I participated in decisions on which employees would be considered for whacking. I can tell you that age or salary never was an issue.
If the Lab has taken care of its deadwood an a regular basis, it would not have had to deal with so many layoffs during the ISP.
8:20 AM,
Finally a good comment. Thanks.
10:07 PM is just a troll.
Agree 100% with 10:07 PM. Mistakes were made, no doubt, but there were also those who were let go who shouldn't have lasted as long as they did. I do agree that the ones who should have stayed should get the opportunity to come back if positions become available. But to lump ALL the ISP'd employees into a category of terminated employees who should have the right up to three years to rehire makes no sense at all.
October 28, 2009 8:20 AM Anonymous said
"Although I was not part of the final decisions, I participated in decisions on which employees would be considered for whacking. "
This is contrary to that which we layoff victims were told, and in complete agreement with that which we believed to be true, in that individuals WERE identified. Once identified, business units be easily parsed on a case by case basis, making targeted individuals vulnerable. It then becomes easy to lay off those of us in "unwanted positions". However, it's my understanding that this practice is contrary to the layoff policy. It is certainly contradictory to that which I was told on my last day, and contradictory to the statement I have in writing from LLNL.
Just so you know - Starting at the xxx.1 class and for more than six years, I progressed through the hourly ranks, until I ranked at the top of peer group of the most senior classification xxx.3. I was promoted to a salary position and was doing well in that classification for five more years. I worked for about a year in my final assignment but it was admittedly not a good fit. My productivity was not on par with my co-workers who'd been around much longer than I, to which I attribute to both a lack of clarity of understanding on my part, as well as a vacuum of leadership. I didn't feel like I was a major player on the team, and would have been more productive elsewhere. That being the case, I was looking to move. Before I could pull the trigger, I was laid off. I was a valuable asset before, and could have been so again, so why wasn't I moved?
While I believe I was targeted (perhaps justifiable at that point in time) I have no evidence to support this. Anonymous' comment does support my belief, though, and is in line with comments from my former colleagues and associates made off the record...
I am pleased to see that someone has admitted that "individuals (as opposed to positions) were identified for consideration".
Perhaps someone involved in the discrimination lawsuit will benefit from this admission.
Post a Comment