Skip to main content

Why is job reclassification hidden?

Image
By scooby
Anonymously contributed:

Management has decided that job classification is now sensitive data and is to be hidden from employees. This means that financial reports and the lab estimators will not show if someone is a plumber or a physicist. Not sure how others think about this change. I find this scary and concerning. Does lab management think I can not be trusted? I think management is concerned that the PSTS reclassifications will cause employees to look up peers and use the classifications of peers to ask for reconsideration of their own classification. I wonder if management is uncertain they can stand behind their decisions and so want to obscure the information. And I wonder if management truly believes that employees won't find out the information anyway. I think this is a short sighted decision that will backfire on them. In the meantime those employees who truly need the information for doing work will have to find work arounds.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The distribution bar graph of PSTS in the new job families shows 47% are in MTS3 family. That is lopsided.
5% are in both MTS1 and 2. You draw you own conclusion.
5/01/2010 5:31 PM
Anonymous said…
You have no "need to know" for this data. Shut up and obey the rules!
5/02/2010 11:05 AM
Anonymous said…
...47% are in MTS3 family. That is lopsided. 5% are in both MTS1 and 2. You draw you own conclusion.

Yes, it must be something sinister. Could not possibly be the result of the Lab not hiring much in recent years.
5/03/2010 7:30 AM
Anonymous said…
Information can be had using the 'California Public Records Act'. It can also be used to get other information that might make management squirm. For those who are advised to "Shut up and obey the rules!", not in this country, you have a constitutional right to question, whether someone likes it, or not. Of course, if you are in the military, you might want to think about it a bit!
6/24/2010 8:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more