Soooo, we are considered DOE employees (according to this article) which lets them have the unique authority to freeze our salaries. Yet, nothing in my contract says I work for the DOE! It says I work for a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC).
This bogus "right" to freeze our pay makes no sense. Perhaps it is time to go the legal route and have this pay freeze declared illegal. Dr. Chu should be ashamed of himself for making this ill advised decision.
I guess this clause from the contract between LLNS and DOE/NNSA means nothing...
H-17 CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES In carrying out the work under this Contract, the Contractor [LLNS, LLC] shall be responsible for the employment of all professional, technical, skilled, and unskilled personnel engaged by the Contractor in the work hereunder, and for the training of personnel. Persons employed by the Contractor shall be and remain employees of the Contractor and shall not be deemed employees of the NNSA or the Government"
Persons employed by the Contractor shall be and remain employees of the Contractor and shall not be deemed employees of the NNSA or the Government"
This will come as a great surprise to you but......they're making it up as they go along....just like work control, safety rules....rules that contradict other rules!
You didn't really think there was any logical consistency to it did you?
It's very clear that DOE national ab employees are NOT hired or directly managed by the DOE/NNSA. In fact, in the case of some labs like PNNL, part of the work is charged at special low rates that have nothing to do with the DOE labor rates!
This DOE pay freeze policy on contractors is a SCAM!
It's time to get the lawyers and teach DOE a lesson in the rule of law.
Unlike a defense contractor, DOE assumes virtually all the risks for care and feeding of its laboratories and plants. Hence it has more direct impact on salaries. Just think of it as they approved a 0% SIP and it looks like they are totally within their contractual rights.
We are not DOE employees, but they do have the power to effect the aggregate funds the laboratories can expend on salaries. No fun, but haven't heard of any forced furloughs either.
We are not DOE employees, but they do have the power to effect the aggregate funds the laboratories can expend on salaries.
January 5, 2011 8:27 PM
Absolutely correct. All the whiners who claim "DOE can't do this" forget that DOE has to approve all salary increases, even though they come out of yearly lab operating funds, not any new allocation. DOE has simply said, in accordance with that process, that they won't approve any increases for two years. Totally legal and doesn't require us to be government employees, just notification of the decisions in advance. Suck it up.
And don't forget that DOE (NNSA), in theory, is obligated to cover any pension shortcomings (for TCP1, and TCP2 through the UC contract) as we have already established. So it makes sense that they would also have the authority to decline to authorize any future raises.
jan 7th 10:54 PM: WHat the .... are you talking about? what do you teapartyist have to do with the subject? I miss those days when this BLOG was moderated upstream.
14 comments:
Soooo, we are considered DOE employees (according to this article) which lets them have the unique authority to freeze our salaries. Yet, nothing in my contract says I work for the DOE! It says I work for a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC).
This bogus "right" to freeze our pay makes no sense. Perhaps it is time to go the legal route and have this pay freeze declared illegal. Dr. Chu should be ashamed of himself for making this ill advised decision.
So when do I get a federal pension for my 30 years at LLNL.
I guess this clause from the contract between LLNS and DOE/NNSA means nothing...
H-17 CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES
In carrying out the work under this Contract, the Contractor [LLNS, LLC] shall be responsible for the employment of all professional, technical, skilled, and unskilled personnel engaged by the Contractor in the work hereunder, and for the training of personnel. Persons employed by the Contractor shall be and remain employees of the Contractor and shall not be deemed employees of the NNSA or the Government"
Persons employed by the Contractor shall be and remain employees of the Contractor and shall not be deemed employees of the NNSA or the Government"
This will come as a great surprise to you but......they're making it up as they go along....just like work control, safety rules....rules that contradict other rules!
You didn't really think there was any logical consistency to it did you?
It's very clear that DOE national ab employees are NOT hired or directly managed by the DOE/NNSA. In fact, in the case of some labs like PNNL, part of the work is charged at special low rates that have nothing to do with the DOE labor rates!
This DOE pay freeze policy on contractors is a SCAM!
It's time to get the lawyers and teach DOE a lesson in the rule of law.
Assume you win, and they can't legally freeze pay. You think that will be the end of it? No, they will go to plan B.
And you all thought you worked in a GOCO environment. It is GOGO in all but name only.
Fools......
You really work for Bechtel... sorta, kinda.
But if DOE can illegally save a few bucks by claiming you work directly for them, they'll do it. Shameless crooks like to stick together.
Unlike a defense contractor, DOE assumes virtually all the risks for care and feeding of its laboratories and plants. Hence it has more direct impact on salaries. Just think of it as they approved a 0% SIP and it looks like they are totally within their contractual rights.
We are not DOE employees, but they do have the power to effect the aggregate funds the laboratories can expend on salaries. No fun, but haven't heard of any forced furloughs either.
We are not DOE employees, but they do have the power to effect the aggregate funds the laboratories can expend on salaries.
January 5, 2011 8:27 PM
Absolutely correct. All the whiners who claim "DOE can't do this" forget that DOE has to approve all salary increases, even though they come out of yearly lab operating funds, not any new allocation. DOE has simply said, in accordance with that process, that they won't approve any increases for two years. Totally legal and doesn't require us to be government employees, just notification of the decisions in advance. Suck it up.
And don't forget that DOE (NNSA), in theory, is obligated to cover any pension shortcomings (for TCP1, and TCP2 through the UC contract) as we have already established. So it makes sense that they would also have the authority to decline to authorize any future raises.
No government savings occur unless Lab programs return the merit funds from the operating budgets.
They are just spent on something else.
Vindictiveness or incompetence, not savings.
Some Teapartyist who reads this will make my heart swell when 2% is removed from Lab funds.
This comment would then cost about 1/2 of what the useless LLNS fee costs each year.
jan 7th 10:54 PM:
WHat the .... are you talking about? what do you teapartyist have to do with the subject? I miss those days when this BLOG was moderated upstream.
January 7, 2011 10:54 PM and January 8, 2011 12:31 PM are both juvenile and malicious. How about an adult thought?
Post a Comment