LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
Comments
Not that they don't deserve it. They handled the RIF in a very crude, ruthless and biased manner. Too bad that Bechtel won't have to pay a dime of the reward, though. It won't even take a single bite out of their annual lab management profit fees.
What shocks me is that this has not landed into the media ? This is a landmark case. Age discrimination is on the rise and if they win, it could change the ways people treat layoffs. It is interesting that they are not settling. RIFs are ruthless, everywhere. Your employer does not have to care about you, but it is a sign of the type of employer they are. Your choice is not to work for them.
The important folly is rather that the NNSA deliberately changed the lab's management contract knowing in advance that no new funds would arrive and therefore the $200M of well-documented yearly cost increases would need to come from firing employees.
Those F****rs; Brooks, Pryzbylek and Bodman knew that thousands needed to be fired to give NNSA ...."a little more management control".
I vote for justice. It is time for a impromptu lab historian to collect the facts, the stories and the pain, to publish the ongoing disaster.
- The lab appointed a "transition committee" one year prior to contract transition. The committee assured us that the new management would not have any significant changes that would adversely impact employees.
- Approximately 3 weeks prior to transition, GM held an all hands meeting telling all lab employees that "transition will be transparent"
- Approximately 2 weeks after transition, GM held an all hands meeting announcing major layoffs. GM stated a transition charge of 180M combined with an accounting error of 100M resulting in a 280M shortfall.
- The accounting error was never disclosed.
- The "transition committee" was never heard from again.
- During the arduous process, medical reported being "flooded" with people thinking that they were having coronary events due to stress and anxiety over the process.
These guys through the equivalent of a "bean ball" to some two thousand people that never knew they were standing at the plate!
"I vote for justice"
Me To!!!!!!!
October 28, 2012 9:32 AM
Just who the hell is "medical"???? Did people report to a laboratory entity if they thought they were having a heart attack? Or did they immediately call 911 in which case the lab would never know about it?
This sounds like a fact-free demagogue statement. How about some supporting facts from "medical"??
Medical is at the laboratory . . . a place where you obviously do not work . . Dork! . . . at least at the time of transition. If you did, then you would know that ES&H held an all hands specifically in attempt to lower peoples stress due to impeding layoffs. . . Whom are you!
Your thoughts on "transition committee"...
Your thoughts on GM: "transition will be transparent" . . .
Corporate jerk . . .
October 28, 2012 10:08 PM
Yep, that says it all. Do you know the difference between "who" and "whom"? Guess you didn't learn grammar in "Grammar School". Too bad you will always be a loser, economically, intellectually, and socially.