Shame on LLNS, LLNL, & Parney for not having the gumption to tell supervisors & bosses, in public forum (or in the Q&A), to leave the furloughed workers alone during their non scheduled work hours.
It is absolutely inappropriate (and illegal)to cut peoples salary via furloughs, and then covet their time off for free.
Don't do furloughs if you can't afford the work reductions too. Don't be ambiguous. If you want employee personal time off, then pay for the overtime. If you don't want to pay overtime - tough luck (that was why they were salaried to begin with).
You should be ashamed. Nothing is wrong with profit, but nothing is wrong with being human and caring for others either. It's called employee relations - you're supposed to build on this as a company.
This will without a doubt hurt your employees and their families. The least you can do is leave them alone once you've visited this harm upon them.
Comments
February 5, 2013 at 6:53 PM
Actually, that would be far more humane, far better for the organization, and much cleaner and less stressful for the workers. Just be done with the number of RIFs required to solve the problem, and go on. This endless debate and stressing about furloughs, overtime, and other extraneous crap. As long as the RIFs are based solely on performance, and as long as legally-required notice is given, it would be the best for all concerned.
Huh?
The Q&A explicitly said that workers could not come to site on their furloughed days.
Project managers will have to articulate what scope is foregone, or at least delayed, while work proceeds at a reduced pace.
If anyone is thinking, the last thing the Lab wants is to have a furlough and then produce all deliverables as if nothing happened. Then the cuts will be permanent.
These hours are lost to deliverables. The customer understands, 'cause its Congress's management of the sequestration that gave the marching orders.
Olly Olly Oxen Free!
And most certainly would not be around during unpaid time.
It's no longer worth it. I'm turning in my famous "Shoes that GRIP!" for a better pair.
The lawsuit here could be to ensure that all Exempt employees subject to the furlough are recategorized as non-Exempt, unless the management is able to do a tightrope walk and is able to somehow set up a scheme where it can keep furloughed people as Exempt within the bounds of existing laws. I am not an employment law specialist but maybe someone out there has more clear insights on the impacts to your work based on current law.
Either they should put limits onto how much time is put into LDRD (while also providing a charge code),
Limit LDRD proposals to only Exempt employees NOT subject to the furlough (i.e., protected),
Suspend LDRD altogether during a furlough.
Centralize LDRD decision making and funding allocation to management with minimal input (one pagers proposals, title, PI, budget)
Minimal LDRD reviews and presentations (time = money)
That begs another question regarding how you handle travel for non-Exempt employees. The trip to the airport and such, must time spent in transit be compensated as well?
It's no longer worth it. I'm turning in my famous "Shoes that GRIP!" for a better pair.
February 6, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Apparently you're the only one on this blog with any sense. Good luck!
I think I may start applying at SNL, their management seems much more competent. I have not heard of layoffs or furloughs over there, seems like they have thought this out and have positioned the staff in a better position for sequestration. Not too mention engineers are more appreciated across the street. On the other hand their contract is going up for rebid too, so that is some uncertainty.
Why not just fire the scientists, that would save a lot more money.
February 6, 2013 at 6:44 PM
and it certainly wouldn't hurt the scientific output.
February 6, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Sorry to have to tell you this, 5:43 PM, but last I heard Lockheed had decided to join with "The Borg" (aka Bechtel) for the next bid at SNL. If you think you can run away from your current lab's problems by simply jumping ship to SNL, think again.
The miasma that emanates from Bechtel will soon be overtaking every last nook & cranny in the NNSA empire! Their stench is overpowering.
February 6, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Sorry to have to tell you this, 5:43 PM, but last I heard Lockheed had decided to join with "The Borg" (aka Bechtel) for the next bid at SNL. If you think you can run away from your current lab's problems by simply jumping ship to SNL, think again.
The miasma that emanates from Bechtel will soon be overtaking every last nook & cranny in the NNSA empire! Their stench is overpowering.
February 6, 2013 at 10:28 PM
One thing I'll give Sandia is that they have actual job openings. On the other hand, LANL has stagnated to the point that they virtually have no job openings, the LISC has literally "increased the viscocity" per McMillan's words, to the point LANL needs a laxative.
"The LLC approaches are all destined to fail badly because the parent companies as part of the LLC partnerships have no vested interest other than the short term fees they collect, to maintain a healthy and viable organization for the long run. Parent companies for the LLCs are removed from liability for negligence and poor governance by the LLC."
Exactly.
That's the root cause of pretty much every complaint on this blog.
February 7, 2013 at 5:34 PM
The sad part is that's really all there is on this blog. So many people with nothing positive in their lives.
Gentlemen
I contend that the problem with the labs is the workforce. They feel they are owed something, that they are special, and have a bad outlooks. A good approach is take the science out of the labs and leave that to be contracted out to Universities at much lower rates.
We should than have a new technical workforce but not a scientific workforce. The technical workforce will have the know how to deal with the lab needs but will not have the baggage that goes along with the scientific outlook. Another thing will to be create a new degree program at local Universities which would consist of a bs and ms, done in conjunction with the labs. This will reduce Phds get workers with the right skills, and get workers with the right expectations on lab work rather than the scientific work that students usually get at Phd training. Although this would cost some money on the short it will save a more money on the long run and will get a proper workforce. It is a win for the labs, the costumers, NNSA, and LLCs. Lets do this people.
This is just idiotic. Purging the science out of the main national security labs will do more damage to long-term national security than almost anything else.
We should than have a new technical workforce but not a scientific workforce.
Nice. How about this for the new motto: "The world's worst science protecting America".
Most of the research staff left in this "pure science" institution would have no idea (or ability) to bring in outside funding to feed their research quests and the expensive equipment it would required. This ethereal "science lab" would quickly die.
February 9, 2013 at 2:18 AM"
The bottom 25% are going to be the last that go. The top people get fed up and leave. The bottom 25% are the ones that management loves so much. They do not complain, they follow rules, they do not have this I am special point of view. What you claim is the bottom 25% is in many ways the top 25% and they are exactly who should be kept. The labs would have fewer problems if we only kept these people. The point is something is just not working at the labs. One point of view is that we simply have the wrong workforce for the job. Clean up the workforce and there will be no more complaints. The idea of science lab may be one of the root problems. We are not science labs but rather capability labs. As such Phd may be too specialized to jump from capability to capability so maybe just some bs, ms or less might be the best thing. Some people with on the job training that see no problem with jumping around different capabilities and working in teams.
This whole notion of capabilities is just more management speak, but has nothing to do with a science lab.
At one point LANL was actually LASL, but I guess most people have forgotten that.
Can amend the statement and say "take the bad or mediocre science out of the NNSA Labs." There are many good points here. If you were to cut out the bottom X% of the PhDs, output of high quality work would not change much. Averaged over the labs I would say that X = 25% or so. That would reduce costs by alot.
February 9, 2013 at 2:18 AM"
The bottom 25% are going to be the last that go. The top people get fed up and leave. The bottom 25% are the ones that management loves so much. They do not complain, they follow rules, they do not have this I am special point of view. What you claim is the bottom 25% is in many ways the top 25% and they are exactly who should be kept. The labs would have fewer problems if we only kept these people. The point is something is just not working at the labs. One point of view is that we simply have the wrong workforce for the job. Clean up the workforce and there will be no more complaints. The idea of science lab may be one of the root problems. We are not science labs but rather capability labs. As such Phd may be too specialized to jump from capability to capability so maybe just some bs, ms or less might be the best thing. Some people with on the job training that see no problem with jumping around different capabilities and working in teams."
Wow I am glad you are not running a company. You constantly talk about not complaining, The real question is productivity and effectiveness. Complaining means there is a problem. Getting rid of the people who care and have integrity is your solution, just keep the followers. Really. That sounds like the communist party.
February 9, 2013 at 7:17 AM"
Perhaps it never occurred to you people that the problem is you. The labs have had problem after problem, the questions is why. Nanos said to the workforce that do not get it, and this is and always has been the problem, you do not get it. You have a job to do, so do it. This is not a playground for Phds. Such playgrounds are at universities that create that kind of attitude that we do not need. Someone said something about GOOGLE. Their workers get it, they do not complain and they do their jobs. It is time to "get it".
Times are changing and things are failing. Perhaps a rapid change is needed to save eveyone's jobs or should be just let it fail.
By the way, people at google, apple, and yahoo do listen to their workers and encourage open thought.
February 10, 2013 at 6:22 PM
Yes, Comrade! All praise to the Worker's Paradise! The only thing holding you back is that the workers are not sheep! Oh..wait...
At Los Alamos, the word "science" is being purged. We are now a capabilities lab, an applied lab, a materials lab, a national security lab, and energy lab, a green lab, but never a science lab. The definition depends on the the manager who is saying it, which of course means there is no real definition. You can call it what you want but one thing should always be at the bottom line and that is excellence. The different definitions are bandied about usually to justify mediocrity. When called on this the reply is that mediocrity and excellence are all in the eye of the beholder so they have no value. What might be seen as mediocre to you or other managers could be seen as excellence to a specific manager and there is no way to distinguish. Seems rather odd. The place has really changed over the last 20 yrs. In my perception it has gotten much worse and is losing value to the nation. But my perception is no better or worse than any other perception who may claim things are much better.
February 10, 2013 at 9:44 PM"
The commie nonsense needs to stop. The fact is the lab has thankfully embraced the full capitalist systems. In such a system we will sink or swim based on our sales to our costumers. It is true that most business fail and we should not be an exception to the rule. The marketplace will work this out in end as it should be.
The models where workers put in their input at Google and Yahoo may work on their market conditions but the labs are different, so such a comparison is pointless. Again you people need to get it. You have a job to do, do your job and thats it.
I get it. The Bechtel mindset in spades!
If you got cancer, you can either (a) do something and get it treated and you can (b) complain incessantly about how you got the short end of the stick. So yeah, stop whining and do something productive and meaningful about it. You only have yourself to blame if you don't treat your illness and things go for the worse.
On the other hand, I bet that the idiots who'd like to take science out of National Labs don't complain even when their manager sexually assaults his subordinate. They may well be the future. LANS: Delivering obedience and compliance for the sake of the Nation. ^TM
Was that "golden" as in "shower"?
February 11, 2013 at 3:24 PM:
You are obviously oblivious to my sarcasm. What a thick-skull! Do you ever, ever, ever, pause to consider that what you say is absolute nonsense and just intellectual garbage? Oh, I know, intellect is the enemy.
I know pension discussions, like those of Tomas, are unrelated to your furlough panic. Even though pension drain is a longer term issue, you should pay attention to things like this, and even understand who Tomas is and what he did to the lab. Just sayin. How could labbies not know who he is? This is a LLNL forum after all.
February 13, 2013 at 6:12 PM
They're not "trollers" dimwit. No one is fishing here. Look up "troll" (the noun). Try to keep up.
Please use proper gramnmer and spelling when you post. Your trolling is not catching and fish because this is a blog not a lake. It does anoy me to know end when people dont use proper grammer. I am very anoyed at my own post so you cant say I am a hypocrate.
Thank you, Dr. Phil. Your learned discourse on the pathological psychology of people who desire proper use of language is most illuminating. Of course anyone who criticizes anyone else should be hung at dawn. Except you, of course, to whom no rules apply.
February 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Huh??