If the rumors of a FY14 RIF are true,
What about a no excuse - no exclusion (from bottom to AD level) "last hired first fired" policy?
Might be tough but if we didn't need you last month, you can't be that critical this month.
Not being a hater, but what's the fair way. Current criteria are too vague and open to manipulation.
What about a no excuse - no exclusion (from bottom to AD level) "last hired first fired" policy?
Might be tough but if we didn't need you last month, you can't be that critical this month.
Not being a hater, but what's the fair way. Current criteria are too vague and open to manipulation.
Comments
If you want to reduce head count sweeten the buyout...or have an involuntary and let the attorneys feast on the inevitable mistakes that will be made during the process.
Get rid of the poorest performers in management first. They're the highest paid and are often paid out of the bloated overhead rates that tax programs, so each reduction there will make a bigger contribution to the needed reductions.
Then get rid of the poorest performing workers in order of highest paid to lower paid until reaching the target.
Then prepare for LLNL's funeral, because there won't be any morale left, or sufficient workers left, to get the work done and cover the remaining bloated overhead.
We are not a union. If someone was just hired they where brought in because there is money and a need, well at least that is usually the case. I am not against Unions but this kind of policy is a bad idea in general.
By the way what makes you think there will be a FY14 RIF?
The EIT and EBA guidelines and identified management support structure are largely designed for 30,000 ft. NNSA consumption. "Load test" these purported employment oriented guidelines and find out for yourself. Caution, to do so as an individual, may simply speed up your conveyor belt to unemployment status.
If lay offs do occur in FY14, it will not be based on "skills mix" need, but LLNS will use this as justification. Most programmatic assignments over the last ~12 months have been acquired under the radar (not posted) for buddies or for unspoken allegiance to the work division.
Don't believe it is true? Ask your friends in DTED how the entire division was instructed to fill any and all new assignments. Protect DTED employees first and to hell with the actual programmatic SKAs needed to successfully do a job. Don't bother to look for the memo. This was a structured top-down word of mouth communication.
Bottom line: if you don't have an assignment (chair) "when the music stops", good luck. You are on your own.
LLNS will continue to "Etch A Sketch" retroactive employment policy faster than you can say breach of contract or failure of good faith interactions.
If your boss does not like you for whatever reasons, watch out. You can be dismissed based on lack of skills or lack of funding. All their buddies would be safe and fully employed. But for you, they can make all kind of excuses and reasons why you are not a good fit.
The only recourse is to find the best lawyer to represent you when it happens!
If you voted for him you will get what you deserve (and shame on you for our country being run down).
Look at Detroit....that is all Democrats and Unions working together to destroy a great city.
Romney could be President (and Meg Governor) and all of our families would be working by now.
With back to back pay freezes, perpetual FY__ budget uncertainty, and the "us vs. them" earned climate, how far away is the employee exodus tipping point? Probably just one more botched involuntary RIF away.
With retention lost, LLNL will become a temporary career "stop over" for young new hires. A paragraph added to the resume before moving on to "greener employment pastures".
August 19, 2013 at 4:15 PM"
Maybe it would be bit better with Meg. Mittens would be about the same. Of course if you wanted real change we could have had Ron Paul but then again wanted to get rid of the DOE.
It is a shame and a sham.
Our great veterans gave their blood for this country and in return we get a Chicago state senator who gave four speeches on the merits of letting an abortionist have his way with a baby born on the table.
The same pigs will vote Hillary in also and then it is time to head for the hills my friends.
I feel like Charlton Heston in the movie Planet of the Apes.
When he is on the ground and a monkey is on the horse looking down on him and talking.
In other words my friends
our country is upside down.
Our budget at our beloved Laboratory may be the least of our worries in the next few years with Liberals collapsing our once great country.
A better answer might be to live with blinders on (as your comment suggests you might be doing)
and pretend everything is just fine.
Good luck with that as you pull the handle for Hillary.
1. Much FY 2014 budget uncertainty
2. SSVSP announced
3. If 300-400 LLNS employees (600 max) take SSVSP, it
would reduce the probability of an involuntary lay off in
FY 2014
August 2013 "all hands":
1. Much FY 2014 budget uncertainty
2. 400 employees took the SSVSP
3. Probability of an involuntary lay off in FY 2014 not
discussed...
Explanation of why lab didn't pay $88m in to pension as they had promised in a previous all-hands. (lobbyists got a change in the pension pay-in formula snuck into the MAP21 transportation bill), so lab no longer "legally" had to do it.
Employees, however, had to go to a 7% pension pay-in because we need to maintain "substantial equivalence" with UC pension.
(No mention that that is an apples and oranges comparison, because the UC employee pension pay-in is pre-tax and LLNL is post-tax.)
Mention that UC is going to 8% employee pay-in July 2014.
LLNS Defined Benefit Plan Contribution Briefing
May 2 & 3 2012
Slide 26: "Will employer contributions increase?
LLNS will be requesting DOE approval to increase employer contributions to $88 million"
I suspect if Parney would have put the $88+ million into TCP-1 instead of spending it on his pet project NIF, you people wouldn't have had to contribute a dime to stay afloat. Any good lawyer should be able to acquire this information for you folks.
I suspect if Parney would have put the $88+ million into TCP-1 instead of spending it on his pet project NIF, you people wouldn't have had to contribute a dime to stay afloat. Any good lawyer should be able to acquire this information for you folks and make it public.
LLNS knew it was their responsibility when they bid for the contract.
Where is the fact that "DOE guarantees the pension" spelled out in writing?
I asked this direct question and HR ducked it, then said something about PBGC, and then ignored. So, based on that exchange, I don't have a good feeling. I'd like to see something in writing. Before, the state stood behind our pension via UC.
This is a good indication of what will happen to dollars from the current overhead increase.