What happened to the elimination of the 500 series?
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...
Comments
If you are a 300 technical or 300 engineering associate, reporting to a 300 supervisor/superintendent, instead of a group leader/deputy division leader, it is most inappropriate and undermines the ERB exempt guidelines and distinctions for reclassification to 300 from 500.
"...I think that's an unreasonably pessimistic reading events. There has been no discussion about outsourcing all the tech jobs. In fact, there is usually considerable resistance to getting Akima techs. Justification for why it has to be Akima is required..."
I respectfully disagree. I know career EIT/EBAs pushed out of their of programmatic assignments while SKA comparable Akima assignments were left untouched, even when the SKA match was brought to the attention of the responsible "workforce manager".
LLNS EBA "Brokers" have directed or offered career FTE EBAs posted Akima job openings. Despite language to the contrary from SHRM, LLNS EBA "Brokers" have told EBAs they have no authority or weight with the programs or engineering divisions to suggest assignments be filled with suitably skilled EBAs.
The SHRM developed EBA "Broker" function is a construct for 20,000 ft. offsite observations of our good faith efforts to help EBAs find work. It is purely a defensive maneuver in preparation for EBA lay offs.
The bottom line is hiring all future 500 series employees through supplemental labor is consistent with the LLNS "at will" trend line and policy updates.
What percentage of recent lay offs were 500 series employees? Are 500 series employees the primary buffer to budget fluctuations?
I would not expect LLNS to provide advance notice of this decision for morale reasons that relate to reasonable employee career growth expectations and job stability.
"whispers in their ears" to not hire particular EITs or EBAs
will end up testifying under oath in court. Unless they are willing to risk perjury charges, and some senior LLNS managers already have, it should expose what has been going on at LLNS. It is unfortunate that it takes lawsuits or court room testimony to flush out these problems.
Even in the good old days 500 series were sometimes treated as a necessary but burdensome resource. No flames please, I was a 500 and lived and saw the class distinction between the professional and technical groups.
There is the adage why buy a cow when all you want is a quart of milk. It's a phrase that LLNS probably holds near and dear.
I think you are correct about the LLNS point of view on this. The problem arises with classified or proprietary
work and a constant rotation of supplemental labor from the outside, not to mention the Q clearance expenses if needed, and the perpetual "deliberate operations" mode.
Back in 2005, there was talk of keeping the science and engineering staff with UC, and outsourcing HR, Plant, Security, and other (not my words) non-core mission assignments.