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
I think it's always important to look at the changes as they're announced. And discussion of the impact of those changes in this blog is occasionally helpful; blog readers have an exceptional talent for figuring out the worst-case reasons for the changes!
I mean, what's wrong with Human Resources Management or just Human Resources? They have to lard up the title with "Strategic"?
What gives?
1. Are they managing resources for strategic humans, but not the rest of us?
2. Are they managing just the strategic human resources, and not the rest of us tactical human resources?
3. Are they strategically managing all human resources?
I'm so confused!!!!
long term and careful management
of human resources
An observed LLNS SHRM role is:
an organization pushing new policies and
ignoring existing ones in a subservient capacity
for LLNS corporate at the expense of the
"worker bee" employee population
It should be abolished.
The former UC employees now in human resources should return to a reformed LLNS personnel office under an experienced manager who worked under UC policies. Employees who were hired afterward, under LLNS, especially Lynn Soderstrom, should be shown the door.
LLNS personel policy implementation are a strong source of current employee dissatisfaction. Bill can fix this with a stroke of the pen.
"...Any evidence of such a change so far?..."
Cricket, cricket...
LLNS SHRM and Staff Relations have hand in hand complicity in the areas mentioned. The question is what will the Director do to address this? Will he show leadership, or will he just be another "its my turn" Director?
It is unlikely the Director will make any material changes to SHRM or Staff Relations, low morale or not. LLNS corporate would have fought hard to prevent a political "Trojan Horse" from entering the scene and upsetting their favorable current arrangement.
It's time for your nap, Linus.
Like someday giving you a well deserved and long awaited pat on the head Peppermint Patty?
Yes. SHRM is the football and Lucy praises the value of SHRM until you actually attempt to use it, then it is pulled.
Does anybody else find this a conflict of interest? They hire a 3rd party to do these reviews, but doesn't it make sense that the 3rd party would want to make SHRM happy so they can get the contract again next year?
Correct!
Ultimately, it is LLNS's job to pay it workers as little as possible (not because they're mean, it's just business). Every LLNS employee who works on establishing the salary package does well by making the package smaller. The ONLY feedback on this is the resulting actual size and quality of the staff, which is affected by salaries, market conditions, and quality-of-life issues. That's why it is so important for people who are acutely unhappy to leave LLNS; it provides the feedback to help keep the system "reasonable" for those who remain (for whatever reason).
And, by the way, complaining doesn't help very much, because the decision makers have to back up what they do with actual demonstrable facts. Saying "our attrition rate is up and we have to do something about it" carries a lot more weight than "our employee survey indicates that our staff is less happy than they used to" (to which they could respond: "tough, we're sill meeting all our requirements").
Hmm. Encourage others to leave LLNS to cultivate a "reasonable" compensation package for the rest of us.
What a strategic plan this is.
And if employees don't leave in adequate numbers then what? You offer them a gift card for "Hooters" if they change their mind before the next compensation package is finalized?