DOE "Whistleblower" Bias?
Does the DOE whistleblower "worker protection" program have a history of bias in support of the contractor?
"SENIOR DOE OFFICIAL WANTS PROBE INTO FIRING OF LOS ALAMOS DISSIDENT
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/16/senior-doe-official-wants-probe-into-firing-of-los-alamos-dissident.html
12 comments:
According to the year 2000 Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the DOE Whistleblower (worker protection) Program "zero tolerance" for retaliation at DOE facilities was a "false promise".
"...The relationship between DOE and its contractors is a close one. In many cases, the contractor receives full cooperation, strategic coordination from DOE to fight the whistleblowers..."
"...How can DOE be both the independent enforcer of zero tolerance and also a willing codefendant?..."
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg64767/pdf/CHRG-106hhrg64767.pdf
Whistleblowers are back-stabbing scum who "blow the whistle" to attack management and feather their own nest.
It's time to squash these lab whistleblowers like the roaches they truly are and make sure the rest of the employees take notice of what becomes of them. It will be an important "Lessons Learned".
"...The relationship between DOE and its contractors is a close one. In many cases, the contractor receives full cooperation, strategic coordination from DOE to fight the whistleblowers..."
"...How can DOE be both the independent enforcer of zero tolerance and also a willing codefendant?..."
From year 2000 forward, add the NNSA everywhere DOE is mentioned.
Predicated upon the Lab's past track record, the management toady's and sycophants still continue to rule! Whistleblowers - we will terminate employment, drag your reputation through the mud, pay for our legal representation and then, in some cases.....uhh, pay you off!
http://www.yubanet.com/california/U_C_Has_Failed_to_Reform_Livermore_Lab_Management__17247.php#.VE-21Bbzha4
Bias against whistleblowers? Nooo, say it ain't so... Today, whistleblowers need to be extra vigilant and only proceed after collecting MORE than enough evidence, with some extra surprises in your arsenal to counter any retaliatory action against you.
An LLNS employee being reviewed by the LLNS Dismissal Review Board (DRB) faces a number of challenges impacting the viability of the DOE "whistleblower" "worker protection" program:
1. Once the employee receives his "intent to dismiss" memorandum, his computer will be disabled, he must give up his LLNS badge, and he will be escorted out the gate.
2. As an employee on paid leave during the DRB phase, you are not allowed on site.
3. The DRB is proclaimed by Staff Relations to be an exclusive "tool of senior management".
4. During the "intent to dismiss" phase, the employee does not have access to case relevant material in his office or otherwise on site to provide the DRB.
5. The employee can not review the documentation considered by the DRB or refute its implications.
6. The employee can not review the testimony considered by the DRB or cross examine those witnesses.
7. If the DRB decides to dismiss the employee, the now former employee may use the LLNS Section H to file a complaint, but again will not be allowed on site or have access to their former office computer because, "... As you are no longer an employee, you do not have rights to any Laboratory's property, including the former government computer assigned to you..."
8. If you elect to file an internal section H complaint in response to the dismissal event, you will not be doing so in direct response to specific testimony or specific documentation evaluated by the DRB which led to the dismissal event.
9. If you elect to file DOE "whistleblower" "worker protection" complaint, you must demonstrate "causal links" (cause and effect) between your "protected disclosures" and subsequent retaliation against you, including your dismissal. Some of those "causal links" may very well be contained within the "tool for senior management" DRB process, are completely
unavailable to you. One or more of the unknown DRB members or unknown employees providing testimony against you in the DRB process, could be directly implicated by your DOE "protected disclosures", or have a defined managerial responsibility to have addressed them.
It must be a pure coincidence LLNS "tool of senior management" DRB process just so happens to circumvent DOE defined "worker protection" disclosure-retaliation "casual links" right? DOE was not aware of the LLNS secret DRB process or its implications to DOE defined worker protections? LLNS was unaware too?
The DOE and contractor "strategic coordination" and the DOE worker protection from retaliation "false promise" appear intact. The web link story in the topic is very interesting.
This top post is probably the most serious and significant issue that LANL and LLNL have seen in many years, yet it gets no interest on this blog which is apparently more interested in unions, Parney, and NIF. What a joke this blog is. Get a clue, people.
"...This top post is probably the most serious and significant issue that LANL and LLNL have seen in many years, yet it gets no interest on this blog...
Perhaps employees believe this problem has no direct impact to their careers or they can't bring themselves to believe LANSLLNS management could behave in this way, or that DOE/NNSA would respond as they have.
This top post is probably the most serious and significant issue that LANL and LLNL have seen in many years...
November 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM
Yes, and there is much more to this than meets the eye. The powers that be are either 1) waiting until they have all their ducks in a row, or 2) diligently sweeping everything under the rug.
"...Yes, and there is much more to this than meets the eye. The powers that be are either 1) waiting until they have all their ducks in a row, or 2) diligently sweeping everything under the rug..."
Apparently, the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security was not amused by the DOE/NNSA/Contractor "ducks in row" formation against the LANS employee.
The IG should not let them sweep resolutions informal or formal "under the rug". To do so would encourage or enable the same contractor conduct going forward.
The "ducks in a row" comment was intended to imply that once all evidence is in and confirmed, there will be firings, possibly criminal charges, and maybe even contract implications. Maybe even some people who hoped to escape culpability by removing themselves will be held to account.
Post a Comment