How do Bob (retired) and Jennifer compare in their Staff Relations roles in terms of people skills, emotional intelligence, situational empathy, objectively, and ability to work with LLNS employees in good faith?
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
“...No records found, as LLNL stated that Staff Relations did not provide records to NNSA related to the Performance Evaluation Report..."
LLNS Staff Relations "objectivity", "working in good faith", or any other desirable performance metric are not on the NNSA oversight evaluation radar. So there's that.
What kind of oversight entity allows the evaluated to provide records at their discretion? Answer: An entity that is less an active evaluator and more of a passive transcriber.
January 23, 2015 at 3:43 PM
It doesn't, at all. You expected some other answer? Who do you think is going to be horrified enough (and powerful enough) to do anything about it? NO ONE. Get a clue.
"...Faiulure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Failure modes effects analysis is a step-by-step approach for identifying all possible failures in a design, a manufacturing or assembly process, or a product or service..."
Experienced LANSLLNS employees conditioned to keep their heads down can lead to other WIPP like failures for fear of casting an opposing opinion on conceptual or modified designs or procedures.
Apparently, this risk is acceptable to senior LANSLLNS management, NNSA, DOE, the DOE IG. There is always ~$0.5 Billion for a clean up, it is just a matter of fund reallocation...
Independent of what LANSLLNS employees think or care about Staff Relations or its employee victims, they are learning the hard way of the institution wide blow back for disasters like WIPP, that are seemingly unrelated to their Lab careers and future job stability. Are you getting a clue now? Perhaps not.
January 24, 2015 at 3:45 PM
It has become very fashionable to call "bully" on everything that upsets you and to expect the world to be outraged. The current narrative is grade-school cry-baby nonsense. I remember when the correct parental response (the one I got) to being "bullied" was "get some guts and fight back, or you will always be bullied." I did and it stopped. Just like that. Or, you can run to Mommie.
Sorry, but your simple schoolyard bully solution can not be directly applied to the business practices of LLNS Staff Relations or any other abusive open loop LLNS manager. Why? Because the actions of Staff Relations and complicit managers are shielded from blow back by design. It is a game of monopoly where SR has complete control of the players, the rules, and the outcome. As a result, solving the problem "at the
lowest level possible" is not a viable employee option.
Yes an employee can "fight back" with an attorney, but this brings us full circle back to the 3:45pm "she is hurting the lab" comment.
I hope you are not suggesting that one after the other broadcast nationally via social media, employee lawsuits or complaints, are a net benefit to the reputation of LLNS or our ability to recruit and retain employees with other career options. This I believe is the essence of the "she is hurting the lab" comment.
No, not everything, and not the world, but there are interested employees, agencies, and communities. Your callous response over LLNS employee concerns is straight out of the "it is the victims fault/attack his or her credibility" playbook.
"Bullying" and "callousness" "outlawed"? This is your lucid deduction of the Staff Relations post comments? Doing the bong and blog routine are you, or just another take a comment to the extreme tactic in the attempt to discredit, or both?
I suspect though it is not particular words that you find unacceptable or "crybaby" like, that is just low hanging debate fruit. It is ANY criticism of Staff Relations and LLNS management which you find unpalatable. You are entitled to such a viewpoint, just be honest about it. No worries.
January 25, 2015 at 3:06 PM
No, just the words, because words suggest mind-set, and mind-set suggests mentality, as in victim mentality, which I find reprehensible. If you want to mount an adult, reasoned, forward, and aggressive fight against "Staff Relations and LLNS management" then go for it, but try to stop the whining part.
If the "whining" is disturbing to you, why not take the next step and navigate through a concrete example of such an "adult", "reasoned", "forward", and "aggressive fight"? One that is not reprehensible to you, but please be specific.
The topic here is:
"...Bob and Jennifer
How do Bob (retired) and Jennifer compare in their Staff Relations roles in terms of people skills, emotional intelligence, situational empathy, objectively, and ability to work with LLNS employees in good faith?..."
I am sorry this topic does not meet your blog topic expectations and that you find its comments to be childish and reprehensible.You may elect not to read the comments.
I'm sure there are a few senior managers at LANSLLNS that do not want their conduct publicly evaluated, just ask former LANL Deputy Director Beth Sellers. With your logic, any LANL contractor complaining about unfair bidding and "conflict of interest" are just "reprehensible" "crybabies". You may communicate such a viewpoint to the DOE IG if you wish, but I don't recommend it.