Skip to main content

Career FTE attractiveness to LLNS Programs with a high percentage of Akima (subcontractor) employees.

Image
By scooby



Historically (UC/LLNL days to late 2012) subcontractors were the explicitly identified buffer for career FTEs during mild to significant budget fluctuations, and subcontractor pay (Akima, etc.) was adjusted upward accordingly. 

Today everyone is "at will". Why would a career FTE with in demand SKAs elect to work in programs with a high percentage of Akima contractor workforce historically associated with large lay offs now?

A career FTE may have an EIT/EBA period before facing an "individual RIF", but why intentionally place oneself in such an unstable work environment referenced to historically stable programs at LLNL?

Through workforce policy changes, did LLNS Management opt for maximum on the spot keep/remove employee discretion in exchange for perceived program instability to current or prospective career FTEs? 

Comments

Anonymous said…
If there were supplemental labor policies and or employer to employee communications describing such a buffer for LLNS career FTEs, and the policy or understanding was subsequently violated, it would be grounds for a "breach of contract" and "failure of implied covenant and fair dealing". Any manager or party with related workforce responsibilities to such an act, could be legally liable for breach of contract.
1/08/2015 7:46 PM
Anonymous said…
I am noticing all the talent is leaving. Everytime I turn around someone great has left.
1/09/2015 6:47 AM
Anonymous said…
Today everyone is "at will". Why would a career FTE with in demand SKAs elect to work in programs with a high percentage of Akima contractor workforce historically associated with large lay offs now?

Given the Lab is tightening up policies that Akima workers must be under the direction of LLNL employees, accepting such a situation might create a faster path to a team leader role.

People perceive and experience risks in different way. Why I believe some people have stayed at Intel as "at will" employees for decades and decades. Imagine.

1/10/2015 6:12 PM
Anonymous said…
"..,Given the Lab is tightening up policies that Akima workers must be under the direction of LLNL employees, accepting such a situation might create a faster path to a team leader role..."

Yes LLNS assignments have risks and rewards.

Accepting such a role for its "team leader" experience (reward) is fine if the lay off/"at will" career FTE to Akima employment equivalency (risk) is disclosed to such an employee as a condition of employment for that specific assignment, and the career FTE accepts those terms which override existing employment supplemental labor policy.

In case some don't know, the contractor buffer to career FTEs written supplemental labor policy has been around for decades and is also communicated to new and prospective employees as a career FTE employee job stability feature or perk of employment at LLNL. The supplemental labor policy describes the purpose of supplemental labor in relation to career FTEs and in relation to short term and long mission objectives.

I agree there is value to being a team leader for a group of contract employees, but after the fact scratched on paper new lay off and "at will" employment policies that negatively impact career FTEs is a "bait and switch" breach of contract.

Just look before you leap into a LLNS program with a history of frequent swings in hiring and lay offs. Don't get overwhelmed with the allure of the program feast presentation because the famine can be just around the corner. If those risks are acceptable to you then go for it.
1/11/2015 9:45 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more