Thursday, January 8, 2015
Career FTE attractiveness to LLNS Programs with a high percentage of Akima (subcontractor) employees.
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
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.
I am noticing all the talent is leaving. Everytime I turn around someone great has left.
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.
"..,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.
Post a Comment