Skip to main content

RIF question

Image
By
It seems like there was some change in the RIF policy made in 2013 and right after this a number of people where let go and continue to be let go. Does anyone know the details of this? I seem to recall that it was discussed before and in the recent lawsuit mentioned on this blog by it says that the person was terminated a week after this change was put into place.

Comments

Anonymous said…
California WARN act says they can lay off less than 50 people per 30 day rolling period. The details are in the employee handbook, but it amounts to, they can do what they want. If your AD and Staff Relations agree that you are not going to find work as an EBA, you're out the gate. If you are a term employee, the bar is even lower.
1/05/2015 9:04 PM
Anonymous said…
If you are sent to the EBA list and your management does not like you, you are screwed. That happened to a lot of people over the last two years.
1/06/2015 7:31 AM
Anonymous said…
"... If your AD and Staff Relations agree that you are not going to find work as an EBA, you're out the gate..."

Sometimes before the employee is an EIT or EBA I would add. To make your observation float, may require varying levels of collusion within the AD's Management chain, Programs, Staff Relations, SHRM, and all the way to the Director himself. Staff Relations being the conductor of such an orchestra.
1/06/2015 7:47 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

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more