"Why doesn't SPSE-UPTE produce a comprehensive summary of their contributions to Lab employees including non-members, instead of allowing themselves to be marginalized, stigmatized, and deemed obsolete and irrelevant?"
Lab Senior Management may publicly claim to welcome SPSE-UPTE involvement in one forum or another, but privately I suspect SPSE-UPTE is viewed as problematic, being impediments to Management and Staff Relations by challenging departures from policies (employment practices) and eroding employment conditions.
By not reminding lab employees of their accomplishments in a manner that demonstrates broad relevance to all lab employees, SPSE-UPTE open themselves up to be characterized as on the fringe, with little modern day relevance in the workplace or only of value to a small subset of employees. If they want to grow as an organization, they need to provide clear and concise unequivocal examples of their value added and relevance over the last ~10 years to a wide pool of lab employees.
7 comments:
Why would they do that? I am sure it's hard enough to justify the unions existence and accomplishments to their current membership. Can you imagine trying do that to the entire lab as you are suggesting.
Why would they do that?
March 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM
Exactly. If they could, they would.
"...Exactly. If they could, they would..."
I think they easily could, but if not done VERY carefully and basically watered down, it would royally upset Staff Relations and SPSE-UPTE still has to work with them in the aftermath of such disclosures. It is a catch 22 for SPSE-UPTE.
March 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM
Nice try, but your before-the-fact excusing of non-reply by the union is laughable. If they had a record of success it would be public. They don't, and it isn't! They can't publicize their successes because they might piss off the people they had success against??? HaHaHaHaHaHa!!! What a bunch of jerks!
Yep, those courageous union fighters will all be on your side, you downtrodden employees! Give them your dues money now!
"...Nice try, but your before-the-fact excusing of non-reply by the union is laughable. If they had a record of success it would be public. They don't, and it isn't! They can't publicize their successes because they might piss off the people they had success against??? HaHaHaHaHaHa!!! What a bunch of jerks!..."
You are unaware of LLNS Staff Relations non-disclosure agreements? Observe all, consider, then comment.
If the union signs such agreements, it obviates any benefits it claims to achieve for members. So much for openness and transparency.
"...If the union signs such agreements, it obviates any benefits it claims to achieve for members. So much for openness and transparency..."
It is not that simple. In all likelihood, it is an employee, independent of who may have assisted them, that Staff Relations will force to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
NDAs are often constructed with "no fault" language. The NDA benefit to the employee is closure (hopefully) to an event or set of events at LLNL or LANL. The employee may not want his or her ordeal publicly known, and will have the expectation of "good faith" efforts on the part of the employer to be true to the terms of the NDA.
Staff Relations may not want the terms of a NDA made public because they could demonstrate a trend of reputation damaging employment practices including "repeat offenders" or create a wave of similarly situated employees seeking comparable outcomes.
I would imagine NDA or not, employees that signed NDAs could be compelled to testify in a court proceeding against the Lab (?). A question best answered by an employment attorney.
Post a Comment