This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Another Case of Whistleblower Retaliation: This Time at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
La Jicarita-An Online Magazine of Environmental Politics in New Mexico
"Another Case of Whistleblower Retaliation: This Time at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory"
There is a simple conflict that Moniz must resolve. On the one hand, in all three cases where Rivera was between funded assignments on the EBA overhead account he tried to work a program funded issue on an between assigment overhead account. Using overhead accounts to fund programs is prohibited by Congress. It is a form of moving funds from one congressional authotization to another, and can be abused. Therefore it is forbidden by law. His EBA manager was correct in demanding he stop for to continue broke a law. The percieved safety issue, once reported to the program is the Program managers to resolve.
His complaint that a replacement was not in his opinion qualified, is matter of dispute. The hiring manager and responsible individual disagreed.
So we see very effective and well stated safety and work authorization procedures being followed by all, imcluding Rivera, perhaps peckishly.
What Moniz must decide is whether the safety issues Rivera , a senior technician, continued to raise cocerns in the face opposition of other reviewers, more experienced engineers, who better educated and experienced subject matter experts. Or were the congression law considerations, misappropriation of public funds by an unauthorized individual more important.
Either way Moniz decides this issue, the LLNL safe work authorization process works well.
By the way, a more accurate title would be allegations of whistleblower retaliation...the summary presents no fact prima facia that his dismisal was unusual.
Remember his narrow subject matter expertise relative to available etech positions lead his to be between assignments, like many other techs, for a number of periods over those periods of low funding. That he, along with 1700 very qualified and long-serving LLNL employees were released as a direct result of the increased costs of administering LLNL after the NNSA contact rebid blunders of 2007 and 2008 is not evidence of being fired for whistleblowing. Too many others like him were frogmarched out of LLNL on that shameful day.
Not sure what Moniz will do, but we wish him well. He did what he thought was right.
Hmm. Within minutes of this new topic being posted, someone sensitive to the outcome of this DOE whistleblower case has a response "in the holster". Interesting.
Within minutes of this new topic being posted, someone sensitive to the outcome of this DOE whistleblower case has a response "in the holster". Interesting.
October 12, 2015 at 6:05 PM
So you think this blog is the only venue where these things get aired? Parochial.
So this guy promotes diversity equality at LLNL, and LLNS Staff Relations leadership comprised of women and minorities, throw this guy "under the bus"? Sad.
The main reason Rivera and many others at LLNL were terminated was that programs had less money due to new high overheads due to contact 44 changes. Also higher personnel cost burdens made employees more expensive.
BOTH OF THESE COST INCREASES OCCURED BECAUSE, IN SPITE OF BEING EXPLICITLY WARNED OF MUCH HIGHER COSTS, TRULY INCOMPETENT NNSA FOOLS WENT FORWARD WITH THE LLNL CONTACT REBID IN SPITE OF MASSIVE UNREIMBURSED ($150M) COSTS AT LANL DUE TO THE CONTACT REBID THERE.
NNSA stpidly plodded onward in face of sure knowledge of their error, costing Rivera and 1700 others their emploment...
..WHILE COSTS TO THE TAXPAYER, 1.5B, REMAINED THE SAME. 30% LESS WORK AND NO COST SAVINGS.
Bodner, d'Agostino and Pryzbylek are among THE worst, most incompetent employees ever to mismanage government processes. I wish for each a painful, restless, quick, unhappy demise.
Did you think that your shouting (in caps) would enhance your credibility? Nope. Try some more respect and civility when you post. But I guess as one who hopes for others "a painful, restless, quick, unhappy demise," you will not follow my advice. So much hate, so little perspective or knowledge or understanding. Well, luckily no one listens to people like you.
When "both sides of the story" were tabled in a balanced and transparent forum, Mr. Rivera's CA Appeals Judge ruled:
"...The employer has not sustained its burden to show that the claimant's conduct was willful or wanton under the circumstances and therefore has not shown misconduct. Accordingly, the employer discharged the claimant for reasons other than misconduct..."
It would seem after hearing testimony and case document analysis, the LLNS "for cause" dismissal allegation based on "poor performance" and "poor conduct" did not hold water with the Judge. The "under the circumstances" suggests LLNS did not apply its set of employment policies correctly or consistently in some manner, or the policies referenced by LLNS were irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Does this open the window for a FMLA violation complaint to the Department of Labor on top of Mr. Rivera's DOE complaint?
12 comments:
There is a simple conflict that Moniz must resolve. On the one hand, in all three cases where Rivera was between funded assignments on the EBA overhead account he tried to work a program funded issue on an between assigment overhead account. Using overhead accounts to fund programs is prohibited by Congress. It is a form of moving funds from one congressional authotization to another, and can be abused. Therefore it is forbidden by law. His EBA manager was correct in demanding he stop for to continue broke a law. The percieved safety issue, once reported to the program is the Program managers to resolve.
His complaint that a replacement was not in his opinion qualified, is matter of dispute. The hiring manager and responsible individual disagreed.
So we see very effective and well stated safety and work authorization procedures being followed by all, imcluding Rivera, perhaps peckishly.
What Moniz must decide is whether the safety issues Rivera , a senior technician, continued to raise cocerns in the face opposition of other reviewers, more experienced engineers, who better educated and experienced subject matter experts. Or were the congression law considerations, misappropriation of public funds by an unauthorized individual more important.
Either way Moniz decides this issue, the LLNL safe work authorization process works well.
Sorry for the typos, the three line text editor interface with an android phone makes editting difficult.
By the way, a more accurate title would be allegations of whistleblower retaliation...the summary presents no fact prima facia that his dismisal was unusual.
Remember his narrow subject matter expertise relative to available etech positions lead his to be between assignments, like many other techs, for a number of periods over those periods of low funding. That he, along with 1700 very qualified and long-serving LLNL employees were released as a direct result of the increased costs of administering LLNL after the NNSA contact rebid blunders of 2007 and 2008 is not evidence of being fired for whistleblowing. Too many others like him were frogmarched out of LLNL on that shameful day.
Not sure what Moniz will do, but we wish him well. He did what he thought was right.
Hmm. Within minutes of this new topic being posted, someone sensitive to the outcome of this DOE whistleblower case has a response "in the holster". Interesting.
Within minutes of this new topic being posted, someone sensitive to the outcome of this DOE whistleblower case has a response "in the holster". Interesting.
October 12, 2015 at 6:05 PM
So you think this blog is the only venue where these things get aired? Parochial.
So this guy promotes diversity equality at LLNL, and LLNS Staff Relations leadership comprised of women and minorities, throw this guy "under the bus"? Sad.
The main reason Rivera and many others at LLNL were terminated was that programs had less money due to new high overheads due to contact 44 changes. Also higher personnel cost burdens made employees more expensive.
BOTH OF THESE COST INCREASES OCCURED BECAUSE, IN SPITE OF BEING EXPLICITLY WARNED OF MUCH HIGHER COSTS, TRULY INCOMPETENT NNSA FOOLS WENT FORWARD WITH THE LLNL CONTACT REBID IN SPITE OF MASSIVE UNREIMBURSED ($150M) COSTS AT LANL DUE TO THE CONTACT REBID THERE.
NNSA stpidly plodded onward in face of sure knowledge of their error, costing Rivera and 1700 others their emploment...
..WHILE COSTS TO THE TAXPAYER, 1.5B, REMAINED THE SAME. 30% LESS WORK AND NO COST SAVINGS.
Bodner, d'Agostino and Pryzbylek are among
THE worst, most incompetent employees ever to mismanage government processes. I wish for each a painful, restless, quick, unhappy demise.
Gentlemen know that your legacy is that you are HATED bybthe 20,000 employees you lead.
Nero is your memory.
October 12, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Did you think that your shouting (in caps) would enhance your credibility? Nope. Try some more respect and civility when you post. But I guess as one who hopes for others "a painful, restless, quick, unhappy demise," you will not follow my advice. So much hate, so little perspective or knowledge or understanding. Well, luckily no one listens to people like you.
There are multiple sides to every story, we've heard one in the link but what are the others? I'm disinclined to pass judgement.
When "both sides of the story" were tabled in a balanced and transparent forum, Mr. Rivera's CA Appeals Judge ruled:
"...The employer has not sustained its burden to show that the claimant's conduct was willful or wanton under the circumstances and therefore has not shown misconduct. Accordingly, the employer discharged the claimant for reasons other than misconduct..."
It would seem after hearing testimony and case document analysis, the LLNS "for cause" dismissal allegation based on "poor performance" and "poor conduct" did not hold water with the Judge. The "under the circumstances" suggests LLNS did not apply its set of employment policies correctly or consistently in some manner, or the policies referenced by LLNS were irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Does this open the window for a FMLA violation complaint to the Department of Labor on top of Mr. Rivera's DOE complaint?
You did not experience Pryzbylek. The end suits the means.
Post a Comment