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.
"In contrast, many self-assessments used flawed and inconsistent methodologies and overstated the openness of the environment.
DOE has infrequently used its enforcement authority to hold contractors accountable for unlawful retaliation, issuing two violation notices in the past 20 years.
DOE officials provided GAO with examples where (1) little or nothing was done in response to intimidation of contractor employees who report safety and other concerns; (2) a subcontractor was terminated after reporting safety concerns; and (3) a contractor employee was terminated allegedly because she cooperated with GAO. DOE’s reluctance to hold contractors accountable may diminish contractor employee confidence in mechanisms for raising concerns and seeking whistleblower protection."
"DOE's practice of referring and transferring contractor employee concerns back to the contractor potentially negates the benefit of having an ECP that is independent of the contractor."
"...a DOE contracting officer said that DOE manages the contractor, not its employees; therefore until a retaliation issue becomes a lawsuit DOE relies on the contractor to remedy the issue. However, this runs counter to DOE's Integrated Safety Management policy, which states that contractors will be held accountable for safety performance, to include fostering an environment free of retaliation."
Once a "retaliation issue" becomes a lawsuit, DOE bankrolls the contractor's litigation costs even when the contractor may have failed in the area of "safety performance" and failed to "foster an environment free of retaliation".
“Our problems are with the way [the Energy Department] allows the contractors basically to self-assess how open their environment is,” Diane LoFaro, the assistant team leader for the GAO’s investigation, told The Center for Public Integrity in an interview. “Our recommendation is that those assessments need to be independent. The contractor should not be assessing themselves. The DOE should be assessing the contractors’ cultures.”
"The problems run deeper than self-regulation, the report states. When contractor employees have brought concerns directly to the Energy Department, partly out of fear of retaliation by their bosses, the department has often referred those complaints back to the contractor, potentially jeopardizing the complainer’s anonymity or creating the appearance of “impaired independence” at DOE."
When a DOE contractor claims past employee whistleblower cases have been "adjudicated" by DOE, now you know that really means an assessment and judgement by the contractor in question passed back to DOE.
"When a DOE contractor claims past employee whistleblower cases have been "adjudicated" by DOE, now you know that really means an assessment and judgement by the contractor in question passed back to DOE. "
7 comments:
A few quotes from the executive summary:
"In contrast, many self-assessments used flawed and inconsistent methodologies and overstated the openness of the environment.
DOE has infrequently used its enforcement authority to hold contractors accountable for unlawful retaliation, issuing two violation notices in the past 20 years.
DOE officials provided GAO with examples where (1) little or nothing was done in response to intimidation of contractor employees who report safety and other concerns; (2) a subcontractor was terminated after reporting safety concerns; and (3) a contractor employee was terminated allegedly because she cooperated with GAO. DOE’s reluctance to hold contractors accountable may diminish contractor employee confidence in
mechanisms for raising concerns and seeking whistleblower protection."
Ya think?
"DOE's practice of referring and transferring contractor employee concerns back to the contractor potentially negates the benefit of having an ECP that is independent of the contractor."
another quote from the GAO report:
"...a DOE contracting officer said that DOE manages the contractor, not its employees; therefore until a retaliation issue becomes a lawsuit DOE relies on the contractor to remedy the issue. However, this runs counter to DOE's Integrated Safety Management policy, which states that contractors will be held accountable for safety performance, to include fostering an environment free of retaliation."
Once a "retaliation issue" becomes a lawsuit, DOE bankrolls the contractor's litigation costs even when the contractor may have failed in the area of "safety performance" and failed to "foster an environment free of retaliation".
The system is rigged ! Didn't you hear ??? Just another example of the elites screwing the workers !
"Nuclear weapons contractors repeatedly stifle whistleblowers, auditors say"
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/07/18/19976/nuclear-weapons-contractors-repeatedly-stifle-whistleblowers-auditors-say
“Our problems are with the way [the Energy Department] allows the contractors basically to self-assess how open their environment is,” Diane LoFaro, the assistant team leader for the GAO’s investigation, told The Center for Public Integrity in an interview. “Our recommendation is that those assessments need to be independent. The contractor should not be assessing themselves. The DOE should be assessing the contractors’ cultures.”
"The problems run deeper than self-regulation, the report states. When contractor employees have brought concerns directly to the Energy Department, partly out of fear of retaliation by their bosses, the department has often referred those complaints back to the contractor, potentially jeopardizing the complainer’s anonymity or creating the appearance of “impaired independence” at DOE."
When a DOE contractor claims past employee whistleblower cases have been "adjudicated" by DOE, now you know that really means an assessment and judgement by the contractor in question passed back to DOE.
Rechtel can hide whatever. It is harder for UC to hide misdeeds.
"When a DOE contractor claims past employee whistleblower cases have been "adjudicated" by DOE, now you know that really means an assessment and judgement by the contractor in question passed back to DOE. "
How is this not fraud?
Post a Comment