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, November 27, 2017
Are they impervious?
Are historically "underutilized" minorities at LANL or LLNL, especially those in management, impervious to sexual harassment charges or other forms of misconduct? If so, why?
13 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Dare I ask, who are LANL and LLNL "underutilized" minorities?
"Why on earth would you bring this up. Obviously you have some kind of axe to grind..."
Wow, you are certainly sensitive to the posted question. Being an underutilized or protected class of minority is just one of many reasons managers might get a pass on charges of sexual harassment or misconduct.
One could be a member of a self-protecting management clique, be a critical member of the labs PR team, or could have too much dirt on the conduct of other managers with comparable behavior. In your opinion, are these circumstances also off limits for blog discussion, or just the discussion regarding underutilized minorities? "Obviously" you are trying to protect a manager with a sketchy history. Good luck with that.
This is a blog about the labs. Sorry, but sometimes posted questions will not meet your expectations. Feel free to post a list of blog topics you find acceptable.
"Underutilized minority" is not a self-defining term. It might mean different things in different places too. For example, in New Mexico the percentage of people who are white alone (not mixed race) and not Hispanic or Latino is 38.1% while the percentage of Hispanic or Latino is 48.5% (2016 data). So, unlike almost everywhere else in the U.S., in New Mexico non-Hispanic whites are in the minority.
In NM, can a Hispanic female be an " underutilized minority"? Nope. Because Hispanic females aren't even a minority - they are the most prevalent ethnic/gender group in NM.
See how poorly you thought this question out? So, what exactly were you fishing for with this line of confused thinking?
""Underutilized minority" is not a self-defining term. It might mean different things in different places too."
Correct. However, you know that a fixed definition of what an "underutilized" minority is was not the topic question, and you know calling out a particular "underutilized" minority ____ as you did, is not the topic question either.
The question is if an employee is declared an "underutilized" minority, are they shielded from accusations of sexual harassment or other misconduct, over other lab employees with no such designation.
If one is an underutilized minority, should we also discuss the meaning of "is"? Why not, Bill did. Maybe you know of Lewinsky or Weinstein like conduct at the labs that you want to keep undisclosed. Your attempt to make the topic murky to avoid answering its prime question is a red herring, and only draws more attention.
"Why not, Bill did. Maybe you know of Lewinsky or Weinstein like conduct at the labs"
Not to be picky but but the Lewinsky scandal and Weinstein scandal are completely different. Lewinsky never claimed to be a victim. So what is your point of bringing this up?
It is obvious you are after something but it is not clear what. In any case if we take you for your word on this question it was already answered by another poster. The answer is No.
I know this is not the answer you want but there is no evidence for you assertion. Why not come clean with what you are really after? I am guessing you are the anti-LANL troll again since you seem to pose your questions in a similar vain every time and you are always fishing for something odd. So just come clean with what are you after already.
You know very well that the answer to your question is no. No one is "shielded" from accusations of sexual harassment based on their race, gender, or ethnicity. Period.
So why did you even ask this question when everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (including you), knows the answer is no?
There was a certain minority male manager who generally harassed and loudly berated his staff including his gay employee who did all his work. It was understood by everyone that he was protected by zerkle and Marquez. He was referred to as Marquez son. I was personally harassed and berated by him and I was advised to not report it, since it was a career killer. This individual was fired after Marquez was let go and Marquez had a label of harasser who was in charge of ER and HR. I wonder how many men and women will now file complaints with the lab based on the current environment and the individuals who were aware of the harassment and protected him
Discussing the special protections offered to lab "underutilized" minorities for sexual harassment or misconduct in 2017, is like raising concerns of church child abuse in 1957. It is forbidden. Except it is not. Our country has finally reached a tipping point of intolerance on these forms of privileged abuse. Even the troll pacing at the door of this topic adds value, because it demonstrates the culture and pushback lab employees still face in 2017, if they were to forward their abuse concerns to lab management.
The labs have always been in a cultural bubble, and that is why aggressive efforts are made to attract and retain women and minorities to the labs. This is a good thing.
But the pendulum can swing too far, and some employees do take advantage of their protected status. I have seen more than one lab "underutilized" minority (all males) employees get away with horrible repeated conduct and were later promoted anyway. It is not a secret to the offenders lab managers, it is just that most lab managers are scared to point a finger at an "underutilized" minority. So by default, lab leadership elects to enable.
Federal Contractors like LANS and LLNS, are generally required to produce annual Affirmative Action Program (AAP) documentation that includes detailed minority utilization tables, and efforts made to reach specific utilization goals. The AAPs are usually on the web and are available through the OFCCP.
According to the 2016 US census NM, CA, and the US have the following minority population stats:
NM: American Indian 10.6%, Asian 1.7%, Black/African American 2.5%, Hispanic 48.5% CA: American Indian 1.7% , Asian 14.8%, Black/African American 6.5%, Hispanic 38.9% US: American Indian 1.3%, Asian 5.7%, Black/African American 13.3%, Hispanic 17.8%
To the extent lab jobs are filled locally for all assignments, the pool of available minorities compared to US stats suggest LANS would have more difficulty hiring Asian and Black/African American employees, and LLNS would have more difficulty hiring American Indian and Black/African Americans. The Hispanic population in NM and CA exceed 2016 national stats by more than 2x. These stats would likely be a factor in 2016 forward "underutilized" minority designations at the labs.
Underutilization status would be much more difficult to address if a given minority group did not by percentage, have the education or training for a given job classification compared to other minority or non-minority groups. If the local pool of a particular minority group was low compared to national stats, and that same minority group had a lower percentage of Mechanical Engineering graduates for example, they are likely classified as underutilized. How these 2016 stats compare with stats over the decades would be of interest too.
13 comments:
Dare I ask, who are LANL and LLNL "underutilized" minorities?
Why on earth would you bring this up. Obviously you have some kind of axe to grind. If not than the answer to you question is no.
"Why on earth would you bring this up. Obviously you have some kind of axe to grind..."
Wow, you are certainly sensitive to the posted question. Being an underutilized or protected class of minority is just one of many reasons managers might get a pass on charges of sexual harassment or misconduct.
One could be a member of a self-protecting management clique, be a critical member of the labs PR team, or could have too much dirt on the conduct of other managers with comparable behavior. In your opinion, are these circumstances also off limits for blog discussion, or just the discussion regarding underutilized minorities? "Obviously" you are trying to protect a manager with a sketchy history. Good luck with that.
This is a blog about the labs. Sorry, but sometimes posted questions will not meet your expectations. Feel free to post a list of blog topics you find acceptable.
"Underutilized minority" is not a self-defining term. It might mean different things in different places too. For example, in New Mexico the percentage of people who are white alone (not mixed race) and not Hispanic or Latino is 38.1% while the percentage of Hispanic or Latino is 48.5% (2016 data). So, unlike almost everywhere else in the U.S., in New Mexico non-Hispanic whites are in the minority.
In NM, can a Hispanic female be an " underutilized minority"? Nope. Because Hispanic females aren't even a minority - they are the most prevalent ethnic/gender group in NM.
See how poorly you thought this question out? So, what exactly were you fishing for with this line of confused thinking?
""Underutilized minority" is not a self-defining term. It might mean different things in different places too."
Correct. However, you know that a fixed definition of what an "underutilized" minority is was not the topic question, and you know calling out a particular "underutilized" minority ____ as you did, is not the topic question either.
The question is if an employee is declared an "underutilized" minority, are they shielded from accusations of sexual harassment or other misconduct, over other lab employees with no such designation.
If one is an underutilized minority, should we also discuss the meaning of "is"? Why not, Bill did. Maybe you know of Lewinsky or Weinstein like conduct at the labs that you want to keep undisclosed. Your attempt to make the topic murky to avoid answering its prime question is a red herring, and only draws more attention.
"Why not, Bill did. Maybe you know of Lewinsky or Weinstein like conduct at the labs"
Not to be picky but but the Lewinsky scandal and Weinstein scandal are completely different.
Lewinsky never claimed to be a victim. So what is your point of bringing this up?
It is obvious you are after something but it is not clear what. In any case if we take you for your word on this question it was already answered by another poster. The answer is No.
I know this is not the answer you want but there is no evidence for you assertion. Why not come clean with what you are really after? I am guessing you are the anti-LANL troll again since you seem to pose your questions in a similar vain every time and you are always fishing for something odd. So just come clean with what are you after already.
You know very well that the answer to your question is no. No one is "shielded" from accusations of sexual harassment based on their race, gender, or ethnicity. Period.
So why did you even ask this question when everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (including you), knows the answer is no?
There was a certain minority male manager who generally harassed and loudly berated his staff including his gay employee who did all his work. It was understood by everyone that he was protected by zerkle and Marquez. He was referred to as Marquez son. I was personally harassed and berated by him and I was advised to not report it, since it was a career killer. This individual was fired after Marquez was let go and Marquez had a label of harasser who was in charge of ER and HR. I wonder how many men and women will now file complaints with the lab based on the current environment and the individuals who were aware of the harassment and protected him
Discussing the special protections offered to lab "underutilized" minorities for sexual harassment or misconduct in 2017, is like raising concerns of church child abuse in 1957. It is forbidden. Except it is not. Our country has finally reached a tipping point of intolerance on these forms of privileged abuse. Even the troll pacing at the door of this topic adds value, because it demonstrates the culture and pushback lab employees still face in 2017, if they were to forward their abuse concerns to lab management.
The labs have always been in a cultural bubble, and that is why aggressive efforts are made to attract and retain women and minorities to the labs. This is a good thing.
But the pendulum can swing too far, and some employees do take advantage of their protected status. I have seen more than one lab "underutilized" minority (all males) employees get away with horrible repeated conduct and were later promoted anyway. It is not a secret to the offenders lab managers, it is just that most lab managers are scared to point a finger at an "underutilized" minority. So by default, lab leadership elects to enable.
UC/LANS had to settle lawsuits for not taking action against overutilized minorities too. In NM white men are in the minority.
UC/LANS hasn't taken appropriate actions in some cases irregardless of the alleged offender's ethnicity.
This topic feels like phishing to me. A clumsy foreign practice phish. Remember Op-Sec?
Federal Contractors like LANS and LLNS, are generally required to produce annual Affirmative Action Program (AAP) documentation that includes detailed minority utilization tables, and efforts made to reach specific utilization goals. The AAPs are usually on the web and are available through the OFCCP.
According to the 2016 US census NM, CA, and the US have the following minority population stats:
NM: American Indian 10.6%, Asian 1.7%, Black/African American 2.5%, Hispanic 48.5%
CA: American Indian 1.7% , Asian 14.8%, Black/African American 6.5%, Hispanic 38.9%
US: American Indian 1.3%, Asian 5.7%, Black/African American 13.3%, Hispanic 17.8%
To the extent lab jobs are filled locally for all assignments, the pool of available minorities compared to US stats suggest LANS would have more difficulty hiring Asian and Black/African American employees, and LLNS would have more difficulty hiring American Indian and Black/African Americans. The Hispanic population in NM and CA exceed 2016 national stats by more than 2x. These stats would likely be a factor in 2016 forward "underutilized" minority designations at the labs.
Underutilization status would be much more difficult to address if a given minority group did not by percentage, have the education or training for a given job classification compared to other minority or non-minority groups. If the local pool of a particular minority group was low compared to national stats, and that same minority group had a lower percentage of Mechanical Engineering graduates for example, they are likely classified as underutilized. How these 2016 stats compare with stats over the decades would be of interest too.
Post a Comment