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, June 3, 2019
SPSE-UPTE missed opportunity
Has SPSE-UPTE missed an opportunity to discuss the career ramifications of LLNS "career indefinite" employees forced into EIT/EBA status?
30 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Long gone is SPSE when Richard White was president, but the lab was managed by UC/LLNL back then and not a for-profit contractor.
"career ramifications of LLNS "career indefinite" employees forced into EIT/EBA status?"
Best Case:
Your managers were openly working in good faith with you to keep you out of EIT status. However, you land there for a few weeks or a month or two, and then secure a funded assignment within your current job classification that is reasonably comparable to your last funded assignment. Your performance appraisal and pay raise were not impacted by the short EIT status.
Worse Case:
Your managers were not working with you in good faith and you may have been targeted for EIT status. The EIT news blindsides you. Your former administrative manager may step aside and you may be assigned to an administrative manager that you never reported to before. Then you may stay in EIT/EBA status for 6-12 months where you are treated like a 2nd class career indefinite employee under a microscope. Funded assignments that you apply for may subsequently close without being filled or the positions may go on ice indefinitely.
At the point you have been adequately softened up, you may be asked to compose or sign a confession of sorts (could also be part of your appraisal input) explaining how the entire EIT/EBA situation was entirely your fault.
You may be forced to take a 25-40% pay cut and a demotion to remain employed, or shortly thereafter you'll be fired for failing to secure a funded assignment. Not securing a funded assignment equates to "poor performance", since securing a funded assignment is your primary task as an EIT/EBA. If you formally challenge any aspect of your EIT/EBA status, "insubordination" will be added to your termination paperwork.
I went onto EIT/EBA a few times during my +30 year career at the Lab. It can be expected to happen sometimes through no fault of one's own and overall I had a pretty good career at the Lab. Knew other good scientists who also sometimes found themselves in a situation in which they were temporarily without funding and needed to go on EIT/EBA status and they got over the bump without any long term problems. On the other hand, there are probably also problem employees who do bear a good deal of responsibility for their landing on EIT/EBA status. People on EIT/EBA don't all fall into a single category in terms of what kind of workers they are.
Please define a "problem employee" and how that sanctions the treatment described in the 7:43am comment. Do you really understand how structured reprisals work at the lab?
In some countries around the world a person that speaks out or is critical of government policies or practices would be considered a "problem citizen". Many people in those countries would rather be in the United States. I suspect the 6/9/19 3:26pm commenter would rather not live in those particular countries either.
Assuming that an employee with a bad experience as an EIT or EBA must have been a "problem employee" and therefore deserved it, wouldn't be very open minded or considerate of our fellow employees. What is a "problem employee" and what is not a "problem employee" would be a good starting place for a discussion.
The former LANL Deputy Director Beth Sellers was never put into EIT or EBA status for being a "problem employee". In fact she received nothing but praise from Director McMillan who was aware of her "problem employee" conduct for over a year. The DOE IG had a different view however, and Beth Sellers was suspended from doing government work for 3 years. Maybe only worker bees can become a "problem employee"?
A "problem employee" exists only in the impression of the employer. Put yourself in the shoes of an employer who is faced with an employee who does not do as directed, has multiple disagreements with his/her bosses, sabotages the employer's best business interests, and causes workplace disruption, hurting the performance of other employees. What would you do, in the interest of your own business?
"A "problem employee" exists only in the impression of the employer. Put yourself in the shoes of an employer who is faced with an employee who does not do as directed, has multiple disagreements with his/her bosses, sabotages the employer's best business interests, and causes workplace disruption, hurting the performance of other employees. What would you do, in the interest of your own business?"
By your reasoning and failure to define "disagreements", "disruption", etc. to justify retaliatory actions against "problem employees", you could easily replace the words "employer" and "business" with a People's Republic of China type government.
Let's start a list of what a real problem employee might do that are rarely disciplined:
1. Employees that "interview" female admin applicants at Livermore hotels 2. Employees that treat travel recruiting events as their personal smorgasbord of available young female college grads 3. Employees that coerce subordinate employees into lying about ongoing affairs when the wife calls 4. Employees that fail to self-report extramarital affairs per Q-Clearance guidelines 5. Employees that are so hot headed, they make their female employees breakdown and cry and are well known as a walking Krakatoa whose eruption frequency is measured in hours 6. Employees that coerce subordinate employees into building hotrod parts for them on the clock 7. Employees that strike other employees 8. Employees that spy on behalf of a foreign government or improperly share protected information 9. Employees that accept bribes 10. Employees that use lab resources to run their own business 11. Employees that fail to disclose conflicts of interest 12. Employees that willfully make up on-the-fly policies as a tool to best carry out disciplinary actions against "problem employees" because the alleged actions of the "problem employee" don't come close to anything in the above list 13. Employees that look the other way to any of the above situations
Someone in a leadership position that has earned broad respect among his coworkers, would likely refer to an employee as having a problem or concern, not a problem employee.
Someone in a respected leadership position working in good faith (and this is key) with the "problem employee" would likely inform the employee "if you do or don't do X, we may do Y", if Y is not a clear written policy for X conduct. Otherwise it can become a repressive work environment.
Anyway we can only hope that when these so called "problem employees" are reprimanded for alleged wrongdoing, that the punishment is in proportion to the allegation.
"What would you do, in the interest of your own business?"
An interesting attempt at a pivot to dodge the topic of EIT/EBA status at a NNSA contractor site funded and assessed by the Federal government, to someone's own business. Nice try.
If a contractor punishes an employee for being "disruptive" etc. as a cover to squelch and overwhelm a concern related to NNSA mission objectives, that contractor has malicious intent.
Ethically, one shouldn't attempt to hide behind an authority figure or a "business owners" perspective to justify their own participation in acts of malicious intent. Even if it seems to offer comfort while the event is occurring, historically, such a defense doesn't work.
An interesting attempt at a pivot to dodge the topic of EIT/EBA status at a NNSA contractor site funded and assessed by the Federal government, to someone's own business. Nice try.
6/13/2019 2:56 PM
No attempt to pivot to anything, I was just thoroughly uninterested in your "topic."
"No attempt to pivot to anything, I was just thoroughly uninterested in your "topic.""
Hmm. You were thoroughly uninterested in the topic, but nevertheless elected to write a paragraph from the perspective of ones own business? Well thanks for sharing pivot #2.
"Put yourself in the shoes of an employer who is faced with an employee who does not do as directed, has multiple disagreements with his/her bosses..."
I'll bet such an argument wouldn't work for Harvey Weinstein. Harassment has many faces, and one should never be repeatedly required to "do as directed" without 3rd party, legal, or ombudsman involvement, when harassment of any kind is alleged to have repeatedly occurred by a subordinate employee. Otherwise, you have a Harvey Weinstein's dream come true work environment. I guess the "Me too Movement" hasn't found support at the "we treat employees as we see fit" DOE/NNSA Lab islands just yet.
You are unnecessarily conflating the requirement to do as instructed as an employee (always necessary if not to be fired) and a situation where coercion is accompanied by illegal harassment. Why muddy the waters, unless your goal is anti-management in general?
"You are unnecessarily conflating the requirement to do as instructed as an employee (always necessary if not to be fired) and a situation where coercion is accompanied by illegal harassment. Why muddy the waters, unless your goal is anti-management in general"
Again, failing "to do as instructed" and acts of "misconduct" are purposely left unqualified. So lets provide an example where such allegations may not be warranted or clear cut.
A woman is groped by her Lab boss in a private meeting. For subsequent meetings, this woman openly requests to have a trusted 3rd person or ombudsman in any future meeting with the known groper. The groper refuses to honor the request and another private meeting is scheduled by the groper. The woman elects not to attend the gropers private meeting alone, but as she stated earlier, is willing to meet with the groper (however reluctantly) if a trusted 3rd person or ombudsman can be present. Disenchanted with his meeting option, the boss groper disciplines the woman for failing "to do as instructed" without qualification, or comes up with an indirect plan to retaliate or fire the woman using paperless trail methods. This woman could be a fellow employee, wife, sister, or daughter. Meaningful checks and balances are of fundamental importance in the workplace.
Ridiculous scenario, featuring a gutless, clueless woman and a man who thinks he is immune to censure. "For subsequent meetings, this woman openly requests to have a trusted 3rd person or ombudsman in any future meeting with the known groper. The groper refuses to honor the request..." That scenario should and would warrant immediate intervention by HR and/or Ombuds, if not by the woman's private lawyer (whom she should have much earlier engaged). The "groper" would never succeed in "refusing to honor the request."
Your portrayal of the scenario's woman is demeaning and condescending to women as helpless. Your portrayal of the male boss is indicative of your anti-management bias.
In DOE/NNSA contractor space, "illegal harassment" amounts to ink on paper pledges, with no immediate financial consequence to the contractor for such conduct. Claims of "illegal harassment" will not usually be admitted to or addressed in the victim's best interest or in the interest of the victim's defenders. However, the "illegal harassment" ink on paper pledge, will most certainly be included in any formal response to the accusation of "illegal harassment".
If the harassment victim or their defenders file a lawsuit for contractor retaliation, the contractor will use tax payer dollars via DOE/NNSA legal fee reimbursements to fight the lawsuit. This presents a contractor "no skin in the game" attitude, so "illegal harassment", unjustifiable EIT placement, abuse of authority, etc., can occur in the work environment knowing a legal fee reimbursement safety net is firmly in place if needed.
An employer not funded by the Federal Government, may fire an employee "for cause" as well knowing the employee may subsequently claim in court it was a wrongful termination. Therefore before a firing, a thoughtful financial risk/benefit review will likely occur. This financial risk/benefit review may serve to moderate actions taken against the employee that might be viewed as disproportionate to the alleged misconduct claim.
For DOE/NNSA contractors, a financial risk/benefit review of this type is near meaningless since the financial risk is near zero. As such, for-profit DOE/NNSA contractors especially, whose annual award fees are based on a set of performance metrics, firing employees that raise contractor performance or mismanagement concerns is simply low hanging fruit.
The Dee Kotla case against UC/LLNL is a vivid of example of this retaliation enabling contractor reimbursement practice. About 10 million dollars of tax payer money was reimbursed to UC/LLNL to fight Dee Kotla in court for years. You'll have to decide for yourself if Dee Kotla would have faced reprisals or had been fired if UC/LLNL knew in advance that they would have to fund their own legal expenses to fight Dee Kotla in court.
Managers can be victims of "illegal harassment" too, and at no time did anyone on this topic that I could find present an "anti-management in general" position. So why "muddy the waters" with such a red herring?
"Your portrayal of the scenario's woman is demeaning and condescending to women as helpless. Your portrayal of the male boss is indicative of your anti-management bias."
Nice try at redirecting misconduct as a demeaning helpless woman's problem. Defendant attorneys in rape cases routinely make such claims.
Men can be placed in awkward and stressful situations as well where they may be accused of "not doing as instructed". Maybe you would like a male employee example.
An employee believes his newly assigned division superintendent is not working with him in good faith and is the victim of continual workplace harassment from this superintendent. The employee is able to support this assertion. In this particular employees case, he is funded by an overhead account and not by the superintendents account. The employee has no work assignments with this division superintendent.
In the attempt to deescalate the situation, the employee requests to report to another superintendent and that superintendent is OK with the request. As before, the employee would still be charging an overhead account with the newly assigned superintendent and not the superintendents own account. The employees work tasks would remain identical with the new superintendent.
In a meeting, with the currently assigned division superintendent and his current division leader, the employee proposes to report to another superintendent. The employee tells the two managers that the current situation is causing unnecessary accumulated stress for him and his family, and he is concerned for his own health citing a history of heart attacks in his family.
As delicately as he can, and for his own well being, the employee notes that just months prior, in the same division, a young employee died for reasons not directly related to his physical health. This being said not to point fingers, but rather to acknowledge that unnecessary stress should actively be avoided in the workplace.
Rather than reflecting on the loss of the mentioned employee, the response from the superintendent in the meeting is "No, I'm going to be your manager until the end". The superintendent then alleges the employees proposal to report to another superintendent was an open threat to his job, and disciplines the employee for raising the question.
One must wonder what such a callous manager would say to the widow of the young employee that died. Why hadn't this manager gained knowledge and sensitivity from prior events?
Expecting "sensitivity" from an employer is just nuts. What world did you grow up in? Grow a thicker skin and try to cope with reality. No one owes you a living.
"Expecting "sensitivity" from an employer is just nuts. What world did you grow up in? Grow a thicker skin and try to cope with reality. No one owes you a living."
Owed a living? Nope. Expectation of decency in the workplace where bullying is not tolerated? Yup. I see we still have some bullying awareness coursework to do at the lab.
"The WBI Definition of Workplace Bullying
Workplace Bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. It is abusive conduct that is :
Threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, or
Work interference — sabotage — which prevents work from getting done, or
Verbal abuse
Workplace Bullying...
Is driven by perpetrators' need to control the targeted individual(s).
Is initiated by bullies who choose their targets, timing, location, and methods.
Is a set of acts of commission (doing things to others) or omission (withholding resources from others)
Requires consequences for the targeted individual
Escalates to involve others who side with the bully, either voluntarily or through coercion.
Undermines legitimate business interests when bullies' personal agendas take precedence over work itself.
Is akin to domestic violence at work, where the abuser is on the payroll.
Not calling bullying "bullying," in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of those who made the bullying possible, is a disservice to bullied individuals whose jobs, careers, and health have been threatened as the result.
The Relation to Domestic Violence
Being bullied at work most closely resembles the experience of being a battered spouse. The abuser inflicts pain when and where she or he chooses, keeping the target (victim) off balance knowing that violence can happen on a whim, but dangling the hope that safety is possible during a period of peace of unknown duration. The target is kept close to the abuser by the nature of the relationship between them -- husband to wife or boss to subordinate or co-worker to co-worker."
Sheesh. No personal responsibility in your world. Everyone is a victim. No one is expected to have any personal responsibility for his/her own well-being and self-defense against "bullies", despite thousands of workplace laws protecting employees. Any employee who feels uncomfortable for any reason is to be taken into protective custody, or something, until he/she feels better. Everyone is totally defenseless until saved by the overseers. (You, of course.) What a stupid, pathetic trope you portray, consigning so many useless, self-entitled, whining, ineffective, and demoralizing employees to "victim" status. Way to kill any idea of open competition for and realistic appraisal of employee performance. Hint: professional competence, experience, and reputation means none of these problems occur to you.
"What a stupid, pathetic trope you portray, consigning so many useless, self-entitled, whining, ineffective, and demoralizing employees to "victim" status."
from Scooby:
start
"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.
Blog rules:
Stay on topic No foul, vulgar, or inflammatory language No name calling No personal attacks or put-downs of other blog users"
end
Looks like someone identifies and is so sensitive with this bullying topic that he can't follow the blog rules, but name calling is his only irrational defense, and maybe a familiar one. Thanks for providing more bullying examples.
A dash of bitterness, A pinch of lack of self-awwarness, A spoonful of denial, A sprinkle of delusion, and who lot of self-hate.
Ingredients for a LLNS PR Blog troll with a perpetual burr in his saddle, or an itch he just can't scratch. He must think, "Darn social media! Who do these people think they are to have their own opinions, and then to state them for all to read!" So easily raddled is he, that he continues to lash out but with no resulting relief. Alas, his frustration with people with opinions that differ from his own are continuous.
First off, I am not bitter, I couldn't care less about anyone at that God Forsaken hellhole of LANL. As for denial LANL is and has been in denial for some time, they think they are so important and smart when in fact they could all be replaced at a drop of the hat. They are also in denial about what Nanos said about them. I don't hate myself, I left LANL long ago and have never looked back. There loss not mine They think they are so great that they can also identify what is great, ha ha ha. It simply makes my blood boil to see what you have done to various people that have worked at the labs and please don't get me started on UC. I know Scooby will probably censor this post, so what if I use a few four letter words to describe the true state of LANL and UC, some of us are still adults.
In the attempt to deter anyone from criticizing LLNS or the dearly departed LANS, no matter how constructive the comments might be, the pattern PR troll response is to discredit them by saying they are "bitter", "losers", etc. It's the LANSLLNS admirer version of birds flying at you when you get too close to the nest. It's just a reflex response to protect themselves and their spoils. No worries.
"In the attempt to deter anyone from criticizing LLNS or the dearly departed LANS, no matter how constructive the comments might be, the pattern PR troll response is to discredit them by saying they are "bitter", "losers", etc. It's the LANSLLNS admirer version of birds flying at you when you get too close to the nest. It's just a reflex response to protect themselves and their spoils."
The alternative is that they are just calling it like it is. No worries.
I left LANL long ago and have never looked back. There loss not mine
7/01/2019 8:47 AM
You "look back" in every post you make. You are totally controlled and bound by your experience at LANL. That fact of your problem is obvious to everyone. So it is obviously YOUR LOSS of your sanity. So sad. Why can't you let go and stop posting here?
LANL is a Cesspool of this behavior. The only positive I can say is that Triad must have done their homework on a few of these as actors because they didn’t get picked up. Gave me a chuckle when those actors were “surprised”.
30 comments:
Long gone is SPSE when Richard White was president, but the lab was managed by UC/LLNL back then and not a for-profit contractor.
"career ramifications of LLNS "career indefinite" employees forced into EIT/EBA status?"
Best Case:
Your managers were openly working in good faith with you to keep you out of EIT status. However, you land there for a few weeks or a month or two, and then secure a funded assignment within your current job classification that is reasonably comparable to your last funded assignment. Your performance appraisal and pay raise were not impacted by the short EIT status.
Worse Case:
Your managers were not working with you in good faith and you may have been targeted for EIT status. The EIT news blindsides you. Your former administrative manager may step aside and you may be assigned to an administrative manager that you never reported to before. Then you may stay in EIT/EBA status for 6-12 months where you are treated like a 2nd class career indefinite employee under a microscope. Funded assignments that you apply for may subsequently close without being filled or the positions may go on ice indefinitely.
At the point you have been adequately softened up, you may be asked to compose or sign a confession of sorts (could also be part of your appraisal input) explaining how the entire EIT/EBA situation was entirely your fault.
You may be forced to take a 25-40% pay cut and a demotion to remain employed, or shortly thereafter you'll be fired for failing to secure a funded assignment. Not securing a funded assignment equates to "poor performance", since securing a funded assignment is your primary task as an EIT/EBA. If you formally challenge any aspect of your EIT/EBA status, "insubordination" will be added to your termination paperwork.
I went onto EIT/EBA a few times during my +30 year career at the Lab. It can be expected to happen sometimes through no fault of one's own and overall I had a pretty good career at the Lab. Knew other good scientists who also sometimes found themselves in a situation in which they were temporarily without funding and needed to go on EIT/EBA status and they got over the bump without any long term problems. On the other hand, there are probably also problem employees who do bear a good deal of responsibility for their landing on EIT/EBA status. People on EIT/EBA don't all fall into a single category in terms of what kind of workers they are.
6/9 3:26,
That was by far the most objective description of EBA status qualification.
Please define a "problem employee" and how that sanctions the treatment described in the 7:43am comment. Do you really understand how structured reprisals work at the lab?
In some countries around the world a person that speaks out or is critical of government policies or practices would be considered a "problem citizen". Many people in those countries would rather be in the United States. I suspect the 6/9/19 3:26pm commenter would rather not live in those particular countries either.
Assuming that an employee with a bad experience as an EIT or EBA must have been a "problem employee" and therefore deserved it, wouldn't be very open minded or considerate of our fellow employees. What is a "problem employee" and what is not a "problem employee" would be a good starting place for a discussion.
The former LANL Deputy Director Beth Sellers was never put into EIT or EBA status for being a "problem employee". In fact she received nothing but praise from Director McMillan who was aware of her "problem employee" conduct for over a year. The DOE IG had a different view however, and Beth Sellers was suspended from doing government work for 3 years. Maybe only worker bees can become a "problem employee"?
A "problem employee" exists only in the impression of the employer. Put yourself in the shoes of an employer who is faced with an employee who does not do as directed, has multiple disagreements with his/her bosses, sabotages the employer's best business interests, and causes workplace disruption, hurting the performance of other employees. What would you do, in the interest of your own business?
"A "problem employee" exists only in the impression of the employer. Put yourself in the shoes of an employer who is faced with an employee who does not do as directed, has multiple disagreements with his/her bosses, sabotages the employer's best business interests, and causes workplace disruption, hurting the performance of other employees. What would you do, in the interest of your own business?"
By your reasoning and failure to define "disagreements", "disruption", etc. to justify retaliatory actions against "problem employees", you could easily replace the words "employer" and "business" with a People's Republic of China type government.
Let's start a list of what a real problem employee might do that are rarely disciplined:
1. Employees that "interview" female admin applicants at Livermore hotels
2. Employees that treat travel recruiting events as their personal smorgasbord of available young female college grads
3. Employees that coerce subordinate employees into lying about ongoing affairs when the wife calls
4. Employees that fail to self-report extramarital affairs per Q-Clearance guidelines
5. Employees that are so hot headed, they make their female employees breakdown and cry and are well known as a walking Krakatoa whose eruption frequency is measured in hours
6. Employees that coerce subordinate employees into building hotrod parts for them on the clock
7. Employees that strike other employees
8. Employees that spy on behalf of a foreign government or improperly share protected information
9. Employees that accept bribes
10. Employees that use lab resources to run their own business
11. Employees that fail to disclose conflicts of interest
12. Employees that willfully make up on-the-fly policies as a tool to best carry out disciplinary actions against "problem employees" because the alleged actions of the "problem employee" don't come close to anything in the above list
13. Employees that look the other way to any of the above situations
Yah, I've been around for a long time too.
Someone in a leadership position that has earned broad respect among his coworkers, would likely refer to an employee as having a problem or concern, not a problem employee.
Someone in a respected leadership position working in good faith (and this is key) with the "problem employee" would likely inform the employee "if you do or don't do X, we may do Y", if Y is not a clear written policy for X conduct. Otherwise it can become a repressive work environment.
Anyway we can only hope that when these so called "problem employees" are reprimanded for alleged wrongdoing, that the punishment is in proportion to the allegation.
"What would you do, in the interest of your own business?"
An interesting attempt at a pivot to dodge the topic of EIT/EBA status at a NNSA contractor site funded and assessed by the Federal government, to someone's own business. Nice try.
If a contractor punishes an employee for being "disruptive" etc. as a cover to squelch and overwhelm a concern related to NNSA mission objectives, that contractor has malicious intent.
Ethically, one shouldn't attempt to hide behind an authority figure or a "business owners" perspective to justify their own participation in acts of malicious intent. Even if it seems to offer comfort while the event is occurring, historically, such a defense doesn't work.
An interesting attempt at a pivot to dodge the topic of EIT/EBA status at a NNSA contractor site funded and assessed by the Federal government, to someone's own business. Nice try.
6/13/2019 2:56 PM
No attempt to pivot to anything, I was just thoroughly uninterested in your "topic."
"No attempt to pivot to anything, I was just thoroughly uninterested in your "topic.""
Hmm. You were thoroughly uninterested in the topic, but nevertheless elected to write a paragraph from the perspective of ones own business? Well thanks for sharing pivot #2.
"Put yourself in the shoes of an employer who is faced with an employee who does not do as directed, has multiple disagreements with his/her bosses..."
I'll bet such an argument wouldn't work for Harvey Weinstein. Harassment has many faces, and one should never be repeatedly required to "do as directed" without 3rd party, legal, or ombudsman involvement, when harassment of any kind is alleged to have repeatedly occurred by a subordinate employee. Otherwise, you have a Harvey Weinstein's dream come true work environment. I guess the "Me too Movement" hasn't found support at the "we treat employees as we see fit" DOE/NNSA Lab islands just yet.
6/20/2019 12:22 PM
You are unnecessarily conflating the requirement to do as instructed as an employee (always necessary if not to be fired) and a situation where coercion is accompanied by illegal harassment. Why muddy the waters, unless your goal is anti-management in general?
"You are unnecessarily conflating the requirement to do as instructed as an employee (always necessary if not to be fired) and a situation where coercion is accompanied by illegal harassment. Why muddy the waters, unless your goal is anti-management in general"
Again, failing "to do as instructed" and acts of "misconduct" are purposely left unqualified. So lets provide an example where such allegations may not be warranted or clear cut.
A woman is groped by her Lab boss in a private meeting. For subsequent meetings, this woman openly requests to have a trusted 3rd person or ombudsman in any future meeting with the known groper. The groper refuses to honor the request and another private meeting is scheduled by the groper. The woman elects not to attend the gropers private meeting alone, but as she stated earlier, is willing to meet with the groper (however reluctantly) if a trusted 3rd person or ombudsman can be present. Disenchanted with his meeting option, the boss groper disciplines the woman for failing "to do as instructed" without qualification, or comes up with an indirect plan to retaliate or fire the woman using paperless trail methods. This woman could be a fellow employee, wife, sister, or daughter. Meaningful checks and balances are of fundamental importance in the workplace.
6/21/2019 2:28 PM
Ridiculous scenario, featuring a gutless, clueless woman and a man who thinks he is immune to censure. "For subsequent meetings, this woman openly requests to have a trusted 3rd person or ombudsman in any future meeting with the known groper. The groper refuses to honor the request..." That scenario should and would warrant immediate intervention by HR and/or Ombuds, if not by the woman's private lawyer (whom she should have much earlier engaged). The "groper" would never succeed in "refusing to honor the request."
Your portrayal of the scenario's woman is demeaning and condescending to women as helpless. Your portrayal of the male boss is indicative of your anti-management bias.
In DOE/NNSA contractor space, "illegal harassment" amounts to ink on paper pledges, with no immediate financial consequence to the contractor for such conduct. Claims of "illegal harassment" will not usually be admitted to or addressed in the victim's best interest or in the interest of the victim's defenders. However, the "illegal harassment" ink on paper pledge, will most certainly be included in any formal response to the accusation of "illegal harassment".
If the harassment victim or their defenders file a lawsuit for contractor retaliation, the contractor will use tax payer dollars via DOE/NNSA legal fee reimbursements to fight the lawsuit. This presents a contractor "no skin in the game" attitude, so "illegal harassment", unjustifiable EIT placement, abuse of authority, etc., can occur in the work environment knowing a legal fee reimbursement safety net is firmly in place if needed.
An employer not funded by the Federal Government, may fire an employee "for cause" as well knowing the employee may subsequently claim in court it was a wrongful termination. Therefore before a firing, a thoughtful financial risk/benefit review will likely occur. This financial risk/benefit review may serve to moderate actions taken against the employee that might be viewed as disproportionate to the alleged misconduct claim.
For DOE/NNSA contractors, a financial risk/benefit review of this type is near meaningless since the financial risk is near zero. As such, for-profit DOE/NNSA contractors especially, whose annual award fees are based on a set of performance metrics, firing employees that raise contractor performance or mismanagement concerns is simply low hanging fruit.
The Dee Kotla case against UC/LLNL is a vivid of example of this retaliation enabling contractor reimbursement practice. About 10 million dollars of tax payer money was reimbursed to UC/LLNL to fight Dee Kotla in court for years. You'll have to decide for yourself if Dee Kotla would have faced reprisals or had been fired if UC/LLNL knew in advance that they would have to fund their own legal expenses to fight Dee Kotla in court.
Managers can be victims of "illegal harassment" too, and at no time did anyone on this topic that I could find present an "anti-management in general" position. So why "muddy the waters" with such a red herring?
"Your portrayal of the scenario's woman is demeaning and condescending to women as helpless. Your portrayal of the male boss is indicative of your anti-management bias."
Nice try at redirecting misconduct as a demeaning helpless woman's problem. Defendant attorneys in rape cases routinely make such claims.
Men can be placed in awkward and stressful situations as well where they may be accused of "not doing as instructed". Maybe you would like a male employee example.
An employee believes his newly assigned division superintendent is not working with him in good faith and is the victim of continual workplace harassment from this superintendent. The employee is able to support this assertion. In this particular employees case, he is funded by an overhead account and not by the superintendents account. The employee has no work assignments with this division superintendent.
In the attempt to deescalate the situation, the employee requests to report to another superintendent and that superintendent is OK with the request. As before, the employee would still be charging an overhead account with the newly assigned superintendent and not the superintendents own account. The employees work tasks would remain identical with the new superintendent.
In a meeting, with the currently assigned division superintendent and his current division leader, the employee proposes to report to another superintendent. The employee tells the two managers that the current situation is causing unnecessary accumulated stress for him and his family, and he is concerned for his own health citing a history of heart attacks in his family.
As delicately as he can, and for his own well being, the employee notes that just months prior, in the same division, a young employee died for reasons not directly related to his physical health. This being said not to point fingers, but rather to acknowledge that unnecessary stress should actively be avoided in the workplace.
Rather than reflecting on the loss of the mentioned employee, the response from the superintendent in the meeting is "No, I'm going to be your manager until the end". The superintendent then alleges the employees proposal to report to another superintendent was an open threat to his job, and disciplines the employee for raising the question.
One must wonder what such a callous manager would say to the widow of the young employee that died. Why hadn't this manager gained knowledge and sensitivity from prior events?
Expecting "sensitivity" from an employer is just nuts. What world did you grow up in? Grow a thicker skin and try to cope with reality. No one owes you a living.
"Expecting "sensitivity" from an employer is just nuts. What world did you grow up in? Grow a thicker skin and try to cope with reality. No one owes you a living."
Owed a living? Nope. Expectation of decency in the workplace where bullying is not tolerated? Yup. I see we still have some bullying awareness coursework to do at the lab.
"The WBI Definition of Workplace Bullying
Workplace Bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. It is abusive conduct that is :
Threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, or
Work interference — sabotage — which prevents work from getting done, or
Verbal abuse
Workplace Bullying...
Is driven by perpetrators' need to control the targeted individual(s).
Is initiated by bullies who choose their targets, timing, location, and methods.
Is a set of acts of commission (doing things to others) or omission (withholding resources from others)
Requires consequences for the targeted individual
Escalates to involve others who side with the bully, either voluntarily or through coercion.
Undermines legitimate business interests when bullies' personal agendas take precedence over work itself.
Is akin to domestic violence at work, where the abuser is on the payroll.
Not calling bullying "bullying," in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of those who made the bullying possible, is a disservice to bullied individuals whose jobs, careers, and health have been threatened as the result.
The Relation to Domestic Violence
Being bullied at work most closely resembles the experience of being a battered spouse. The abuser inflicts pain when and where she or he chooses, keeping the target (victim) off balance knowing that violence can happen on a whim, but dangling the hope that safety is possible during a period of peace of unknown duration. The target is kept close to the abuser by the nature of the relationship between them -- husband to wife or boss to subordinate or co-worker to co-worker."
https://www.workplacebullying.org/individuals/problem/definition/
6/24/2019 6:19 AM
Pap psychobabble.
Sheesh. No personal responsibility in your world. Everyone is a victim. No one is expected to have any personal responsibility for his/her own well-being and self-defense against "bullies", despite thousands of workplace laws protecting employees. Any employee who feels uncomfortable for any reason is to be taken into protective custody, or something, until he/she feels better. Everyone is totally defenseless until saved by the overseers. (You, of course.) What a stupid, pathetic trope you portray, consigning so many useless, self-entitled, whining, ineffective, and demoralizing employees to "victim" status. Way to kill any idea of open competition for and realistic appraisal of employee performance. Hint: professional competence, experience, and reputation means none of these problems occur to you.
"What a stupid, pathetic trope you portray, consigning so many useless, self-entitled, whining, ineffective, and demoralizing employees to "victim" status."
from Scooby:
start
"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.
Blog rules:
Stay on topic
No foul, vulgar, or inflammatory language
No name calling
No personal attacks or put-downs of other blog users"
end
Looks like someone identifies and is so sensitive with this bullying topic that he can't follow the blog rules, but name calling is his only irrational defense, and maybe a familiar one. Thanks for providing more bullying examples.
Thanks for restating the rules, Captain Obvious. Scooby obviously likes that and wants no negative reply.
A dash of bitterness,
A pinch of lack of self-awwarness,
A spoonful of denial,
A sprinkle of delusion,
and who lot of self-hate.
Ingredients for LLNL Blog troll.
A dash of bitterness,
A pinch of lack of self-awwarness,
A spoonful of denial,
A sprinkle of delusion,
and who lot of self-hate.
Ingredients for a LLNS PR Blog troll with a perpetual burr in his saddle, or an itch he just can't scratch. He must think, "Darn social media! Who do these people think they are to have their own opinions, and then to state them for all to read!" So easily raddled is he, that he continues to lash out but with no resulting relief. Alas, his frustration with people with opinions that differ from his own are continuous.
6/30/2019 3:51 PM
First off, I am not bitter, I couldn't care less about anyone at that God Forsaken hellhole of LANL. As for denial LANL is and has been in denial for some time, they think they are so important and smart when in fact they could all be replaced at a drop of the hat. They are also in denial about what Nanos said about them. I don't hate myself, I left LANL long ago and have never looked back. There loss not mine They think they are so great that they can also identify what is great, ha ha ha. It simply makes my blood boil to see what you have done to various people that have worked at the labs and please don't get me started on UC. I know Scooby will probably censor this post, so what if I use a few four letter words to describe the true state of LANL and UC, some of us are still adults.
In the attempt to deter anyone from criticizing LLNS or the dearly departed LANS, no matter how constructive the comments might be, the pattern PR troll response is to discredit them by saying they are "bitter", "losers", etc. It's the LANSLLNS admirer version of birds flying at you when you get too close to the nest. It's just a reflex response to protect themselves and their spoils. No worries.
"In the attempt to deter anyone from criticizing LLNS or the dearly departed LANS, no matter how constructive the comments might be, the pattern PR troll response is to discredit them by saying they are "bitter", "losers", etc. It's the LANSLLNS admirer version of birds flying at you when you get too close to the nest. It's just a reflex response to protect themselves and their spoils."
The alternative is that they are just calling it like it is. No worries.
I left LANL long ago and have never looked back. There loss not mine
7/01/2019 8:47 AM
You "look back" in every post you make. You are totally controlled and bound by your experience at LANL. That fact of your problem is obvious to everyone. So it is obviously YOUR LOSS of your sanity. So sad. Why can't you let go and stop posting here?
LANL is a Cesspool of this behavior. The only positive I can say is that Triad must have done their homework on a few of these as actors because they didn’t get picked up. Gave me a chuckle when those actors were “surprised”.
Post a Comment