Can a LLNS manager refuse an employee's request to have a 3rd party present in a meeting where the employee alleges this particular manager has been harassing them or other alleged inappropriate conduct? In this Weinstein and Cuomo period, one would think not.
19 comments:
In my experience, staff relations is in control in these situations. They decide what is appropriate and they always side with the manager. I was once told by a member of staff relations that the manager is incapable of doing wrong. Their job is to resolve things in favor of the manager through any means. This includes retaliating against the victim or any witnesses to the incident. There was a big lawsuit about that years ago.
I agree with 5:22am.
Unfortunately, the LLNS legal department will always prefer two managers at the meeting with the one employee, not two employees with the one manager. This tips the scales in favor of management for any future "he said she said" recollection of the meeting.
Staff relations is truly scary. In my experience they engage in psychological torture to achieve their ends. One woman in staff relations years ago was a trained clinical psychologist and she used her skills to manipulate people. She was always in the managers’ offices, up to the AD level, scheming against the “problem” employees. As a medical professional she should have been ashamed of what she was doing. Any employee with a complaint against a manager has to be prepared to leave. I’ve never seen an outcome that was favorable to the employee and against the manager.
I agree with all of the above. In my experience, I was highly discouraged by Staff Relations (read Management Protection) to drop action against a group manager in COMPUTATIONS in 2007 who lied to me. I cannot believe you guys are still seeing this.
"Any employee with a complaint against a manager has to be prepared to leave."
Sad, but an accurate assessment.
All roads lead to Staff Relations, whether it be a formal grievance, Director appointed "Independent" review, etc., Staff Relations is the investigators "Puppet Master" without a doubt. I know this first hand. How someone assigned to investigate management misconconduct on behalf of an employee could play such a dishonest subservient role to Staff Relations is inexcusable. Staff Relations serves LLNS corporate.
"As a medical professional she should have been ashamed of what she was doing."
True, but that is not how the game is played. Years back, a NIF Tech committed suicide under the direction of LSEO division management, and instead of receiving "people skills" training, these division level managers were rewarded with handsome raises. Ugly, and obviously not mentioned on "Glassdoor" reviews of LLNS. Seek employment elsewhere if you can.
Why do most employees never have to deal with Staff Relations?
In my experience, managers will double up on their “witnesses”, while excluding anyone who is likely to be objective. I was very nearly fired in a he said, they said situation. Fortunately one of the managers was fired for sexual harassment just days later and therefore didn’t end up being such a great witness.
The world of incompetent government bureaucrats is bad. The world of corporate scum who would slit their mother’s throat is even worse. The combination is nothing short of a horror story for employees who get stuck working for them.
"Why do most employees never have to deal with Staff Relations?"
Irrelevant pivot, but probably because unlike those that spoke out about Weinstein and Cuomo, some do not push the envelope regarding what is right or what is wrong, or are benefiting from the status quo, maybe that includes you.
There are no metrics within the NNSA Annual Performance Evaluation Report of LLNS to review or rate the employment practices of Staff Relations or how well Staff Relations adheres to LLNS policies. Staff Relations operates outside of the LLNS award fee $$$ calculation.
"Staff Relations operates outside of the LLNS award fee $$$ calculation."
It gets much worse. If a LLNS employee or group of LLNS employees challenges a LLNS decision regarding their employment status in Court, LLNS will not only request and receive legal fee reimbursements to hire outside legal services through the NNSA, LLNS also uses site contracted funds (not part of their award fees) to leverage employee man-hour charges to prep, coach, etc. testimony to defend LLNS actions without any NNSA approval or tracking required. In a nutshell, LLNS uses Staff Relations and essentially free of charge outside hired counsel with no skin in the game with respect to its annual award fee to do so. This presents an employment practice witches brew that incentivizes Contractor misconduct.
"Why do most employees never have to deal with Staff Relations?"
Irrelevant pivot, but probably because unlike those that spoke out about Weinstein and Cuomo, some do not push the envelope regarding what is right or what is wrong, or are benefiting from the status quo, maybe that includes you.
5/18/2021 9:06 PM
Anyone who can't figure out how to "benefit from the status quo" shouldn't have applied for a job. If your intent in a job is to change the "status quo" you are what's known to every manager in the world as a "problem employee." A good rule of life is don't put yourself into a position you will not be happy in.
"If your intent in a job is to change the "status quo" you are what's known to every manager in the world as a "problem employee".
Another pivot, nobody here said anything about a predetermined "intent to change the status quo". I doubt that Dee Kotla woke up one morning and said, "Someday, I'm going to be a witness in a sexual harassment case against LLNL", and afterward, get fired for allegedly making $4.30 worth of phone calls at work, and later she wins in Court. I also doubt the ~130 older LLNS employees laid off shortly after LLNS took over, intended to be laid off or were eager to spend years of their lives in Court to resolve the impacts of those lay offs. In 2021, it's discouraging that some still insist the victims at LLNL are the "problem employees". A good reason to keep this blog operating.
There will always be a few bad managers and a few bad employees in private industry with value added to internal cost considerations to address them. LLNL on the other hand, spent 10s of millions of taxpayer dollars to fight Dee Kotla and the 130 employees laid off in those 2 Court cases alone bankrolled by DOE/NNSA. Follow the money. When DOE//NNSA stop bankrolling these contractor employment decisions that end up in Court, and when DOE/NNSA begin to include Staff Relations and SHRM in the annual performance evaluation report $$$, you'll see a more thoughtful contractor emerge.
As long as you realize the contractors are incentivized if not directed to perform layoffs, then I will concur with your statement. Read the RFP for the next contract when it comes out.
"When DOE//NNSA stop bankrolling these contractor employment decisions that end up in Court, and when DOE/NNSA begin to include Staff Relations and SHRM in the annual performance evaluation report $$$, you'll see a more thoughtful contractor emerge."
OK, but in the meantime, if this bankrolling of a contractor employment related legal expenses by DOE/NNSA doesn't stop, why should prospective employees want to work at LLNL or other Labs before this problem is materially addressed if they have other career options? Real private sector companies don't have cost free ramifications for their employment decisions as occurs at these DOE/NNSA Labs.
"As long as you realize the contractors are incentivized if not directed to perform layoffs, then I will concur with your statement. Read the RFP for the next contract when it comes out."
Mass layoffs may occur for "budgetary reasons" true, but one must peel that onion to determine if such a layoff was necessary in the manner it was executed or if it was self-serving. I believe the NNSA did not provide explicit approval or take ownership for this particular 2008 layoff debacle. Having said this, the NNSA did reimburse LLNS ~$23 million for those litigation expenses out of contract funds, with an unknown amount of reimbursement toward the settlement. So we are back to follow the money.
5/23/2021 7:33 AM
Yes! Follow the money. Contractors are incentivized to cut cost. What are the major costs at Laboratories? People.
#1 Wages
#2 Benefits
And dont forget about pension liability.
10:49pm, nice generic talking points, but you didn't peel the onion on the 30 Bechtel executive and management new hires that led to the additional LLNS "People costs". Those pesky details can be problematic. Follow the money.:
"As soon as the Lawrence Livermore National Lab was 'privatized' by the George W. Bush administration in 2007, they began plans to lay off their older, most experienced workers in order to save themselves money....There had not been a layoff there for 35 years before that...The new LLC (LLNS) contract LLNS then added approximately 30 new Bechtel employees in executive and management positions which significantly increased the overhead costs...However, they promised the government they would save $50 million because of their so-called great 'management experience'. To accomplish this, LLNS laid off their most experienced and senior employees in violation of their layoff policies, which required most employees to be laid off in inverse order of seniority. The average age of our 130 clients was 54 years and they had an average of 20 years seniority."
Post a Comment