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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."