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.
Sunday, July 25, 2021
LLNS employee statutes in 2021
In 2021, in terms of long term job security, what does it really mean to be a so called a LLNS “Career Indefinite employee” vs. a “Supplemental Labor” employee in practice given LLNS employment actions?
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Well, take this response with a grain of salt because it’s been a while.
Under UC, career employees had a legal “vested property interest” in their job due to the fact they were state employees. Basically, they could only be fired for cause, including funding reductions, and the LLNL policies and procedures had to be followed in employment actions or the employee could sue for damages. Sort of like tenure, and there was even a few cases where UC pushed back on DOE because the LLNL staff also had arguable rights of academic freedom — google Jessica Stern.
Supplemental labor was a means to circumvent that property interest for short-term projects. Some people were on SL status for years, so it was clearly being abused under UC, but when the Director had to sign off on hiring a 500-series tech (at some times), what do you do?
With the contract transition, the vested property interest vanished. Career indefinite basically transformed to mean “we intend to keep you and if your assignment ends, we will us the EBA (Employees Between Assignments) process to reassign you. Supplemental labor transitioned to limited duration appointments, so at the end of the period you’re done — unless the duration is extended by mutual agreement.
Both career and SL/LD appointments are different than staff augmentation, which is a contract with an external entity to provide personnel for short-term and/or highly specialized but transitory staffing needs.
There were layoffs at LLNL before the 2007 transition, like the AVLIS layoffs in ~2000, but very few career indefinite employees were impacted, and in most cases, the career indefinite employees could "bump" supplemental labor out of their jobs as needed. Supplemental labor contracts were written with such language. Some would argue the salaries of lab supplemental labor has a positive offset compared to career indefinites in part due to the lack of job security. However, during a funding reduction, a large program like NIF with a significant population of supplemental labor employees may determine career indefinites are too expensive (salary multipliers) compared to their supplemental labor employees. When this happens, career indefinites might be relieved of their assignments and sent back to their home organizations labeled as an EIT or EBA, still a "career indefinite", but with tightened work restrictions potentially in conflict with your career indefinite status.. But it could get worse.
Becoming an EIT or EBA while trying to acquire a new assignment is a tricky proposition. For example, if you are a 300 series employee and only identify a 500 series programmatically funded assignment, you may be expected to take the assignment, and subsequently have your classification and salary reduced to that of a 500 series employee. I know someone this happened to. Therefore being placed into EIT or EBA status has a potential punitive feature. Hiring managers do have the option to post or repost assignments with expanded language that could include 300 series level work. This would be a good faith effort on the part of the hiring manager and said to be encouraged by LLNS senior management. Effective January 1, 2013, any career indefinite EIT or EBA that does not acquire a programmatically funded assignment in a "responsible period of time" is subject to an "individual RIF".
Bureaucracy at its best. When LANS took over, we thought "Halleluia, it is the end of bureaucracy, waste and mismanagement". It stayed the same. LANS added nothing. In fact, they cost the taxpayer more!
9 comments:
Well, take this response with a grain of salt because it’s been a while.
Under UC, career employees had a legal “vested property interest” in their job due to the fact they were state employees. Basically, they could only be fired for cause, including funding reductions, and the LLNL policies and procedures had to be followed in employment actions or the employee could sue for damages. Sort of like tenure, and there was even a few cases where UC pushed back on DOE because the LLNL staff also had arguable rights of academic freedom — google Jessica Stern.
Supplemental labor was a means to circumvent that property interest for short-term projects. Some people were on SL status for years, so it was clearly being abused under UC, but when the Director had to sign off on hiring a 500-series tech (at some times), what do you do?
With the contract transition, the vested property interest vanished. Career indefinite basically transformed to mean “we intend to keep you and if your assignment ends, we will us the EBA (Employees Between Assignments) process to reassign you. Supplemental labor transitioned to limited duration appointments, so at the end of the period you’re done — unless the duration is extended by mutual agreement.
Both career and SL/LD appointments are different than staff augmentation, which is a contract with an external entity to provide personnel for short-term and/or highly specialized but transitory staffing needs.
There were layoffs at LLNL before the 2007 transition, like the AVLIS layoffs in ~2000, but very few career indefinite employees were impacted, and in most cases, the career indefinite employees could "bump" supplemental labor out of their jobs as needed. Supplemental labor contracts were written with such language. Some would argue the salaries of lab supplemental labor has a positive offset compared to career indefinites in part due to the lack of job security. However, during a funding reduction, a large program like NIF with a significant population of supplemental labor employees may determine career indefinites are too expensive (salary multipliers) compared to their supplemental labor employees. When this happens, career indefinites might be relieved of their assignments and sent back to their home organizations labeled as an EIT or EBA, still a "career indefinite", but with tightened work restrictions potentially in conflict with your career indefinite status.. But it could get worse.
Becoming an EIT or EBA while trying to acquire a new assignment is a tricky proposition. For example, if you are a 300 series employee and only identify a 500 series programmatically funded assignment, you may be expected to take the assignment, and subsequently have your classification and salary reduced to that of a 500 series employee. I know someone this happened to. Therefore being placed into EIT or EBA status has a potential punitive feature. Hiring managers do have the option to post or repost assignments with expanded language that could include 300 series level work. This would be a good faith effort on the part of the hiring manager and said to be encouraged by LLNS senior management. Effective January 1, 2013, any career indefinite EIT or EBA that does not acquire a programmatically funded assignment in a "responsible period of time" is subject to an "individual RIF".
and you know who has pushed this at every single laboratory, the DOE. And why? pension liability.
Bureaucracy at its best. When LANS took over, we thought "Halleluia, it is the end of bureaucracy, waste and mismanagement". It stayed the same. LANS added nothing. In fact, they cost the taxpayer more!
Why does a question about employee classifications at LLNL prompt the usual mouth-breathing about LANS?
Seriously, get over it.
LANS added nothing. In fact, they cost the taxpayer more!
7/27/2021 1:46 PM
LANS has been gone for years. What planet do you live on?
I meant LLNS.
Not a small mistake…
I meant LLNS.
7/29/2021 8:07 AM
Same was true of LANS.
Post a Comment