Skip to main content

Asian American Scientist Sues Sandia

 https://www.thecowboychannel.com/story/45507737/asian-american-scientist-sues-sandia-national-labs-manager-alleging-racial-discrimination-and-retaliation



Comments

Anonymous said…
No surprise. The National Labs have become nothing more than a corporate money sink. Dare to point that out and be prepared to fight federal lawyers with deep pockets funded by taxpayers. It’s a pretty good gig if you can get it…
Anonymous said…
These NNSA labs have the politically correct "equal opportunity employer" boiler plate language on their job listings to satisfy the EEOC and the OFCCP. Unfortunately, too many lab managers get away with retaliatory conduct like that described in this lawsuit. Employees that may observe the conduct, usually don't speak up for fear of being targeted themselves. So, lab toxic work environments and retaliation continue unabated. Sandia has no lawsuit cost worries, because the NNSA will pick up the tab for their legal expenses. Easy Cheese.
Anonymous said…
For those of us who work in the environs of the National Lab system, when was the last time you saw a job ad fairly administered with an open process, seeking the best candidate, from the most qualified pool, using the most relevant metrics?
Anonymous said…
“For those of us who work in the environs of the National Lab system, when was the last time you saw a job ad fairly administered with an open process, seeking the best candidate, from the most qualified pool, using the most relevant metrics?’

True. Too often under LLNS, “best candidate” and superior SKA’s to best achieve mission objectives are not even a close 2nd priority. Unquestioning allegiance is priority 1. At LLNL, we’ve had people just out right “appointed” at the Division level. Many other openings are either wired for one pre-selected individual, or the individual is groomed for the position well before it is posted. So much for an “open process”. There are exceptions for higher profile positions. For example, Director Parney and Engineering AD Patterson were not pre-selected from within. These two professionals in my opinion, displayed some backbone and were resistant to internal politics and status quo assimilation. Interestingly, both Parney and Patterson left under LLNS management, not to retire, but to continue their careers elsewhere. We could use more people like them.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

tcp1 looking good

I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...