Hello,
We all have been taught that using more words, being verbose, doesn't necessarily help you express your views clearly.
I am seeing more and more comments that take 10 minutes to read and more importantly understand .
Please be brief for the sake of clarity. Verbosity seems to go against clarity.
I don't want to impose actual size limit and instead count on your cooperation to be brief. Brevity = clarity.
Thank you.
9 comments:
Twitter rules to be applied?
It appears the long-winded comments are mostly by those wishing to soften or distract the reader from the actual topic. I agree with you, clear and concise is better for this blog. A good rodeo clown, distracts the bull when the rider gets thrown to minimize and or avoid rider injury. Pro-LLNS management trolls have a similar protective purpose.
This blog continues to present an itch that LLNS can’t easily scratch. A new LLNL non-profit and Bechtel free contractor will serve LLNL missions and LLNL employees for the better.
It makes sense, I think for shorter replies but not for things like the superconductor or any discussion of legal matters, and so on, regarding some of the previous posts. There are I think, a lot of long-winded posts Trump derangement syndrome or whether things are or are not relevant, etc. At the same time, as I mentioned, the lengthy discussions are a bit pointless if only a few people read them or care, and nothing changes.
“It makes sense, I think for shorter replies but not for things like the superconductor or any discussion of legal matters…”
Fortunately or unfortunately, “wrongdoing”, “exposing injustice”, etc. this blogs stated mission, since LLNS took over management of LLNL in 2007, may at times necessitate the discussion of “legal matters” of other DOE/NNSA employees. How this may relate to a LLNS employee, not a LLNS manager (the blog was designed for employees) will vary.
If you’re a new LLNS employee or an existing one for that matter, knowing your employer puts itself first and its employees last, can be a hard pill to swallow.
A federal contractor that virtue signals its “workforce values” and management prominence as Lexus quality, but delivers Ford Pinto, Ford Edsel, or Pontiac Aztek results year after year, is one market isolated critter. LANSLLNS are prime examples of this pay more get less boondoggle (WIPP, Arc flash accident, NIF, 43,000 lb. LLNL copper theft, etc.).
Time to go forward by going back to a non-profit lab contractor. It won’t be a perfect solution or identical to the UC/LLNL days, but it is low hanging fruit for lab missions and for attracting and retaining lab employees.
Does the lab really put themselves first and employees last? Any for profit entity would do that, being accountable to shareholders, but as you know there is now a concept of ESG and stakeholder capitalism. Just as was the case many years ago in the United States, companies were expected to be run in a manner that benefited the country and national goals, as well as employees and the communities they were within. European companies have been like this for a while as you know as is the case with Japan as there was an emphasis on stability following the chaos and instability of WWII. With instability appearing here, of course, in various forms, Trump, January 6th, the murder of George Floyd, etc, and a lot of wealth inequality driving it, among other things, and a growing population of ethnic or racial minorities (both legal and illegal of course) it is clear this is needed in the United States.
The lab does have a mandate for this, of course, and they seem to be making efforts in that direction as you know although some might say it is "virtue signaling" the real problem is unhappiness with what is happening I think.
And yes, the ESG movement has been criticized as you know, on the right that it leads to a sort of "corporatism" in which corporations that as a guise to mistreat workers. For example as you know, the Bud Light incident now allows the company to extract concessions from union workers and close factories, and people even suspect the company could have somehow done it on purpose -- although I don't believe that, at all, we all know oil stocks and refineries have done well with high gas prices, and they donated to Democrats before the election.
That is, if incentives are still in place to put shareholders first, and something else is imposed as a requirement, it is still a subsidiary goal!
And yes, this is posted under a discussion of "brevity" and is a digression from the original topic, but I hope you post it anyways, as discussion has already drifted off a bit, of course. Perhaps, it could even be an example of how discussions drift and long replies are sometimes warranted or do have something to say.
8/01/2023 9:43 AM
Oh, man I get Scooby's point now.
I think what that long comment might have meant was ESG and stakeholder capitalism would be fine perhaps, in the EU or Japan which are already more or less exactly like that. In the US a long time ago things were more like that too -- white collar workers and those at the lab, were usually treated better in particular and people generally want things back like that.
Partly in the 80's to 90's things changed, partly due to foreign competition it seems, as the burden of fighting the cold war, caused the US to lag behind Japan and others in some economic respects.
This is something which most people who are old enough remember in great detail. Things like supply-side economics, mergers, stock options, and running corporations purely for the benefit of shareholders date from that era.
Now anything continued to its logical conclusion could have problems, and there is a desire for readjustment, while all the old incentives are still in place, so it does not happen. And at the same time, some feel we are entering some sort of "new cold war" which was part of the reason for the original economic reforms.
So, as was pointed out ESG or stakeholder capitalism could not work, or more pessimistically one might suspect that they are having the opposite of the intended effect, or even that the real intent of doing these things, is the opposite of the stated intent. Democrats on the other hand, who advocate these policies, naturally also have made various claims that Republicans have interfered, the same claim that is often made when Obamacare is criticized, and so on.
Again, this is a long comment that does address the discussion -- which has actually drifted as you might observe -- and might be relevant in addition as an example of whether or not to allow the topic to drift, or allow long comments. For example why or why not should this one be allowed, and will it be?
That is, the short comments are observant, but a deeper analysis of many topics is possible, even if leads nowhere, at least now you know why.
Post a Comment