How does Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), influence LLNS hiring policies, and Affirmative Action underutilization criteria with respect to transgender new hires or existing employees? Are credential and experience requirements for scientific and engineering positions being maintained?
The video link below talks about Bud Light and Target’s business decisions of late, and the loss of tens of billions of dollars in market share rooted (he believes) in relatively new ESG requirements.
“The Fall of Bud Light: What Went Wrong?”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O6cAKYPIOhY
Comments
It certainly could have some impact I think, over the long term, that there is a controversy, but even that is somewhat uncertain. Some workers are hurt as you know, and workers at other beer companies could benefit, and so on.
I switched to Coors, did that effect howLLNL hires?
Certainly broadening the pool of applicants might actually improve quality as I've mentioned, although yes it could also lower quality if it becomes a sort of reverse discrimination. Along those lines, is there evidence certain groups are over-represented that would support that? Also if certain groups are underrepresented, isn't that partly because there are few qualified applicants in those groups? It might not be a case of discrimination in that regard, if they freely chose to do something else, which could perhaps even be more rewarding from a personal perspective.
The biggest problem with LLNS is the ability to get skilled people trained and willing to work aligned with the work.
Seems to be quite a bit of skills personal sidelined from actually working, while rolling out the red carpet for those unskilled and using this as a resume stepping stone.
In the end nobody wins
Perhaps in particular it is somehow correlated with risk, but there is not any causation, and the type of discrimination or profiling that judges an entire group together, is often problematic as you know, it could be related to racism or hatred of certain religions, ethnicities, skin colors, etc, immigrants, and so on.
Not so unfortunate for the un-credentialed “stepping stone” LLNL hired “underutilized” beneficiary. Isn’t this correct Randy Pico? Had you completed an AS degree in Electronics Technology comparable to other non-Native American LLNL new hires at the time BEFORE you were hired at UC/LLNL Randy? No.
In the present, we can only hope LGBTQ hires at LLNL, will not simply be hired to support an OFCCP AAP quota over college credential requirements of ones new hire peers. Time will tell.
And in an almost complete analogy, there is of course a complex story behind the use of legal and illegal drugs. People have introduced ideas about directly connecting the brain to a computer or subjecting it to various sorts of treatments, that are much more concerning (like the marrying robots idea). At the same time, of course, the availability of computing and communications technologies are in fact now altering and destroying mental health by feeding in unlimited information so essentially the same thing has already happened.
I do not think we should roll back history, or that would even be possible, but surely as scientists it might make sense to have an accurate view of the real world that exists around us. The fact is that it is sort of a hypocrisy to single out transgender, or even drug users perhaps in some cases, when most of our population is now engaged in related things that are much worse, as I mentioned in both cases we are doing essentially the same thing, as the issues on the horizon that worry people.
Certainly the current environment does pose security risks as you know, but I'm not sure profiling certain groups is an answer. And when there is a question about someone tying that to employment or compensation through a need for credentials, also I would think, could create a bunch of problems when there is a mandate to not discriminate.
Mid and end career folks getting pushed out and disengaged at the same time.
While jobs in silicon valley are often short-lived, of course, there are many employers in close proximity, of course, too, one reason why that ecosystem works, also I believe California does generally not allow non-compete clauses of course, as many other states do -- in some cases even applying these to restaurant workers or people who walk dogs, preventing them from working at another dog-walking company.
Certainly there could be a positive aspect that many people do believe in the mission otherwise they would leave, but I would imagine this also discriminates against anyone from a less fortunate background or with student debt, which could include various minority groups that have historically been faced with discrimination.
Back in the UC/LLNL days (pre-LLNS), job stability, benefits, and work environment, reasonably offset the attraction of higher Silicon Valley $$$ salaries. Now that more than 50% of LLNS employees are on TCP2 have portable 401ks, it doesn’t take much for them to consider greener pastures.
One BIG reason is job stability almost immediately went out the window when LLNS took over. Numbering in the hundreds, so called “career indefinite” employees were marched out the gate.
The second BIG loss of job stability event occurred in 2012-2013, when despite the documented and practiced pattern of laying off supplemental labor first policy to save/buffer “career indefinite” jobs (as you were told during your “career indefinite interviews), NIF dumped dozens of “career indefinite” employees where they instantly became 3rd tier employees with lipstick ETA and EBA labels. Some of these employees were quietly fired, while others took demotions, salary cuts, and “performance” based pay raise reductions.
LLNS elected to not walk the talk and welched on their job security pledges and former practices at best. At worst, LLNS breached a highly valued employer/employee contract.
So unfortunately, job stability and working in good faith practices at LLNL are defunct relics of the past.
Org Charts? Really? Back in 2008, well over 100 dedicated LLNS Career Indefinite Employees (FTE) were laid off in mass. Afterwards, some of them were able to hire back with LLNS, but permanently lost their pre-lay off TCP1 pension option. Gone.
Director George Miller was a “deer in the headlights”, fully onboard with that mass layoff, or somewhere in between…
We had “Org Charts” and “virtue signaling” talking points back in 2008 too, and the Director was at its designed for public consumption, apex. Follow the money, not a LLNS “Org-Chart”.
The layoffs were really bad, I recall, though as you know people whose work is not funded by the government are seemingly angry at those who are, who have more secure jobs, and better working conditions. This seems to be part of the backlash against the so-called "deep state" and "swamp" as well as teachers unions and so forth. Some people were evidently even angry about the pandemic response, especially business owners and people ordered not to work, and this seems to have led to the attempt to overthrow our government.
I would assume, the government might need to mistreat people somewhat, so as not to encourage an anti-government backlash among the actual taxpayers who are engaged in the more capitalist system with its business cycles and so on. They should still be able to attract a competitive workforce, as long as conditions at the labs are still better than the outside world.