Skip to main content

A straight face pledge by DOE/NNSA Contractors?

Image
By scooby


“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go to the next contractor.”

How can DOE/NNSA Contractors say with a straight face, they strive to be good stewards of the environment and care about their employees to a community of potential “downwinders”(in the broadest sense of the term), if their employees know full well, they will lose their jobs if they raise safety concerns?

In 2016, DOE/NNSA employee “whistleblower” fears were brought forward by a few Senators, and now again in 2024, another Senator has asked the DOE Secretary what has changed since 2016, to eliminate whistleblower retaliation by DOE contractors.

This fear of contractor retaliation continues to make Labs ripe for preventable accidents that may impact workers and the health of local communities.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Honor, is never a given, it must be earned with a track record supporting it. Wouldn’t you agree Mr. Pico? And, our fathers, would likely subscribe to such a metric as well, yes? So how do you measure up to your step-father’s honor expectations Randy?
10/05/2024 5:31 PM
Anonymous said…
To preserve profits, a preventable accident that has yet to occur, the Contractor will always default to a “we already knew that” response, which translates into this “whistleblower” is “out of his or her lane”. Result? Lab workers will not step forward with critical workplace observations, then when sh_t happens, potentially impacting Lab employees and the local communities, it’s too late.
10/06/2024 1:53 PM
Anonymous said…
The contractor management circles the wagons, excluding the ordinary employee, on even the most trivial and common sense matters. Trust not only doesn’t permeate the Triad management, it is a meaningless concept to all involved.
10/07/2024 1:34 AM
Anonymous said…
“The contractor management circles the wagons, excluding the ordinary employee…”

All while some lab managers (not all), within the safety of the wagon circle, watch with their thumb up their A _ _, as their employee gets abused.

Definition: “thumb up their A _ _”

“Not doing what you should be doing” - Urban Dictionary
10/08/2024 6:15 AM
Anonymous said…
Public transparency is not required at LLNL, so not much will change.
10/12/2024 7:57 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
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...
105 comments
Read more