Sunday, June 19, 2005

I debated whether to post the preceeding submission

I debated whether to post the preceeding submission. Ultimately, I felt that it in a way captured the essence of what is currently wrong at LANL. The mere fact that there are people out there who hold this point of view should indicate to even the most self-absorbed LANL employee that there are serious problems at LANL which are not being dealt with. I agree with one of the comments: the post is ugly but it is not clueless, and ignoring what this person has to say would not be the right thing to do. I see the submission, and others like it as a wake-up call.

--Doug

Comments:
Doug, Thank you for posting this message. This message does capture the essence of what is wrong with the culture at lanl. It is clear that whenever anyone speaks what they feel is truth and it goes against the very vocal members of the blog community they all rally to stomp them down.
 
Doug, you did the right thing in posting this message. Wasn't it Rep Hopson who talked about "white collar welfare" at the labs? There is tremendous pressure to lower the cost of maintaining the nuclear stockpile - witness the Oversky/SEAB study as proof. It wouldn't surprise me if some fraction of the powers-that-be in Washington aren't viewing this contract bid as a fantastic opportunity to conduct a massive VERIP on the cheap at LANL. Maybe we have all been taking it for granted that DOE and the rest of the nation value LANL and its scientific workforce as much as we do.
 
Posting this was definitely the right thing to do. We all need to have a clear picture of the forces and viewpoints surrounding LANL as we weigh our options and proceed into the future contract change.
 
Give me a break. There's little to no value in any message not of a sensitive nature that comes hanging off an "anonymous" tag. If we could see that our critics are academics, political leaders, high-level (or low-level) LANLites, we might be forced to turn the glass inward. As it is, there's no way of knowing if either the original post or its hard-on-heels "arrogant little snot" followup is anything other than a couple of middle-school kids stoking a fire.

It's not because I fear what was said that I encouraged Doug to do the right thing -- it's because the overuse of anonymous posting has led to the rapid degradation of an opportunity for discussion into dueling windbags. It's less Forum Romanum than it is "Blazing Saddles" campfire dinner.

"My group leader is skimming off the top and has arranged the termination of others who noticed"(*) is the kind of statement that calls for Anonymity. "You suck!" is not.

(*) Statement chosen for dramatic effect. My group leader does no such thing.
 
"My group leader is skimming off the top and has arranged the termination of others who noticed"(*) is the kind of statement that calls for Anonymity.......

(*) Statement chosen for dramatic effect. My group leader does no such thing.

Well Jim, my group leader did exactly that and worse! He arranged for the secretaries who reported his criminal activities to be terminated. He warned those of us who did not support his actions, that we too, would be terminated. Thus, began a reign of terror, retaliation, retribution, revenge, threats, intimidation, stalking, false accusations, libel, betrayal ect. Some folks reading this post will know exactly who I am. I have been silent for a couple years, but now I await my opportunity to speak to Congress. In the interim, he and his associates should know; I certainly will not be "lured" out in the middle of the night.
SIGN ME 'ANONYMOUS'for now.
 
To the 1228 poster, your group leader sounds like my DO chief of staff who bullies everyone who does not agree with her. We all can only hope that new management will root out the bullies, liars, and crooks.
 
Sure are a lot of Bullies, Liars and crooks in management at this Lab. Could there also be some projection going on.
 
I have no beef with our Chief of Staff. Judging by the postings; there should be a blog devoted to LANL CoSs. Were these glorified SSMs a Nanos idea?
 
They were around for a long time before Nanos.
 
To the last three posts,
Remember to document, document and
document!
 
And document some more. You'll need that when you file your lawsuit against your manager, the SET, ombuds, and personnel relations, who are all about protecting the corrupt institution and screwing the employees.
 
Post 12:02:33 PM

Boy Howdy!! I know first hand!
 
Yes, 6/20/2005 06:45:30 PM post, these glorified SSMs were a Nanos idea. Especially the group level ones, except they are Deputy Group Leaders, and are a nice way to pay back favorites.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?