Monday, April 17, 2006

A word of warning

Submitted by Anonymous:

A word of warning to those LANL staff who still feel the need to express themselves by writing scathing letters to the LANL NewsBulletin: you are about to become "at-will" employees. If you thought there was an atmosphere of intimidation and retaliation under Nanos, then you need to realize that under LANS, LLC you will truly put your remaining careers at LANL at risk by writing letters to the NewsBulletin that are critical of LANS, DOE, NNSA, UC, Bechtel, BWXT, or anything LANL-related.

You will probably be safe ranting about those favorite NewsBulletin topics involving bad drivers, bicycle safety, and parking problems. However, you may rest assured that criticisms of the new LANL management will not go unnoticed. Authors of such letters will find themselves "at-risk".

Do you people not realize that you ALWAYS WERE at-will employees? YES, even under LANL-UC!
For whatever that's worth. UC couldn't even fire Nanos, who was *the* prime candidate for at-will termination. Ordinary fuck-ups have always been pretty secure in their jobs at LANL.

This will change when Bechtel takes over (yes I know, when "LANS" takes over, but anybody who thinks that anybody other than Bechtel will be running the show is fooling themselves).
At the risk of injecting some content into the blog; Michael is making a statement which is not supported by the facts.

LANL employees have not, in fact, been "at will" since December 31, 1999; which is when the new grievance policy, AM 111, took effect. Sadly, most LANL employees don't seem to notice such things, or even know what it means.

At UC, and the other two Labs, the employees have never been "at will" employees, because they know what's going on and fight for their rights.

If LANL employees do, in fact, become "at will" under the new contract, they have noone to blame but themselves. They have never, in my humble observation, cared about their rights, only their pensions. People who don't care about their rights don't deserve any. Time to wake up folks.
PS. The reason UC couldn't fire Nanos is that he has a contract with UC, and terminating him without cause would have breached the contract. Nanos, whatever else he did, or didn't do, did not breach the contract. Bad judgement isn't a reason for termination, only a reason for removal from management.

The only "contract" the employees have with UC is the Policy Manual, and the only thing that supports that is the grievance policy, which defines the rules for termination.

Fraud and perjury are reasons to terminate Nanos. He engaged in both actions and I can prove it. In fact they are also good reasons to throw his worthless ass in prison as well. Unfortunately he has too much backing from all of the other criminals involved in this mess.
Ahh. come on, at-will epmloyment ain't so bad! Ask the scores of KSL recently laid off and walking the unemployment line in this one horse town!Ask KSL's recently fired CFO, he'll give you an ear full about at-will employment! No one's safe in L.A. except KSL's former G.M. and now Deputy GM, goes to show your name doesn't have to be Nanos to get away with whatever you like and retain a $200,00 plus job!!
"You will probably be safe ranting about those favorite NewsBulletin topics involving bad drivers, bicycle safety, and parking problems."

In fact, a certain amount of trivial whining is expected by management. Those NewsBulletin ranters might be so bold, even, as to complain about the cafeteria, but I wouldn't venture much past that.

As long as management observes that the little people are all up in arms about something inconsequential, they know that they have them foxed on the important issues.
Michael is incorrect. The only "at-will" UC employee at LANL was the director, until late in Nanos', er, career when he made division leaders "at-will" employees as well. That was so he could shit-can any of them who disagreed with anything he said, you see.

Myself, though, I simply did not have the heart to terminate that particular at-will rascal. In fact, I am so fond of the little devil that I've decided to keep him on the UC payroll.
This will make for a wonderful place to work at, wouldn't you say?

"you need to realize that under LANS, LLC you will truly put your remaining careers at LANL at risk by writing letters to the NewsBulletin that are critical of LANS, DOE, NNSA, UC, Bechtel, BWXT, or anything LANL-related"

I feel real sorry for those who are left behind who can think for themselves or wish they could make change. The last time I heard of this type of environment was under martial law in the Philippines when good old Ferdinand Marcos was in charge with the backing of his Philippine Constabulary. Three years of that was enough for me.
Someone said today that the TR Directorate's infamous Morale Officer ($163500) was leaving. Seems that the job in ADTR was only an "internship".
How can so much comment occur on
statements of opinion with no factual justification? People are entitled to their opinions, but many of these statements are made as though they are "fact". If there are facts behind these statements then the poster should not be anonymous. This is more like grafiti on the bathroom wall. Shame on those that read it (including myself, I guess)
Yes, David. Shame on you.

And now, back to our regular programming. For a prime example of *acceptable* Newsbulletin letter material, I direct your attention to
Regarding EMP's post regarding ADTR's morale officer. Yes, she left her post in ADTR and is now in HR-T&D at Canyon School. I heard she got demoted from a SSM-6 to SSM-4 and was forced on HR-T&D. They put her in a shared office cubicle thats about the size of a toilet stall even though there were private and larger offices available. All her 2 tons worth of box's are stacked up in the hallway. No one knows what her job duties are going to be but I think it has something to do with Arts and Crafts.
Finally! Our famous overpaid morale officer does something to improve morale.

Maybe Bechtel isn't completely bad after all.
LANL is finally getting the treatment that all American workers have been getting for years. I am not at all sure that LANS will meet the legal requirements for making employees "at will", but if employees do not contest LANS's claim that their workers are at will -- they will be.

American workers have been working longer hours for less real dollar pay for many years with out so much as a peep. As a result they have far less vacation and far fewer benefits than Europeans. Last year the average family income dropped, in real dollars, for the first time in many years. But since Americans aren't great students of other ways of living, and aren't even aware that they are falling behind.

Compare this to the French who tried to limit the protection from firing for young people recently. The furor was so bad that the government backed down.

American workers have grumbled about giving up their rights but have done little to stop it. It is sad to watch.
"American workers have grumbled about giving up their rights but have done little to stop it. It is sad to watch."

Nothing is going to change until we have another great depression, which may be here sooner then you think. Americans have had it so good for so long, they really don't have a clue or even appreciate what they have. They just want more and spend most of their time trying to keep up with the Jones. It's all about status, even if that means living well beyond their means and in debt up to their eyeballs. I'd say that the hammer is about ready to fall.
I can't decide which response to offer to the original post, so I'll do both:

(a) What makes you think there will still be a Readers' Forum after June 1?

(b) Oh please. The most risky topic ever discussed in the Readers' Forum is whether the United Way killed Matthew Shepard. Or something like that.
If you have not signed an employment contract, or are not represented by a union, you are an at-will employee. "At-will" is a legal concept, and it has nothing to do with being willing to "fight for your rights."

Practically speaking, someone who is fired on an at-will basis can sue for wrongful termination, but you would have to show that the termination was based on an illegal cause, which means they violated a Federal or state law in the process.

New Mexico has been an at-will state for a very long time, and I suspect that if you looked at your employee manual you'd find a statement to the effect that employees not represented by a union with which the Lab has a contract are at-will employees. michael's first comment is correct. You have been at-will employees for a long time.
I would like to add--I recognize that many of you are members of University Professional & Technical Employees (UPTE)/Society of Professionals, Scientists, and Engineers (SPSE), but I'm wondering why I've never heard anyone talking about going on strike--since that is a union's most powerful weapon.
Strike for what? Higher wages. Not likely when one in five is a millionaire. You surely can't strike for better working condition or break time , vacation, sick leave, pension, etc, etc, etc. So what could you possibly want that you already do not have? You can't even strike for special rights. They seem to have a month for every walk of life, except one race and I think you all know what that is.
New Mexico is a "right to work" State, not an "at will" State. The former refers to the right not to join a union. The later has no meaning except in law where "at will" means an employer can fire you for just about any reason. If the employer is dumb enough to say he's firing you for being gay, or because women belong in the home not in the work place...then the "at will" employer can get into trouble. Otherwise "at will" simply means it's open season on workers. So basically "at will" has more to do with a complacent workforce that's afraid to take a stand, than a State that has a "right to work" law in place.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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