October 21,1999

The Honorable T.J. Glauthier
Deputy Secretary of Energy
And Chief Operating Officer
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C. 20585

Dear Mr. Glauthier:

Thank you Mr. Glauthier and members of the Task Force for coming here today. We are a group of Asian Pacific American employees (APA) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who share the same values, pride and vision as all Americans in this country.

Most of us consider Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory a great place to work. The Lab has attracted many top-notch scientists, scholars and engineers; many of them are APAs. We all enjoyed our work very much but being APAs we also have to live with the persistent stereotypes about us being quiet, hard working, not willing to speak up and be counted. Furthermore, we are perceived as model minorities, highly educated and respected in the technical fields and not interested in becoming leaders.

Worse yet there is the myth that we are not quite Americans; always loyal to our ancestral land, no matter how many generations we have been Americans. Because of the perception that we are foreigners whose loyalties lie somewhere else, we at the Lab often feel that we may have been treated differently. This is reflected on unequal and unfair treatments mostly in salary, ranking and promotional opportunities.

The Chinese spy allegations have definitely cast chilling effects to all APAs who are working at the Lab. I'm afraid the Lab Management can extend the spy perceptions as legitimate excuses to keep qualified APAs from advancement in their careers.

For years, we have been trying to work with the Lab through all proper channels available to us to address disparate salary, ranking and management advancement opportunities between APAs and whites. APA employees have consistently been paid less, ranked lower, and received less promotional opportunities than whites, who had equal or less education or qualifications. After persistent unsatisfactory response from lab management, a group of employees, some of us included, formed together as the Association of Ethnic Minorities (AEM) in 1994 to file suit against the Lab challenging it to provide needed documents that might prove salary and ranking disparity existed against minorities. Unfortunately, the suit had to be put to rest due to insufficient legal funds. The Association never received the promised materials that would have shed light on the minorities' assertion that we all may have been unfairly treated in the area of salary, ranking and promotional opportunities. But as employees at the Lab, we have experienced first hand that disparities continue to this day, and the related concerns remain. Here are our concerns:

1. Salary Disparities

Preliminary salary studies conducted by APA representatives suggest that salary paid to APA employees, both in management and non-management positions mostly lag behind other white employees in the same classifications or positions with equal or lesser degrees and responsibilities. Even at management level, first line APA supervisors receive less than non-APA supervisors. The charts in Appendix A illustrate the results of our studies.

2. Value Ranking and Performance Evaluation Process.

The ranking and performance evaluation process is very subjective and arbitrary. The employee's final ranking is managed and controlled through a black box by predominantly white upper management where APAs are severely underrepresented. APA employees are often ranked lower by white managers.

The ranking guideline and criteria are so general that there is plenty of room for the reviewer's subjective discretion. The appraisal process is orderly. However, the final ranking is done in secrecy and the entire process leaves the employee unable to challenge the results. Ranking results are manipulated at the departmental level to benefit selected employees. Non APAs are at times ranked and paid higher because they can be considered managing "special assignments" or "just like" another person who is doing work in a higher position. Upper management often "peg" less qualified whites above most senior and qualified APAs. Despite being recognized for our credentials, our expertise and our hard work ethics, APAs are not treated as equals with whites in a similar capacity.

Impacts of the Ranking:

• APA employees are often ranked lower and thus perceived as being less valuable..
• Ranking determines salary.
• Ranking can influence the promotional opportunities.
• Ranking results could be used for selection of lay-off.
• Ranking process has been abused and used as retaliation against many APA employees.

3. Promotional Opportunities and Glass Ceiling

• Promotions to managerial positions are often predetermined.
• Access to high profile positions or projects are often denied to APAs.
• White employees are often pre-groomed and given "acting" positions prior to being selected to the same managerial positions.
• APAs are not encouraged to apply for managerial positions.
• Old boy networks are common practice; thus, APA employees are often excluded.
• Requirements for new position postings are often modified to fit certain less qualified white candidates.
• With the pending LLNL women's class action suit, LLNL now promotes more white females as a smoke screen to address "minorities" issues.

The management has often verbally praised the APA workers as well-educated, loyal, dependable, and hard working employees. You would think these good virtues would be rewarded with promotions and salary increase. We are not. And despite the fact that APA's are well equipped in management qualities and potentials, except for Group Leaders we are severely underrepresented in middle management or other responsible positions. We are nearly non existent in upper management positions. Group Leaders are not considered Management.

4. Accountability

Managers in general are not held accountable for their actions. Managers' actions are often justified and protected by the Lab's well-established legal staff. APA employees feel there is no recourse when discriminatory actions are taken against them, whether it is ranking, salary, promotion or insensitive comments, etc.

• In the past, many of us complained, in writing, to the management about the verbal abuse, and unprofessional treatment by some managers to no avail.
• Many problematic Managers are simply transferred to other departments or they are given staff positions. These managers may lose their managerial positions but they do not receive salary readjustments to match new positions with fewer responsibilities.
• Managers are not disciplined for their discriminatory actions. Managers have no fear of punishment. Thus, with ineffectual AADP and the backing of the legal staff, LLNL managers can and do retaliate and discriminate freely.

As a summary, let us present to you that on March 19,1993 during a meeting with AEM an employee asked Phil Coyle, then Principal Associate Director and Equal Opportunity Officer, about managers' accountabilities and commitments to non- discrimination. Phil Coyle replied: "Other Associate Directors and managers don't work for me and I can't tell them what to do."

5. Other Problems

Problems in these areas are considered global issues at LLNL but they affect APA employees the most.

Affirmative Action & Diversity Program (AADP).

The Lab's Affirmative Action and Diversity Program office (AADP) is powerless to address the employees' concerns. Employees' complaints mostly went unresolved which further lowers their morale and trust in the lab's commitment to maintain a fair and equal opportunity work environment.

October 31, 1994, an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Appraisal was conducted by DOE Oakland Office, Human Resources Management Division. It stated in its executive summary:
"---Unfortunately, in many of the job groups where under utilization existed for minorities and women and placement occurred, there was no evidence that good faith efforts were identified and assessed by the AADP staff and Laboratory management outside the Directorates".

Staff Relations.

• It is biased and pro-management.
• The reason for their existence is to protect management.
• Employee complaints must be first filed with Staff Relations who conducts the investigation as well as represents the management at the hearings. Employees who filed complaints were left to defend themselves, their ranking and salaries left vulnerable. The process allows conflict of interest by the Lab Management but offers no due process to employees who file complaints.

6. Actions and Responses from LLNL and UC regarding Discriminations raised in 1993 by the Association of Ethnic Minority employees (AEM):

LLNL Management

• Launched media events emphasizing their accomplishments in promoting diversity programs to down play the discrimination issues raised by APA and many other minority groups.
• Proposed many action plans.
• Refused to conduct Lab-wide salary studies.
• Contracted Focus Group studies.
• Disregarded an independent reviewer, former Rep. Ron Dellums, D-Oakland. On May 19, 1994 in his letter to DOE Secretary O'Leary regarding the findings Dellums said, "Management has repeatedly breached agreements reached between the two parties. Specifically was the failure of management to share the interim report of the two outside investors, as well as the final report."

UC

• UC has shown little interest in enforcing the non-discrimination policies in the work place
  of its contractors.
• In 1992 when one of the minority groups (AEM) requested UC's intervention on LLNL's discriminatory practice, UC refused. Instead, UC criticized AEM for not cooperating with LLNL for resolutions.
• UC ultimately ignored the minority group's plea to help address discrimination issues at LLNL.

7. Recommendations

APA at the Lab would like to see:

• An unbiased lab wide salary and glass ceiling study by a third party with its findings published in its entirety. If the study identifies, the Lab is to correct the discrepancies immediately.
• Revamp the entire Ranking and Performance Evaluation procedure with input from employees.
• Revisit and publish, in its entirety, the raw data, the many findings, studies and recommendations made by outside consultants in the past regarding minority issues since 1992.
• Review the grievance and administrative review policies and make recommendations to UC and LLNL to make the policies fair, instead of the currently stacked deck against the APA employees.
• Recognize AADP or establish an oversight organization that is separate from Lab management and is independently funded to address APA as well as all employee issues.
• Have a well-written policy and ensure that LLNL managers will be held accountable for their actions or lack of actions.
• APA representatives should be involved in all these processes.

Conclusion

Mr. Glauthier, we are here today to tell you and the members of the Task Force that most APA scientists, engineers and professionals working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other national labs are not only the best and most valuable workers but also we help make our country the strongest leader in science and national security. We work hard and make substantial contributions, and we expect to be equitably recognized, rewarded and compensated. We strive to advance in our careers and we are well prepared to be leaders, and like every other American, we want to work in an environment that will treat us fairly, without any prejudice or indignities. The Chinese spy allegation, if left to continue to mushroom, will forever set APA employees back and discourage many best minds from working at any of the National Labs. It will be our country's loss. We need to have mutual respect and equality to all, whether you are APAs or not and together we can make the Lab the employer of choice into the next millennium and beyond.

Appendix A

 

1 ­ Classification 256 Mathematician all degrees for last 11 years

2 ­ Classification 270 - Physicist PhD

3 ­ Classification 249 - Engineer - BS/MS

4 ­ Classification 249 Engineer PhD

5 ­ FY 91-92 salary comparison longevity of discrepancy

6 ­ Lab Newsline, 1/29/93, Lab initiates independent review of discrimination charges, (1) page

7 ­ Letter to AEM from Philip E. Coyle, dated 9/10/93, (2) pages

8 ­ Court papers, case no. v-008066-8, page 1, 3

9 ­ Letter to Tarter from DOE, 7/19/94(?), (2) pages

N.B. All plots show discrepancies. The actual situation is worse because the discrepancies increase with the seniority of the APAs.

Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/