March 20, 1998
Today the Lab announced that a policy creating "flexible term" (formerly
referred to as "restricted status") employment category
will be implemented beginning April 6, 1998. Following are some
thoughts from the SPSE Executive Board on the effects of the new
policy. We urge you to discuss this with fellow employees and
we encourage non-members to join SPSE and register your opposition
to the policy.
1) The "flexible term" employment category is one more
example of LLNL management shirking its responsibilities. There
have been three major policy changes since Tarter took over as
Director: modifications to the term appointment policies, modification
of the order of layoff policy, and now the so called "flexible
term" appointments. All were aimed at diminishing management
accountability in personnel actions. All of these policy changes
have one principal aim: they make it easier to get rid of employees
by removing the legal requirement that firings be done only for
cause.
2) Employees hired under the flexible term policy will be subject
to dismissal for no cause whatever. They will have no recourse
through the University's grievance procedures. This obviously
invites supervisors to exercise their powers to punish and manipulate
employees.
Management will probably respond that they will watch carefully
to see this does not happen. We know it happens when they are
"watching:" In 1997, SPSE won 6 of 7 grievances filed
on behalf of its members; 4 of these 6 were reviewed by arbitrator-judges
who found that management charges and actions against the employees
violated policies, and/or were not supported by the evidence.
(The other two were won without going to arbitration.)
In these cases, arbitrators (selected by mutual agreement between
LLNL and SPSE) found that supervisors failed to follow LLNL policies,
harassed employees, illegally discriminated against them, or rushed
to judgment in punishing an employee. The Staff Relations Division
(the part of the Human Resources Department that supposedly investigates
discrimination, harassment, and whistle blowing complaints) actually
collaborated with the supervisors even to the extent they concealed
and altered evidence adverse to the supervisors. (Also, it should
be noted that in the 7th grievance, the one we lost due to a technicality,
the arbitrator severely chastised the Lab for violating fundamental
notions of fairness in the workplace.) It is our experience that
LLNL management cannot be entrusted to oversee their own actions.
3) We anticipate it will be difficult to hire qualified scientists
and engineers under these policies. It will inevitably lead to
a decline in competence of the staff. It also risks significant
loss of institutional knowledge.
4) Employees hired to non-renewable, maximum of six year, positions
and subject to dismissal with only 30 days notice are unlikely
to have loyalty to the employer or to establish roots in the community.
Since the Laboratory is a major employer in the Livermore Valley,
this shift to a substantial transient workforce may adversely
affect the entire Valley community.
5) Persons presently holding career positions would be permitted
to apply for jobs advertised as flexible term positions only by
agreeing to give up their career status. In the past, Laboratory
management has created and fostered a situation where employees
are required, from time to time, on their own, to locate jobs
within the Laboratory. This new policy will prevent them from
taking those jobs without putting their long term employment in
jeopardy.
6) The flexible term policy effectively removes protections from
retaliation for expressing views that may be contrary to those
of management. Many LLNL employees have spoken out effectively
with dissenting views on a broad range of issues. Some examples
are: Plutonium Safety: There is currently at least one active
investigation by the Inspector General of the DOE that was initiated
by employee dissent, concerning this issue (Dave Lappa). The Strategic
Defense Initiative (Roy Woodruff). Use of classification to inhibit
free speech (Hugh DeWitt). Safe levels of radiation exposure (Goffman
and Tamplin). There are many other examples.
In the late 1940's and early 1950's there was a great national
debate about putting the weapons labs under civilian vs. military
control. An important argument that influenced the choice of civilian
control and management of the two weapons Lab's (LLNL and LANL)
by the University of California, was that the tradition of academic
freedom within the university community would help protect the
nation from excesses by the military. The flexible term policy
tends to squelch academic freedom and diminish the expression
of crucial dissenting views.
|
October 9, 2001 April 20, 2000 March 17, 1999 |
Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/