Letters to the Editor
Send letters by e-mail to spse@spse.org, or to Patrick Weidhaas, L-560. They must address UC and Lab issues. The SPSE Editor reserves the right to select and edit submissions. Anonymous letters are discouraged. We will publish the letters on our website, and possibly in our Newsletter. Letters are not restricted to SPSE members; we want to hear from everyone.
Because of space considerations, letters may be "aged," i.e., older letters may be removed to make space for more recent letters.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors, not necessarily those of the Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers.
Contents:
See letters sent to DOE Ombudsman Jeremy Wu
See what people have to say about polygraph testing at the national labs.
Noncontributory Imbalance
Sandra Brewer, LLNL Employee
August 6, 2001
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE REGENTS
1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
UC Regents:
I am concerned about the imbalance resulting from recent changes
in the allocation of UCRP retirement credits derived from
gift of up to two years service credited to former temporary employees;
http://www.ucop.edu/bencom/news/servcredit.html.
This bothers me because I and several of my colleagues had a period of full-time UC employment that gives us no such credit until a Noncontributory Offset has been paid. Why are former temporary employees given this benefit for free while committed full-time staff are still made to pay for the same benefits.
The imbalance affects all UC career staff hired before 1991,
including over 4000 current employees at my own UC/LLNL site.
And UC career staff hired before 1971, including about 300 current
UC/LLNL employees, are especially concerned. They were not required
to contribute before age 30, but unlike the "free" credits,
their credits must be paid for by voluntary contribution,
buying them back, or by paying the offset during retirement. The
UC "Your Benefits Summary" link shows this will cost
$200 to $300 per month for most who are affected.
Several of my colleagues also hired before 1971 recall we were discouraged
from making contributions before age 30; we were told by UC that
the contributions were not necessary because we had several years
remaining in the system after turning 30. Our costs were not even
determined and announced until much later.
UC Customer.Service@ucop.edu has replied that the gift offered to former temporary staff is "separate and unrelated" to the noncontributor> offset charged to career staff for credits earned at the same time. It may be separate, but it hardly qualifies as unrelated. All we ask is fairness for all the UC staff, especially those of us who have persevered as career staff for over 30 years now.
At the very least, consideration should be given to eliminating the offset charged to those who earned their credits while working full-time in the UCRP system.
Sincerely,
Sandra Brewer
UC/LLNL
What Comes After the Wen Ho Lee Case
Sue Byars, LLNL Employee
September 19, 2000
To SPSE editor,
There are many news stories, accounts, and opinions on the circumstances
and events leading up to Dr. Wen Ho Lee's being fired from Los
Alamos, arrested, jailed, and now released under a plea bargain.
While most of us don't understand how this all happened, there
are many investigations and probably lawsuits that will occur,
and history will be the final judge of guilt and innocence of
the parties involved. SPSE, as an organization, has not taken
a stand or interpreted these circumstances and events.
However, there are employee/employer issues that have surfaced.
For LLNL scientific and technical employees, does SPSE have any
desire to interpret the meaning of the way one employee was treated
(Dr. Lee) and possibly influence the outcome of the way the remainder
of the employees are being treated?
As an employee, I have just witnessed a co-worker at a sister
lab treated so unfairly and inhumanely that a judge issued such
a strong apology. And has Clinton and Reno all in a tiff.
What do these events tell employees about our workplace, the management
in charge of us and our work, management accountability, and the
oversight agencies in charge of management?
What does the boycott by the APAs mean to employees? I personally have no desire to be associated with bigotry (in any form) and have chosen friends, organizations and associates who are not bigots, and now I find myself working in a place accused of racist practices. These accusations (whether we agree with them or not) have been made and do impact our daily lives at work. And affect how we see ourselves and our workplace, as well as how the community sees us.
What does all this mean and how does it impact our employee/employer relationships?
What does it predict about the status of our work environment?
How do I cope with it as an employee? Do I have any rights or has what we just seen demonstrate that we have no rights by virtue of having security clearances or access to secured areas?
Have the labs become as Dante's inferno: Abandon all hope ye who enter here? (I know it is not an exact quote - but I left my reference book at home).
Or is there no impact, does SPSE ignore everything that has happened, and go on worrying about pension plans? Why, for example, did SPSE protest Small losing her job, when SPSE did not protest Wen Ho Lee losing his job? Wen Ho Lee is at least a scientist, while I don't know what classifcation Small was, I suspect it was administrative.
A quote from a William Blake poem keeps surfacing in my mind:
A dog starved at his Master's Gate
Predicts the ruin of the State.
So what does an employee in shackles and chains predict for LLNL?
And what, if any, should the SPSE role be in determining/influencing the status of the "national laboratory employee" post the Wen Ho Lee case?
In solidarity,
Sue Byars
Letter to the UC Regents Re: Pension Plan
Changes
Patricia E. Erickson, Former member of the UCRS Advisory
Board, LLNL Benefits/Retirement Counselor
September 12, 2000
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RE: University of California Retirement System (UCRS)
The purpose of my letter is to voice my personal outrage at the recent events regarding the UC Board of Regents removal of UC Treasurer Patricia Small, and my concern for the future of the UC pension plan. I am further dismayed by:
Perhaps you were not aware of the significance, but the UC Retirement System is the single most important component of the total compensation package for UC employees. This retirement plan is the "crown jewel" in our compensation package. UC employees have not had to contribute to it for over 10 years because of the professional, ethical, A-political and successful accomplishments of Patricia Small during her 29 years of service at UC! It also represents the financial future of UC employees and their families. The pension plan has always been a source of UC employee pride, a role model for other systems, and envied by other high-level money managers.
I am extremely disappointed at the University of California Board of Regents' submission to a very politically motivated Regent. This board has NOT acted in the best interests of the University, its employees or our pension fund. There has been a loss of the faith and trust that UC employees have placed with the Regents for many years. If this Board were acting in our best interest, there would have been open Board meetings regarding the Treasurer, external audits, and pension fund allocations. Instead the Board conducts their meetings in secrecy which resulted in the forced resignation of Treasurer Patricia Small. She was forced from her position because she did not agree with what Gerald Parsky wanted to do with our pension fund.
I don't agree with what he wants to do with our fund either. Isn't it interesting after all of these years of no outside reviews of our pension plan, it now becomes necessary to do so. It certainly wasn't necessary because of the fund's performance. An average of 16% annual returns over the past 20 years is admirable. It wasn't because Patty Small was investing our pension fund with too much risk. She was a cautious, conservative investor of pension money. It was necessary because there was a political debt that needed to be recognized and Patty Small did not agree with any of it. There was no need to "overhaul" this fund. UC employees know all about Wilshire Associates and its leader, Dennis Tito's relationship with Gerald Parsky. We know all about the $100,000 in donations that Wilshire executives/spouses recently made to Mr. Gerald Parsky's California Campaign Fund for George W. Bush. UC employees are not stupid. I am learning a lot about Gerald Parsky and Dennis Tito, and I don't like what I am learning. Let me be frank, I don't want them anywhere near my pension fund.
Our pension plan has always been managed by the UC Treasurer's Office. This office is staffed by UC Employees who have a vested interest in the well-being of our pension fund. Now our fund is being directed toward a firm that has no vested interest in our fund, a firm that will require a large fee to manage this fund. With a $59B fund it would be pretty easy to throw several hundred million dollars at some losing investments that might need shoring up. What is several hundred million dollars compared to $59B anyway? And, this fund probably has far too much surplus anyway! Isn't that what Dennis Tito thought about the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's pension fund? Tito was named President of the Department of Water and Power's Board after donating heavily to the Los Angeles Mayor's campaign. He tried to help the Los Angeles Mayor dip into their pension surplus. His efforts were met with fierce opposition by a thousand Department of Power and Water employees storming the Board Meeting. Then there is Gerald Parsky. He bilked a Prince out of some investment money. He had put the Prince into a money-losing real estate purchase without disclosing that he was one of the property owners. Parsky paid a $20M settlement in the matter and completely lost the trust and confidence of his investment partner, former U.S. Treasury Secretary William Simon. Of course Parsky claimed no wrongdoing. He doesn't know about the political donations from Wilshire & Associates to his George W. Bush California campaign fund either. And then there is Patricia Small. Could someone tell me again what it was that she did wrong?
Judith Hopkinson's letter to UC employees tries to explain how UC is trying to keep our already excellent pension plan excellent, but the letter never mentions why we lost a superb Treasurer and it never mentions Gerald Parsky and his role in persuading the Board to oust our UC Treasurer. I believe that the UC employees deserve an honest explanation of this.
Who is going to manage the UC Equity Fund? In the recent Benefits Newsletter to UC employees it is mentioned that 100% of the Bond Fund will be managed by the UC Treasurer's Office. The newsletter didn't mention who would be managing the Equity Fund. I'd like to know the answer to that. Like many UC employees, I have money invested in Equity. I would like to know who is going to manage that fund. I am looking forward to an answer to all of my questions.
Letter to DOE Secretary Richardson Re: His
Visit to LLNL
By Jeffrey D. Colvin, LLNL Employee
January 7, 2000
I would like to express to you my sincere appreciation for your visit here at LLNL last month to hold a "Town Hall" meeting with the employees. As I have been emphasizing to my colleagues here, many of whom joined me in our protests of the proposed polygraph rule, your visit represents the first time ever that a Secretary has come to talk directly with, and listen to the concerns of, lab workers, rather than just listening to the managers, who do not necessarily or adequately represent our views and concerns. Just the mere fact that you did this, I believe, was both important and valuable.
I would like, though, to bring to your attention a concern that I have about how the meeting was organized and conducted, a concern that is shared by many of my colleagues who, like me, were present at the meeting with you. Division Leaders at the lab were specifically "dis-invited" to the meeting with you, because we were all given to understand that the Town Hall meeting was to be an opportunity for the staff employees to talk freely and openly with you without the constraints imposed by having the bosses in the room. Imagine our surprise, therefore, when we came into the hall to find the first row blocked off with "reserved" signs, and then the entire senior management of the laboratory walking in with you and taking the "reserved" seats, effectively forming a barrier between you and the employees. A number of us, including me, found this to be sufficiently intimidating that we refrained from asking the questions we wanted to ask.
Nonetheless, we do hope that last month's Town Hall meeting was just the start of a new tradition, and that you will come back again to meet with us. Next time, though, please dis-invite all the managers.
Big Brother at the Lab
By Zane C. Motteler, LLNL Employee
Originally published in the Tri-Valley Herald
December 29, 1999
Once Again Bob Villarreal reveals his disdain for Livermore Lawrence National Laboratory employees: "Our Lab employees are a sorry lot." (Dec. 23 letter to the Herald.)
First, he acts as If the rank-and-file employees are as guilty as the management when he (rightly) criticizes the management for lying about NIF. Most employees would agree with him on this. Although there have been some cosmetic shifts in NIF management, the same people are still in charge at the Lab, while the rest of us are swallowing the overruns In Draconian budget cuts.
Worse, I guess he Still wants us to give up our constitutional right to have a lawyer present when we are questioned about possible illegal behavior. Accused criminals can have a lawyer present; we are accused of nothing, but disallowed this basic right.
Precisely who does Villarreal think is refusing to answer a question like: "Have you ever provided nuclear secrets to a foreign power?" Clearly, he never has had to submit to a Q clearance, and its renewals, or to work in a security area.
I have signed enough affidavits and loyalty oaths in the 42 years since my first clearance to sink a battleship. I have had Big Brother looking over my shoulder questioning me, my family, and friends in excruciating detail about my life; reading my e-mail; monitoring my computer usage; coming into my office at night and rifling through my papers. The whole formidable power of the U.S. government, and they have yet to have discovered me in an even minor security peccadillo.
But maybe (they think) questioning me with a so-called "lie
detector" might "prove" me to be a spy. Bear in
mind that a nervous person can fail a lie detector test, Just
like a person with normal blood pressure can be diagnosed with
high blood pressure by getting nervous in the doctor's office.
Michael Campbell and NIF
By Manuel Garcia, LLNL Employees
September 7, 1999
[Webmaster's Note: Manuel Garcia's letter
was prompted by the rumors that circulated following Campbell's
resignation from the Lab.]
Dear ladies and gentlemen:
Edward Michael Campbell, III, has a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical
Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania, class of 1972,
as do I. I believe he graduated second or third in the class.
He attended Princeton University, in the Department of Aerospace
and Mechanical Sciences within the Graduate School of Engineering
(now, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering), and he worked under
Professor Robert Jahn in the Electric Propulsion Laboratory, from
July of 1972 until May of 1977.
During this time Mike proved himself to be as hard working and
brilliant a student as he had been during his undergraduate schooling.
He developed the idea that the rapid plasma expansion in the argon
plasma thruster in the EP Lab would have a non-equilibrium evolution,
and that a population inversion of ionic states would occur downstream.
He proved this idea by careful and
difficult spectroscopic measurements, and then proceeded to measure
the optical gain of the plasma media. He had demonstrated a recombination
laser in the ultraviolet. This work was published in the Journal
of Applied Physics in 1977, with authors Campbell, Jahn, Waldo
Von Jaskowski, and Kenn Clark, a work far above the norm of an
EP lab thesis. Campbell was recruited by LLNL's laser program
directly from graduate school as a result of this work.
In late May (or early June) of 1974 Mike Campbell passed his Ph.D.
qualifying exam on the first try, I passed on the second try in
October. On paying a fee of $25 to the Registrar of Princeton
University, I received a diploma for a Master of Arts degree for
passing the qualifying exam. The Ph.D. qualifying exam was a three
hour oral exam before an assembly of professors. The candidate
was allowed to take this exam only after having spent the previous
six months regularly visiting four professors, and undergoing
one-on-one interviews. In this way a student might have spent
over forty hours of grilling prior to the Ph.D. oral. Naturally,
the preparation for the interviews was all-consuming, and a student
might generate a shelf of notebooks of practice problems. I still
have mine. Because of the depth and rigor of the qualifying period,
the university offered the MA as a compensation. Mike did not
pay his $25. In this he was not alone, Princeton sent off numerous
Ph.D.-only graduates, our fluid mechanics professor at Penn (an
AIAA Fellow) is one. The Master of Science in Engineering required
course-work, research work, and a written thesis. The MS was difficult
to achieve in just two years. Students aiming for the MS, often
from the US Air Force (or Israeli Army), usually did not plan
on a Ph.D.
On arriving at LLNL, Mike plunged into the ferment of that time,
when the Lab was initiating its quest for the x-ray laser. Population
inversions and stimulated emission in hot, recombining plasmas
was a topic of great interest to both the laser and weapons programs.
Mike was able to imagine and develop significant improvements
to laser-fusion experimentation, and these improved results (real
data, not mere calculation) made it possible for the management
of the time to sell an amazing expansion of the laser program
during the decade of the eighties. Mike rose quickly in LLNL rank
because his work made possible the success of his superiors.
In April of 1978, as I was finishing my thesis, Mike invited me
to LLNL. This contact eventually lead to the job I now have. In
1979, I urged Mike to stand up to the laser management that was
exploiting his talent, and to take three or four months off to
finish the draft of his thesis, and submit it. Mike's advisor,
Robert Jahn, was the Department head, and the entire faculty were
well-disposed to Mike. His thesis would have sailed through, and
his final public oral presentation would have been a mere formality.
Princeton University has a seven year time limit from the last
matriculation, if Mike did not finish his thesis by 1984 he would
have to start all over (assuming he still wanted it). I even went
so far as to see one of this lab's top managers, urging him to
back Mike up in this way. My action was a blatant violation of
etiquette, an intrusion in the private
life of another. Naturally, Mike learned of my lobbying, and asked
me to mind my own business. I pledged to do so, and never again
probed him on this, or any other private matter. Because of his
increasing importance within LLNL, our relationship became distant,
as is increasing common today.
I do not know what is going on behind the scenes regarding Campbell
at the moment, and even less about the ruminations in Washington
having to do with NIF. What I do know is that Mike Campbell is
one of the very best technical intellects I have ever met or seen,
that I never saw him act with malice or dishonorably, and that
he made possible the success and wealth of those who profited
from the laser program during the last twenty years. If he is
experiencing difficulties now, I hope they pass quickly, and that
those among his associates who counted themselves as his friends
will stand by
him in the future.
Honour and shame from no condition rise; Act well your part: there
all the honour lies.
-
Pope, "An Essay on Man, IV"
Security at the National Labs
By Betty Gunther, LANL Employee
July 1, 1999
Let's face it, we are being punished
It is hunting season on national laboratories these days. We have had not one but two security stand downs. And in yesterday's newspapers, ex-Senator Rudman is calling the laboratory employees "arrogant" because they didn't cancel or come home from the summer vacations and pre-scheduled business trips in order to attend the second of these briefings. Instead, they will flagrantly be allowed to make them up. This accusation sounds extreme to me.
Of course, the national labs need to take care of any security problems they have. They must tighten lax rules if they are creating problems. And it is important to react to security lapses in a measured but firm manner including firing individuals who are careless of security or who ignore it on purpose. If people really failed to heed well founded warnings of security problems at the labs in the past they should be fired.
The key words here are "well founded." Those of us who work here and who are soon to be polygraphed have seen very little evidence that the Chinese have in fact stolen any nuclear secrets. If such information exists, then it should be revealed, at least to those who have Q clearances. It is hard to feel supportive of the decision to administer polygraph tests to thousands of workers when we are not aware of anything but vague accusations that espionage has occurred.
If we were not aware before the security stand down that the Russians and East Germans were conducting wholesale espionage efforts, I believe most of us are convinced now. But what evidence do we have of recent espionage? Where are the convictions or even the charges against the current spies? The security stand downs had little to say on current espionage problems. In recent American history, we have seen people personally damaged and humiliated by unfounded accusations. We really don't need to see that again.
In addition, the labor market has become very tight and is likely to become tighter as the baby boomers retire. With polygraphs, accusations of arrogance and unproven accusations of current espionage, the national laboratories will find it harder and harder to recruit and retain qualified workers. Without qualified workers, research is impossible.
The current hunting season on the Labs could easily cause their destruction. Now I believe we should ask ourselves whose interest would be served by destroying the labs? Our enemies wouldn't mind.
Foreign Nationals
By Giulia Galli, LLNL Employee
April 23, 1999
'INSULTED AND HUMILIATED' (*,+)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) F.M.Dostoievsky (1861: published 1868).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Being a foreign national (FN) at the lab, trying to do computational physics and to accomplish respectable scientific goals has, in general, not been easy. During the last month, it has become humiliating and insulting.
-- As foreign nationals we have been, and still are, DENIED ACCESS TO ALL SUPERCOMPUTERS, and to all LC machines since April 2.
-- For about 10 days after the LC machines started working again for US citizens, we FN's were still DENIED ACCESS TO OUR FILES. After asking (it took of the order of 15 e-mails to different people) whether this denial came from DOE directives or top management's directives, someone decided that it did not. Our files were then given to US citizens who were supposed to hand them out to us, one at a time, if we remembered the name and directory of the file. Finally, yesterday a man of good will returned my files to me.
-- We did NOT obtain any single INFORMATION from our management in a spontaneous manner: each information we gathered was heavily solicited after hearing rumors of all kinds in the corridor and at the Cafeteria.
-- Finally yesterday, after asking for the (n+1)-st time why there was no security plan in place for FN's, and what was missing, I was told that 95% of what they needed for me was in place; 5% was missing. OK: what's missing? Here is one thing missing: an ETHNIC CLEANSING OF MY DESKTOP: I'm working with an American postdoc who happened to have an account on my machine (of which I do not have root access). He had to remove all of his files so that there is absolutely no contact between FN and US citizen file systems.
I am deeply convinced that technically this 'idea' is ridiculous; I am also convinced that many of the ideas on computer security we've heard about these days stem from people who are no experts at all on computers or on computer security.
WHY DON'T YOU PROTECT YOUR LAB WITH ROBUST TECHNOLOGY INSTEAD OF XENOPHOBIA ?
In many places, people have had rules in place about export controlled technology and SUI for decades. I've worked at IBM where there were clear, known rules in place about export controlled technology and codes, which were explained to everybody and which everybody was asked to respect, without any discrimination against a particular group of people.
Being denied access to the machines we use to do business here, and working in a hostile environment is deeply influencing our scientific productivity: many of our projects are now running behind the competition (yes, we DO have competition in the outside world). Many of our visitors had to leave without being able to work with us. Eventually US citizens working with us will avoid all the hassle it takes to work with a foreign national, and the collaborations inside the lab will vanish.
Of course, if the environment I am working in will not change and I'll be denied access to the fundamental tools I need, I will leave. I believe many other FN's will do the same. Perhaps this was the purpose of the exercise: make our life miserable enough (and the lives of US citizens working with us) so that we'll be forced to leave. However, while still here, looking for another job, we ask to be respected as persons and as scientists, by our colleagues (some of whom used the opportunity not to do so, these days...); at any level, by our management.
I will not leave without regrets: in the division where I work and within the SI [strategic initiative] I work for, there are very interesting projects, very good scientists and some managers who really care about science.
But I cannot do business in a hostile environment.
Giulia Galli
born in Italy, non-US citizen
respectable person, respectable scientist.
"Fatti non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir
virtude e conoscenza"
(Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), La Divina Commedia).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(+) This book was written by a sensitive country foreign national
and may contain SUI. I'm positive I could have found a better
title from an American writer. However, having being brought up
in Europe some time ago, I'm more familiar with old-fashioned
SUI writers than with neat and clean American literature.
Weekly Time Reporting
By Shirley Milani, LLNL Employee
March 23, 1999
Spare us from the whiners who don't want to report their time weekly, AND to the anonymous authors who write articles perpetuating the myth that there is something sinister behind it. Perhaps you'd rather punch a time clock like my parents did when working for the AEC during the 40's, 50's and 60's.
{Webmaster's Note: refer to SPSE Newsletter
#1, March 1999.}
Democratization of the Labs
By Jeff Colvin, LLNL employee #171472
March 15, 1999
I have been a long-standing and open opponent to the use of rank ordering in salary determinations, and an equally long-standing proponent of democratizing the Labs (by guaranteeing that employees have a say in the selection and/or retention of the Lab Director via election or referendum or some other democratic process). I was therefore very interested to hear about the discrimination lawsuit brought by a group of female employees, because the original new reports indicated that the litigants are going after rank ordering as the centerpiece of their suit. They confirmed that this is the case in the recent "Town Hall" meeting they and their attorneys held, a meeting which was endorsed by the SPSE. I think that it will be very easy for the litigants to show that the rank ordering system leads to gender discrimination (and age discrimination as well), so if this suit goes to a class action (which is very possible) I think the Lab is in an indefensible position.
A question was raised at the Town Hall meeting about what the litigants want to see result from the lawsuit. During the question-and-answer session at the end of the meeting I offered my view of what I would like to see result from the lawsuit. Basically, I would like to see --- as a very minimum --- complete reform or, better yet, abolition of rank ordering. I think that this is necessary not just to eliminate gender discrimination --- important as this is --- but I see a larger and more general issue involved, one that goes to the very nature of the Lab organization.
Any hierarchical social structure can maintain itself as a stable structure in only one of two ways. One way is by consensus; i.e., everyone accepts by consensus his or her place in the hierarchy and how that place is decided. Examples of such structures might be, for example, religious orders and true meritocracies. In the absence of consensus the only other way a hierarchical structure can maintain itself is by force or coercion, the most common way governments and societies have maintained their power throughout history. I have come to realize over the many years that I have been in the DOE lab hierarchy that rank ordering is the lab's instrument of coercion, the way management power over employees is maintained, even though the labs like to think of themselves and advertise themselves as meritocracies.
If, however, the labs were true meritocracies salaries would be tied directly and obviously to performance, not to rank ordering. One's rank ordering is based on a judgment of an employee's relative value to the organization, i.e., one's value relative to other employees in the same group or division. Since such a value judgment is intrinsically subjective, the rank ordering system is intrinsically arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and open to endless abuse. Further, there is no check against potential abuse of the system because ranking decisions are made by the managers behind closed doors. I know that management's counter-argument is that rank ordering decisions are arrived at by consensus of all the managers. In many cases this may indeed be true, but it misses the point: the hierarchy can only be stable if everyone, not just the managers, is involved in the consensus building. With the current system only the managers and a few "super stars" (those perceived to be of the greatest value to the organization) get the big raises, so there is a demonstrably widening gap with time between the top-ranked people and the rest. Indeed, SPSE published a very nice analysis of this widening salary gap in the October 1997 SPSE Newsletter.
If the lawsuit is not successful in abolishing rank ordering, then I hope that what results is at least an OPENING UP OF THE PROCESS. Employees should be involved in all stages of the decision making process on their ranking. As it is now, employees cannot know their individual rank ordering or even the precise formulation of the algorithm that computes their raises as a function of rank order. An open system would at least provide an additional check against abuse and discrimination. I also believe that employees can be trusted to rank themselves fairly. Indeed, if salary determinations are not built on consensus then they will always be regarded as unfair, and we will face a future of endless lawsuits, grievances, and confrontation.
Ultimately, I believe that the surest way to guard against
abusive and arbitrary practices is to empower the employees to
have input into the selection and/or retention of the Lab Director
via some suitable democratic process. This is an idea whose time
has come. My vision is that 50 years from now every American workplace
will operate in this way. It would be really great if the Lab
could be in the forefront of this inevitable historical change.
I do not have any illusions, though. Lab management is unlikely
to embrace this idea on their own, because they are likely to
see it as a threat to their power and autonomy. It would be a
visionary leader, indeed, who could see that democratization actually
enhances the leader's power and autonomy by legitimizing it with
the consent of the people who are being led. I urge SPSE to devote
itself to the task of prodding management in this direction. Let
us all help the managers to open their eyes to this fundamental
truth about democracy. Let us help them see how embracing democratization
helps them as well as us.
The Role of SPSE at LLNL
By Chris Mechels, Retired LANL (1994)
December 8, 1998
One of the employee organization forms allowed under the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) is illustrated by the Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers (SPSE) at LLNL. SPSE, a recognized employee organization (not a union), was formed in 1973, in response to some very ugly and unfair RIFs. After being vigorously opposed by LLNL management they were finally accepted, though not embraced, as an alternative to getting a union.
The new (December 1998) SPSE newsletter, available at (www.spse.org), includes a chart depicting SPSE's issues, and LLNL/UC management actions, over the last 25 years. It shows how a small (~150 member) employee organization has struggled, with great success, to preserve employee rights at LLNL. For instance, the 1977 UC/US Congress Agreement (Kleingartner Memorandum) resulted from SPSE actions. That agreement led directly to the 1978 (Mendoza Vs Regents) lawsuit outcome which established that employment by UC is a "property right" and, as such, is entitled to Constitutional protection. This worked a dramatic, and beneficial, change for all UC employees. All UC employees owe this small group of dedicated LLNL employees their gratitude.
Should you wish to send them your thanks, on this 25th anniversary
of their struggle, their email address is (spse@spse.org).
Go back
to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/