SPSE Newsletter #1, February 2001
Editor: Sue Koopman
P.O. Box 1066, 4047 First Street #200
Livermore, CA 94550
925-449-4846
Contents:
According to the Chinese calendar, 2000 was the Year of the Dragon. The Chinese dragon is a sign of good luck and celestial power. However, workers at the national labs faced a "monster" during this past year. The monster's name: "national security." This beast displayed its ferociousness in the way this government treated scientist, Wen Ho Lee. Fortunately, Dr. Lee did not have to fight the monster alone. In unprecedented protest, the Asian-Pacific-American community, both inside and outside the nuclear labs, voiced its outrage over "Racial Profiling" in general, and Dr. Lee's treatment in particular. Many fair-minded non-Asians joined the protest. Some of this country's most esteemed scientific organizations, e.g., the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Physical Society urged the release of Dr. Lee. Berkeley Professor Ling-Chi Wang called for a boycott of the DOE labs by Asian-Pacific-American scientists. SPSE invited Prof. Wang to Livermore--one of the monster's caves--to share his views with employees. SPSE also was the only employee organization at the national labs that wrote a letter to Janet Reno, asking that justice--not political fervor--prevail.
As the "national security monster" ran amok through the national labs, SPSE had no chance of slowing it down. Still, SPSE did not retreat to the role of silent witness. Throughout the monster's tantrum, SPSE maintained its loud and steady voice of reason.
The beast caused irreparable damage at the national labs by turning lab workers into suspects, ramming polygraph testing down our throats, and raising questions of racial profiling. DOE tried to contain the damage by appointing an ombudsman, Dr. Jeremy Wu. SPSE provided Dr. Wu with plenty of input. Unfortunately, he was as successful in controlling morale as was the US National Park Service in controlling the devastating fire in Los Alamos. That fire may have caused a few employees to move, perhaps misplace, and sneakily return classified hard disks. In the past, they could have come clean and admitted their error. That option, of resolving such incidents via honesty and without fear of reprisal, was badly bruised. Instead, this incident, following on the heels of the missing Wen Ho Lee tapes, rekindled the heat and dismay at Los Alamos.
The year 2000 confronted Lab workers with other issues, e.g., UC's actions regarding our pension fund, the renewal of the UC-DOE contract, and the publicity over UC's dismal labor relations. The fact that SPSE followed up on all of these issues brings me to the core of this editorial. Employees often ask me, why join SPSE? What does SPSE have to offer? I have two answers. One is in the form of a question, "Who else looks out for the employees?" The other answer is, "SPSE is an independent professional employee voice at the Lab that pays attention to events and issues that affect workers at the Lab."
Newsline may provide us with the officially sanitized information about UC or DOE. Newsline may point us to an official website that outlines the rules governing polygraph testing. Newsline may tell us where to find UC's official information on the UC pension fund. All of this is certainly useful, but only scratches the surface. SPSE tries to dig deeper.
For example, SPSE was not at all satisfied, merely knowing DOE's rules pertaining to polygraph testing. Instead, SPSE researched polygraphy, added links to polygraph sites to its website, and pointed out the potential harm in polygraph testing. Similarly, SPSE questioned the motivation of the UC Regents in hiring an investment firm with political ties to one of the Regents. In letters to the UC President and state legislators, SPSE asked straightforward questions. We published our letters along with the evasive responses on our website.
While SPSE raises the same questions that our colleagues might discuss at the water fountain, SPSE is willing to take the next step. We study the issue. We contact appropriate sources. We write letters and ask questions of our representatives in Sacramento and Washington. We contact the media, if warranted. We share any information with our colleagues via our website or newsletter. In short, we get involved. That, I believe, is what our members value most.
The powers in charge, whether their title is Energy-Secretary, or UC Regent, or Lab Director, all regulate our professional lives as UC-employees. Most of the time, management has honorable intentions and its decisions make sense. Yet, at times management's motivations and actions must be called into question. Haven't we all encountered a new rule or a revised policy that gets in the way of our work, or worse, threatens to erode employee-rights? [Hint: remember the "flexible term" policy?] Haven't we all heard of a supervisor who lacks people skills, alienates his/her subordinates, yet is never reprimanded? [Hint: remember --- ?] Unfortunately, management must be complimented for its solidarity in protecting each other. I have said it before and say it again, "once a manager, you can't do wrong." To balance management's solidarity requires solidarity among the workforce. That balance is what SPSE aims for. To stand up to management is not advisable for individuals, but can be very effective for an organization of many dedicated, non-intimidated individuals. My advice to any colleague who wants "to get involved" is to first get the backing of SPSE by joining us and then to become active.
As my SPSE-presidency comes to an end on the last day of January 2001, I want to raise some awareness and relay one last message. Think about management and their motivation versus yours. Think about management's credibility and accountability. [Hint: recall NIF?] Think about the ranking and salary process and who benefits the most. Think about checks and balances. Think about management's solidarity. Think about SPSE. My message, "Get involved! The world is run by those that show up." /Patrick Weidhaas
| Officers: President Sue Koopman Secretary Wayne Krause |
President-elect Jeff Colvin Treasurer Rollin Harding |
| Board Members: Nora Briant Sue Byars Doug Clarke Sarah Lane |
Peter Norquist Norman Thomas Patrick Weidhaas Richard Yamauchi |
SPSE is acting upon the results of our employee survey which we summarized in our last Newsletter (the full analysis is on our web site). A number of employees told us that one obstacle to membership is that the dues are too high. Most of the dues goes to support our downtown Livermore office and to pay the salary of our Office Manager, Cheryl Remillard. Our office also serves as a meeting-place and as an archive, crammed with years of salary data and Lab documents (unclassified, of course). It is the nerve-center of our organization.
Despite some concern over dues, SPSE is committed to increasing its membership, because there is strength in numbers. The SPSE Board launched a new membership recruitment campaign with two incentives. All new members who join in 2001 will receive a big discount: the first-year dues will be only $10 per month instead of the current maximum of $22. However, our new employee rate still applies--if you are new to the Lab, your dues could be as low as $2.20 per month (see our website for details). This is a substantial savings, which we hope will remove the money issue for the first year. We also provide a financial incentive, in the form of dues rebates, to members, including new ones, who recruit new members during 2001.
We also introduce "members only" benefits, including timely E-Bulletins to keep our members "in the know" on important happenings that affect our work environment and employment. If you value an independent employee voice and a group of people dedicated to protect employee rights, check out the membership information on our web page and join SPSE. If you are a member, we again thank you for your support and commitment, and invite you to help expand our organization and obtain a dues rebate. /Jeff Colvin
[Editor's Note: Last November, members of the Security Police Officers Association (SPOA) distributed leaflets outside the Lab gates. Several SPSE members attended the event. Since SPOA is the only union with collective bargaining rights at the Lab, we asked their President, Officer Quinones, to explain their issues. SPOA has been bargaining for a new contract since last August. Some of the issues include: (1) salary and (2) denial of a comprehensive safety package in case an officer is injured on the job. Being called "K-Mart guards" by one Lab negotiator has not helped improve labor relations.
The article below leaves us with the impression that, instead of treating SPOAs members fairly, the Lab stonewalls and retaliates against them precisely because they are a union. We really would expect the Lab to have higher standards and to negotiate in good faith. Let us not forget that the members of SPOA face the serious task of protecting this country's nuclear "crown jewels."]
SPOA was formed in 1991 as a result of inconsistent and biased treatment of security police officers (SPOs) by Lab management. There are approximately 150 officers covered under the collective bargaining agreement. Historically the numbers have been as low as 90 and as high as 190.
The objectives of the SPOA are to improve the working conditions, promote safety awareness, safeguard employment rights and civil liberties, educate its membership professionally and socially, engage in collective bargaining to an equitable means, maintain effective communications with the employer, and to protect and serve the Lab and its outlying community.
There is No Recourse Here
The following case exemplifies SPOAs problems with the Lab. It
involved an employee covered under the collective bargaining agreement.
He applied for a position but was not selected. In itself, this
is no reason for alarm. The employee filed for an Administrative
Review of the hiring process and was turned down by first and
second line management because the contract does not spell out
hiring practices in any depth. According to the Lab, he had no
recourse under the contract.
Catch 22
SPOA tried to secure equitable hiring rights as exist for the
rest of the Lab populace (as established in the Lab's Policies
And Procedures). It is not well-known that the Lab negotiators
vehemently refused to bargain that issue. The issues of hiring
practices, including the Lab's obligation to investigate and correct
improper hiring practices must be spelled out in the articles
of the contract. By refusing to bargain articles covering these
issues, the Lab has created a "Catch 22." SPOA members
have no recourse because the contract doesn't contain the wording
that would provide the recourse. The wording isn't there because
the Lab refuses to bargain on that issue.
Our members should be afforded the same rights and protections afforded to other employees under UC policies and federal law. Instead of expanding UC's policies that govern thousands of other employees to SPOA members, our members now have to appeal to the Director, and, if that fails, resort to litigation. This is one example of labor relations at the Lab.
The management philosophy of "you don't get it because you're unionized" has gone on far too long. The newly elected SPOA board and leadership promise to take an aggressive approach to correct the disparity between its membership and the general Lab populace. /Charles Quinones, President of SPOA
Bill Warren is Deputy Associate Director of the Computer Applications Organization. In January 2000, as Division Leader of the Scientific Computer Applications Division, he instituted a policy to allow the use of Travel and Training funds for professional membership dues. Some of the conditions are: the professional organization meet the Laboratory's guidelines, cost less than $200, one per employee, etc. Costs, which the Lab pays, of organization-sponsored conferences, tutorials, and books are reduced to members, resulting in savings to the Lab. As I have been paying IEEE Computer Society and Association of Computing Machinery memberships for over twenty years, this management support is appreciated. /Richard Yamauchi
One of our readers has provided two lessons for Employees Between Assignments (EBAs). He explained that, upon returning to the Lab from an off-site assignment, he did not have a job--lesson number one. He had to change his career path, network with colleagues, and found a job matrixed to another directorate. He warns others not to take a matrixed job. Your directorate management might not reward you because you are "not contributing to the mission." He tried an Administrative Review. There was a discrepancy between his excellent performance reviews from the matrixed directorate and the poor raises from his parent directorate. However, the review concluded that his directorate had followed its procedures. Case closed! If you are returning from an off-site job and do not have a job, consider a different equivalent job, network and make sure you are working for the directorate to which you contribute--lesson number two. /Sue Koopman
We wanted to find out why some employees have been SPSE members for years. At the risk of hearing, "Oh, I'm still paying SPSE dues?" we contacted ten long-term members and received nine responses. Some excerpts are:
SPSE is grateful to these long-standing members with diverse views--we would not be a viable organization without them. If you are not a member, we encourage you to join SPSE. /Sue Koopman
SPSE asked for a Meet and Discuss after several of our members in Plant Engineering voiced concern over "Position Descriptions" (PDs). The PD describes a person's position or job and responsibilities. The scope of the PDs seemed to have changed and employees faced an unreasonably short deadline to comment on their PDs. While some members in Computations also reported activity about PDs and short deadlines, other directorates reported no activities.
Bill O'Connell and Patrick Weidhaas met with Bob Perko and Stan Howell of Staff Relations on January 23. We raised several questions and concerns regarding the meaning, the contents, and the usage of the PD. In particular, we asked whether the PD is supposed to be fairly broad and general or more specific. Should the PD describe the broad range of duties and responsibilities that a person is capable of undertaking and might be expected to undertake at various times? Or should the PD describe only the specific duties and responsibilities of the current job assignment? The answer is that there is no LLNL guidance on this question. Different directorates may approach it differently. In other words, PDs come as apples and as oranges.
Even Management Can't Tell Apples from Oranges
We conveyed the concern of some Plant Engineering employees that
Plant Engineering was now restricting PDs to the narrow current
assignment. There is concern that this PD does not reflect a person's
full capabilities and therefore may constrain a person's opportunities
for future re-assignment. Also, employees felt that their management
(in Plant Engineering) was unable to provide satisfactory answers.
Perko agreed to convey these concerns to the Plant Engineering
management. He emphasized that employees should be able to rely
on their management to answer their concerns.
PDs do not Affect Job Transfers
Mr. Perko stated that the PD does not play a role when a person
wants to transfer to another posted position. Suitability would
be assessed, based on history of past work, performance appraisal,
and recommendations, but not based on the PD.
PDs do not Affect the Ranking Process
Mr. Perko assured us that the PD does not influence a person's
ranking. We pointed out that some of the descriptors used in the
PD to distinguish one job description from another are the same
as the categories or descriptors used in the job-value part of
the ranking process. Perko emphasized that the ranking process
takes a fresh look at job content and value, as well as the other
ranking criteria. Ranking is not based on the PD.
Why Bother with PDs?
We asked, "What is the PD used for?" and "Is there
a mandate for it?" The answer was that DOE has a mandate
for every employee to have a PD. The further specifics are wide
open for different interpretation by different directorates.
Compensation Division in Human Resources (HR) is urging more specific position descriptions. This year the PD should add the percentage of time in the various job duties. This central guidance is not a mandate. HR's reasons for having PDs include:
PDs and Resumix --So Far a Waste of Our Time
This business of PDs reminds us of HR's Resumix system, recommended
for locating jobs. In both cases, HR issues a mandate to use them,
the reasons are vague, even management has no answers, the burden
is on the employees, and there is a disconnect between HR and
the directorates on the way internal hiring gets done.
To derive any potential benefit from the PDs, they must be more transparent and done under the employees' direction. We know versatility and creativity are valued at the Lab. We keep nine balls in the air at once and do things that nobody has thought of before, much less written down. To be beneficial, PDs must allow for this breadth. SPSE invites your comments. /Bill O'Connell, Patrick Weidhaas
These "S-curves" show salary distributions for Lab scientists and engineers for FYs 99 through 01. We derived these curves by ordering the salaries (from highest to lowest) of all 200-series employees at the Lab. The "percentile" for a given salary is the percent of 200-series employees whose salaries are below that salary.*
You can use these data in the following way: Take your salary from each of the three years listed, and plot each on the appropriate curve. By connecting your three data points, you can see the upward or downward trend of your salary compared to that of all other employees in the 200-series.
Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/