Contents:
|
Officers: President Jeff Colvin Secretary Jane Dignon |
President-elect Sue Byars Treasurer Doug Clarke |
|
Board Members: Kurt Glaesemann Sue Koopman Wayne Krause Sarah Lane Peter Norquist |
Bill Quirk Ralph Riviello Norman Thomas Patrick Weidhaas Kim Yates |
In December 2001, Bruce Tarter announced that he'll step down
as director of LLNL in 2002. He will stay on as director until
the UC Regents have chosen a new director. We believe that Tarter
deserves praise for steering the Lab through the very stormy past
three years. We also believe that employees who are not privileged
to be managers have little reason to deplore his departure.
A Man For All Seasons?
We do give Tarter credit for not jumping ship during times of
crisis. First, there was "NIF-gate" for which he was
punished by receiving a 0% raise still, he stayed with the
job. When hysteria over the Wen Ho Lee allegations and Chinese
espionage threatened the very existence of the national labs,
Tarter stood his ground. When accusations of discrimination (women's
and Asian-American lawsuits) and lack of diversity could no longer
be ignored, Tarter stayed on and even appointed an Asian and women
into several AD positions. For his perseverance in these situations,
Tarter deserves our praise. As a result of his steadfastness and
for not losing sight of the goals of this laboratory, he and the
Lab received high grades by the powers that run the Lab, UC and
DOE. Recently, a monetary reward followed, Tarter received a whopping
12%.
Not Exactly
Unfortunately, Tarter's legacy in the area of what he refers to
as "people stuff" is far less impressive. One of his
first acts as director was to change the Lab's layoff policy from
"inverse seniority" (an objective criterion) to "Skills,
Knowledge, and Ability" (SKA, a subjective criterion, which
managers can - and do - interpret any way they want). Next, Tarter
introduced the "flexible term" category of employees.
These are UC employees without grievance rights, in other words,
"second class employees" who can be jerked around by
management. I doubt that an employee who can be fired "at
will" would publicize any security or health and safety problems
that he/she observes.
Tarter never supported the many employees who publicly spoke out
against the insanity of polygraph-testing. While the director
of LANL and the president of Sandia did speak out against polygraphy,
LLNL's director remained silent. Yet, Tarter was very vocal about
the low morale of the Lab's scientists and the problem of recruiting/retention
of the best and the brightest. Of course, his lack of concern
or support for the employees who denounced polygraphy contributed
in no small measure to the low morale and the recruiting/retention
problem.
The Tribe has Spoken
For years, the Lab has ranked and paid us according to a fundamental
philosophy: there must be a significant gap between manager's
and worker's salaries. That philosophy existed even before Tarter.
Yet, during Tarter's reign, the salary gap only widened. Despite
the lip service praising the Lab's technical workforce, ranking
criteria put management activities squarely above technical accomplishments.
Any former pretense of the existence of a "dual ladder"
has now disappeared. Only as a manager can you earn top dollars
over and out. Last year, the Lab's survey asked employees
what they thought of the salary and ranking process. They gave
the process a fat "F." Just like on "Survivor,"
the tribe had spoken: the Lab's ranking and salary scheme had
been voted out. But has Tarter's cabinet heard the tribe?
High Hopes
We hope that the future director will be a person who we can look
up to technically and as a good leader. We hope for a director
who understands that good working conditions and high morale of
the employees makes a difference in what the Lab can accomplish.
LLNL can be a better place to work with a director who places
high priority on "people stuff."
SPSE has an almost 30-year history of preserving and improving
the work environment of scientists and engineers and is therefore
well suited to lend its voice to the selection process for the
next director. It is about time that the employee point of view
is added into the process. / Patrick Weidhaas
LLNL conducted an employee survey in FY2001. This survey came
on the heels of a survey that SPSE conducted in 2000. General
findings of both surveys suggest that LLNL employees are unhappy
with many issues that include pay inequities, erosion of benefits,
and the performance appraisal and ranking process. On the up side,
however, both surveys also determined that most employees are
proud to work at LLNL but believe it can be better.
All of the SPSE 2000 survey results, including all of the raw
data and comments, are on our web site, http://www.spse.org. To
view the comments that employees provided to the LLNL 2001 survey,
one has to make a trip to the Lab's library and view the single
hard copy. We encourage the Lab to save employee's time, effort,
and some trees by making such information available on their website.
Many employees point out that LLNL conducted a survey in 1995
that focused on, and later extolled, the diversity of the Laboratory.
Interestingly, six years later the 2001 survey uncovered that
minorities and women are among the most dissatisfied employees
at LLNL. This doesn't lend much credence to the Laboratory's commitment
to diversity. It also puts into question the usefulness of the
Lab's 1995 survey.
We don't know what the Lab paid a professional survey company
to create their survey. Both the Lab survey and the low-budget
SPSE survey produced similar results. Now the Lab has constituted
seven Survey Action Teams (SAT's), consisting almost entirely
of senior managers and supervisory-level people appointed by them.
These teams are analyzing and interpreting the survey-results,
and plan to come up with a set of recommendations on what actions
Lab management can take to address the issues raised in the survey.
The 100 people (including support staff) on these seven SAT's
will spend roughly an additional $2-3 M in burdened labor costs
before their work is complete at the end of January 2002. This
estimate assumes that all members of the SAT's are charging half
time to a special account during their three-month period of service
on the SAT's. We are looking forward to employees seeing a return
on the Lab's investment in time and money. / Jeff Colvin and Sue
Koopman
My performance review this year reminded me of a song Tom Lehrer
wrote when he was a math professor at UC Santa Cruz. Aptly titled
"New Math" (the lyrics are at http://gunther.simplenet.com/v/data/newmath.htm),
one verse is:
"Now instead of four in the eights place
You've got three
'Cause you added one
That is to say, eight, to the two
But you can't take seven from three
So you look at the sixty-fours
"Sixty-four? How did sixty-four get into it?" I hear
you cry. Well, sixty-four is eight squared, don't you see?
Well, you ask a silly question,
and you get a silly answer."
During my performance review, my management told me that I dropped
four peer groups. "How did I drop four peer groups?"
they heard me cry. Well, I was told, my career is doing great
and my customers gave raving reviews. My last year 3rd peer group
(of 8 peer groups with the 8th not populated) is equal to this
year's 7th peer group (out of 10 with the 9th and 10th not populated)
and so my new 7 is equal to last year's 3. I was assured that
my colleagues, who were in the 3rd last year, are joining me in
the 7th this year. I was also told I would receive a raise comparable
to last year.
Still, I don't feel the same being in peer group 7. I feel much
closer to the bottom even though I am assured I am not. And, my
raise was about half of last year's. Well, I asked a silly question
and I got a silly answer. /Sue Koopman
The Lab's health insurance plans went on life support when Pacific
Health Care Medical Group (PHCMG) went out of business in December.
This group had contracted with Health Net, PacifiCare, and UC
Care to provide medical care for their HMO customers. About two-thirds
of all doctors in the Tri-Valley belonged to PHCMG. Over 4,300
Lab employees and family were in PHCMG. This leaves only Bay Valley
Medical Group (BVMG) and Hill Physicians Medical Group (HPMG)
serving the area. Most people switched to HPMG which does not
contract with ValleyCare or Valley Memorial Hospitals, so you
have to go to the San Ramon Hospital. One would think that we
could have good health care near the Lab. BVMG does contract with
these hospitals. Non-PHCMG doctors have more patients now and
some people are reporting that it is much harder to get an appointment.
We should note that other parts of California have had significant
disruptions also: we are not alone.
What went wrong?
Contrary to popular perception, the bankruptcy of PHCMG is not
the cause of the problem and is largely irrelevant. The PHCMG
doctors all had the option of being members of one of the surviving
groups and continuing to see LLNL HMO patients. The real cause
is, of course, the apportioning of money between the HMOs and
the doctors and their staff who actually deliver the care: these
doctors want to be paid more than PHCMG HMOs were willing to pay
them.
What next?
As Lab employees, we can go with UC Care and see these doctors
under tier 2 and pay the extra co-pays and costs. The other option
is to go with Kaiser, which some people do not like due to its
"closed" nature. Although considering the number of
doctors that you have to chose from with the "open"
HMO's, Kaiser does not seem that closed now. Who could we expect
to come to our rescue? Probably not the Lab, which is only a small
part of the UC system. This is an issue in which all UC employees
have a mutual interest. Individually, we can not expect to have
much of an impact on how insurance companies handle our health
care. But by making common cause with other UC employees, we can
have a say in the matter. This might be one reason for SPSE to
join forces with UPTE ("University Professional and Technical
Employees," a UC union that has already secured better health
care for some of its membership). Even if SPSE does not affiliate
with a larger organization like UPTE, it still might be advantageous
to work together with them on improving health care benefits.
We cannot afford to be silent on this issue. /
On September 11, 2001, our trust in living and working in security
collapsed with the World Trade Center. As the Lab sent non-essential
employees home that fateful day, it became very clear who some
of the most essential of our fellow workers are: the security
police officers (SPO's). After all, they are the first line of
defense at the perimeter gates against potential terrorists.
While their importance to the security of the Lab is beyond doubt
after 9-11, Lab employees never doubted their importance before
9-11. Most employees assumed, that these essential men and women
in uniform, wielding lethal weapons to protect the Lab's employees,
and the Lab's nuclear materials and secrets are being compensated
fairly. Apparently not: it was a tortuous path for the SPOA union
to negotiate a new contract with Lab management. LLNL compensated
its gardeners higher, and apparently saw nothing wrong in that.
LLNL denied the guards additional training, which the SPOA union
considers important for health and safety.
The Lab drove such a hard bargain last summer that a number of
guards in their frustration staged a "sick out." They
picked a bad day: August 6, the anniversary of Hiroshima when
demonstrators converge on the Lab. Also, that day the head of
the National Nuclear Security Administration, General Gordon,
visited LLNL. On August 28, the Lab fired the two leaders of the
SPOA union, Officers Quinones and Zipoli.
Neither LLNL nor DOE listened to security concerns that Quinones
and Zipoli raised back in February 2001. Some of their concerns
dealt with the lack of training and with management's response
to several serious security incidents. The DOE Office of Inspector
General (IG) finally did listen and embarked on a formal investigation.
Days before 9-11, SPOA and the Lab finalized a contract with the
help of a mediator. A few weeks later, on October 6, the DOE IG
issued a (classified) report that includes input from the two
officers.
On January 14, 2002 Officers Quinones and Zipoli filed a whistleblower
retaliation complaint against the Lab. Now these formerly essential
employees are fighting to get their jobs back. / Patrick Weidhaas
SPSE members honored Cheryl Remillard, SPSE's Office Manager since
1989, with a good-bye luncheon. Cheryl is leaving SPSE to seek
new challenges.
Cheryl began working as an office assistant for SPSE in 1984;
she worked during vacations from college at the California State
University in Chico. After receiving her BA in Humanities, she
became SPSE's Office manager and has held that position continuously
since 1989.
In many ways, Cheryl defined the Office Manger's job. She organized
our extensive records of LLNL personnel data, designed, built,
and maintained the WebPages at http://www.spse.org, converted
the Newsletter to an in-house publication (previously it was sent
to typesetters), and, generally, put us into step with the age
of the computerized office.
I am particularly indebted to Cheryl: during my long tenure as
Chair of the Grievance Committee, her invaluable help with organizing
the vast quantities of materials needed for grievance hearings
made my life much easier. I could always depend upon her to keep
my records straight and to find those misplaced documents. She
was always cheerful and always efficient.
We will all miss Cheryl and we look forward to working with Eileen.
/ Richard White
We are happy to announce that Eileen Montano is our new office
manager. Eileen was born in San Francisco, grew up in Pleasanton,
and has lived in Livermore for the past 14 years. She and her
husband, Bob, have two daughters, Lindsay (8), and Amanda (5).
They enjoy many activities as a family such as gardening, camping,
and watching as well as participating in various sports. Eileen
also plays adult indoor soccer.
Following her graduation from the University of San Francisco,
Eileen spent 16 years at AT&T in various responsibilities
ranging from Billing Representative to Account Executive. She
left AT&T in order to spend more time at home with her children
and to become more active in their schools. She said she is delighted
to accept this part time position with SPSE as it provides the
challenges and responsibilities of a professional environment
as well as the allowance to spend time with her family. Please
stop by the SPSE office in the mornings and meet Eileen. / Sue
Koopman
[Editors' note: The following is the second of a series of articles
concerning the new contract between UC and DOE to manage LLNL.
It is our attempt to convey our interpretation of part of that
contract, which is a complex legal document.]
One of our most important benefits is our retirement. At the moment
we are all enrolled in the University of California Retirement
Plan (UCRP). But what would happen to our retirement if some other
contractor takes over running LLNL?
The brief answer is that the news is good. The succeeding contractor
will be required to maintain a pension equivalent to our present
UCRP benefits.
This promise is in one of the clauses of the newly modified and
extended Contract 48, effective January 2001 and running through
September 2005, by which the University operates LLNL. Clause
H.008 states:
"DOE agrees to require that, in the event of termination
of work under the contract, a successor contractor shall permanently
maintain the benefit accrual terms and conditions of UCRP for
the Contractor employees transferred to the successor contractor[]".
If there is a "successor plan" (i.e., the new contractor
offers a pension plan to LLNL employees), then UCRP would transfer
the appropriate assets to that plan to provide for the transferring
employees. Anyone retiring before the transition date would become
a UCRP retiree. If there is no successor plan, the University
will continue to keep track of "our money" (i.e., the
funds in the UCRP pension plan associated with LLNL employees)
from year to year. Those funds would not be invested separately
or kept in some special compartment, but at the end of each fiscal
year UC and the DOE would know the total amount. There also is
to be an "annual, full-scope audit by an outside independent
auditor."
For a time it seemed possible that our Laboratory might cease
to be operated by the University. Although the University's contract
to run LLNL seems to be on a much firmer basis now than a year
or so ago, a possibility exists that a new contractor could come
in to run LLNL in 2005 (when the contract expires) or even sooner
than that. Contract 48 allows the University to withdraw from
the contract for any reason on eighteen months notice. (See Clause
H.028, Contractor's Right to Terminate.)
Clause H.008 also spells out the maximum funding to be provided
by the DOE. "The DOE-funded contribution shall not exceed
the full funding limit as defined in the Internal Revenue Code,
Section 412." In addition, if the value of the UCRP grows
to 150 percent of the assets it is projected to need, the President
of the University is to initiate a review of the surplus situation
and recommend how "to bring the fund into conformity with
the long-term needs of the Plan."
In my opinion there is an echo here of the dispute a few years
ago in which some DOE officials asserted that the UCRP had an
"unnecessary surplus" of funds. The reason for the surplus,
of course, was the University's successful investments. For a
while there was a demand for UC to return to DOE the "excess"
contributions, until it was pointed out that the relevant laws
did not allow funds once placed in a retirement plan to be returned.
In summary, the UC contract to run LLNL contains a provision specifying
that if a new contractor takes over running the Laboratory, that
contractor shall "permanently maintain" retirement benefits
equivalent to UCRP for LLNL employees transferred to the new contractor.
/ Doug Clarke