SPSE Newsletter #1, April 1994
Editor: Jim Bruner
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
(510) 449-4846

Contents:

Lab Tries To Sneak Through Change In Layoff Policy

It seems we cannot kill management's continuing efforts to revise the LLNL layoff policy. In late 1993, soon after Bruce Tarter was appointed to be Deputy to John Nuckolls, we heard rumors that Tarter was seeking to change the policies governing the order of layoff.

Lab Conceals Proposal
Our inquiries were met with denials. We were told that, although there may be discussions of philosophy, no formal policy change was being considered. However, a UC source recently supplied us with a copy of a proposal that LLNL submitted to the University's Lab-oversight committee. (The oversight committee advises the UC President, and the UC President must approve any deviations of Laboratory policies from the University Staff Personnel Policies.)

Regressive Changes
This is not simply an item brought up for philosophical discussion. The document we uncovered is a complete rewrite of the layoff policy. It is divided into formal sections, ready to be fit into the Personnel Policies and Procedures manual. The proposed policy is regressive-a step back into the nineteenth century. Specific aspects of the proposal are as follows:

SPSE Will Oppose
The Lab administration has tried to secretly push the policy change through the UC administration. Now the cat is out of the bag. SPSE will vigorously oppose the policy change and keep LLNL employees informed. We urge all employees to join with us to send a clear message to management that we will not tolerate frivolous and arbitrary changes in the employment contract.~

Grievance Report

Last July, Dr. X, a chemist in the Earth Sciences Division (ESD) was fired, ostensibly because of the way he went about looking for a job. X was one of many "displaced" employees. ("Displaced" is the term management introduced in 1993 for persons without current work assignments and program support. There are probably at least 200 such employees, but LLNL avoids releasing figures.)

There is a history of contention between X and ESD management. The disputes went to arbitration. The arbitrator ordered that a letter of warning concerning alleged poor performance be rescinded.

A second warning letter was permitted to stand but with some modification in its terms. Apparently, ESD management viewed the fact that one letter was permitted to stand as a vindication of their position. They seem not to grasp that the order to rescind was a clear message that they were not doing things right.

Strange Work Assignment
Following this arbitration, in January 1993, X was given an unusual, formal, written, work assignment: to find a job. His work hours were restricted (8 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.), and his use of vacation was severely limited. ESD claimed that this was to increase the likelihood of receiving phone calls or making other contacts.

In May 1993, X's performance appraisal stated that his efforts to find a job were unsatisfactory. In June, he received a notice of intent to dismiss; his unsatisfactory job search effort was cited as a basis for dismissal. He was fired in July.

SPSE Defends
We are contesting Dr. X's firing in a grievance hearing that has lasted five days and spread over three months. We will report on the results of the arbitration as soon as the arbitrator's decision is returned.~


SPSE Offers Support To Galvin Committee

On February 1, 1994, Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary announced the formation of the Galvin Committee to address the question of the future of the DOE laboratories. In the question-and-answer session that followed her address, Secretary O'Leary asked for volunteers of diverse backgrounds to serve on this committee.

On February 9, SPSE president George Craig formally responded to Secretary O'Leary's request by offering a representative from the SPSE. He informed the Secretary that SPSE members are "practicing scientists and engineers who are deeply concerned about short-sighted reorganizations and pressures for near-term profits." He went on to say that the SPSE publicized, about four years ago, the need for changes in the way LLNL does business. Since then, however, there has been continuous denial of the need for those changes by Lab management and the government.

"At work," he said, "we hear upbeat pronouncements about science, but at home our children see our job insecurity and low scientific literacy in the public, and they question the value and cost of such hard work and dedication to science." Acknowledging that the whole country has a direct stake in the outcome of the Galvin review, Craig concluded, "As part of the backbone of the national laboratory system, we would like to serve on the Galvin Committee and provide our input for for balancing the country's investment in scientific personnel."

A month later, Everett H. Beckner, DOE Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for R&D, replied, "The Department is very enthusiastic about the opportunities for the Galvin Committee to produce objective and informative insights into issues related to the future roles and mission of the national laboratory system. . . Participants will be selected to ensure that balance, perspective, experience, and vision are present. . . Laboratory employees will be represented through mechanisms by which the committee can tap the expertise and input of the laboratories as institutions. . . I recommend that you participate through the appropriate internal process established by (Lab) management for providing input to the Galvin Committee."

We are sure that we will soon receive instructions regarding the appropriate, established, internal process by which employees will be able to provide input to the Lab's balanced, objective, informed, and visionary participant(s) on the committee. If anyone knows of such a process, please raise your hand. Anyone at all. Don't be shy. Hello?~


Work-Force Restructuring

In a letter dated November 24, 1993, to Lab Director John Nuckolls, Acting Oakland Operations Office Manager Terry Vaeth stated, in part:

"Even in the face of downsizing, I encourage you to place a high priority on diversity as plans are developed and implemented to effectively restructure the work force."

On December 20, 1993, former SPSE president Richard White and current president George Craig cosigned a letter to Vaeth, supporting Vaeth's stated goal of ensuring diversity in the work force. However, they requested clarification of the quoted passage, asking specifically what DOE plans are being developed to restructure the work force. The SPSE leadership is quite concerned that, in the wake of the turbulent rise and calamitous demise of the Super-Conducting Supercollider and resultant demoralization of its first-class personnel, recent evidence of the DOE's ability to manage the downsizing of its facilities does not bode well for the DOE's restructuring plans for the national laboratories.

To avoid another such demoralization at LLNL, White and Craig asked Vaeth to be candid about timing and other implications of downsizing so that employees can make informed plans about their future.

To this request, Vaeth finally replied (on February 2, 1994) only that DOE expects that ". . . strategies will be developed and implemented by LLNL to minimize adverse impact on the Laboratory's diverse posture and objectives."

We can only assume that the DOE really doesn't have any plans to be candid about. We hope that Lab management will respond wisely, in the best interests of its employees, in all possible contingencies.~


SPSE Nominee For Recognition As Volunteer

The SPSE nominated past president Richard White for the Employee Volunteer Recognition Program in appreciation for his work on behalf of hundreds of LLNL employees who have had problems with Lab management. White often spends his personal time to prepare grievance cases and represent employees at various hearings. He has been doing this for more than 20 years in the pursuit of fairness and justice.~

Toward Privatization
Condensed from Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy Winter 1993.

Lest anyone think that the Lab is unique in seeking a new niche for itself between government and the private sector, rest assured that it has a lot of company on both sides of the old Cold War lineup. Russian institutes that once worked almost exclusively on military contracts now are beating the bushes for civilian pursuits as a means of survival. Accustomed for years to being able to use military aircraft at no cost as experimental platforms, they now have to rent these same aircraft, but the wherewithal is hard to come by.

Perhaps the closest parallel to LLNL in another country is that of the national laboratories of the United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority (AEA), especially the Harwell Laboratory in southern England. The changes that have occurred and are still underway there can give us some insight into what may be happening here. Established in 1946 to conduct nuclear research and development, Harwell, like LLNL, became a center of technical excellence, attracting some of Britain's best scientific and engineering talent. It even became largely self-sufficient, with its own houses, hotels, buses, civic administration, and social services for the community. With single-minded dedication, Harwell cradled its scientific and technical staff so that they could concentrate on their research.

Advances in nuclear technology at the U.K.'s government-sponsored nuclear facilities soon fostered commercial activities, such as selling fuel elements and graphite to commercial power stations. As these activities matured, they often were spun off as separate entities (e.g., Culham for fusion, Dounrey for breeder reactors, Winfrith for thermal reactor development, and Culcheth for safety analysis) or transferred to the private sector. At its peak, the AEA employed more than 40,000 people, 6000 of them at Harwell, and the rest at other facilities in different parts of the country.

From its earliest days, the AEA has been active in technology transfer and has increasingly operated as a service arm of the commercial nuclear industry, working under contract with private firms. During the 1960s, the AEA was allowed to undertake non-nuclear R&D. Because of the extent of this evolution, the AEA's weapons activities finally were transferred to the Defense Ministry in 1973, and some of the government scientists and engineers who worked at Harwell had to find other tasks or be let go.

In 1986, the Thatcher government directed the AEA to operate like a private company and required it to deliver a return on capital, even though it remained wholly owned by the British government. Accordingly, government funding for all AEA programs, both nuclear and non-nuclear, was cut. At this point, the drive for diversification became intense, and program managers often competed against each other for limited funds. The time was ripe for major change.

The first change, of course, was an easy one-the AEA became AEA Technology, signalling the beginning of its new commercial orientation. In 1989, it hired a management consultant to do a critical review of the organization. The consultant concluded that it had potential to operate successfully as a business but that the current organization was not well suited to take advantage of this new opportunity.

Specifically, the consultant proposed that AEA be reorganized into business units under relaxed government restrictions so that it could be more flexible when commercial opportunities arose. Since management was then organized around facilities such as Harwell, the existing structure would have to be taken apart and rebuilt in this new orientation. This suggested change created considerable excitement and, of course, not a little worry among the workers about the consequences.

The full recommendation was accepted, and in 1990, nine businesses came into being, with nearly half of AEA's personnel transferring to them. Within two years, the facilities ceased to play a major role in internal administration and services. Today, most important management decisions are made through the business units. Thus, AEA has been transformed from an agency driven largely by its government-sponsored, facility-oriented, nuclear research into a business venture based on production and marketing. Incidentally, Harwell's staff decreased by 1600.

This metamorphosis has required major retraining to make the AEA more customer-oriented and substantial personnel reductions to make it competitive. As might be expected, those same trends also make it less and less relevant as a government ministry.

Thus, AEA has begun to contemplate a future in which it becomes an independent business. Apart from political considerations, much work remains before such a major change can occur. For instance, its ties to civil services will have to be severed, flexibility and efficiency in its cost structure will have to be maximized, and investments will have to be optimized to deliver a fully commercial return. However difficult these changes may be, they are necessary and are happening. Harwell and Britain's other national nuclear facilities seem destined to become institutions that hold few ties to their past.

The future of the U.S. national laboratories may be somewhat like that of their British counterparts, and without strong leadership and vision to guide the transition, it will be a painful experience.~


SPSE Input To Director's Evaluation

The recent resignation of LLNL Director John Nuckolls followed evaluation of his performance by a committee headed by Admiral Richard Truly, which was charged with evaluating LLNL management and recommending action to the UC president. The following letter was our input to the committee. Choosing to address issues rather than personalities, we did not directly criticize Nuckolls but rather pointed to serious problems at LLNL. Although Nuckolls resigned, the problems remain.

Dear Admiral Truly:

SPSE is a twenty-year-old organization of scientists and engineers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). We are independent of LLNL's administration and are chartered to promote the professional interests of our membership. The following comments are made from the perspective of those who have devoted their professional careers to Lab programs and are now concerned about the health and viability of the Laboratory.

We believe our Laboratory is in trouble. We urge your committee to investigate and discuss the following problems in your recommendations to the President of the University.

There is a lack of cooperation and coordination between the various parts of our Laboratory. Our historical funding sources are rapidly declining. If the Laboratory is to survive, we need new ways to serve our nation. Unfortunately, Laboratory leaders fight among themselves to preserve turf and jobs. This leads to inconsistent goals and staff gridlock. There are capable, competent, scientists and engineers who literally sit idle because of managerial failure to supply direction and refusal to allow scientists to operate on their own initiative.

The Laboratory is dominated by cronyism and nepotism that permeate all levels of management. Scientific and engineering staff assignments are too often determined by internal political expediencies and friendships, rather than by scientific and technical requirements. Appointments of friends and relatives of Laboratory managers to lucrative positions seem to violate Laboratory, University, and Federal policies and law. In some instances formal compliance with the letter of the policies is achieved by ruses.

The professional staff at Livermore is put off by a reward structure that bears little relation to initiative and productivity and discourages creativity. The Director has stated publicly that his professional consultants uniformly counsel him that the Laboratory should abandon the ranking and compensation system now in use. Yet there is no change evident.

The professional scientists and engineers at LLNL want to solve our nation's most important problems. The taxpayers demand that we redirect our efforts to develop technology for the commercial sector to improve our economy and to raise our standard of living. We need leadership with past accomplishments that demonstrate vision and expectation for this future.~

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