Go back to the
SPSE Home Page http://www.spse.org/
SPSE Newsletter #1, April 1996
Editor: G. Craig
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
510-449-4846
Editor's Note: On March 29th, 3700 Research Professionals at the University of California (including LBNL) won the right to bargain with the UC over workplace issues. In order to fight for this level of responsibility for ourselves, we urge you to sign the enclosed Authorization Card for the reasons given herein. Our own sampling indicates that 60% of the Scientists and Engineers (200 & 300 series) are opposed to the new layoff policy at LLNL. For more information about activities at the UC, see http://www.upte.org.
Even though we are finishing the first half of the 1996 fiscal year, our government still does not have a budget for FY96. Instead Congress and the President move from one continuing resolution (CR) to another as a temporary solution to keep the government going. This generally means that programs that depend on government funding must operate at FY95 levels or less. Is this just a glitch in the FY96 budget process which will pass as most political posturing does?
Budget cuts are in the air for years to come. This is because a segment of our government is shrinking because it is running out of money. Imagine a budget pie of federal expenditures. One slice of the pie is labeled "discretionary spending." This piece includes, among other things, military expenditures and federal support for science. This slice accounts for about a third of the pie. The rest of the pie might be called "non-discretionary spending" and consists of interest on the national debt and federal entitlement programs like social security and health care. The Government Accounting Office discusses this budget pie in a very readable introduction in our LLNL library (HJ2050 C7 P.2 1995R).
Right now the Republicans and Democrats have declared that they will balance the budget by FY02. But, there is no agreement on the mix of tax increases and budget cuts that will accomplish this. This has lead to some speculation about using CR's until the presidential election this fall so the public can get more directly involved in the fray.
Any way you look at it the federal budget cycle is totally chaotic and science in the US is losing ground on many fronts including students, universities, national labs, and corporate labs. It is now a question of whether or not scientists, engineers, educators, and policy makers can apply some pressure and defend the role of federal support for science.
Recently, Dr. D. Allan Bromley spoke about these issues to a sizable audience at the Director's Distinguished Lecture Series. Professor Bromley is the Dean of Engineering at Yale University. He has been the Science Advisor to President Bush, a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and is the president-elect of the American Physical Society. In his talk, "Science and Technology in Transition," Dr. Bromley noted how remarkably absent working scientists are from the budget debate.
He said that we should write and thank our congressmen for their lonely effort in keeping science supported as well as it is. He said that the only gratitude they get is a sour policy statement from the AAAS that support for science will decrease by 40% by the year 2002 under current Republican and Democrat balance- the-budget scenarios.
Wait just a minute. We should be thanking our politicians for this? Just how bad is the budget picture for us? The bad news is that there are fewer government dollars earmarked for science in FY02 than there are for FY95. According to the AAAS, in FY02 the purchasing power of the government for the services of scientists will be 40% less than today. Unless federally funded scientists and engineers can make up for the lost support, they face some mix of earning 40% less, or 40% of them may have to leave the field in the next six years.
The competition for these smaller dollars will become cutthroat between universities, government labs, and businesses. How will the LLNL management respond to these long term budget pressures? (Did they hear Dr. Bromley say that there is perceptible movement in the government circles away from nuclear deterrence to controlling "battlespace knowledge?" This seems to be one of the lessons of the Gulf War.)
In order to protect ourselves against the coming budget crush, we need to respond like a science community that can argue for national priorities in the federal budget debate. This is a new hat for most of us. But it is important to understand that working head down, longer, and harder in your office or lab is just a necessary response, but not a sufficient one. As scientists and engineers at LLNL, signing an Authorization Card is a significant first step in influencing the issues affecting our future and the future of our country. /George Craig
"All that harms labor is treason to America. No line can be drawn between these two. If any man tells you he loves America, yet he hates labor, he is a liar. If a man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool.
I am glad to see that a system of labor prevails under which laborers can strike when they want to I like the system which lets a man quit when he wants to and wish it might prevail everywhere.
The strongest bond of human sympathy, outside of the family relation, should be one uniting all working people of all nations, tongues and kindreds."
Well, what rascal said this!? I'll sprinkle hints along the way, but first let me "talk dirty."
Lowdown and Dirty
SPSE, the Society of Professional Scientists and
Engineers of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wants to organize
a union of series 200 and 300 employees. We want you to sign authorization
cards so we can demonstrate to PERB, the Public Employment Relations Board
of the State of California, that over 30% of the individuals in the proposed
bargaining unit wish to have an election. If over 50% of you vote to unionize,
then SPSE becomes your exclusive representative to bargain collectively
with management on questions of wages, hours and working conditions. No
law or SPSE will ever prevent any employee from dealing directly with management
in his own behalf.
Hint #1: the author of the mystery quote had a very lucrative law practice working in the interests of large transportation corporations.
Now Just Wait a Minute, I'm a Ph.D.
This is a bad joke, it's beneath your dignity,
right? After all you're a highly refined product of the higher education
system, a world-class expert in gizmology, a national resource upon which
the defense of America and the advancement of humanity depend, you are the
one irreplaceable exception in the workings of LLNL. Wrong, you are a commodity,
you are labor. There is not one of us who cannot be replaced by hungrier
workers of equal and even superior skills. Welcome to the "global marketplace."
"SPSE is Beneath My Dignity"
Have I insulted you? Am I simply proving that SPSE
is just too embarrassingly crude and simplistic for your involvement? Even
some people in our organization would agree with you, and fought long and
hard to dilute this piece. However, I decided to state my point of view
up front, cleanly, and let the chips fall where they may.
"Let Me Tell You How it's Gonna Be..."
We employees want more say in how things get done
in LLNL, and in how people are treated. We want to contribute our work and
personal effort to find our own personal success by advancing the fortunes
of the Lab as a whole. We want pride of ownership in the glorious achievements
of LLNL, and we want a fair cut of the spoils.
Two legal methods are available for us to achieve the goal of shared governance. Method number one: management unilaterally chooses to recognize independent employee organizations as partners in policy making. United Airlines and America West Airlines now operate this way. Method number two: we utilize the option provided by California law in the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) to organize a union and compel management to routinely meet and confer with the employee representative, and to bargain in good faith. The Security Force officers at LLNL now operate as a union.
I have intentionally used all the union terminology to drive home the point that it is labor law that offers us an avenue to a greater voice in the affairs of our workplace, and no amount of obfuscation or linguistic spinelessness will alter this fact.
My attitude can be summed up with a nautical analogy. The ship has sunk, and all are swimming for the lifeboats. The survivors in group "A" are appalled at the conditions, the low quality food, and their proximity to low class people from steerage. They insist on being called "sir" or "madam," they refuse to have anything to do with those filthy oars, and they demand the sailors row them to port immediately (no doubt for a refund). Also they must have more space and quiet on the part of the others so they can fully experience their deep insights and significant angst. The survivors in group "B" are angry, frightened, and determined: they take stock of supplies, carefully secure any compass and sailing tackle they can find, agree to share the rowing equitably and the water frugally, choose their leaders on the basis of actual experience, and set about the work of mutual survival. My vote is to give group A its own boat.
My belief is that if I have to mince my words to assuage the sensibilities of those of you who hate any association with concepts like "labor union," then our cause is lost and any such effort is a waste of time. I have no doubt that LLNL professionals would form a union that reflects their self-image, and that such a union would conduct itself in a most courteous, ethical, and intelligent manner. I have no desire to insult or offend any of you, but quite frankly for the rest of this article I'm only speaking to the people in boat B.
Hint #2: our mystery quote author was elected to four terms in the Illinois state legislature, and was accused by some of falsifying evidence in a murder trial to get his client off.
More Work is Certain, More Pay is Not
The fact of today's labor market is that no job
is secure. Our nation is experiencing tremendous competitive pressure from
essentially three quarters of humanity in the equatorial zones of the planet
where both a population explosion and a drive to develop advanced economies
with higher standards of living are underway. Cars bought in America and
Europe are assembled in Mexico and Brazil, and electronic products are assembled
in Indonesia and the Philippines. In the 1950's Japan assembled junk, now
it designs computers and satellites and runs an economy with a surplus.
This fact is not lost on workers in the "underdeveloped" nations.
Competitive pressure requires that the US streamline its economy if it is to remain a world leader with a prosperous populace. All our public and private organizations are feverishly dieting to "downsize," "right-size," and increase productivity. We are in a time of organizational and personal insecurity. We are increasingly facing the "so-what" and "Walgreen's" tests: so what if your job, or organization doesn't exist, do we who pay for it really get anything out of it?, and why should we buy your services when we can go to Walgreen's (or hire post-docs for short and uncertain terms) and get it for less?
Staying employed has simply become more work than it used to be, and the expectation of monotonically increasing pay has become much less certain. Good workers in the Laboratory today are not only attentive to their "assignments," but have a personal program of research based on the interests that propelled them through the rigors of school in the first place, and a continuing program of self- improvement through course work at the Lab or elsewhere. In this regard it is unfortunate that courses at LLNL are becoming less accessible to many workers because of new cost barriers.
Finding a job is the hardest job of all, it is all work and no pay. You must continuously face rejection and persevere, sometimes in temporary jobs beneath your abilities. Those of you struggling in the "temp" mill, or who have experienced being "displaced" at LLNL understand this first hand. Few of us over thirty-five are likely to find a better job than the one we have today. Some of us will probably end our careers at the McMaster's Program under the Golden Arches.
There is no Time Like the Present
Is this any time to unionize? Haven't we got enough
to do already? This is the best time. I would rather face the cold
reality of employment in the company of dependable compatriots than as an
isolated individual. Forming a union is really as simple as that.
Being a union laborer is work. It takes more time and more effort than having a rich patron subsidize your work. For my part I neither see a generous patron eager to care for me, nor do I feel comfortable trusting my survival to a relationship of pure dependency. If I have to continuously upgrade my "skills, knowledge and abilities," just to remain in the position I now have, then I am already doing a lot of extra work with no guarantee that it will do me any good. So joining a union, voicing my issues at union meetings, demanding democratic processes in my union, electing my representatives and negotiators, and seeing that they and my management do as they promise, is extra work worth doing because I am participating in the creation of my own future. Sheep have no extra work to do to keep their job, they just chew pasture and get shorn. Yes it is work to have a voice in our workplace, but without it we are arbitrarily depreciated by a new layoff policy which seems to me to be the same one under which sheep become mutton.
Hint #3: our mystery author broadened his political career in the Republican party, he served one term in the House of Representatives, where he took issue with a reckless foreign war being expanded by the Democratic Administration.
Fear of Freedom
In all our discussions about unionizing the scientists
and engineers, someone will bring up the fear of personal reprisals. For
many this is the number one impediment to our message. If you let this fear
rule you and stifle all action, then you will never have a sense of security.
Freedoms only exist if you utilize and experience them, like the wind they
disappear if you let them rest.
Personally, I become angry at the thought of acquiescing to fear, because this is a betrayal of what the United States is supposed to stand for. Here we are, at the nucleus of United States nuclear weapons design, afraid to practice the very freedoms of expression and association guaranteed in our Constitution, and defended for over forty years by our government with such vehemence that it was prepared to visit nuclear annihilation upon the world rather than have us lose "our way of life." Whose way of life are we living if we serve in fearful silence? I thought we won the Cold War.
Hint #4: in the heat of debate on the House floor, our mystery quote author actually advocated a doctrine of people's revolution to shake off the authority of a national government that didn't suit them, even if only in a small territory.
Dancing with the Enemy
Is management our enemy? Are we reduced to being
either in non-union paternalistic servitude, or trapped in a bureaucratic
union engaged in contentious labor-management wrangling? No and no. Management
is not our enemy, and we do not have to become less willing and capable
of civil discourse and cooperative action. Let me tell you about management,
but strictly, strictly for the people in boat B.
There is no difference between managers and employees at LLNL, in nine cases out of ten any employee placed in a senior management position would soon behave in exactly the same way. Why? Because our character is similar. "A man's character is his fate," Heraclitus said.
In the broadest sense we are all products of similar educational experiences and social circumstances. We have all passed through a stringent filtration process to gain employment at LLNL, and as a result we all generally share the same ethical awareness and character. My argument is very general. I am talking about the DC average, the fundamental mode, I am ignoring the myriad array of individual differences that some of you may focus on in taking issue here; all of that is just sparkle on the snow.
With rare exceptions any of us would act and think as our managers do if faced with their responsibilities, their difficulties, and their advantages. They are no less frightened about their future than we are. They are no less active in working with their friends for their mutual security than we are. Most importantly, they are generally neither more nor less ruthless, or competent, or sympathetic, than most of us would be in dealing with "employees" while facing an uncertain personal future. It is not just that we share technical backgrounds, more fundamentally all of us at LLNL have achieved our positions, and continue to hold onto them by acceding to the demands of higher authorities. This is not the type of experience that forges the strongest character. People feel trapped and unappreciated in positions gained by a history of compromise to gain approval.
Our character is our fate. If for some, our managers do not have the vision, foresight and passion of successful business barons, then neither do they have the total Genghis Khan ruthlessness (generally, now, not in all cases) to sack, harass and abuse people on whim. There is a general degree of decency at LLNL that compares well to the national standard (which is too low). By the same token our lack of flash can show up in our work as a plodding orthodoxy tinged by unctuous arrogance (in the view of some). The self-assessment of our work that we find more acceptable is something like: detailed and thorough analyses exhaustively calculated to high precision by experts of the highest qualifications. Finally, our character is not that of people who have the fire of a Tom Paine, or a Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death!") to organize a "revolt" against authority. We do not close ranks or unionize very enthusiastically.
Hint #5: after an unsuccessful run for the Senate, our mystery quote author gained media attention in New York and Chicago and was nominated for President at the Republican party convention in Chicago.
Yoga
"Yoga" means "union." It is
the Sanskrit ancestor of the English word "yoke." A yoga is any
method by which an individual becomes united with God. Many people have
tried the basic stretching exercises of hatha yoga, the method of reaching
a spiritual union through one's awareness of physical sensation and breath.
Another form is karma yoga, the yoga of everyday life in which any act or
experience can be a trigger to a real sensation of the wonder of life. "How
good it is to be alive," (Roald Amundsen, on reaching the South Pole
in 1911).
If our union is to succeed it must be an affirmation rather than an escape. We must form our union because we wish to become more active not just on our own behalf as employees, but for the long term prosperity of our Lab. We cannot simply run away from our fears of the future by asking another small group of people to take care of us. The employees of United Airlines and America West put their pension funds, wages and hours on the block to buy their own companies out of hock and keep them going. They and their management work for each other, for them every day on the job is a reaffirmation of their union. That is what I want in my job.
If we become sufficiently united in purpose to build our own employee union, tailored to our circumstances and our preferences of style, then our management will not only have to include our perspectives in policy making, it will want to. We would be a force that could add strength, and support to their efforts on behalf of Lab-wide prosperity, and we would have some power to act in the defense of the individual when that becomes necessary.
Union is a beautiful word. In my view a union could be an opportunity for our Lab to elevate itself from a feudal organization into a much more dynamic, modern, and parliamentary entity.
Surely by now you have guessed that our mystery quote author is none other than Abraham Lincoln, he more than most worked for the union. /Manuel Garcia
Go back to the
SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/