SPSE Home Page
SPSE Newletter #2 July 2002
Editors: S. Koopman and K. Yates
P.O. Box 1066, 4047 First Street
Livermore, CA 94550
(925) 449-4846

Contents:

  • Why SPSE Affiliated with UPTE
  • SPSE Welcomes Our New Director
  • EBA Facts Management Never Told Us
  • CAR takes EBAs for a Ride
  • The Wen Ho Lee Forum
  • Healthe Insurance Update
  • Women's Suit Update
  • Plot Your Career at LLNL
  • Nurses Settlement
  • Maturity Curves
  • Why SPSE Affiliated with UPTE

    SPSE JOINS UPTE

    In April SPSE members voted overwhelmingly (85% of voters) to affiliate with the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE), a professional organization that represents salaried computer, research, technical and health care professionals at UC. Scientists and engineers around the lab have reacted positively to this affiliation. We have since added new members.
    UPTE's parent organization, Communications Workers of America (CWA), represents more than 20,000 employees at colleges and universities nationwide and is one of the largest unions of technical and professional employees in the United States with nearly 700,000 members. By being a part of UPTE/CWA, SPSE will have the attention of legislators and executive branch officials on the state and federal levels.
    The SPSE board has negotiated an agreement with UPTE that will assure that the SPSE membership can determine its own policies. SPSE members will continue to decide what issues to address in the future. Furthermore, if the day comes that we get bargaining rights, SPSE would be a separate bargaining unit independent of other UPTE members.
    For SPSE to continue to be effective it needs to increase membership. UPTE, which has grown from 0 to 7,000 members over the last decade, is helping SPSE develop a campaign for recruiting new members.
    For more information see our website, the CWA website www.cwa-union.org, and the UPTE website www.upte.org. / Bill Quirk

    SPSE Welcomes Our New Director
    After Mike Anastasio was appointed the Lab's new Director recently, he commented on empowering our employees. SPSE is encouraged to hear these remarks. We look forward to Anastasio involving the employees in the decisions affecting their work environment. An example would be to give employees a voice in developing personnel policies, such as tackling the ranking system. SPSE welcomes Anastasio as the Lab's new director and hopes to work with him on employee issues. / Bill Quirk
    EBA Facts Management Never Told Us
    Did you know that there is no Lab-wide policy on "employees between assignments" (EBAs)? Or that you can not be fired for failing to find an assignment? Would you believe that an employee might not be an EBA even though her management thinks she is an EBA? These and other curious facts surfaced at a recent "Meet and Discuss" session between SPSE members and Staff Relations.
    Attempts to obtain written copies of alleged EBA guidelines were unsuccessful, so, on April 29, 2002, SPSE members J. Colvin, P. Weidhaas, and R. Yamauchi met with R. Perko and J. Cain of Staff Relations in the Human Resources Directorate to discuss the EBA situation. Here we bring our readers five key facts from that meeting. Further details can be found on our web page www.spse.org.
    1) There is no Lab-wide policy on EBAs. There are no departmental policies, either. Instead EBAs are handled on a case-by-case basis. While case by case flexibility is necessary, SPSE believes that the employee should not be threatened with non-existent EBA guidelines.
    2) Staff Relations recommends that EBAs should be encouraged to take on any assignments, temporary or not! This runs counter to management practice in which EBAs are told not take temporary assignments. SPSE encourages management to follow Staff Relations advice: direct EBAs to take temporary assignments in order to reduce the overhead burden. In addition, the employee continues to keep their skills up to date.
    3) As soon as an EBA finds temporary or permanent full-time work, and thus no longer charges to a burden (EBA) account, that employee is not an EBA! Unfortunately, management is not always aware of this, highlighting the lack of uniformity in treatment that EBAs receive. 4) EBAs cannot be terminated for failing to find a permanent assignment. However, they can be terminated if they don't do everything possible and use all resources at their disposal to find an assignment. This includes following the instructions laid down in the Letter of Expectation. SPSE urges any employee who becomes designated as an EBA and receives such a Letter, to seriously interpret the Letter and to comply with the stated objectives in order to minimize further altercations.
    5) Staff Relations representative Robert Perko agreed with SPSE that when management approves an employee's academic plan, then management should fully honor the commitment by approving the tuition reimbursement for classes listed on the plan. SPSE applauds this stance and looks forward to evidence that management will carry through with their commitment.
    Where do we go from here?
    As part of SPSE's striving to make our Lab a better place to work, we encourage management to take a more common-sense approach regarding the issues facing EBAs. Considering that EBAs are often innocent victims of organizational changes, instead of threatening EBAs with termination, management should provide maximum help to these employees in finding an assignment, gaining new training, and strengthening skills.
    SPSE has attempted to obtain statistics on the number of EBAs in order to ascertain the extent of the EBA population and, for example, whether it is growing. Staff Relations apparently has no records on EBAs. If the Directorates have such information, we urge them to come forth with the statistics. SPSE will continue to question the administration on this and other important employee issues, and we welcome new members to join us in support of this endeavor. / Pat Weidhaas

    CAR Takes EBAs for a Ride
    In January 2002, two computer scientists in the Computing Applications and Research Department (CAR) were ordered to immediately stop working on their temporary paying assignments (one was full-time and one was part time), and spend all their time looking for a permanent job. CAR considered both employees to be EBAs even though one computer scientist was working on a full-time temporary assignment for nine months. One was told if he didn't find a job in 30 days, according to CAR's EBA guideline, termination procedures would commence. But, there is no CAR EBA guideline, and neither does the Lab have an EBA guideline (see the above article). It is tough enough for employees not to have a permanent job. But to yank them off their jobs and to threaten them with termination, while citing a non-existent guideline is really taking them for a ride. / Sue Koopman

    The Wen Ho Lee Forum
    This March SPSE hosted A Forum on the Wen Ho Lee Case and its Aftermath, in order for the audience to ask questions. The three panelists were Dan Stober (San Jose Mercury News), Ian Hoffman (Albuquerque Journal), and Professor L. Ling-chi Wang (U.C. Berkeley). Stober and Hoffman are the authors of A Convenient Spy, an impressively detailed account of the case. Prof. Wang initiated the boycott of DOE Lab jobs by Asian-American organizations, sparked by the harsh treatment of Dr. Lee during his interrogation and imprisonment, and because of the alleged racial profiling that led to his prosecution.
    Even before the end of the trial and the release of Lee on September 13, 2000, the DOE and the three weapons labs were trying to negotiate an end to the job boycott because it caused such adverse publicity. SPSE had gone on record as advocating due process and humane treatment of Lee (see our web site). Some SPSE members became involved in the campaign to gain freedom for Lee, and made contacts with the three panelists, who enthusiastically agreed to be the guests of SPSE for this special event.
    The Main Auditorium was nearly full. Stober treated us to pictures showing key people and evidence in the case. Wang's comments on his boycott negotiations with the Labs made the front pages of newspapers and were carried by wire services and internet news sites the next day. The Lab videotaped the proceedings and made copies available to SPSE. At the end, audience members had a chance to have their copies of the Stober/Hoffman book autographed.
    The Wen Ho Lee case has taught us that an employee, who gets into trouble, cannot depend on help from DOE, UC or Lab management. Even most colleagues will distance themselves. Support will come from people with a strong sense for fairness and the belief in being innocent until proven guilty. In the Lee case, SPSE provided support in the form of a letter to then-Attorney General, Janet Reno. SPSE's letter represented the only such effort from any organized group of employees in the weapons labs. Later, when LANL employees tried to organize during the "missing hard drives" debacle, UPTE came to the aid of the employees. Recently, SPSE members voted to affiliate with UPTE. We hope that this merger of UC labor forces will result in more employees looking out for each other and standing up for fairness and due process, regardless of any differences that should be irrelevant to employment: ethnicity and gender. / Manuel Garcia
    [Editor's Note: DOE, UC, and Lab management want us to believe that racial profiling either never happened or has vanished thanks to a DOE-mandated "stand-down." Along with racial profiling, they want us to believe that the final curtain has fallen on the Lee drama. Recently, a viable candidate for LLNL director had to retract his candidacy because he had once been a manager in the organization in which Lee worked. And, a recent congressional report (the GAO report) found racial and sexual disparities in employment at the Lab. Wen Ho Lee and all its repercussions are very much with us today and probably for a long time.]

    Health Insurance Update
    With the collapse of Pacific Health Care Medical Group in the Tri-Valley area in 2001 and rising costs nationwide, UC is taking action. Unfortunately, we can not expect fast action with these complex issues. UC has put both the UC Care and Core plans out to bid. The goal is to have the plans updated by January 2003. LLNL will soon have a Health Care Facilitator on site to minimize difficulties accessing care. Many of the issues facing UC are beyond its control. One example is the increasing costs of popular prescription drugs. Another is hospitals refusing to accept low reimbursement rates from HMOs, which is why Hill Physicians Medical Group patients cannot use ValleyCare except in a real emergency. Many physicians do not want to deal with HMOs: in Livermore, according to healthnet.com, there are only two internal medicine physicians, six pediatricians, and no general or family practitioners accepting new patients. None of the physicians accepting new patients belong to Bay Valley Medical Group, which is the only group that participates with ValleyCare. Although new treatments and medicines continue to appear on the market that save lives and improve the quality of life, these things cost money and somewhere they have to be either managed by insurance (i.e. denied) or paid for by someone (i.e. you or UC). Responding to the rising costs, the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) has reduced plan choices and increased fees. /

    Women's Suit Update
    In 1998, former Lab employee, Mary Singleton, and five other female employees filed a class-action lawsuit against the UC Regents on behalf of all LLNL female employees. The suit alleges that LLNL's compensation and promotion systems discriminate against women. The suit seeks back pay and damages on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the class.

    In addition, the suit also seeks an injunction requiring the implementation of a non-discriminatory compensation and promotional system. The trial is scheduled for February 2003.
    By the discovery phase cut-off date of August 5, 2002, all depositions must be completed. Depositions were delayed several months because defendant's attorneys refused to produce equity studies carried out by LLNL's Compensation Division starting in 1993. After losing on appeal, LLNL produced the studies detailing individual cases of women whose salaries were lower than would be expected based on value ranking to the organization and years in field. At this point depositions were resumed, and more documents have been produced that show LLNL upper management ignored the problems of gender inequity even though the Lab's own studies confirmed inequities in directorates across the Lab.
    Recently a notice was sent to all class members informing them of the lawsuit. At this point class members include "all current, former and future female employees at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory employed in the 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 series classifications who are or were employed at LLNL at any time since December 23, 1995, and who are, have been, or may in the future be adversely affected by discrimination based on gender in rate of pay and promotional opportunities." A hearing is scheduled for July 26, 2002 before Judge Sabraw, in Superior Court of the State of California, to further consider the scope of the class. At this time, members may chose to be removed from the class if they so desire.
    There are four legal firms representing plaintiffs: Lead Counsel ­The Sturdevant Law Firm; Co-Counsels ­Schneider & Wallace, Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer, and Trial Lawyers for Public Justice.

    Gwilliam represents Dee Kotla, a former computer technician at LLNL, in a wrongful termination case against LLNL. In the decision handed down in March 2002, the jury awarded Kotla $1-million in total damages. One of her claims in the case was that LLNL was motivated to fire her because, on behalf of another colleague, she testified "what she reasonably and in good faith believed to be inequality in pay between men and women."
    More information on this case is at www.awis.org/magazine.html. / Mary Singleton

    Plot Your Career at LLNL:
    This plot shows "S-curves" of salary distributions for LLNL scientists and engineers shown from left to right for FYs 99 through 02. We derived the 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. Don't confuse this with "years since BS" percentile figures used for the maturity curve plots. These data can be used in the following way: take your salary from each of the 4 years listed, and plot each on the appropriate curve. By connecting your 4 data points, you can see the upward or downward trend of your salary compared to that of all other employees in the 200-series. The actual numbers used to produce the plots are available to SPSE members for further analysis.


    Nurses Settlement
    In May 2002, UC and the California Nurses Association, representing 8,000 UC RN's, reached a historic settlement. Apart from the economic terms of the settlement, the UC agreed to scrap its "merit" ranking system and to replace it with a less subjective system based on experience. / Pat Weidhaas