SPSE Newsletter #2, June 1994
Editor: Jim Bruner
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
(510) 449-4846

Contents:





The President's Corner
by George Craig

The SPSE publication committee suggested that this column be reestablished as a regular newsletter feature. The following is a good example of the continuing turmoil at the Lab that should make finding topics easy.

After our last Newsletter, SPSE received several phone calls about 20 LLNL machinists who were informed that they were being "displaced." Although the SPSE membership does not include machinists, we generally sympathize with and advocate fair treatment for all LLNL workers. I asked Ross Eyre, one of the machinists involved, to describe the situation from his point of view. This is what he gave us:

"In April, a disturbing thing happened to 20 or so machinists. We were reassigned (displaced) outside MMED. The basis for displacement was supposedly our skills, knowledge, and abilities, which is odd considering the fact that some of us were judged by management past and present to be the best. The displacement criteria were so vague that a world-class machinist could be displaced and someone else could be retained whose only superior skill was in cooking hot dogs at the department picnic. Of course, we are only guessing if the job description was rewritten; it's still a secret, and requests to review the ranking criteria have been denied.

The only factors used for displacement we can see are that we are just not the right type of people, based on age, gender, cultural background, or simply lacking the ability to exude a certain warm, cuddly style of management adoration. After the supervisors pursued their personal agenda, they even threw out two of their own. We spent two weeks attending meetings and classes in resume writing, interview skills, how to adapt to change, etc. It was made very clear that, whatever appeals we filed, we would not get our jobs back, and no one could (or would) answer how long we would be allowed to remain on the payroll as 'displaces.' (The whims of a new Director and/or October 1st seem to loom large in our collective lives.)

So, even if you feel safe now, think of the future. Changing situations may place you in a perilous position. Remember, there is safety in numbers-political clout and all that. Let's organize to help make the Laboratory a better place. After all, it's your tax dollars too. The United Professional and Technical Employees-Communication Workers of America (UPTE-CWA) Local 9119, an organization for UC technical employees, can help us in this regard. Its president, Doug Brown, has offered to advise us."

Any readers who want more information about UPTE-CWA or organizing technical employees can reach Eyre through the SPSE office at (510) 449-4846.

Also, please consider Eyre's admonition to "think of the future." Although no massive layoffs are being discussed now, the not-too-distant future (e.g., when the Galvin Committee submits its report) may hold unpleasant news. The remaining articles in this newsletter contain much food for thought on this subject.~

Setup for Layoff?

Recent newsletter reports about displaced employees and proposed changes in the layoff policies prompted this editorial from a reader whose name is withheld by request.

Since the report in our last Newsletter about management's attempt to change LLNL's layoff policy, a broader picture of management tactics seems to be coming into focus. Could it be that the proposed layoff policy (now tabled, so they say) is designed to enable management to "set up" certain individuals for layoff who are out of favor with management?

Some "displaced" personnel complain that their organizations deliberately block their efforts to locate assignments, rather than help them as they are supposed to do. We have learned of recent cases of displaced persons who were turned down or simply ignored when they applied for positions for which they were well qualified. Instead, management gave the jobs to external applicants, in apparent violation of Lab policy. Lacking legitimate reasons for turning down an internal applicant, management sometimes claims that the individual is not suitable because of some personality flaw and then tries to dupe the individual into tacitly agreeing with the assessment.

Of course, this should come as no surprise to many Lab "old-timers" who are familiar with the cronyism and favoritism that rule placement within the various organizations. Management's "favorites" are easily placed informally in preferred jobs, while the "outcasts" are held to the strict letter of the transfer policy and then rejected on technicalities. That's nothing new, but this state of affairs takes on a more sinister appearance in light of management's attempt to change the layoff policy.

The tabled policy specifies that the order of layoff would be by "inverse order of value based on business necessity" determined at the time of layoff. Maybe this sounds fair on the surface, but how would management determine this value? One plausible-sounding argument would be that a person who is displaced at the time of layoff has low value. However, the primary reason for displacement could be that management blocked the employee's job-seeking efforts and gave all the appropriate jobs to new hires or old cronies, thus perpetuating the person's displaced status. The tabled policy also eliminates the responsibility of a displaced employee's supervisor to provide assistance in finding employment at the Lab. This new feature would simply legitimize the manner in which many displaced employees are treated anyway.
Thus, the tabled layoff policy effectively would give management absolute power to get rid of anyone. First, arrange for the person to be displaced and stay that way. Then, when layoffs come, let the ax fall.Management claims to need more flexibility in determining who gets laid off. Baloney. The existing layoff policy already allows management to retain specified employees who are too valuable to lose, no matter what their seniority. What management really wants to do is to get rid of selected senior, highly paid employees and replace them with post-docs and other kinds of cheap labor. If the performance of these senior employees is satisfactory, the legitimate way to get rid of them is to offer retirement incentives, not cook up some scheme to make their performance appear unsatisfactory.

To help us push for reform in the hiring/transfer process at the Lab, the SPSE needs to hear from employees, displaced or not, SPSE members or not, who feel that their organization's management has hindered rather than helped in their efforts to find a new assignment. If you feel that you have been unfairly passed over for a job for which you are qualified, we want to hear about it. Please describe any ruses that were used by management and give as much detail as you can.~

A Reader Writes & SPSE Responds--
Update on the Grievance Hearing

Our April Newsletter contained an article about the grievance hearing of a Lab chemist (identified as Dr. X) who was given three months to find himself a new job at LLNL and then was fired for unsatisfactory performance when he failed to do so.

We subsequently received a letter from a person who claimed to know Dr. X "distantly." The anonymous writer alleged that X's reputation prevented him from being hired anywhere at LLNL and that he deserved to be fired. The writer further scolded SPSE for not looking at the facts and for supporting the "good old boy" network that keeps deadwood employed at the Lab.

The SPSE Grievance Committee Chair, Richard White, gives the following response:

Though the anonymous writer claims to know Dr. X only distantly, he/she has made some strong (possibly libelous) allegations about Dr. X's value as an employee. Dr. X's value is not the only issue. An issue that is of vital importance to all Lab employees is the Lab's scheme, in this case, to bypass the rules that govern termination of employees. This scheme is certain to lead to abuse if it is tolerated in any instance. That is, it could be applied to virtually anyone who fails to demonstrate sufficient fealty to a supervisor or who is labeled as "excess to a program's needs" for whatever reasons that management cares to apply.

With regard to Dr. X's value, the writer admonishes SPSE for failing to look at the facts. Apparently he/she does not understand that examining the facts is exactly what a grievance hearing does.

In Dr. X's case, we spent six full days in hearings. Gabriela O'Dell, an able attorney from the Lab Counsel's office, represented the Earth Sciences Division. I represented Dr. X. Ms. O'Dell, used nearly 3 days, to present 8 witnesses and about 100 documents to make the Lab's case. Dr. X responded with his own witnesses and documents, and O'Dell spent nearly a full day cross-examining Dr. X. Performance issues similar to those raised by the anonymous writer were fully explored.

All testimonies were heard by a neutral judge, a professional arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association. This judge will decide the issues on the basis of the facts presented and the Lab's policies. This is what a grievance hearing is about. I sat through the entire six days of the hearing and I can assure the writer that the facts have been thoroughly examined.

This grievance hearing is over. Ms. O'Dell and I are now preparing our written arguments, which are due in mid-July. The judge will review these arguments, the testimonies, and evidence and will render a decision in a few months.~

Lab Director Selection Committee

Some readers may have been surprised recently to learn that Lab employees would be represented on the Laboratory Director Selection Committee. Anyone who blinked could have missed the opportunity to nominate a committee member.

On April 27, 1994, Charlie Biederman sent LLNL employees an E-mail message that two seats would be available to Lab employees on the selection committee. This message stated that the names of nominees were to be submitted by the next day, April 28. SPSE president George Craig, on May 4, 1994, wrote UC president Jack Peltason, declaring that the deadline was unreasonable, asking who was responsible (the UC or the Lab), and requesting confirmation that the names of George Craig and Bruce Kelly (SPSE's president and president-elect) had been submitted for committee membership. To date, we have received no answer.

As we now know, Carl Poppe and Irene Jones are the Lab employee representatives on the committee, and SPSE wishes them well in the difficult task ahead of them. However, we need to keep in mind that these two people are our representatives. Therefore, we trust that they will keep us informed as to what the committee is doing and will be responsive to our interests.~

Defense Conversion--Opportunity of Disaster for LLNL?

In the latest round of military base closures, one of the victims was Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. The citizens of the town of Oak Harbor, Washington, however, refused to let their town die when the government decided to eliminate its main reason for existence. Oak Harbor fought the decision and won.

The Bath Iron Works in Maine faces severe cutbacks in its work of building Navy ships. Since the U.S. government, unlike other industrialized countries, does not subsidize commercial ship-building, U.S. ship-builders cannot compete in a world market. Further, because commercial ships such as double-hulled oil tankers do not need the sophisticated equipment that warships do, the talents of hundreds of electricians and other specialized designers and technicians at BIW are not needed for the nearest thing to a commercial equivalent to their defense jobs. Its future lies largely in its ability to adapt to conditions of a competitive market-place. To this end, an employee council is engaged in helping management determine a new direction for the company, but its future is still uncertain.

There are hundreds of other examples of the crunch that is resulting from the end of the Cold War. The problems, however, boil down to these deficiencies:

Nothing in this list is earth-shattering news, but we at Livermore have at least our share of all these problems:

If the government wants us to be competitive, it must give us the authority to determine our own course and make the best use of our talent. Instead of burying us with more layers of bureaucracy, the funds wasted in this ongoing foolishness could be used to fund marketable technical projects.
If we as a laboratory are going to survive, someone must have the guts to say, "Enough!" If we continue to operate like a typical government agency, the inevitable downsizing will cost the nation a pool of experience and technical expertise that could be vital in time of national emergency. The alternative is to be flexible, retrain, innovate, and find and serve potential customers. Make our services affordable, or we will never be able to market them. Fill a need when it occurs, or someone else will while we are working on the proposal. If we can do these things, we can again be a national asset in fact rather than name only.~

An Idea for Developing Tech-Transfer Relations

In April, the DOE announced a strategic plan with newly defined goals for fueling a competitive society, improving the environment, and reducing the nuclear danger. Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary is calling for new partnerships with industry and for bold leadership in addressing some of the nation's most important needs. She has stated that not only are we redefining our business lines, we are changing the way we do business.

An important element of the DOE plan is to establish closer ties between the national laboratories and the commercial world. Creating these relationships is not easy for LLNL. The business community views us as a high-tech weapons development center with little understanding of money as a scarce resource. Small, high-tech, start-up companies who have the most to gain from a relationship with us are the ones who can least afford us. Even the secretarial effort required for a company to keep up with a CRADA is sometimes too much. Therefore, we must make ourselves more attractive to these smaller companies.

The SPSE has an idea that might facilitate such tech-transfer relationships. In a nutshell, the SPSE would help its members contact these companies and negotiate their own consulting arrangements. (LLNL employees may consult on their own time if the arrangement is cleared through the Lab conflict-of-interest officer.)

Consulting arrangements between Lab employees and outside commercial interests provide a straight-forward mechanism for tech transfer and are in everyone's best interest. The commercial interest gets a solution to its immediate problem for only a consulting fee, without the encumbrance of the layers of bureaucracy involved in formal relationships with LLNL. The Lab employee has an opportunity to expand his/her expertise to the commercial world and earn extra money. The Lab benefits because these relationships very well could mature into CRADAs or other types of formal affiliations.

For additional information, contact the SPSE office.~

Ralph Hager in Accident

On April 27, 1994, Lab retiree Ralph S. Hager was biking down a hill on Claremont Avenue in Berkeley when his front tire went flat and the bicycle became uncontrollable. He was seriously injured in the resulting accident and is now paralyzed from the shoulders down.

Ralph is now at home at 5323 Dover Street in Oakland (94609), where volunteers have installed a ramp for wheelchair access. He has completed a rehabilitation program and is becoming proficient on a computer fitted with voice activation and other special devices. He is anxious to return to productive work and would appreciate the opportunity to help with any research projects that his friends and associates at the Lab could send his way.~

SPSE Goes Online

The SPSE recently subscribed to an Internet service, so we can now send and receive e-mail. Send e-mail to cherylr@netcom.com.

However, please be aware that e-mail is vulnerable to eavesdropping. Anyone who desires to communicate in confidence should send letters to our P.O. box.

The SPSE Executive Board meeting schedule is now available via e-mail. To get on the distribution list, send us a message (include "Calendar" in the subject line).~

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