Go back to the
SPSE Home Page http://www.spse.org/
SPSE Newsletter #2, April 1995
Editor: Jim Bruner
P.O. Box 1066
Livermore, CA 94551
510-449-4846
We are concerned that LLNL's Senior Management Council intends to convert LLNL into an organization staffed by scientific temporaries. This will be accomplished via sweeping changes in policies that have protected employee rights for 40 years. Can Lab management simply erase employee rights? No! There is a democratic process, founded in state law, that allows employees to empower themselves. They can require management to negotiate any policy changes with an employee organization chosen to be their representative through a democratic election. SPSE proposes to form a Scientists and Engineers Senate to represent the employees. Employee approval via an election is required. To call an election, 30% of the LLNL scientists and engineers must indicate their desire for an election by signing authorization cards. An authorization card is included in this Newsletter. We urge you to sign it and return it per the instructions on the card. The article below gives more details. ~
The rapid decline of morale at LLNL is obvious to all employees. Management is preoccupied with new ranking procedures, layoff policies, retirement incentives, and schemes for hiring temporary workers. Few working scientists and engineers see these as solutions to the Lab's endemic problems.
Policies Made by Management Decree
In closed off-site meetings, LLNL's "Senior
Management Council" (the Director, Associate Directors, CEO, and a
few other top management officials) has made plans to change LLNL into a
laboratory staffed by sci-temps (scientific temporary employees). Already
they have implemented drastic changes in term appointment policies. Announcement
of a new layoff policy is imminent.
Lab employees have little say in these decisions that vitally affect their jobs and futures. If the Council follows its schedule, details of the new "improved" layoff policy will be announced by May 1. The Council will then go through the motions of soliciting employee comment, as required by state law. The schedule published in the January 30 Human Resources Working Group report calls for adoption of the policy one month later. This schedule implies an intent to implement the policy without significant changes.
A Democratic Alternative
Is there no way that employees can have some significant
input? The answer is that there is a way, but it requires a unified action
by a substantial majority of all of LLNL's scientists and engineers. We
must act and act promptly to empower ourselves.
On the academic UC campuses, the faculty are members of the Academic Senates. Senate members participate in decisions affecting their employment. They debate and vote on policy matters and thus have some control over their own conditions of employment.
In contrast, at LLNL all policy is made by the clique: the Senior Management Council. This council makes decisions that vitally affect our futures, and it does not have a good record of protecting employee rights and interests.
However, state law provides that UC employees can compel management to negotiate any policy changes that affect working conditions. To activate this provision of law, more than 50% of the affected employees must vote for a particular recognized employee organization to represent them in such negotiations. SPSE is a recognized employee organization. We will seek to have such an election and to have SPSE placed on the ballot as the representative.
What Must You Do to Call for an Election?
Here is the tough part: to have an election, 30%
of LLNL scientists and engineers must petition for it by signing authorization
cards. A card is included in the centerfold of this Newsletter. The centerfold
also gives some more explanation of the use of the card. Please read it
carefully. If you want to have the chance to vote, sign the card and return
it per the instructions on the card.
Signing the card does not mean that you must vote for representation when the election is held. It only means that you want the opportunity to have a vote. When there is an election, the ballot will allow you either to choose SPSE to represent you or to choose the status quo; i.e., no representation. Scientists and Engineers Senate
If we are successful in getting an election and if a majority of employees vote for SPSE as representative, we will form the LLNL Scientists and Engineers Senate. The senate will be a debating and policy-making body. We will use the force of state law to require management to negotiate policy changes with the employees. ~
By now, all LLNL employees should be aware that Director Tarter is about to unveil a new layoff policy. Though the Laboratory refused to respond to SPSE's Public Records Act request for copies of the proposed policy and the Human Resources Working Group Report that introduces it, we have obtained copies from other sources. Some minor revisions may be made before the final announcement to employees, but the essential changes will be as listed below.
We have some indications that item 3 may have been dropped in the most recent versions of the proposed policy. It was very unpopular with employees who heard about it. However, if it is dropped, it can easily be put back in if management is successful in getting approval from UC for the rest of the policy. ~
The following questions and answers (slightly abbreviated)
are reprinted from the Human Resources Working Group Report issued January
30, 1995. We have provided some editorial comments in italics.
Q: Why is the Laboratory changing the layoff policy for 200 series employees?
A: Basically, it's to provide the flexibility needed to maintain an effective workforce skills mix during times of rapid programmatic change and changing mission requirements. The Laboratory needs a layoff policy that enables it to retain the skills, knowledge and abilities required to meet ongoing and future work needs.
In the classified structures (all structures but the 200 series), the job classifications used in an organization characterize, to a first approximation, the organization's mix of skills, knowledge and abilities. Organizations can change the skills mix by increasing or decreasing the number of individuals in a given job classification. Since skills, knowledge and abilities are reflected in the job classification, selection for layoff can be made by seniority within a job classification without concern for impact on the skills mix. In sum, skills-mix decisions are made by changing the classification mix; individuals are selected for layoff from the classifications that are being reduced.
There is no parallel to this in the 200 series. Each job classification includes the full range of experi-ence and skill, from the newest bachelor's degree to the most senior technical management. For Example, the single classification 270.0 (physicist) includes new graduates, Associate Directors and every level in between. The proposed new 200 series layoff policy is constructed in recognition of this situation.
Q: Why not just change the classification structure for 200 series employees and keep the current layoff policy for all employees?
A: Because it would not be practical from either an administrative or salary management perspective, and it would operate against the assignment flexibility that we have always considered important. Classifying the different disciplines, skills, knowledge and abilities in the scientific and engineering classifications would result in a large number of classifications which would be burdensome both to establish and to maintain. In addition, the Laboratory has always considered it important to be able to assign scientists and engineers very flexibly. Classification structures tend to mitigate against such flexibility.
Most companies today are reducing the number of job classifications and broadening salary bands to better position themselves to respond to rapidly changing technologies and workforce needs. We believe we are in this enviable position today with respect to the 200 series; changing to a structured program would be a step backward.
Ed. Note: Until 1980, there were 10 subclasses within each scientific/engineering job class. For example, physicists ranged from 270.1 through 270.9 and 270.0 was the top salary range. This did not seem especially cumbersome at the time. The subclasses were eliminated when it appeared they could be used to demonstrate discriminatory treatment of women (see SPSE Newsletter 1995 #1 article on Ranking).
Q: Does this mean the Laboratory expects to have a layoff in the near future?
A: We don't know what the future will bring. It depends on budgets and funding for FY95. We do know the Laboratory's mission has changed, and almost certainly will continue to change in concert with changing national needs. The point is, the Laboratory must be able to respond quickly and effectively to such changes with the necessary workforce skills mix.
Ed. Note: In 1990, during a meet and confer concerning layoff policies, Lab representatives repeatedly referred to the Laboratory's changing mission. We asked "what is the current mission?" They were unable to respond. We asked that they look into it and provide a written mission statement after the meeting. None was ever provided.
According to the proposed policy, however, this lack of ability to define the current mission or to predict the future will not deter management from using these as criteria to manipulate the workforce.
Q: Is it common for an organization to have different layoff policies for different groups of employees? Who are some of the other organizations that have multiple layoff policies?
A: Yes, it is common practice for an organization to have multiple layoff polices. For example, this the case for UC as well as Stanford, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and AT&T. It's also common for private companies not to have a formal layoff policy, but to address the issue on a discretionary basis.
Ed. Note: There is a little flim flam in this answer. UC has one Staff Personnel Policy that applies to all staff employees (that's us) on all campuses except for LANL. Various campuses have their own implementations, but they all follow the guidelines of the Staff Personnel Policy. LANL somehow managed to slip through a major departure from all other UC campuses, not only in their layoff policies but in most other policies as well. They succeeded in this, partly because there was no watchdog group like SPSE making sure they adhered to the rules and also because employment law in New Mexico is less well developed than in California. While there are other policies within UC, these apply to non-staff employees. For example, the faculty has its own tenure policy, and a special class of executive employees (e.g., our Associate Directors) serve at the pleasure of the Regents.
Q: If I'm slated for layoff, will I be eligible to transfer to a vacant position outside the 200 series?
A: Under the new policy, there are no preferential transfer or rehire rights. However, if you have the necessary qualifications, you can apply for the job using the normal application process.
Q: I have worked on burden with little or no funding for some time now. Will I be more likely to be selected for layoff?
A: A number of factors will be considered, including the likelihood that the Laboratory might receive funding for a project that requires your particular skills, knowledge or abilities.
Q: I have not had a funded project for a substantial length of time. Will I be selected for layoff over a junior person who happens to have funding, even though that person has less experience and fewer skills than I do?
A: Your program or department must first determine the skills mix it requires to meet current and anticipated needs The idea is to retain employees with the skills, knowledge and abilities most closely matching those needs. In cases where two or more employees have substantially equal skills, knowledge and abilities, the more senior person will be retained.
Q: I'm working on a project that is expected to be temporary. Will I be more likely to be laid off than a person who has lesser skills, knowledge and abilities but is working on a more long-term project?
A: Employees will be selected for layoff based on the overall needs of the identified layoff unit. For example, if a department is identified for layoff, that department will determine the skills, knowledge and abilities it requires to meet current and anticipated business needs. The fact that you are between assignments or are currently on a short-term project doesn't in and of itself single you out for layoff. What counts is how well your particular skill, knowledge and abilities match the department's current and expected needs.
Q: If a voluntary program is offered, will I be advised beforehand as to whether or not I am at risk?
A: Yes. The Laboratory will identify affected work units prior to offering a voluntary separation program. However, the opportunity for voluntary separation will only be offered BEFORE a final decision is made as to which individuals will be laid off.
Q: What role will my performance appraisal and ranking have in determining if I am to be laid off?
A: An employee's performance evaluation is important in assessing the individual's ability, which is defined as the demonstrated application of skills and knowledge to programmatic needs. Performance evaluations may be looked at and used as one of many factors in assessing a person's ability. However, a separate list of skills, knowledge and abilities will be identified for a layoff that may be different from the skills, knowledge and abilities used in previous performance evaluations. Ranking, while partially based on skills, knowledge and abilities, is used for salary management, not layoff, purposes.
Q: If I believe I have been unfairly selected for layoff, can I use the Laboratory's grievance procedure to challenge the decision.
A: Yes.
Ed. Note: However, the proposed wording of the new policy is "Management decides the order of layoff, based upon skills, knowledge, and abilities. . . ." In the opinion of our legal advisors, most arbitrators would look at this as severely limiting their jurisdiction. The basis is plainly subjective, and the policy gives the authority to management. Under these conditions, an arbitrator would be unlikely to try to independently assess skill, knowledge, or abilities. Thus, while you can use the grievance procedure, there is little chance you will prevail.
Q: The new policy includes "programmatic change" as a reason for layoff in addition to lack of work and lack of funds. Why the addition, and what does it mean?
A: A layoff due to programmatic change has to do with correcting workforce skills-mix balances-not necessarily lack of work or lack of funds issues. For example, due to a programmatic change, the Laboratory may no longer need 50 engineers with weapons expertise because there is no longer any work for them. At the same time, however, the Laboratory may be in need of 50 engineers with biotechnology experience. The problem is not one of lack of work or lack of funding, but one of having the right skills to meet current and/or anticipated programmatic needs.
Q: Why aren't post-docs, term or temporary employees covered by the new layoff policy?
A: These types of employees are already covered by existing policies regarding separation from employment.
Q: What criteria will management use in determining the skills, knowledge and abilities needed by the Laboratory?
A: Management will first identify functions and posi-tions that are no longer needed to meet the current and anticipated business needs of the Laboratory. Manage-ment in the affected work units will then be asked to identify those employees having the skills, knowledge and abilities required to meet current and future pro- grammatic needs using such criteria as: an employee's demonstrated ability to meet programmatic needs, a person's relevant experience both inside and outside LLNL, and the individual's training and education. ~
Go back to the
SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/