Go back to the
SPSE Home Page http://www.spse.org/
SPSE Newsletter #2, July 1996
Editor: G. Craig
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
510-449-4846
On Thursday evening June 27, the DOE held a Town Meeting in Livermore as required by Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the local community about the "downsizing" of LLNL and solicit their comments about the plan. Dr. James Turner, manager of the Oakland office of the DOE, stressed that the plan was a draft, still to be sent to Secretary Hazel O'Leary and Congress for final approval.
The audience consisted of about 30 people, mostly Human Resources staff. No officials or staff of the City of Livermore were acknowledged, and the Lab Director and Associate Directors were absent. A staff member for Representative Baker introduced himself. A facilitator, hired for the occasion by the DOE, conducted the Q&A. A sound engineer recorded the session; a transcript will appear as an appendix to the "Workforce Restructuring plan for LLNL." Only four Lab employees and a Sandia retiree asked any questions.
The fact that there was an open period for written input came as a surprise to the Lab employees. They thought that Director Tarter's TV presentation indicated a fait accompli and not a proposal for discussion.
One suggestion raised at the meeting inquired about moving the date of separation for the VSIP just after 12/30/96 in order to ease the participants' tax burden. The Human Resources manager for LLNL, Ms Kwei, said, "The Lab directors wanted the employees off the payroll by the end of this year." The next day the Lab newspaper answered the question with mumbo jumbo that sounded as if the Lab wanted some advantage for itself.
Though the DOE states that the Director's June 17 announcement involving workforce reductions is a draft plan, Tarter's announcement of impending involuntary layoffs is real; it is the 120 days public notice required by the National Defense Authorization Act, that layoffs are coming. /George Craig
There have been comments by some employees to the effect that, "SPSE is going to take care of this layoff thing for us. I do not have to worry." As it turns out, a lot depends on you.
What has SPSE Done About the New Layoff Policy?
Since learning about it at the beginning of last
year, we have sent several communications expressing our disapproval of
the change. In early April 1995, SPSE wrote to Secretary of Energy Hazel
O'Leary asking for her support. We received a lengthy reply titled, "Interim
Planning Guidance for Contractor Work Force Restructuring." Section
V of this document describes mandatory benefits that contractors must offer
to employees. One such benefit is preference in hiring for terminating employees.
This is one of the benefits Tarter removed when he adopted the new layoff
policy. Once again, the Lab is ignoring policies it is required to follow.
Appeals to the University
Our attention then turned to the University of California's Office of the President (UCOP), which must give approval for any policy change the Lab wishes to make. SPSE sent a request to UC's Assistant Vice President for Human Resources, Lubbe Levin, asking what is the UC mechanism to correct abuses of policy. In particular, we asked if there was a replacement for the Staff Personnel Board. Ms. Levin responded that the UC abolished the Board when the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) became law. Under HEERA, such matters are handled by a contract between an employee representative and the University. For those of us without a contract, there are some informal and formal methods for review. The final step is asking for a review by the UCOP. Recently, SPSE asked the UCOP to review the hundreds of abuses of the Term Employment policy that continue to this day. We were concerned about the exploitation of the term employees. The UCOP has refused to review the case.
In June 1995, SPSE began communicating with Ms. Levin's office urging UC not to approve the change in layoff policy. We explained that most professionals at LLNL do not want this change. We pointed out that the new policy removes substantive rights from the employees, and we said we would take legal action if LLNL implemented the new policy. In reply to one of SPSE's first letters, Judy McConnell, Assistant Director of Employee Relations Programs, stated, "The policy is certainly not intended to be abused." Apparently UC was not aware that the Lab had already ignored the DOE guidance regarding mandatory benefits.
When the Lab asked for official approval of the policy change, we again wrote to UCOP asking that the change be denied. Ms. Levin's reply mentions, "The proposed policy is similar to other University policies that apply to non- faculty academic personnel." This is a disturbing response. The Lab has always been under the UC Staff Personnel Policy. Now, suddenly, we should follow some other policy. In addition, the group of employees referred to was a hodgepodge of adjunct professors, librarians, and post-docs who are excluded under the Lab's new policy. Or they were under layoff policies defined by union contracts. Virtually none were similar to LLNL's scientists and engineers.
UC Policy Revisions (HRMI)
The UC is also trying to change its policies. They
would like to combine the several different policies that now govern different
groups of employees into one policy. This new effort is referred to as HRMI
(Human Resources Management Initiative, pronounced "Hermi"). You
can find the proposal on the UCOP web pages, and several other UC web sites.
This new proposal specifically states it covers the DOE laboratories. The
HRMI layoff policy is the same as our old policy. In August 1995, Ms. Levin
sent a letter to all chancellors and each Lab director. It required our
Director to obtain employee input on this proposal. This never occurred.
Now UC claims it never intended HRMI for the Labs. Apparently UC was not
aware of its own policy plans. No wonder they do not know about DOE's.
Where does this leave us? Well, it leaves us facing layoffs early in FY97 when DOE plans to cut its budget by twenty percent. Layoffs controlled by a management that habitually abuses its own policies, and with absolutely no way of protecting employees against abuse. Actually, there is one way, and the only way UC will recognize!
Elect SPSE to be your employee representative for contract negotiations with the University of California. /Bruce Kelly
Why SPSE?
Today all of us are concerned about the state of
the Laboratory and our own personal futures. SPSE believes that a professional
senate should be formed to access the combined talents of the Lab employees
as partners in policy making to significantly improve our working environment.
The formation of a professional senate at LLNL will provide a vehicle through which all non-managerial 200 and 300 series employees can participate in the policy making process. The senate would consider policies regarding issues such as hiring, layoffs, grievance procedures, raise package distributions, and other significant matters concerning employee-employer relations at LLNL. California law will ensure a "good faith" relationship between Lab management and the Senate.
A. The Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) is administered under the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). It stipulates that UC employees can form, join and participate in employee organizations for the purpose of representation on all matters of employee-employer relations.
Q. Isn't the professional senate really a labor union since its existence would be defined under a California labor law?
A. Yes, it would be a union. It would be a union of, by and for LLNL scientists and engineers. The important thing is that only LLNL 200 and 300 series employees would totally control an LLNL professional senate. It would be our organization, formed by and composed of LLNL employees, for the purpose of dealing with our management under the guidance and administration of California law.
Q. What if the Director's office and the UC Regents refuse to recognize an LLNL professional senate?
A. PERB will force them to recognize and interact with it in good faith.
Q. Why do we need a professional senate now?
A. Changes in LLNL's role and purpose have produced hardships such as reduced job security and dwindling raises. The brunt of these hardships has fallen directly on the LLNL non-managerial professional staff. We can no longer afford to leave decisions regarding equitable distribution of these hardships to the Director's Senior Management Council (SMC).
Q. How is a professional senate type organization formed?
A. First, signatures from at least 30% of the 200 and 300 series employees must be obtained on authorization cards. These cards authorize an election to be held among all 200 and 300 series employees to determine whether we want an organization to represent us as defined under HEERA. Then, an election must be held that provides a majority vote in favor of having such a professional senate type organization.
Q. Does signing an authorization card require me to join SPSE or pay dues?
A. No.
Q. The election we are authorizing is to decide if we want the SPSE to represent us. Isn't my vote for a professional senate really a vote for SPSE to represent us?
A. Yes, it is. HEERA requires that employees can vote only for already existing organizations to represent them, and these organizations must be named on the authorization card. The SPSE is the only existing LLNL organization that can qualify for this type of vote.
Q. What if an election is held, and SPSE is selected as our representative, would I then be required to join SPSE or to pay dues to the organization?
A. No. HEERA explicitly states that even when there is a chosen representative, no person can be required to join the organization or to pay dues to it. Your participation in and support for the proposed senate would be entirely voluntary.
Q. What policy changes does SPSE propose to seek if an election is held, and SPSE is chosen as the representative?
A. We do not propose a specific agenda of policy changes. What we propose is to set up a senate of scientists and engineers. The senate would form committees, propose, discuss and vote on polices, and choose delegations to negotiate these policies with the Director's Senior Management Council. SPSE's only predetermined agenda is to give the scientific-engineering staff a significant voice in forming the policies that affect their livelihoods. /Steve Matthews
The maxim "You can't judge a book by its cover" readily applies to the 1995 book Corporate Executions by Alan Downs. The title is a bit of a put- off but the contents are relevant to the new layoff policy that the Lab has cast over its scientists and engineers.
Downs is a former Human Resources executive who has laid off employees. From this vantage point he notes that a well-executed layoff is in the planning stage for two to three years. He also predicts the human and institutional wreckage that one can expect from a new layoff policy. It is not a pretty picture- beginning from the secretive planning sessions of the Human Resources Department to carry out the will of Senior Management, to the final summary pink slip and crocodile tears.
"Young vs. Old" Employees
He discusses the gamut of charges and counter charges
regarding the value of "young vs. old" employees. The Senior Management
and Human Resources Department have hired separate consultants to polish
and package the arguments to divide the employees against each other:
"Increasingly senior managements view older workers as expensive, somewhat obsolete, and resistant to change. Young workers have a more current education and are seen as being more flexible and willing to change. Moreover, they can be hired for much less than their more senior counterparts, they don't care about expensive retirement benefits, and they are less likely to become a drain on the company health plan. Economically, youth make a better deal." (pg. 136)
"But," he continues, "it isn't true that they are more motivated or creative workers. The inexperience of their youth often creates enormous inefficiencies, like job hopping, etc."
In any case, what do you think management's long term view is towards the young fungibles? How about three discontinuous five-year contracts so they cannot accumulate benefits? Age Discrimination and Statistics
Downs points out that the management knows that age discrimination is against the law. So, management carefully screens the statistics of a proposed layoff for any evidence of age discrimination. In some instances, they massage the statistics by adjusting the layoff group, or singling out older workers for special one-on-one pressure tactics to quit or retire. In the "exit interview," these older workers may have to sign an agreement not to disclose the terms of the termination package or speak out against the company. Protection for Employees
Finally, Downs lists some pre- and post-layoff protection strategies for employees and discusses some alternatives to layoffs. He doesn't mention elected representation, but focuses instead on corporate responsibility to its employees. However, when a com- pany refuses to face its responsibilities, it behooves the employees to become responsible for themselves by organizing. /George Craig
Highlights from a letter to President Clinton and Members of Congress signed by sixty Nobel Prize winners who were alarmed by the proposed 30% reductions in federal support for non-defense R&D by FY2002:
"As men and women who have helped to shape the modern scientific age and who care deeply about the future of our nation, we urge you to reaffirm the fundamental role of the federal government in supporting basic scientific research. America's investment in research over the last fifty years has been a vital source of our economic and political strength around the world, as well as the quality of life Americans enjoy at home. With competition forcing industry to focus research investments on returns over the shorter term, the government is left with the crucial role of making the longer term investment in discovery. Federal funding for university-based research is an investment in our future that should be maintained."
FYI #101, Richard M. Jones, Pub. Info. Div., American Institute of Physics, June 27.
I attended a career decision workshop at the LLNL Career Center on the afternoon of June 28. A representative from Drake Beam Morin Inc. presented the workshop to provide options for people considering the VSIP. The opening remark of the speaker was, "Employer loyalty is a thing of the past." No one disagreed with his statement or even questioned it. No mention was made regarding the other side of the coin, i.e., employee loyalty.
Name withheld by request-Ed.
Loved your most recent Newsletter on the Internet. We're struggling at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) with many of the same issues. The LANL workforce, however, is light years behind LLNL with respect to independent employee advocacy. Fear rules the day here in LANL, especially after the recent layoffs and how they were conducted. Lacking any advocacy organization for LANL workers, we've lost many of the fundamental rights we're entitled to as University of California employees. In place of democracy, a feudal system of management has taken firm root at Los Alamos.
We had a massive reduction in force in the Fall of 1995 that served as a wake up call for many LANL employees. For many it was too late though and they found out the hard way just how devastating feudal control can be. All of a sudden, people with decades of exemplary service, in their 40s and 50s, came face to face with the reality of just how vulnerable they were to the biases and whims of a privileged few. We took the issue to district court in November 1995 and prevailed with a temporary injunction. Two weeks later the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the ruling citing that "irreparable harm" would not occur by proceeding with the layoffs. The logic of this ruling was simply that laid off workers still had legal recourse after the layoffs took effect (hence the lack of irreparable harm). Since then a group lawsuit on behalf of 102 laid off LANL workers has been filed.
I won't bore you with all the details, but rest assured we did not lie down and die. Instead we formed an employee association OUTSIDE of LANL called Citizens for LANL Employee Rights (CLER, pronounced "clear"). It was CLER that orchestrated the injunction hearing and follow-up group lawsuit. We have about 300 current and former employees of LANL as members. Our success as an organization has simply been phenomenal and due to the commitment of many dedicated people.
At this juncture, however, we're struggling with how to get an independent employee association within LANL, thereby hopefully someday ending the need for CLER. We've tried to get the LANL Employee Advisory Council (a group of management appointed LANL employees) to invite representatives of SPSE to give a colloquium to the LANL workforce, but the idea was shot down by LANL Legal.
Any suggestions on how we might be able to get you all out here to spread the word on who you are and what you've done for the Livermore workforce? If so, please let us know.
Keep up the good work.
Charles (Chuck) M. Montano, CLER President
Go back to the
SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/