Go back to the SPSE Home Page http://www.spse.org/
SPSE Newsletter #3, November 2000
Editor: Sue Koopman
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
925-449-4846
Contents:
Since our last newsletter in August, several events have taken place which touch on SPSE's activities.
Wen Ho Lee Goes Fishing
Foremost was the freeing--without bail--of Wen Ho Lee. For me
as a UC employee and as a member of SPSE, it was an emotional
moment when, on September 13, I saw him on the steps of the courthouse,
thanking his many supporters, and smilingly announcing his plans
to go fishing. I felt intense satisfaction that SPSE, as the only
organized employee voice among the DOE labs, had spoken out on
behalf of Dr. Lee in a letter to Janet Reno. Of course, many questions
remain, ranging from Dr. Lee's security breaches to the perjury
committed by FBI agent Robert Messemer.
Your Money and Secrets
Four weeks earlier, the UC Regents showed how desperately they
wanted to get rid of UC's successful Treasurer, Patricia Small.
Their golden handshake of $635,707 persuaded her to resign. By
questioning changes in the management of our $59 billion pension
fund, Ms. Small had become an obstacle to the Regents. SPSE does
not necessarily criticize the new investment strategy, but is
extremely alarmed over the secretive process which the Regents
adopted and which culminated in Ms. Small's ousting. We wrote
letters to the UC President and the Regents, and to two Select
Committees of Higher Education, one in the State Assembly, one
in the State Senate. UC's response did not address the secrecy
aspect. The state legislators have not responded so far. The letters
are on our website.
Employee Survey
On October 2, SPSE issued a press release, informing the media
of the results of our employee survey. All statistical graphs
and (anonymous) comments by participants reside
on our website. Top concern among employees clearly is the
continuation of the UC-DOE contract. Anticipating this, SPSE had
a "meet and discuss" on July 31 with Lab officials (see
next article). Basically, SPSE wanted to obtain a better idea
about the negotiation process, how open it is, and what issues
are discussed at what time.
EEOC Survey
While the Lab's management has been fielding questions of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for several months,
the EEOC decided to check the Lab's answers against those of the
employees, and sent out a survey to women and minority employees.
How refreshing! Less refreshing was the knee-jerk reaction by
the Lab which sent e-mail to all of us, raising confidentiality
concerns, and emphasizing, "Employees are not obligated to
respond to this survey." The way I see it, confidentiality
is only of concern if retaliation by management is a distinct
possibility. SPSE's Kalina Wong e-mailed SPSE members, encouraging
them to answer the survey, and to be "frank and direct."
Kalina suggested that those who chose not to fill out the survey
due to the concerns raised by the Lab, should at least let the
EEOC know of this.
I Became an Employee Between Assignments (EBA)
On a personal note, I find that Sue Koopman's article on EBAs
in this newsletter strikes close to home--I joined the ranks of
EBAs a couple of months ago. Having been at the Lab for almost
30 years, 10 of them as a group leader, I ask myself the same
questions that other EBAs are asking. Questions like, "What
has happened?" and "How do I find an assignment?"
Considering that the job of an EBA is "to find another job,"
the Lab should aid in this search by providing names of project
contacts, instead of only Human Resources (HR) contacts at the
Job Opportunities site. The detour via HR's "Resumix"
system ends in a cul-de-sac. /Patrick Weidhaas
The recent announcement that DOE has agreed to renew the UC contract--the top priority of our survey participants--was great news. The current contract by which the University administers the weapons labs for the Department of Energy is set to expire in September of 2002. To keep its members informed about important matters affecting our workplace, SPSE met this summer with Lab officials, Robert Perko and John Gilpin, to ask them about the future of the UC-DOE relationship. Since UC-DOE talks on security were in progress already, the nature of proposed security arrangements was not known outside the negotiating teams. With regard to the role of polygraphs in the new contract, SPSE was told that UC has a system-wide policy that no employment-related decision will be taken based on a polygraph test. What does this mean if you are a weapons designer and fail the polygraph test? Isn't your employment in jeopardy?
SPSE asked about the new performance assessment initiatives that came from DOE in the wake of Secretary Richardson's harsh words for NIF management this spring. Despite Washington's substantial pressure for more performance-based management, none of the following points are being considered in the new contract:
(i) effective protection of whistle blowers;
(ii) zero-tolerance for incidents of discrimination and racial profiling;
(iii) salary management and manager compensation relative to worker compensation;
(iv) fairness of the grievance policies; and,
(v) more equitable and broader access to career development.
Why would performance-based management exclude these points?
In response to our question about opportunities for public hearings or other community input, LLNL representatives said, "To first order the negotiations are not a public process." So, is there any hope for public input? Let's not forget the grass-roots activities that took place in New Mexico prior to the signing of LANL's contract for 1997-2002. Organizations of concerned citizens influenced their legislature to make UC and LANL modify the Los Alamos contract. Provisions were added that addressed Northern New Mexico's acute needs regarding economic development and regional community and educational outreach. National labs do not operate in a social or political vacuum. We might not be allowed into the private meetings, but if enough people have a pressing issue at contract renewal time, the LANL contract serves as a precedent. A full account of our meeting is on our website www.spse.org. /Larry Madison
[Editor's note: While our employee survey identified areas of concern, it generally did not uncover the reasons for concern, e.g., child-care was low on the list of concerns. The reason could be that there is an excellent LLESA facility or could reflect the demographics of the respondents (the average age of Lab employees is the late 40s). E-mail the reasons why you are, or are not, concerned about these issues (spse@spse.org). We'll post your comments on our website.]
In June 2000, SPSE sent a survey to 100-series, 200-series, and 300-series employees, a total of 4896 people. We received completed surveys from 417 people (to those respondents, thank you for filling out the long survey). The purpose of the survey was to find out the major concerns of employees, so that SPSE can better represent them.
Survey Respondents
The survey respondents were overwhelmingly white, male, FTEs,
over the age of 35, and having 11 or more years of service and
60% have advanced degrees. These demographics are a reasonably
close mirror of the overall target population. Even though less
than 10% of employees responded to the survey this percentage
is more than twice the typical percentage response to direct-mail
solicitations. The total number of respondents is more than twice
the total SPSE membership.
Main Concerns
By a very large margin, the #1 issue for employees is the continuation
and maintenance of the DOE/UC contract. Many employees clearly
expressed their concerns about how the Lab's ties to UC might
be affected, or even severed, by all the difficulties that have
beset the Lab in the past year.
Seven of the top 10 major issues relate to pay and benefits. These include base salary (#2), the medical plan (#3), the retirement plan and savings (#4), vacation time (#5), the dental plan (#6), preventing increased costs and service erosion of health care (#8), and pay equity issues (#9). The growing salary and raise difference between management and non-management employees (#11) was a major issue, as was the ranking system (#12).
The other two issues that made the top 10 are accountability of management (#7) and concerns about the Lab's ability to recruit and retain highly qualified employees (#10).
Two-thirds of respondents said yes to SPSE remaining an independent organization and not seeking union affiliation. On the other hand, 76% said they would like to have employee representation in the UC-DOE contract negotiations. The same percentage wants to decide what benefits are offered, and an even larger percentage say they want to have more influence in LLNL decisions that affect their job and work life. The survey asked employees to tell us what is the one thing SPSE could do to attract them to join. We received a variety of responses. Many said they oppose unions and would never consider joining. Many others thought the dues are too high [they have not been increased since the early 1970's], and the largest fraction told us they need to see a clearer personal benefit of membership.
View the Survey Results
We provide graphical analysis on the web site, including the written
comments, so you are welcome to do your own analysis. /Jeff
Colvin
In SPSE's recent employee survey, over three-quarters of the respondents were keenly interested to have employee concerns represented at the management contract negotiations between UC and DOE. How could this be done?
Talk to Your Supervisor?...
Each employee can state his desire to join the negotiations, in
the same way he can specify the desired details of his hours,
wages, and working conditions in a face-to-face meeting with his
supervisory management. Unfortunately for such individuals, there
is no legal requirement on either UC or DOE that they admit such
individual employee input; UC and DOE are not inclined to do so
voluntarily. Similarly, while any individual has the right to
ask for whatever employment contract he might want with management,
these managers are under no obligation to consider such proposals.
...Or Try Collective Bargaining?...
Another possibility is for a group of employees to arrive at mutually
agreeable principles, and to seek access to the UC-DOE contract
negotiations in their own behalf. Similarly, they could make proposals
to management as to the nature of the working contract for each
member of their group. Fortunately for employees, the law requires
that the UC-DOE contract negotiations include certain such employee
representative groups as full partners. The groups admitted are
recognized exclusive bargaining units--unions.
In forming a union--for example a series 200 and 300 engineer and scientist union, or a series 100 affiliate to the Coalition of University Employees (CUE)--employees are basically forming a bargaining unit. When employees form a union, law requires the UC-DOE to heed their concerns. Examples of these concerns are: the management contract of the Laboratory, the pension fund, the nature of the benefits, the nature of the employment contract and grievance rights, levels of pay, schedules of work, and issues of security as they impact working conditions.
...Or Empower SPSE?...
Over two-thirds of the respondents to the SPSE survey conducted
this year voiced their opposition to the formation of any union
for their job series. Yet, the issues they overwhelmingly want
addressed by SPSE, and acceded to by management, are issues of
compensation and the management contract. Ironically, both issues
can only be enjoined by force of law into the UC and DOE deliberations
if presented by a union. Trying to bargain with management without
the legal power of a union is like trying to navigate a canoe
upstream without a paddle: one only drifts where the currents
dictate, whether onto rocks or sandbars. Similarly, the UC and
DOE will carry the employee rights where they will, and most certainly
to their--not our--convenience.
...Or Empower Management?
To achieve the legal parity with DOE and UC to join the negotiations
over the future of their employment and retirement, employees
must collectively put employee group security ahead of their personal
gain. If employees are unwilling to do so, there is a price to
pay: they are excluded from effectively determining the conditions
of their employment. Widespread reluctance of individuals to organize
provides the most powerful leverage for management to exert social
and financial control over them. /Manuel Garcia
Many colleagues ask, "How is the Women's suit going?" so we asked Mary Singleton for an update. The case, instigated by Mary Singleton, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, 12/23/98. The complaint charges that: the Laboratory follows a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in compensation and promotion. The six plaintiffs come from a broad range of job classifications, so the class could possibly include women scientists, engineers, administrators, technologists, technicians and more.
A court hearing, which was scheduled for September 22, was postponed due to the retirement of the original judge. Now a new judge will be assigned the case sometime in the near future and the hearing of the motion for class certification will be rescheduled.
Class certification is an important milestone, because it determines the number of women who can potentially benefit from this action.
During the past year, attorneys for both sides have taken a number of depositions; more are scheduled for the fall. Attorneys for the Regents and LLNL have appealed to the court to disqualify Singleton from the case based on a waiver she signed when she, along with approximately 600 other employees, accepted a separation package during a downsizing at the laboratory in 1996 (VSIP.) The court has denied this request as well as an appeal. /Sue Koopman
I sense that the number of EBAs is growing and I wanted to know more about EBAs. I interviewed seven mid- to late-career EBAs (I found none in their early career) out of fifteen that I know. "At least I have a job" and "this is terrifying" were responses to my questions. Most were in initial shock when they found out they were to become an EBA. One EBA had temporary jobs for several years, many had no permanent job for up to a year and some had a quick transition between jobs. After the shock of becoming an EBA, most of the employees took this time to ask themselves what they would like their future job to be. Those that wanted a change, in addition to looking for a job, used their time for self-study and classes. Most actively networked and asked their colleagues to look for jobs for them. Some created a support group with other EBAs to network and talk about how they were doing.
Departmental Differences
There are significant differences in how departments handle EBAs,
based upon my interviews. Computation's EBAs use an overhead account
number for self-study and job search. Some meet regularly with
an advisor (who plays a supervisor/broker role) or write weekly
reports (one met with the advisor once, many months ago). Engineering's
EBAs had the goal of taking temporary, sometimes menial jobs (even
stuffing envelopes) and not use an overhead account. This course
of action keeps them from preparing and looking for a job and
they were frustrated because they do not know where and what they
will be doing from day to day.
Office Location
Office location varies. Some EBAs remain in their same office,
which is less disruptive, and they hope their colleagues do not
even know they are an EBA. Those EBAs that are relocated to an
"EBA" trailer point out that removal from their old
location helps them focus on preparing for their future job. They
dislike the inconvenience of moving, and they miss their colleagues.
Ranking
Most EBAs were told that their ranking would stay the same during
this process, but EBAs wonder if that policy will continue if
they are EBAs after a year. Many were told they could refuse a
job, but wonder if there will be a black mark against them if
they do so. Most EBAs feel they have a black mark against them
anyway and find this demoralizing.
Career
The EBAs in the later part of their career find being an EBA especially
frustrating because they had planned for this period to be a productive
and lucrative time of their career. Because the retirement income
is based upon the three years of highest salary, one EBA is even
planning to work longer to achieve the retirement goals. The EBAs
in mid-career have a greater incentive to look outside the Lab,
as they do not have as much vested in their retirement.
Emotional Challenges
All EBAs have a hard time emotionally (one even said, "Do
not write anything positive about being an EBA!"). I heard,
"It is difficult to just come to work in the morning"
and "It is hard to keep your spirits up." Some do not
tell their families and colleagues, because it is too painful.
Some appreciate the support from families and colleagues. It is
difficult for an EBA to walk into a room where non-EBAs are busy
working, or hear about the exciting work that colleagues are doing.
Recommendations
EBAs interviewed, provided recommendations about their situation.
They suggest that managers help their employees manage their Skills,
Knowledge, and Abilities (SKAs). If an employee's SKA is becoming
outdated and obsolete, managers should point the employee to the
new SKAs that would be of use to the Lab. Then the managers should
provide support in terms of software, computer, and classes so
the employee can learn the new SKAs. A gradual transition into
a new direction would be beneficial for both the employee and
the Lab. Managers should try to place EBAs in short term jobs
so they can keep productive, have an account number, get new experience
and hope that some of these short term jobs will lead to permanent
jobs. All EBAs would like more job interviews (their advisors
arranged for 0 to 4 interviews each quarter).
EBAs provided recommendations to colleagues. If you ever become an EBA, call the HR Career Center to sign up for Dorothy Freeman's class (highly recommended by many) to get help with resumes and interviewing skills. Most EBAs used HR's Resumix system and indicated that it is totally useless (not one received a job interview through this system). If you get an interview, do not tell the interviewer you are an EBA. Network to get job interviews, take classes, and try to do short term jobs. Use this time to review what you want to do with your career. Get the help you need: colleagues, family, friends, and counselors. Be nice to yourself and live a healthy life style. As one EBA said, "Being an EBA is not for the faint hearted."
We would like to hear from other EBAs. The questions asked in the interviews are on our web site. Send us your comments and let us know if you would like us to include your comments on our site. /Sue Koopman
SPSE will offer a new service for members, namely a semi-regular series of e-mail bulletins ("e-bulletins") for SPSE members only. The purpose of these e-mail messages is to provide timely and efficient communication to the membership on matters which might otherwise have to wait for a Newsletter to be written, printed, and delivered. With the e-bulletins it is possible to update the membership on SPSE actions without waiting for the publication cycle of the Newsletter.
The length of the e-bulletins is expected to be no more than one printed page. However additional length may be needed to include Letters to the Editor, corrections, and brief news items or updates.
Although we are hoping that all SPSE members will be interested in receiving the e-bulletins, each message will contain an "Opt-Out" section.
People who do not want to get the e-bulletins will be asked to send an e-mail to spse@spse.org requesting deletion from the e-bulletin mail list. /Doug Clarke
Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/