Figure 1. FY 95 salary guidelines for scientists and engineers (market projected to April 1, 1995).
SPSE Newsletter #3, October 1994
Editor: Jim Bruner
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
449-4846
Contents:
The two-year salary freeze that applied to most (but not all) LLNL employees ended on September 30. Increases for degreed scientists and engineers (200-series job classes), effective October 1, average 3.42%. Associate Directors hold an additional 0.33% in reserve for later Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 salary actions.
Increases for non-degreed S&E's (300-series job classes) average 3.01% plus 0.39% held in reserve.
Administrative and management employees (100-series job classes) received an average increase of 6.20 plus 0.40% held in reserve.
Other employee groups received increases as follows: Technicians 4.96 + 0.30%, clerical (400-series) 5.00 + 0.40%, facilities 2.40 + 0.00%, machinists 1.80 + 0.00%, firefighters 4.00 + 0.00%, Protective Services lieutenants 4.00 + 0.40%, Protective Services sergeants 7.00 + 0.00%.
Most employees in the 100-, 200-, and 300-series job classes will be notified of their increases shortly after October 21 when salary cards are due to be distributed to the Associate Directors (ADs). Increases exceeding 10% for salaries greater than $6667 monthly require written justification for DOE approval and so will be delayed until about December 1. Additionally, the UC Regents must approve any salaries exceeding $11,041.67 monthly (scientists and engineers) or $11,391.67 monthly (all other job classes.)
Figure 1. FY 95 salary guidelines
for scientists and engineers (market projected to April 1, 1995).
As in the past, guidelines issued to department heads and division leaders will assist them in setting salaries for scientists and engineers. Compensation Division constructs the guidelines from salary survey data and adjusts the data to account for projected market changes between now and April 1. The adjusted data are then force-fitted to LLNL's unique "growth and stack" salary management scheme.
Figure 1 summarizes Compensation Division's published guidelines for employees with PhDs and with either BS or MS degrees. Additional guidelines (not shown here) separate the projected market salaries for BS and for MS degreed employees. These are available from the SPSE office.~
Figure 2 shows "S-curves" of salary distributions for LLNL scientists and engineers for FYs 90 through 94. They may be useful when you discuss your FY95 salary with your supervisors. These curves are derived by ordering the salaries (from highest to lowest) of all the people at the Lab in the 200-series job classes. The "percentile" for a given salary is the percent of employees with salaries that are below that salary.*
These data can be used in the following way: Take your current (FY94) salary and your salary for the prior four years and plot each on the appropriate curve. By connecting your five data points, you can see the upward or downward trend of your salary compared to that of all others in the 200-series job classes. We have truncated the plots at the 99th percentile because salaries above that level need a special scale for proper display.
For the first time ever, the S-curves show a negative dollar increment between successive years. Note that the curve for FY94 (heavy line on the chart) falls to the left of the curve for FY93 at all but the highest percentiles. Below the 20th percentile, the FY94 curve is nearly coincident with or to the left of the FY92 curve. A cross-over occurs at about the 88th percentile so that FY94 salaries above this percentile exceed those in FY93.
The decline of FY94 salaries at most percentiles is due to the salary freeze and the termination of higher paid employees (e.g., via VERIP 3). The data for all years are taken from the April payrolls, with the exception of FY94, which came from the August payroll. This was because an unusual number of retroactive raises were not reported until July 1994. These raises, given during the salary "freeze," went predominantly to those in the highest salaried percentiles.~
*Don't confuse this percentile with the percentile figures used in connection with maturity curves and salary guidelines, for which the independent variable is "years since BS" or "years in field" (see accompanying article).
Figure 2. S-curves for 200-series LLNL scientists
and engineers.
A long-time Plant Engineering employee wrote to us about PE's May 1994 Strategic Business Plan. Of particular concern were these two paragraphs:
"Last year the Engineering and Construction Department released a significant number of its supplemental labor force in response to the diminished requirement for construction projects at the Laboratory. Recent projections of PE's future workload and workforce requirements indicate that in FY95, PE career employees could similarly be impacted. These are difficult times and the protection of jobs is of primary concern. However, it is recognized that if Plant Engineering emphasizes only the protection of people when there is insufficient funding to support them, then it will quickly become non-competitive, and it will (under-standably and justifiably) cease to exist along with ALL of the people.
Because the forecasted workload/workforce problem in FY95 appears in part to be one of an imbalanced workforce "mix" to meet the projected workload, and not just numbers of employees, it is expected that some employees will have to be retrained, others may be requested to work outside of their normal classification, while others will be assisted in outplacing activities. Of particular concern is the pool of very talented, young professionals that PE currently enjoys on its staff who have minimal seniority and could be vulnerable. It would be in the best interest of the Laboratory to actively find other positions for these people at the Lab, should PE be unable to support all of them."
The writer was worried that a significant number of career PE employees are projected to be laid off in FY95 and that younger employees will be protected at the expense of senior employees. This is not the way we understand PE's message. Plant Engineering obviously recognizes the potential Lab problem of not enough jobs to sustain the current total workforce, and the jobs available may not fit the current mix of employees.
Plant Engineering appears to have the best interests of all its career employees in mind when it offers them the opportunity of retraining or working in another classification. If an employee chooses not to or cannot take advantage of either of these options, then outplacingto another job at the Lab or elsewhere may be necessary. We do not read "outplacing" as merely a euphemism for "layoff." Just because PE expresses particular concern for younger employees is not evidence that PE wants to keep them instead of senior employees. Indeed, PE's expressed reason for being especially concerned about younger employees is that they are more vulnerable to layoff than senior employees and may need more help in keeping their jobs.
On the face of it, PE appears to be preparing to handle a difficult problem within the existing frame-work, which includes the benefits of seniority.
In reality, however, where would outplaced personnel
from PE go within LLNL? After all, other Lab departments are facing the
same problem. In years to come, more people are likely to be outplaced than
vacancies will be available to absorb them.~
Last June, LLNL changed its term appointment policy to permit appointments lasting up to five years. SPSE learned of the change through a letter sent by the Human Resources Manager, Gloria Kwei, to the ADs. We obtained a copy of Kwei's letter in August, more than two months after the policy change went into effect.
This seemingly innocent change may seriously impact LLNL's career employees, and we are concerned both with the way the change was made and its effects.
State Law Violated
State law requires the Laboratory and UC to notify employees of proposed
policy changes so that they may give input. University policy requires that
the UC President approve any deviation of LLNL policies from the University's
Staff Personnel Policies. Neither the Laboratory nor the University gave
prior notice to employees before adopting the changes in the policy on term
appointments.
Term Appointments Serve a Purpose
Most LLNL employees are "career employees," whose jobs last as
long as there is work for which they are qualified and funds to support
the work, provided their performance and conduct are satisfactory. "Term
appointees" are supposed to be hired to accomplish specific tasks that
will be completed in contracted periods of time. Upon completion of the
tasks, the appointments end, and their employment is terminated.
The old LLNL policy followed UC's Staff Personnel Policies. It allowed term appointments for up to two years with an option to extend the appointment, once, for as much as 12 months. The new LLNL policy extends the maximum term to five years.
SPSE Meets with Management
An SPSE delegation met with LLNL management on September 23 to discuss the
new policy and to protest the failure to give prior notice to employees.
Staff Relations Manager Robert Perko said that when the policy was adopted,
it was felt that it did not affect career employees, but only prospective
term appointees. Therefore, he said, it was not deemed necessary to notify
employees about the proposed changes.
SPSE President, George Craig (TBA1), then produced the technical section of the current LLNL employment opportunities bulletin. He had indexed technical jobs that were set aside for term appointees. The bulletin made a powerful display; multiple index tabs protruded from nearly every page. The number of term jobs listed in the bulletin has increased noticeably since terms were extended to five years. Career employees may not apply for these jobs, and the proliferation of term appointments takes work away from career employees.
Lab Acknowledges Problem
Perko acknowledged that there was a possible effect on career employees
and that the policy probably should have been submitted for employee comment.
He assured us that, in the future, proposed policy changes would be publicized.
Craig then read several descriptions of term jobs listed in the bulletin. It was clear they do not describe specific tasks with a definite completion date. Many of the term appointments are simply being used to hire disposable employees.
Perko seemed to agree that this was not the purpose of the term appointment policy. We asked whether there was a mechanism to monitor the term appointments and, particularly, the offer letters given to term appointees, to assure that policies were being followed. LLNL's answer indicated that there is no specific mechanism for monitoring.
Suspend Implementation?
SPSE has requested a separate meeting with the UC Employee Relations Office
to discuss our objections. We have asked the Laboratory to suspend implementation
of the policy changes until employees have had an opportunity to comment.
So far, no response has been received. Our attorney advises us that, in
similar cases, California courts have ordered policies rescinded because
they were adopted without prior publication.~
1 TBA = temporarily between assignments. Recently, LLNL did away with the terminology "displaced employee" because of its pejorative connotations.
We received two letters that contained comments about our last newsletter. Each one is excerpted here, followed by our response.
"The recent comparison of the ad copy for a Lexus and the NIF Conceptual Design just went too far. First of all, DOE requires an extensive CDR for any major acquisition. Even this required level of detail and the shear [sic] bulk is only a necessary but not sufficient condition of obtaining the block funding so near and dear to the hearts of your members. Second, just think about the design and compliance data required by the Department of Transportation for the construction and sale of the FIRST Lexus. Don't confuse your elves by comparing a state of the art, one of a kind, complex system with a mass produced piece of machinery evolved over the past 90 years. Thirdly, a half page ad may sell you a Lexus (buyer beware) but a $1 Billion line item is not justified with a single piece of paper."/ Earl Ault
Approval of NIF is vital to the Laboratory. Apparently, Ault misconstrued the paragraph that aroused his ire. Our complaint is directed at the bureaucracy that requires a 100-lb CDR. Unfortunately, it is all too clear that 100 pounds were not sufficient. It was all we offered to the people who make the decisions, and they claimed they couldn't understand it.
We must convince potential buyers, including DOE managers and members of Congress, who may not know a pascal from a pitchfork, what the NIF can do and why it must be funded. Since that job wasn't accomplished in April, the approval was delayed. Now opponents of the NIF have gained momentum. Who knows if it will ever be approved?
"As scientists and engineers [sic] I am amazed how steeped in innuendo and unsubstantiated accusation this newsletter is. Is it getting worse? Do you ever stop whining? How about one good thing about the Lab other than your paycheck? Don't bother to look it up I am a section leader so obviously in your mind that's tainted management. No, LLNL ain't perfect. I complain too. But my staff can tell you I try to change what I can." / Becky Failor
1) SPSE does not assume LLNL managers are tainted. Our membership includes and/or has included division leaders, department heads and even at least one Associate Director.
2) Under California law, most group leaders and even section leaders are probably considered to be rank and file employees; they may be classed as team leaders but not managers. At least, this was the finding of the Public Employees Relations Board in 1983 when they looked at this matter at LLNL.
3) It's not our purpose to say "one good thing about the Lab." The administration's Newsline newspaper takes care of that job twice a week. In our three or four issues per year, we try to present alternative views and information not given in the Newsline.
4) Ms. Failor supplied a copy of the Newsletter with the "innuendo" she objected to highlighted. The highlighted words were in text identified as opinion; one section was invited input from a non SPSE member, and the other was an editorial submitted by a member. ~
Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/