From/MS: Jan A. Van Prooyen, A100
Phone/Fax: 7-5101/7-2997
Symbol: DIR-07-344
Date: November 30, 2007
SUBJECT: Voluntary Separation Through SSP
We have received several questions about whether AM 1203.07
applies to participants in the Self-Selection Program. AM
1203.07 prohibits employees terminating because of a reduction-
in-force from returning as Guest Scientists. This provision,
however, does not apply to the Self-Selection Program. To
eliminate any confusion, effective immediately the policy is
amended to read as follows:
AM 1203.07: Employees who terminate because of a reduction-in-
force may not serve as Laboratory Guests unless the termination
was implemented as part of a Self-Selection Program.
46 comments:
There was this fellow at the session the other day who gave people a chuckle. Paraphrasing, he said he would not take the voluntary RIF unless he was sure he could come back as a (unpaid) Guest Scientist to finish up a project. He was essentially putting LANS in the position of saying, no we can't guarantee we'll be able to let you work for free, so we'll force you to stay while you finish the project.
Policies only apply to employees. If management doesn't want to follow policies, they can just change 'em, whenever they want.
Anonymous at 11/30/07 4:57 PM writes:
"Policies only apply to employees. If management doesn't want to follow policies, they can just change 'em, whenever they want."
This certainly seems to be true of LANS. They (Mikey mostly) continue to lie to us. We are "employees by will" with policy manual.
We would anybody who has any other options work at this shitty place?
Over 200 people have signed up for the SSP as of Friday evening. I know several who are not retirement age. They have accepted other jobs or are just moving on.
And you think it inappropriate that management can change policies? What planet are you from?
200 employees', in only a few days, Mikey may get more than I thought...maybe 300....400 max
Double dippers,
I hear the knock on the door. Open it and breath the fresh air. Your time was good but now try something else. It will be OK, don't worry.
There is life after LANL. In fact, recent medical research has shown that leaving LANL will increase your life span by at least 7 years! As with most bad habits, the earlier you drop the habit, the better.
11/30/07 4:22 PM
Bet that one flew over his head (Mikey)
"Over 200 people have signed up for the SSP as of Friday evening."
Maybe this is true, maybe not. It would be nice it LANS put out some initial figures on Monday. With the window for this offer closing by next Wednesday we'll know the answer soon enough.
That knock on the door are the lawyers coming with lawsuits, no matter who gets involuntarily laid off.
Yup, LANS (Los Alamos Numb Skulls) have brought this on themselves through their totally inept management. I hope their management fee is totally consumed by lawsuit payouts.
7:53, any idea what categories? Most of the people I know who are leaving are technical.
Why would anybody want to come back and work for free?
The only thing that I can guess is that if you had private consulting work and needed access to LANL facilities to do the work.
12:39am
It's true.
6:46, the people I have known over the years that have done this did so for a variety of reasons. Some really enjoyed their work, typically scientific, some had nothing else to do, some came in to interact with their coworkers, etc.
In my current group, no one seems interested in doing this as the technical work is mundane and there is no way anyone would do it without getting paid. As a technical contractor, maybe, as a GS, no. I say maybe because not many have come back as contractors over the years.
12:39AM - we will know the final numbers by 12/20. 12/6 is the deadline to apply for SSP. Until 12/13 employees have time to rescind their decision. And management has to approve by 12/20.
Interesting post by reporter John Fleck at his Albuquerque Journal blog,
Lab Budget Update: Possible Deal in the Works (click here)
The implications here are murky, and the process remains fairly opaque to me. But to match the sort of cuts necessary to meet even the $10.6 billion target, the overall amount of money available for the Energy and Water appropriations bill (which the lab budgets share - uncomfortably - with the nation's water projects) is going to be very tight. Given my coversations with Pete Domenici earlier in the year about the difficulties associated with a tight overall E&W bill, it's hard to see how an omnibus bill would be good for the labs.
This item was buried on an inside page of this morning's Albuquerque Journal. It completely reverses a statement made two days ago by a state employee, so now I don't know what to believe.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Around Northern New Mexico
By
Journal Staff and Wire Reports
Lab Early Retirees
Get State Benefits
State labor officials say employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory who volunteer for early retirement will be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
The northern New Mexico nuclear weapons lab must trim 500 to 750 jobs because of expected federal budget cuts, flat revenue and higher operating costs under the lab's new corporate manager.
Lab director Michael Anastasio has said that he hopes enough employees take voluntary buyouts that layoffs won't be necessary.
New Mexico Workforce Solutions Secretary Doris Sparrow says those workers who participate in the buyout will be eligible for up to 26 weeks of unemployment benefits.
Sparrow has issued a directive to her unemployment insurance staff to process layoffs from the lab as involuntary separation, which would qualify them as eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
House Speaker Ben Lujan of Santa Fe says the additional benefits can serve as a vital bridge for workers as they transition into new jobs or move into an early retirement.
Here's the previous, contradictory statement:
Thursday, November 29, 2007
U.S. Approves Job Cuts at Los Alamos
By Raam Wong
Journal Staff Writer
"...Workers who are laid off will be eligible for unemployment benefits, but those who leave voluntarily won't be, according to Carlos Castaneda, spokesman for the state Department of Workforce Solutions."
John Fleck, if you're reading this, can we please get a final determination from the state?
Just to get this perfectly clear if you choose the SSP:
1) As Guest Scientist you're not considered riffed.
2) For NM unemployment LANS considers you riffed. (I bet NM says you're not riffed.)
3) For hiring preference you're not riffed.
4) For severance penalty on re-employment with DOE you are riffed.
5) For LANS accounting to DOE you are riffed.
6) The SSP is part of a rif except when its not.
I so glad LANS explained all this to us.
KOBTV4 reported last night that the state would consider you RIFed if you volunteered. Just as LANS intended and communicated to you.
You can't voluntarily give up your job then try to claim unemployment. Am I the only one here who sees the dishonesty in that? You don't need clarification from the state, you need to get things squared away with your own moral convictions.
> Lab Early Retirees
> Get State Benefits
Sloppy journalism.
The SSP RIFfers aren't "early retirees".
12:32 PM - despite the (non-existent) moral issue (we are all moral saints, aren't we?) LANL is in RIF mode. If I don't go, you have to go to meet the total number of laid off employees.
And you think it inappropriate that management can change policies? What planet are you from?
--11/30/07 8:13 PM
I depends on the policy, moron. Are you suggesting workers don't have a say? Are you suggesting managers should be able to change policies on a whim? Are you suggesting taxpayer dollars in the hands of managers are theirs to do with as they please? It's idiotic to believe management can do whatever the hell it pleases without any accountability. But then again, that's the way LANL has always been. What does that say about the workers then?
Double dippers,
I hear the knock on the door. Open it and breath the fresh air. Your time was good but now try something else. It will be OK, don't worry.
--11/30/07 9:40 PM
Yes...get out of the way old timers, it's now MY turn to bilk the system!
--The new generation
12/1/07 12:30PM said: "You can't voluntarily give up your job then try to claim unemployment. Am I the only one here who sees the dishonesty in that? You don't need clarification from the state, you need to get things squared away with your own moral convictions."
Oh give it a break already! You work at the Lab, you're probably a double-dipper at that, we haven't had any meaningful work to do in who knows how long, you're part of the military industrial complex (have been since day one), and you claim to have "moral convictions?" Now that's a laugh!
12:32, you make me not want to volunteer for the RIF. I have no issue, moral or otherwise, collecting unemployment for volunteering for a RIF after working for 35 years. I'm with 1:15 on this. I'm fairly sure if I don't volunteer, then I won't be riffed and someone else likely will be. Now, if you could guarantee I'd be riffed involuntarily, say in March-April, then I'd be happy to wait until then.
"if you could guarantee I'd be riffed involuntarily, say in March-April, then I'd be happy to wait until then."--12/1/07 1:57 PM
Sign you name to your blog postings and I can guarantee, you'll be riffed involuntarily.
The way I see it, it's my moral duty NOT to volunteer, because nation needs me too much. Sorry.
1:54 pm:
What a bunch of hooey. You imply no one htat works at the Lab can have moral convictions and ridicule 12:30 pm's expression of such. Then, you imply you also work at the Lab ("WE haven't had any meaningful work...")
So which is it? You don't work at the Lab and revile everyone who does, or you do work at the Lab and revile yourself? BTW, using the phrase "military industrial complex" flags you as an aging, angry, stuck-in-the-60s hippie.
1:45 pm: "Are you suggesting workers don't have a say?"
Yep. Where's your evidence to the contrary?
"Oh give it a break already! You work at the Lab, you're probably a double-dipper at that"
I do work at the lab, at the time of transition I had 3 years of service and gave up my pension for the 401k. I'm about as far from a double dipper as you can get. This has nothing to do with LANS, it has everything to do with some people trying to rip off the New Mexico taxpayer. If you can't pay the bills without your job then you have no business volunteering for a RIF.
Look guys... bottom line. I know the guy who asked the question about guest scientist. What it's about is: there are people that don't like what LANL has turned in to. But they are highly trained and educated. They like what they are doing and they like doing whatever little bit of R&D there is. They want to be involved AND they will do it FREE. They have a "Q", which is valuable, and they want to still contribute even without pay.
Can't any of you accept that premise? Once you give 30 years or more to the nation it is hard to pull back on a dime. Give these guys a break. It ain't costing anyone anything. I'm one of them, but I don't want to come back.
If you can't deal with this then it's time for you all to get the hell out of here. You complain about double dippers when you don't even understand what it's about. You probably just came here from getting your PhfrigginD. You don't even know what working is all about. Most of us worked through the Cold War (and Vietnam) to ensure that you could blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
GIVE IT UP!!! Shut the f&*()^ up or get the hell out. But give it a rest.
"You probably just came here from getting your PhfrigginD. You don't even know what working is all about." (9:22 PM)
Some interesting observations about these young "PhfrigginD" Gen-Y'ers from the Wiki:
* In terms of job expectations, 87 percent of all hiring managers and HR professionals say some or most Gen Y workers feel more entitled in terms of compensation, benefits and career advancement than older generations.
* Over half (55 percent) of employers over the age of 35 feel Gen Y workers have a more difficult time taking direction or responding to authority than other generations of workers.
* Eighty-one percent of 18- to 25-year-olds surveyed a Pew Research Center poll[10] said getting rich is their generation's most important or second-most-important life goal; 51% said the same about being famous.
Enjoy your new, younger work force NNSA! Hey, wait a minute. These young Gen-Y'ers sound a lot like the old farts at LANL they are about to replace, don't they?
One would hope the working in an environmnet with older, less greedy people who effect some change in the selfishness of the Gen-Y people.
BUT, LANS is going to rid it self of the older generation.
6:19 AM I certainly hope the last-in, first-out practice soon takes effect, especially with all the new Gen-Y limited term staff that has been brought on in the last 2 years. In a nutshell I have observed that these Gen-Yer's are lazy, don't want to do anything beyond helping themselves, and expect to be funded without having to do much to obtain funding.
"working in an environmnet with older, less greedy people"
lol. Humble too.
During the management transition, I listened as a retiring old-timer railed about all of the experience and knowledge that the Lab was losing, and how the loss would endanger our national security. I mentioned that (at that time) there was a program to bring back workers on a temporary basis for knowledge transfer and mentoring. His response was that if they wanted the benefit of his experience, then they would have to come to him and pay him what it was worth. His knowledge base was his Fort Knox, and he had no intention of giving it to someone else.
Maybe watching this humble and non-greedy older generation has taught Gen-Y that often what people say they value and what people really value are two different things. Not a new concept.
Last in- first out probably will be the rule but only because if they rif the folks with less service credit LANS doesn't have to pay as much severance. With the salary compression among the staff the difference in pay is tiny. And LANS anticipates that LANL will be such a miserable place to work that the old farts will retire soon anyway saving another block of severance. LANS can save even more by denying SSP acceptance to any old-timers and then targeting these 'self selected' unhappy campers with special 'incentives' to retire quickly.
Welcome to the corporate world "efficiencies".
"If you can't pay the bills without your job then you have no business volunteering for a RIF."
12/1/07 3:45 PM
This may be true if you own a home in LA county but if not, the SSP may give you a little cash to tide you over to your next career opportunity and might be a prudent step toward fleeing the sinking ship.
If you're able to pay your bills without your job, you probably couldn't care less whether you're employed by LANL or any other place and aren't feeling the stress like many more people probably are feeling.
The millionaires in Los Alamos hopefully can take the loss on their home or will stick around to keep the community afloat by staying, paying taxes and spending a few bucks locally. The people who aren't millionaires are probably in full-on crisis mode or trying to develop a tolerable exit plan if they are given the pass through this first RIF so they might have a better chance of stability on their way out when the next round of layoffs begins and the housing market is in its own full-on crisis.
Double Dippers,
Go feed the ducks at the pond.
It's time to give up the Q and watch Oprah!!!!
12/2/07 10:32 AM: "Last in- first out probably will be the rule but only because if they rif the folks with less service credit LANS doesn't have to pay as much severance."
You youngsters are so naive. Since when does LANL do anything logically, particularly a layoff?
Let's say a double-dipper gets $10 K per year in a 401k LANS match. Note that these double-dippers don't present an imminent pension cost threat to LANS since they are already on UCRP. However, if they get laid off it will cause an immediate lump-sum severence payout of around $80k and that will hit this year's budget. If LANS lays off a non-UCRP worker with many years of service, they'll be looking at both high severance costs and an immediate hit to the pension fund if the worker start pulling on TCP1 (which seems likely given the poor state of real estate in Los Alamos).
From LANS' fiscal point of view, it would be far cheaper and more cost effective if they went after the young'ins. Salary compression at LANL only serves to strengthen this motive. I would be especially worried if I was a newbie staffer who is non-vested with less than 5 years of service at LANL.
I know this may come as a shock to some people, but LIFO is exactly what I would be expecting LANS to implement if they are looking at the RIF in a cold hearted 'dollars-only' manner.
If you're young or a recently hired worker, then you have good cause to be worried about this RIF.
1:48 pm: "Double Dippers,
Go feed the ducks at the pond.
It's time to give up the Q and watch Oprah!!!!"
OK - this asshole still has his thing about "double dippers", although for me to understand his vitriol, I have to assume he really doesn't get the whole thing.
Care to explain how "double dippers" harm you or anyone else? Is it just you're jealous? Or you think you're being held back by someone older with more experience? What?? Please explain the unending dirt against people who've earned what they have. Oh - wait...you don't think you should have to earn anything, right?
Let's see, if we get rid of the "double-dippers," then by that logic we should also get rid of one of the spouses in "dinks," (dual-income, no kids), because they clearly don't need the money and are just dragging us down with their money-grubbing ways.
Then go after all of the dual-incomes, sending the wives home, because who's watching the kids? And that would fix most of the daycare problem around here, anyway.
In addition to peeing and polygraphs, then demand financial statements from everyone under the guise of national security. Anyone with a high net worth should be let go, since they don't need the money, either.
Then let go of the unmarrieds with no children, because we can't fire the single bread-winner in a household, can we?
Unmarrieds with children: Daycare problem, costs too much, fire them too.
So this perverse logic is clear: We should only hire young heads of traditional households with a family, since they are cheap and clearly need the money. Everyone else is suspect.
Otherwise, drop the chant to drop the double-dippers.
"So this perverse logic is clear: We should only hire young heads of traditional households with a family, since they are cheap and clearly need the money. Everyone else is suspect." - 7:39 AM
Sounds fine to me. We'll add it to next month's LANS policy changes.
-- Mikey
Post a Comment