Phase one of new compensation program being implemented
CPD designed to ensure Lab salaries are competitiveLaboratory managers will soon begin meeting with employees to discuss new job titles, levels and salary bands as part of the Compensation Program Design project, now under way.
The Compensation Program Design Web page has information on implementation time lines.
Compensation (HR-C) is now validating employee mapping exercises that managers completed last summer. This means that managers have placed their employees into new job classifications.
Phase one of the project includes administrative specialist, general support, office support, specialist staff member, technicians, and non-research and development (operational and technical support) technical staff member positions.
In a memo to Los Alamos National Security, LLC, Lab employees, Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio said the goal of the Compensation Program Design project is to ensure that Laboratory salaries are competitive and align with both external markets and internal equities and to provide the foundation for developing a clear, Labwide progression of career paths for all employees. "No employee's individual salary will be lowered as part of the CPD efforts, and the project will not influence changes to an employees' individual job duties, responsibilities, or job scope," said Anastasio.
Phase two of the project is underway and will include review of research and development technical staff member and program/project manager positions.
24 comments:
I'm curious..at any point does competence factor in?
I must reread that memo. Did Mike mention competence?
Bullshit!
For many years the DOE and HR have
pushed to institute a structured
system for TSMs. Now, if you think about it, anything favored by both
DOE and HR, is of course prima facie a bad thing.
Other DOE laboratories have it. When LANL had scientific directors (Hecker, Browne, etc.) we successfully fought this off. But the LANS whores (Anastasio et al) jumped right on this.
We went thru re-classification of TECs in about 1988. It was a disaster and we are still paying a price. There are seven levels and only really 5, 6, and 7 are occupied. There is absolutely no relationship between the job requirements and the TEC level. There is no lab-wide consistency.
Now we have this mess for the "non-research and development (operational and technical support) technical staff members." Not only will this be a mess for them, we have created a class structure with in the TSM ranks where the "research and development TSMs" will be treated differently. Making the decision on whether a TSM is R&D or non-R&D will offer many opportunities for cronyism and abuse.
And, of course there will be a lot of unfunded effort on the part of direct-funded personnel in dealing with this and HR will have to hire more people. And, don't be surprised if some Distinguished Performance Awards go to HR for the "successful" implmentation of this program, just like DARHT!
Nothing good will come out this.
I can't wait for retirment!
R&D and non-R&D TSM's are already treated differently.
Sorry, but I disagree. There is no reason why a TSM with a masters in a non science subject doing TEC-level work should be the same as a TSM writing proposals, doing cutting edge scientific research, and publishing. Yet under the current system they are treated the same.
The rest of us can't wait for your retirement either.
This is about bringing down salaries across the board so that the many lords (extra layers of management) and the grossly inflated salaries of members of the King's court can be paid. Too much information to digest? Then go back to chewing your cud.
--Sir Richard of LANS
Welcome to Corporate America! I bet there will be many who are "red circled" meaning no more raises to base pay. Only a non-base-building bonus if you are lucky.
Anonymous at 3/19/08 7:27 AM is correct in that all TSMs are treated the same. BUT, they are not paid the same.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how they deal with those who are deemed to be overpaid. "Red Circling" is a common industrial practice.
But, it is really hard to make personnel value judgements on a lab-wide basis.
I wonder it your supervisor (GL) marks you down and you get Red-Lined, can you sue him/her for loss of pay and mental anguish?
"I wonder it your supervisor (GL) marks you down and you get Red-Lined, can you sue him/her for loss of pay and mental anguish?"
Go ahead and try. The Lab loves to waste taxpayer dollars on such things. You'll always pay coming and going, thanks to the wonderful leadership of Domenici and his ilk who always makes certain the Lab gets reimbursed every dime it wastes, no matter what. Campaign contributions at work? Naaah, of course not. Go back to sleep now.
You thought that the moral had hit bottom, hehe, Well wait till this little exerise is finished, and you will see what low moral feels like. If your GL doesnt like you ...guess what your title will change,(no salary decrees) but wait, till next year you will be on a "low salary increase" list, it's just more of the games, under a new name. How fun, and to think we have all of this time to mull over what will happen, then stew about what did happen. No Stress?
This type of B.S. will never end, just get used to it. Management knows whom they want to keep and who they don't, just look around, remember they must reduce the workforce by 20%, so, they will treat the loved ones with care and the orphanes with disgust, where do you fit?
This will be a marvelous recuiting tool.
NOT!
Regrading suing individuals, I am not so certain the LANS/LLC would be
covered by the DOE in a lawsuit.
AND, it's also not so clear that a GL would be covered.
"...and to think we have all of this time to mull over what will happen, then stew about what did happen."
------
Um, ok, I can think of a lot of other things to focus on. Like how glad I am that I don't have to spend much time with people like you!
It's likely that pay will remain at a decent level; it's cheaper and easier to lay off a bunch of people and then increase the wages of the remainder a bit to keep 'em happy. People can be easily bought with an extra few $k per year.
The excitement will come when technicians start to realize that their new salary bands are impacted by what type of work they do. Suddenly the guy in the next lab is going to be worth more than you are.
The REAL excitement will come when this happens to TSM's. Ph.D. Biologists? Overvalued in the current structure, with academia the primary competitor. B.S. Engineeers? Undervalued currently, compared to industry, where having a PhD is more of a liability than an asset.
Let the hate and discontent begin!
8:34 PM - indeed. Let's not forget that Mikey hired Wallace, Neu, Seastrom, and Bishop as his "science leaders". Right there shows you how this whole compensation exercise is going to play out. The idiots get the rasies and the real workers bring in the money and get screwed at PA time... some things never change.
If inflation starts running up around 10% a year and the raises for most people stay around 2% per year, it won't be long until most of the workers at LANL will begin feeling some serious financial pain.
Perhaps that is part of the plan for getting 20% of the staff to bail out in the next few years.
8:34 says, "The excitement will come when technicians start to realize that their new salary bands are impacted by what type of work they do. Suddenly the guy in the next lab is going to be worth more than you are. "
Suddenly??? Where have you been? Pay bands being set by type of work performed would be a dramatic improvement on the current situation.
I predict the new "CEO III" and "PAD III" level positions that are created will result in these positions getting a big, fat raise. Something on the order of 40% is probably in the works.
"Now we have this mess for the "non-research and development (operational and technical support) technical staff members." Not only will this be a mess for them, we have created a class structure with in the TSM ranks where the "research and development TSMs" will be treated differently. Making the decision on whether a TSM is R&D or non-R&D will offer many opportunities for cronyism and abuse.
3/19/08 6:06 AM"
But if you really know the marketplace for technical employees, the scientific R&D TSMs will be paid less than the support TSMs, because they are worth less in the marketplace...a "good" deal for promoting scientific employment at LANL.
The discrepancies will only widen. In the SSM series the employee gets basically no credit (pay advantage) for having a graduate degree. Although HR has always a had a "formula" for differentiating the ranges of SSM 1 through 3, there is in reality nothing but whatever the hiring org wants to offer as a starting salary. It's not based on experience or on education. Makes a lot of sense, huh?
And talking about no consistency across the lab, what about the inflated chief of staff (over 100K) and administrative operations specialist (AOS--inflated scretary) jobs? Worthless.
Will the new "structure" address these problems? I doubt it.
Post a Comment