Sep 12, 2008

LANL Salary Disparity Settlement Beneficiaries

Frank,

Per UPTE web site:
http://www.upte.org/LosAlamos/salaries/Settlement-Beneficiaries.html
It's been said you can judge a person's character not by what he says but by what he does. There are at least two Lab attorneys (Castille and Prando) on the list of salary disparity class settlement recipients referenced here, plus two Level 4 Managers from Lab Legal (Chandler and Woitte). How many other highly paid managers took a share of the settlement for themselves? How about HR and other personnel whose primary mission it is to discredit employees complaining of workplace abuse?

Honorable people don't abuse or try to cover up the abusive antics of others, nor do they behave in such a manner and then proceed to enrich themselves when, through the efforts of others, those abuses get exposed and remedied. Where's the integrity? Indeed, where's the shame?
- Anonymous

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not surprising. Without character or integrity how can there be any sense of shame?

Anonymous said...

This list is incredible! HR managers being on this list is a scandal.

I have worked with a number of these individuals and far too many of them are overpaid.

Anonymous said...

So Ms. Chandler, a Level 4 manager in Legal, is taking the money?

Unbelievable! What a bunch of hypocrites. There is no honor left within LANS upper management. None at all.

Anonymous said...

9/12/08 11:17 AM

There is no honor left within LANS upper management. None at all.

Was there ever?

Anonymous said...

I thought this was the settlement that involved salary discrimination of woman at LANL. However, the UPTE list has a lot of men's names on it. What gives?

Anonymous said...

If "Tyler Przybylek, Former Chairman of the NNSA Source Evaluation Board, can get hired by a LANS subcontactor (called out in their proposal), and other DOE and NNSA retirees are being hired by DOE contractors, why is it a shame to get part of the LANL salary disparity settlement. I look at it as my bonus for making Mikey and LANS look good!

Anonymous said...

Nothing about this lawsuit is honorable. The attorneys and HR employees are no better and no worse than all the others trying to cash out on some fictitious discrimination. I've never been discriminated against in my life, but if the lab wants to give me some money, I'll take it.

Anonymous said...

10:16, that you consider far too many of them overpaid is just a (meaningless) personal opinion.

Anonymous said...

A Level 4 Manager is a Group Leader.

I do find it amusing that the R&D Mgr 4 band is $110.2-191.2k, while for Legal Mgr 4 is $121.5-210.5k. Even better for Patent Attorney Mgr 4, $131.7-235.7k.

Don't want to be a manager?
Patent Attorney 3 - $110.2-191.2k
R&D Engineer3/Scientist 3 - $83.1-142.5k.

Perhaps suggest to your kids to get an engineering/science undergrad degree, then go to law school for 3 years instead of getting a PhD in 4-6 years.

Anonymous said...

The patent attorneys, however, pay a
price - writing famously meaningless LANL patents(no significant license income).

Anonymous said...

"There is no honor left within LANS upper management."

Uhhhh... Level 4 is a group leader. Nothing "upper" about that level.

Anonymous said...

It's a class action settlement, people. So you expected what here? Precision and equity in the distribution?

Anonymous said...

"The patent attorneys, however, pay a price - writing famously meaningless LANL patents(no significant license income)."

Yeah, and everything that scientists and engineers write is deeply meaningful. If you're going to write meaningless stuff, you might as well get paid as much as possible.

Anonymous said...

9/12/08 7:31 PM wrote "It's a class action settlement, people. So you expected what here? Precision and equity in the distribution?"

No but any sympathy towards that *unt Chandler is beyond any means. SHe has hurt more people and got even more fired as an allie of the DOE and of the Director's office (ie lackie for Marquez). In this vein, she has been an advocate for the Lab and in such an ironic twist of fate she has signed up as a recipient of monies from a class-action lawsuit that she was most definitely fighting on behalf of the Lab.

Honestly, I hope she burns in Hell.

Anonymous said...

I once was asked to assist Chandler in a personnel action against Loyda. Both are prominent fixtures on the list. How do you like them apples.

Anonymous said...

Their is no honor amoung thieves....

Anonymous said...

This same individual (Chandler) is ALSO the reason we are near collapse. She and Lab Legal have been feeding off the troughs for 60+ years! It’s become generational with a sense of "entitlement."

Anonymous said...

Sorry but you can't excuse Terry, Mary, Sue, or Alan. These bastards and bitches are so intrenched in the dirty deeds that Mike and LANS don't even know the foul play that is going on. But .... they will when the law-suits start heppening. THen they gets to spend quality time with CHandler.

Anonymous said...

Why worry about the small stuff like the salary disparity settlement?

Instead, worry about the big stuff, like our LANS TCP1 pension which is almost certainly suffering through some big financial loses given the collapse of the investment markets.

Employees are going to feel ill when they find out just how much this pension lost over the last 12 months.

Anonymous said...

i feel ill from seeing how much my TCP2 401k has been trashed by the market decline. TCP1 be dammed!

Anonymous said...

Don't know if it's fair to blame LANS for the collapse of the financial markets. Seems like this is globally shared pain resulting from too readily available credit.

Plus, there are plenty of LANL TSMs that have loudly boasted of buying pricey houses with 0% down (driving up prices) and now those same people are equally loudly complaining about being upside down on their mortgages. Hard to be sympathetic for people who play the system and lose.

Speaking of people who play the system, LANS managers should note the rising calls that accountability should accompany executive scale financial compensation.

The salary settlement for long term underpaying of Females and Hispanics pales in comparison to the massive executive salary/bonuses rip off that is currently taking place.

Anonymous said...

Took a drive through Quemazon this weekend and was shocked to see all the new and partially constructed $800k scale McMansion that are still going up all over the place. Who the heck is buying all these big McMansions?

Anonymous said...

"i feel ill from seeing how much my TCP2 401k has been trashed by the market decline. TCP1 be dammed!"

Join the club. 401K, 403b, college 529s for my kids, all in the shitter.

Anonymous said...

9/15/08 11:45 PM wrote, "The salary settlement for long term underpaying of Females and Hispanics pales in comparison to the massive executive salary/bonuses rip off that is currently taking place."

That is for certain - the old boys are still getting the huge rankings and the bigger salaries. You would think that LANL's brilliant senior managers would know better and would fix this problem after numerous law suits but alas, no. I am in HR and the data shows that women scientists are consistently ranked lower and paid less than men - and before the slurs begin, the women are not poor performers.

Anonymous said...

6:36 AM - you are just one bitter bitch. Maybe if you worked harder you would be paid as much as a man.

Anonymous said...

6:36 AM, you say that as if it's a surprise. Women scientists are systematically minimized at LANL. Case in point, this week's workshop on energy storage. Put together by Bill Tumas, still the king of Friends and Family Plan management. When Tom Baker left the lab, he put his projects under the care of a smart young female TSM. So who's giving the briefing this week? One of Tumas' male cronies. This type of maneuver lets the male scientists claim their "4" positions and effectively keeps the females at the "2" level. And it's repeated over and over, in small and large ways, every single day.

Anonymous said...

7:55, if you're going to troll, at least be subtle about it.

Anonymous said...

7:25 am: "This type of maneuver lets the male scientists claim their "4" positions and effectively keeps the females at the "2" level. And it's repeated over and over, in small and large ways, every single day."

So why are females putting up with it? What would a male do if confronted with the same "maneuver"? (Don't tell me no males are ever subject to this.)Why can't a female respond in the same way a male would? If you are proud of how females respond (or don't), you can't complain. No one is going to stand up for you if you don't.

Anonymous said...

"6:36 AM - you are just one bitter bitch. Maybe if you worked harder you would be paid as much as a man"

AHEM! Some recent data from CPD:

Scientist 1 = 41% female
Median salary:
Females 85,922
Males 90,418

Scientist 2 = 22% female
Median salary:
Females 106,095
Males 108,300

Scientist 3 = 16% female
Median salary:
Females 115,240
Males 119,777

Scientist 4 = 8% female
Median salary:
Females 132,055
Males 136,082

Scientist 5 = 9% female
Median salary:
Females 156,367 (parity at last!)
Males 156,100

Scientist 6 = 20% female
Median salary:
Females 158,035 ( Note that the band minimum is $153K!)
Males 186,475

Anonymous said...

" Anonymous said...

7:55, if you're going to troll, at least be subtle about it.

9/18/08 8:12 PM"

I bet it is Mechels, he is never subtle. Insane yes, subtle no.

Anonymous said...

to 9/18/08 8:22 PM: Females have spoken up and then are told that they "are not team players" or are "brittle" or are "bitches". This then comes out during PA time and we get down-graded versus our male colleagues. Just take a good hard look at the numbers posted by 8:48 PM. SPeaks volumes. Looks like another class-action lawsuit. You go girls!

Anonymous said...

9:42 PM - don't forget wench, prima donna, being told that you should let a man run your program, you should give your program money to the unfunded men in the group, which all goes back to the not-a-team-player if you tell managers "no".

Anonymous said...

And how about "She only got that [multi-million dollar competitive grant] because she's a woman."

Riiiiight. It certainly wasn't because her proposal kicked ass.

Anonymous said...

1:13 PM - the problem is that you actually think women can do better than men in science, just like all those people who think a woman can actually be a good vice-president.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I can only imagine how Chandler is waiting to gain from all of this!

Anonymous said...

7:37 pm: So, you were for Hillary before you were against her?

Anonymous said...

Response to 9/20/08 7:57 PM: She continues to do what Management asks her to do and she wins either way. She has no morals or ethics!

Anonymous said...

7:37, yeah, "can" being the operative word. "Alloweed to" - not so much.

Anonymous said...

1:13-

Your head must be spinning during this election. I mean, we almost had a woman win the Democratic presidential ticket, we have a Republican woman as a potential VP, AND an African American running for president.

Anonymous said...

1:13's comments sounded like sarcasm to me. But you can never tell, in this town.

Anonymous said...

I realize that LANS people like to ignore the facts but let's repost the big point provided by 9/19/08 8:48 AM:

Some recent data from CPD:

Scientist 1 = 41% female
Median salary:
Females 85,922
Males 90,418

Scientist 2 = 22% female
Median salary:
Females 106,095
Males 108,300

Scientist 3 = 16% female
Median salary:
Females 115,240
Males 119,777

Scientist 4 = 8% female
Median salary:
Females 132,055
Males 136,082

Scientist 5 = 9% female
Median salary:
Females 156,367 (parity at last!)
Males 156,100

Scientist 6 = 20% female
Median salary:
Females 158,035 ( Note that the band minimum is $153K!)
Males 186,475

Anonymous said...

6:40 pm: So, female scientists earn less than males, overall, at LANL. (But less so than in most other types of jobs, according to national statistics.) I could counter that female scientists weigh less than males, with as much significance, since you failed to state what point you are trying to make, or to state what you conclude from this data. No one, apparently, knows or has provided the standard deviations or the statistics regarding outliers, a significant omission. Scientists (male or female) would determine that no conclusion is warranted with this little information. If, as I suspect, you are pointing towards a culpability argument, you have no evidence at all.

Anonymous said...

The numbers are medians, not averages. The min/max of the salary ranges are known. The basic qualifications for each classification is known. 9/22/08 8:19 PM is being intentionally obtuse.

Anonymous said...

9/22/08 8:19 PM is obviously a male who doesn't want the status quo threatened...

Anonymous said...

/9/23 10:58 pm: "The numbers are medians, not averages."

That distinction is meaningless without knowledge of the distribution. The standard deviations and information about the outliers are what is important to make conclusions from the data. Your knowledge of statistics is a little lacking. Surprising and distressing, if you are a scientist.

9/24 6:50 am: "9/22/08 8:19 PM is obviously a male who doesn't want the status quo threatened..."

Wrong. Plus, nothing here can threaten the status quo - it's a meaningless blog addressing semi-meaningless issues. Intellectual integrity is meaningful, however, independent of the venue.

Anonymous said...

Well numbers aside one thing I have to ask, why was the closest female to ever become Lab Director Carolyn Mangeng? SHows that Nanos at least did the most in promoting women to higher positions. Now we have two boobie-prize tokens as ADs who were promoted well beyond their capabilities and are ruining science with their self-promoting or husband-promoting decisions.

Anonymous said...

I am the originator (but not the poster) of the salary analysis posted above. (Twice... that's very flattering).

Medians are typically used to report salaries (e.g. by the BLS) because they tend to eliminate distortions caused by extreme values. In LANL's case, outliers would include people like Division Leaders who have returned to research careers and are above the band maximum ("red circled" in the current terminology). There should be no outliers on the low end because of CPD "green circling."

There is no such thing as a standard deviation on a median. But being a statistics expert, I'm sure you already knew that.

If you don't like my data analysis, feel free to figure out how to obtain the LANL salary database and run your own.

Anonymous said...

The fact that this post has received little attention clearly shows how sexism and discrimination pervades LANL. Guys just want to protect their networks and the women at the top are too fucking chicken to do what is right as long as they get theirs from the $$$ pot.

Way to go Congress - thanks for "fixing" the problems at LANL by giving us LANS. Oh yeah, silly me you guys can't even fix a financial crisis of your own making.

Hey Mikey - why don't you bring this post up during your next All Managers meeting or the ever-so-rare All Hands meeting?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9/19/08 8:48 AM
has posted some interesting salary data.

At the upper levels (5 & 6), one would expect less women and expect them to be at the lower end of the respective salary ranges. This is due to the majority of the people in these ranges being above age 50 thus having stated college more than 30 years ago when there were not few women in technical fields. The women in these levels will likely have just entered these levels thus lower salaries are expected.

However, at the lower (entry or near-entry) levels, one would expect parity. In fact, the data show only a small difference.

In the pre-LANS days, many of the younger women were leaving at ~4PM to pick up the kids from childcare while many of the men trolled along until 6PM

Of course today, we all sneak out as early as possible.