What LANL is not telling you about the VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PROGRAM (VSP)
FEELING EXCLUDED?
- ON THE R.I.F. LIST BEFORE (1995?-2008?) ------BUT CAN'T GET ON IT NOW WHEN YOU WANT TO BE?
- DO YOU WANT TO RETIRE BUT YOUR "FUNCTIONAL AREA" HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS "CRITICAL"?
- HAVE YOU BEEN BEEN COMMITTED TO THE LABORATORY AND DOING A GOOD JOB FOR 10 OR 20 YEARS OR MORE AND NOW YOU'RE "EXCLUDED" BECAUSE YOU ARE "MISSION CRITICAL"?
- YOUR MANAGER AND/OR YOUR SUBORDINATES CAN TAKE THE VSP, BUT YOU CAN'T?
- DO YOU STAND TO BE DAMAGED TO THE TUNE OF $50K TO $100K?
- DO YOU FEEL THAT WE ARE BEING RAILROADED BY THE LAB'S PUBLISHED SCHEDULE, WITH NO OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROGRAM?
Those of us on the "Excluded" list are potentially getting screwed. However there is hope. There may be actionable grounds against the Laboratory due to the fact that it has unilaterally and arbitrarily excluded certain classes of workers from being eligible for the VSP Offer. This may result in significant lost opportunity costs (damages) for many us.
The selection of excluded "functional areas" was done solely in the interests of the Laboratory and the DOE without regard to the disparate impact it creates between similar members of the work force. This would appear to be particularly true for older workers, who perhaps were not ready to retire at the time of the 2008 "self selection", but who now ARE ready to retire. Because some of these employees are now on the "excluded" list, they now cannot now take advantage of the significant severance that is being offered by the Laboratory. However, other like situated employees can do so.
Those of us who will be significantly impacted will most likely be loyal, long term employees of the Laboratory. Most likely there will be no union representatives looking out for us. Let's at least start a conversation to see how many of us are impacted in this way.
The DOE has not had much luck with layoffs in the past and previously lost a law suit over the 1995 LANL Layoffs. They are currently involved in a suit in California over the 2008 LLNL Layoffs. We most likely have actionable grounds on this issue. What we need is a larger "class".
If you are in this position, please post here or send an email to lanllayoff2012@gmail.com.
Guy Oldfahrt
Note: Please keep comments positive and on point. This Blog WILL be edited to delete rude, spurious, and unhelpful comments. The only purpose here is to investigate the possibility & probability of legal or other actions to assure the rights of those affected by the VSP or their exclusion from participation in it. Extraneous and unprofessional comments concerning the DOE, NNSA, management, the weapons program, etc. will be edited. Remember to only post from your own personal computer and email account.
Note: Please keep comments positive and on point. This Blog WILL be edited to delete rude, spurious, and unhelpful comments. The only purpose here is to investigate the possibility & probability of legal or other actions to assure the rights of those affected by the VSP or their exclusion from participation in it. Extraneous and unprofessional comments concerning the DOE, NNSA, management, the weapons program, etc. will be edited. Remember to only post from your own personal computer and email account.
Keyword trailer: RIF, VSP, LANL, DOE, NNSA, Los Alamos, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, Voluntary Separation Program, functional area, layoff, layoffs, Reduction in force.
Where in LANS Policy is the concept of "excluded workers". While they can execute a involuntary or voluntary RIF, where is explicitly stated in Policy that LANS has authority to prevent eligible workers from accepting a severance from the Federal Government? Did LANS violate their own policy? LANS also has no precedence in executing an "excluded worker" campaign at any Laboratory. Why did DOE/NNSA approve this, or did they? Do you feel lucky LANS?
ReplyDelete