NAME AND INFO DATABASE.:  "Kudos to the person(s)establishing this blog. I'd like to suggest that first-time posters/commentators list some basic info re: their status, such as "Ineligible","39 weeks severance" (if ineligible, you won't know the exact amount because Oracle has you locked out--but estimate it), "Organization", "Gender", etc. Any/all of these are optional of course, but it might help the blog organizers, and readers, learn more about the demographics of a potential 'class'. It would also be an indication of how widespread this inequity is. I'll start:

"INELIGIBLE

39 Weeks

ES Division

Male"

============================

The following will also need to be added: 

AGE

ETHNICITY OR "RACE" (as used in census Bureau Statistics)

This is a great idea. Please post data in the comments section below.    


However since everyone shows up as Anonymous, it will be hard to keep folks straight, so please use a Pseudonym, or email us at lanllayoff2012@gmail.com with your real or disguised information. (Nome de Plume? Nome de Guerre?)

AGE & ETHNICITY will required for the following reasons:

Since this is a "positive" and voluntary offer by the Lab, it is unclear what employment policies and law apply or do not apply.  e.g. The Lab has not complied with the "letter of the law" in their existing RIF policy in that They have not provided 60 days written notice of termination prior to the effective date of termination.   However since this is a "Voluntary RIF" it appears that They think they can make up the rules as They go along.  

What rules They must comply with would certainly be an issue for a court. That is why I think They are very worried on a CYA basis--thus the short time frame, exclusion of 'Job Classifications' rather than individuals, the 'No Appeal ruling  and the Gordian "Waiver Agreement".  Their legal staff has obviously done their home work.   However, under the theory of Disparate or Adverse Impact, intentions (good or bad) matter not.  The only criteria is actual impact to any protected class --  and age (over 40) is a protected class.  

As mentioned before on this site, it would appear that their will be a substantial adverse impact to older employees in the excluded "class", both in dollar amount and numbers of employees.  We believe that recent DOE/LANS policies have distorted the age distribution of the work force.  (a project for you statistics types) resulting in this RIF being about reducing the number of highly paid, older workers--this is obviously to whom the offer is most attractive.  While this older group who can accept the offer will gain the most benefit,  it will also make the impacted group (i.e. the Excluded Group) a group of older workers, hopefully then qualifying as a protected class.  

Another issue that must be considered is whether or not recent DOE and LANS management policies have had a significant impact on the makeup of the current work force.  Issues identified in Hugh Gusterson's Recent Article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, "Weapons labs and the inconvenient truth" could certainly explain why it is so difficult for the Lab to hire younger technical personnel right now.  (After all, what young, motivated, go-get-em, scientist or engineer wants to spend his/her productive years processing procurement requests and IWDs).  If the Lab's policies are at fault for their inability to staff critical technical positions, why should those of us who "kept the candle burning" be penalized for Their failures.  More about this in a later post.

While the above issues would be a hard to "prove" in a court of law, if we can show real issues and  potential damages, then we may be able to get an injunction.  An injunction could delay the whole VSP program-- and that would certainly cause Them some concern as it would delay the timeline and any expected cost savings.   These are the issues where a very good (and therefore very expensive) labor attorney will be required.  

In any case -- Nearly 500 hits in 24 hours.  We can certainly say there is a great deal of interest in the subject.  More Anon