Tuesday, March 06, 2007
New LANS Policies
-Anon
This IPP applies to:
▪ All LANL employees with regular appointments, except those at the level of Associate Director and above, and probationary employees.
It is the policy of LANL that employees will follow appropriate workplace conduct, follow LANL policies and procedures, and maintain the public trust. Degrees of corrective action and discipline are considered to ensure that the employee has the opportunity to correct his or her performance and/or conduct, when appropriate. Depending on the situation, any step in this policy may be repeated, omitted, or taken out of sequence. For serious offenses, suspension or termination may be the first and only disciplinary action taken. The manager must consult with HR-ER before issuing a written counseling or any form of discipline (reprimand and above).
Appropriate action will be determined on a case-by-case basis based on factors such as severity, frequency, degree of deviation from expectations, mitigating circumstances and the employee’s overall record.
When an employee fails to meet established standards for appropriate workplace conduct, attendance, performance, or violates LANL policies, it may become necessary to initiate a discipline process.
Conduct that may result in corrective or disciplinary action includes, but is not limited to, the following:
▪ Absenteeism or tardiness;
▪ Insubordination;
▪ Harassment;
▪ On-Site Gambling;
▪ Failure to exercise appropriate judgment;
▪ Violation of law or LANL policies, procedures, instructions, or requirements;
▪ Unsatisfactory job performance;
▪ Dishonesty, theft, or misappropriation of LANL funds or property, including the inappropriate procurement of goods and services;
▪ Security infractions or incidents; or
▪ Other conduct that adversely affects LANL’s business and/or reputation.
Comment: aren’t several of these “conducts” new such as insubordination and the blanket “other conduct that adversely affects LANL’s business and/or reputation.
No wonder they exempt Associate Directors and above. Their actions to lose the RRW competition most-certainly adversely affected LANLs business and reputation, didn’t it?
Quite the change from the broad "Academic Freedom" policy we enjoyed under UC for 60 years.
And, here’s a lovely new policy
From IMP 791.0, Complaint Resolution:
Filing a Complaint:
To be considered under the CRP, an employee must file a CRP complaint form within thirty calendar days of the date on which the employee knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged employment action that gave rise to the complaint.
Wow. So, you have to file your complaint 30 days from the ACTION. What a loophole for management. They just have to wait 30 days from you violation to dispense discipline (or even let you know you’re under investigation), and you lose all rights or abilities to appeal.
You may expect absolutely no sympathy from the outside, nor any relief from the current hostile environment fostered by LANS. This is what DOE, NNSA, and Congress want it to be like at LANL.
If so, are they really the "best and the brightest"? I have my doubts.......
First, the RRW fiasco.
Now, the random drug inquisition.
The definition of "tipping-point" for those of you familiar with chaotic systems (Fermi, Pasta, and Ulam did that stuff at LASL in the 50's, for you youngsters) is one Lyapunov time into the strange attractor, from which point there is no reversibility.
Doom, in other words.
I'm packed and gone. You may see or hear me in the distance from time to time, but I'm Doppler-shifting into the red sunset.
-Son of Oppy
It’s a fairly good prediction that the lab will very soon be all over the news again for all the wrong reasons. Given that the lab was handed over to a for-profit contractor (and LLNL is destined for that as well) it is interesting to discuss what another prominent institution has gone through after being “competitively sourced”
(http://tinyurl.com/25u8ml)
I’m talking of course, about Walter Reed. According to this article,
(http://tinyurl.com/ytmklb)
a Walter Reed internal memo (apparently ignored by the hospital’s top brass) describes how the Army’s decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of “highly skilled and experienced personnel”. Walter Reed also awarded a five-year, $120-million contract to IAP Worldwide Services, which is run by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official.
If “IAP Worldwide Services” rings a bell, it’s because it should: They are best known for the problems it encountered delivering ice during the response to Hurricane Katrina.
I took the following paragraph verbatim from this article:
(http://tinyurl.com/289bph)
“The common perception of Walter Reed is of a surgical hospital that shines as the crown jewel of military medicine. But 5 1/2 years of sustained combat have transformed the venerable 113-acre institution into something else entirely -- a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients ”
Hmmm – what other venerable institution as hitherto been described as a “crown jewel” (of science)?, what other venerable institution has experienced an exodus of highly skilled and experienced personnel?
So, lab-mates rejoice! We are all now managed by a for-profit consortium made up of this company:
http://tinyurl.com/2b3mjv
together with the company who supervises these guys:
http://tinyurl.com/254o5g
"This IPP applies to:
▪ All LANL employees with regular appointments, except those at the level of Associate Director and above..."
Could someone please post the policy that applies to "those at the level of Associate Director and above"?
Especially regarding:
▪ Failure to exercise appropriate judgment;
▪ Violation of law or LANL policies, procedures, instructions, or requirements;
▪ Unsatisfactory job performance;
▪ Dishonesty, theft, or...
I am more than curious.
<< Home