Berkeley Lab is beginning the formal review and employee-comment period for the proposed revision to the Reduction in Force policy of the Requirements and Policies Manual (RPM). This policy applies to non-represented employees; represented employees should contact their union representatives or consult their collective bargaining agreement. Go here to read HR’s announcement of the changes, and here to review the proposed Reduction in Force policy. To comment on this change, contact hrpolicy@lbl.gov by August 31, 2012.
Tags: Human Resources, Policy
Views: 4,461
Despite the history that no one has been preferentially rehired in the past X years, the new policy is not a morale raiser. It makes LBNL appear just that much less kinder and gentler to its employees. I guess the cynical advice from Productivity501 governs at the lab as well:
“I see many people working a normal job with the idea that if they work hard they will be rewarded for their good service. That isn’t the way it works. Your employer owes you nothing. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve worked at the job or how loyal you’ve been. In the end, your years of service aren’t going to turn into some valuable investment that you can cash in.
Just the other day, a friend of mine was let go (along with all the other employees) at a business where he had been working for the past several years. The sad part is that, he had several offers over the past few months for jobs that he really wanted to take, but he decided to stay out of loyalty to his current company. His commitment to his employer turned out to be detrimental.
I have seen people invest their best work years at a company that suddenly decided to shut down. I’ve seen others invest 10 years helping a non-profit grow through very tough times while taking a very low salary only to be ousted by management once their 10 years of hard work were starting to pay off.”
It is immensely discouraging that LBNL is so eager to remove real benefits like rehire and recall rights from employees. If this is truly in the name of being consistent with UC policy and practices, where is the eagerness to adopt other UC policies, like compensatory time?
Personally, I find management’s conclusions with regard to rehire and recall pretty questionable. Perhaps no one has been rehired or recalled because the Lab failed to make an honest effort to do so? As a shop steward for unrepresented LBNL employees, I personally helped 8 employees contest LBNL layoffs. Its true that none were recalled or rehired, but 7 of 8 –that’s 85%, if you want statistics– received cash settlements in large part because the employees could show that the Lab failed to employ its own reassignment, recall, and/or rehire policies.
I urge reconsideration of this change in policy. In these times of frozen salaries, uncertainty and stress, divisive and demeaning changes that appear designed to make it that much easier to discard good employees at will such as this shouldn’t be part of the plan.