June 13, 2003

Vacation policy is DOE requirement

I agree that people (hired after 1992) in their 10th year lose vacation, which is a bad thing. But they gain it back and are essentially unchanged from their 11th thru 15th years. And while not overly generous, 18 vacation day is not the worst in the country. And mandating a "shutdown" at a particular time of the year and requiring employees to take vacation or leave without pay is also not uncommon (either for plant maintenance, because a lot of people take vacation then anyway, or for "energy conservation").

I understand the complaints (by the way, I was hired before 1992 and come under the old system), but I think everyone is pointing the finger at the wrong group of people -- Lab management and the Human Resources (HR) Division.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory is that the present vacation/sick leave policy was pushed by the Department of Energy at the contract negotiations in 1992. In fact, I thought DOE was insisting on an even more restrictive policy where the new hires would have to use vacation days at Christmas rather than be granted paid leave. I even remember rumors that DOE wanted even fewer days of vacation allowed at the start (10 days) and maybe even trying to apply it to everyone, not just new hires. DOE, at the time, wanted us "to be more like industry." Remember, that was a big push back then, along with talk of putting the contract up for bidding (along with DOE pushing for increased "efficiency").

I'm sure we'd all like to believe that if Lab management had simply "fought" for our "rights" we'd still have the original policy. But face it, contract negotiation is complex, and trying to convince someone across the table (who started with two weeks of vacation) that new hires at the Lab should start with five weeks of vacation was probably a really tough sell. Particularly if that person also has negotiated with other private sector contractors who have a starting vacation policy of two weeks (I remember when I started at Dupont at Savannah River, I only had two weeks at the beginning).

So, while it is a good idea to bring this up to Lab management to make everyone aware of the discontent and possible adverse effects, the people with the real power to change it are at DOE. Instead of complaining to the wrong set of people (who have very little input to the DOE/NNSA Request for Proposal going out for the new contract), those who believe the policy should change should help prepare a position paper to DOE management for inclusion in the DOE/NNSA RFP for the new Lab contract (complete with appropriate statistics about the adverse effects on hiring, retention, etc). That way, DOE/NNSA management will be aware of some potent arguments to justify going back to the old policy.

But remember, the people really in charge of this policy are at DOE/NNSA and any arguments about changing the policy back need to convince that group, not Lab management. Lab management and HR are stuck in the unenviable position of implementing a DOE/NNSA requirement shoved down Lab management's throat.

So start complaining to the right bunch of people (DOE/NNSA). UC and Lab management aren't exactly in a strong position to ask for anything, particularly as DOE/NNSA likes the present vacation policy, although I believe DOE/NNSA would prefer an even more restrictive vacation policy for everyone, not just for people hired after 1992.

--David A. O'Brien