Dec. 10, 2004

Lawyers, contract, employees, DOE?

I just finished listening to the presentation [Dec. 7] and question/answer session with Department of Energy personnel concerning the Request for Proposal for the Laboratory operating contract. A number of times during the presentation/questions/answers I heard the word "lawyer." Most, if not all, of the times that the word was mentioned it referred to Department of Energy lawyers or potential bidder lawyers. Even though I have mostly thought of lawyers as a four letter word, I realize that when you need them on your side they are very invaluable. After the presentation I wonder if I may need one now to look after my interests as an employee during this time of potential major change in my terms and conditions of employment. I also realize that I do not have the monetary resources nor access to the negotiations to really be heard.

I am probably not alone when I say that I have been considering my options and courses of action in response to the many variables that the RFP, negotiations and contract placement could present. I also am probably not alone when I say that I have a preferred way that I would like the events to play out. How do I convey this to DOE and feel as though they will really take it into consideration? Studies show that losing a job is one of the more stressful events of a person's life. For those of us over 50 years of age and who are vested, voluntary job loss (retirement) is a very real possibility should UC lose the contract, and I would think almost as traumatic as involuntary job loss.

Before coming to the Lab about 20 years ago, I was a line manager in a plant operated by a very large defense contractor. I spent a lot of time across the table from worker representatives (union/lawyers/etc.) during grievance and contract negotiations. During that time I developed a certain respect for employee representatives and lawyers because of their focused desire to bring about actions that would benefit their client, whether it be a single worker or a group of workers. I also had people on my side who showed the same focus on the company's interests and desires. It was a satisfying feeling to leave the meetings knowing that negotiations had produced a result that was acceptable to both sides. It may not have been that way if the lawyers and representation had only been on the company's side.

I think that the presentation was a step in the right direction. In addition to other presentations like this one, I wonder who will represent my interests as an employee. I have never been a big fan of unions or lawyers, but now I am starting to see a need for one or the other or both. The questions that were raised at the presentation, and the answers, indicated that the DOE thinks that it is looking after the employees' interests, but can I trust in them to represent my best interests at the table? From the presentation today I have a feeling that the contractor choice could be more subjective than objective, and that negotiations may be taking place with the winning bidder long after the winner is decided. When I was a line manager I thought that I knew what was best for the employees. I also knew what the company wanted from me, and that it was in my best interest to push the company's agenda.

In light of the discussions at the presentations, Lab employees should look very hard at the process that is now taking place with an eye towards proactive participation in one form or another. I know from my previous life that a happy worker usually results in a prosperous company. This Reader's Forum entree should not be considered an affront to the DOE, but rather, an incentive to add the worker's voice as an active participant at the table. We have many very intelligent and street smart workers at the Lab, among which I do not include myself. I think one or more should be at the table. How will that come about?

--George Hagedorn