<p>June 13,  2003</p>
<p><b><font size="+1"> Vacation policy is DOE requirement</font></b></p>
<p>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 &quot;shutdown&quot; 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 &quot;energy conservation&quot;).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 &quot;to be more  like industry.&quot; Remember,
  that was a big push back then, along with talk of  putting the contract up
for bidding (along with DOE pushing for increased &quot;efficiency&quot;).</p>
<p>I'm sure we'd all like to believe that if Lab management had simply &quot;fought&quot;  for
  our &quot;rights&quot; 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).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><em>--David A. O'Brien</em></p>