Brad stood up against Nanos (and others) allegations that LANL had a dismal safety and security record by publishing a well-formed arguement against those allegations in Physics Today.
Again he stood up against LANS/Bechtel's ridiculous random drug-testing policy in a signed letter to Director Anastasio.
At least twice now, he has called for a concerted stand against the attacks on LANL and we, the people, have failed to step forward.
Look forward to some posts revisiting these two issues in the near future. The Doctor has a lot of research to do first.
Strangely yours,
Doctor Love
Dear Dr.
As to the Shutdown, I think it was part of the
end-game drama begun in 2003, when the final decision to privatize was
announced. That really was the end, though we may have been in a state
of denial. I had hoped that an uprising of the staff would derail it,
but no Uprising ensued, even after Nanos and his benighted Shutdown.
When Pat, the Dog, started up his/her blog, I thought s/he would be
able to kick-start the staff into some kind of response. I sent him/her
a post of my view of random drug testing, and then a calmer, more
reasoned letter to Mike Anastasio, which also got published in the
conventional media. I knew that the staff would meekly pee, but I
really did have a few moments of hope that Anastasio would see reason
and cancel the random part, in order to salve the morale of the
beaten-down Labbies. Well, we know how THAT little scene played out.
Then, finally, when the RRW decision was announced, having been cooked
for months in advance of the "competition," I knew it was all over at
LANL for another two years, at least. And I got personal confirmation
of that from Senator Bingaman himself at the recent All-Hands-On-Deck
Meeting. Now, it looks like the two new blogs (yours and
PinkyandtheBrain's) will be the only source of succor to the abuse
victims trying to survive their bludgeoning. Best of luck to you.
As to the drug testing, I believe that Al Zelicoff has written
extensively on how those things work. If memory serves me (you can look
up Al's comments on Pat's blog), the only thing that CAN be reliably
discovered is marijuana, because it is absorbed into the fatty tissues
of the body and slowly released. Then there is methamphetamine, if it
is ingested only a few hours in advance of the test, since it is
water-soluble and eliminated from the body rather quickly (half a day
or so). (Beware allergy sufferers: the breakdown products of sudafed,
used as an ingredient for making meth, are probably identical to the
breakdown products of meth itself!) The Powers-that-Be, thanks to our
vigilant press and attention-starved Congressmen, only care about
nailing trailer-trash meth dealers and smashing subversive,
non-conformist pot smokers. For Lab management, the rest is gravy. And
deterrence. If they had REALLY cared about helping Lab people with
their self-destructive addictive behaviors, they would not have made
the whole business so adversarial. But "Adversarial 'R' Us" is the
Bechtel motto.
All the best, chin up, etc., ... AND ... patients!
-Brad Lee Holian
2 comments:
Here is the open-forum version of the "less confrontational, calmer, more reasonable" letter I sent to Mike Anastasio, to which I received no reply whatsoever:
-----
Santa Fe New Mexican 01/14/2007, Page F03
MY VIEW
Random lab drug testing a bad idea
By Brad Lee Holian
Los Alamos National Laboratory’s proposed drug policy sets up an adversarial relationship between management and lab workers, rather than one of cooperative team work.
With regard to drug abuse, the approach of the new management team, LANS LLC, in these difficult times should follow LANL Director Michael Anastasio’s stated approach to safety and security, namely, fostering a spirit of teamwork, cooperation, and buy-in to the general program by employees.
Former LANL Director G. Peter Nanos said golden words about building mutual confidence between management and workers in both safety and security, but in practice, his short term as director was marked by heavy handed intimidation and fear, from which the lab has not fully recovered after two and a half years. Nanos’ harsh, military approach was encouraged by National Nuclear Security Administration Chief Linton Brooks. Now that Ambassador Brooks has been relieved from command of NNSA by Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, there is a new window of opportunity to establish a better footing, possibly even trust, in the relationship between management and workers at Los Alamos.
I encourage Dr. Anastasio to consider taking a major step in that direction by eliminating random drug testing from the proposed new drug policy.
It is clear that Congress wants the lab to deal with ongoing safety and security lapses, though they don’t seem to realize, nor does the general public, that “zero occurrences” of accidents or security violations is impossible to achieve, even under the very best of safety and security programs.
Keeping the nation’s defense secrets safe from foreign espionage and the workplace as free from accidents is humanly possible, both require attention to the frailties inherent in human behavior, most importantly in the area of addictive behavior. The addictions that are most problematic are easy to identify, in rough order of occurrence: Sex, alcohol, gambling, prescription drugs (anti-depressants and painkillers), cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. (I’ve left out tobacco and caffeine, but they really don’t pose serious problems in workplace safety or national security.) In addition to long-term health problems, each of these addictions can have deleterious effects on a worker’s family life, put fellow workers at risk of increased accidents, and for Q-cleared workers in particular, make workers prone to blackmail. Moreover, the support of addictive habits can cause grave financial difficulties. Blackmail and financial reward are two of the most effective tools of foreign espionage in prying loose or buying secrets.
Clearly, random drug tests cannot identify many of these more serious addictive problems. In the classified arena, there are extensive periodic background checks before a Q-clearance is granted. In addition, the principal tool that conscientious managers have is their eyes and ears, namely, keeping good lines of communication with the workers directly under them.
An incident of inebriation on the job obviously has to trigger the threshold of probable cause for a drug test; however, randomly testing the general lab populace, particularly those who do not handle dangerous materials or operate dangerous equipment, is completely uncalled for.
But the main difficulty with random drug tests is the adversarial atmosphere they bring down on the lab, and the side effects of demoralization, humiliation, and reduced productivity, not to mention the sheer cost of administering them. Moreover, if a worker is immediately put onto a Performance Action Track, based on a positive outcome of a drug test, and the “positive” is actually an error, there is almost no way to undo the disgrace and disruption to the worker’s career.
Rather than attaching permanent blame to addictive behavior, management ought to realize that they can help a worker out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves, and still reap years of productivity for the Lab and the nation.
I encourage Dr. Anastasio to choose teamwork over an “us versus them: Managers against workers” atmosphere for Los Alamos and abandon the random drug tests.
--
Brad Lee Holian has been a theoretical physicist at LANL for 34 years and is a Fellow of the American Physical Society.
Copyright © 2007 Santa Fe New Mexican 01/14/2007
Brad -
I'm a REAL fan of yours for all the things you have done to stand up to Nanos and now Anastasio as a schill for Bechtel.
Keep up the good work!
Post a Comment