Talk about Bartlett

[nukewood]

Have worked as an HP for nearly 30 years now, mostly as a contactor, both DOE and utilities and many different employers. My memories are mostly positive. I have had minor disagreements or misunderstandings with all of them occasionally. I have most consistently worked for Bartlett. Eric and his staff have treated me well. That said ,please put more pressure on the utilities to raise the travel pay up to where it needs to be for a boy living on the west coast!

[Eric_Bartlett]

Have worked as an HP for nearly 30 years now, mostly as a contactor, both DOE and utilities and many different employers. My memories are mostly positive. I have had minor disagreements or misunderstandings with all of them occasionally. I have most consistently worked for Bartlett. Eric and his staff have treated me well. That said ,please put more pressure on the utilities to raise the travel pay up to where it needs to be for a boy living on the west coast!

I appreciate your comments - as far as putting pressure on the utilities for increase in travel reimbursements, we do.  We are constantly pushing for travel that actually reimburses your costs, higher diem that will actually allow you to hold down 2 addresses while on the road, and better wages and bonus incentives.  There are those out there that try and spread the falsehoods and lies that Bartlett is trying to keep wages and com,pensation packages down.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Bartlett has always striven to get our clients to increase compensation packages especially when it comes to expense reimbursement and wages.  It only makes sense.  The more we can pay the more likely we can staff a project or outage.  The more we pay, the more y'all in the field make and the more you make the more likely you will stay in the business whereas if you cant make a living at this then why stay in.  Anyways, I'm starting to to rant and I am late for a meeting so for now I wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Holiday or whatever floats your boat.


Take it slow,

Eric

[nowhereman]

just got home to open my bartlett christmas card, but alas something was missing. there was no AmEx gift card in there....long gone are the days when the recruiter sent you to where they needed  you to go, instead of where you wanted to go  and then they got caught....but sent an amex card as a peace offering.   Merry christmas and happy holidays to E.B. and all...

[HeatherB.]

Anyone know why Bartlett's website is down??? Has been for a few days...

[Jr8black3]

Good who cares

[klsas]

Their website isn't down and hasn't been as far as I know. I don't have any troubles bringing their site up. Check your address.

Keith

[Rennhack]

Anyone know why Bartlett's website is down??? Has been for a few days...

I can confirm that when I try to go to their website, I get redirected to a network solutions default page that is displayed when they can't find the website you are looking for.  My guess is that they are switching servers, and the DNS isn't pointing to the right place.  There are many DNS servers, some haven't updated yet.  That is why SOME people go to the right place, and some people don't.  This happened to us when we transferred to the new server a few years ago.

[Old HP]

Gee you guys getting Christmas cards are really lucky. I have worked for them for 15+ years and have gotten 2 pens, 0 shirts, and of course 0 Christmas cards. But I did meet a regional director one time and I get an employees handbook at every outage and that really is better than a card.
                                Happy Holidays to All !!!!

[Jr8black3]

I had some issues with Bartlett, and I contacted Eric,,, I will say this much he tried to help.. So whatever thats worth to ya brother,, Eric dont get  big head now.. I might need ya someday..

Merry Christmas to all

[Rennhack]

The Bartlett webpage is working for me again.  Looks like the DNS server I have is pointed to the right place now.

[Eric_Bartlett]

Over the years I have seen and heard almost every conceivable story that has tried to vilify Bartlett Nuclear, Inc. from the conspiracy theories and double secret probation to Bruce determines the outage shutdown schedule to best benefit Bartlett.   Well a new one has surfaced that I decided that I needed to address.  It has been brought to my attention that Bartlett Nuclear, Inc., has been accused of being a "shell game specialist" when it comes to staffing, technicians and how many/who we have committed to our job sites.  I've seen it done by other vendors and have always taken pride that this company has not and will not play that game. Those of you that know me or have dealt with me should know by now I try not to mince words, I try not to play games and I try to call it as it is and what it is.  So I'll call it as I see it, the quote below is pure unadulterated BS designed to mislead and misinform those that read it.  It is designed to drive a wedge between those individuals that make up the road tech population and Bartlett.  It is full of falsehoods and lies because the author has nothing valid to say about Bartlett, so he/she had to come up with lies that, if taken at face value, the uniformed could find believable. 

The following is an excerpt taken from a statement made on one of the industry websites as relayed to me from a concerned source...

"Several power plants again experienced shortages of Senior RP Technicians this spring. DC Cook began their outage assuming they were only going to be three to four Senior RPs short. That was due to Bartlett using the shell game of fluffing the staffing numbers. The RPM was notified just days before the outage began that they were going to be 14 Senior RPs short for the outage. It's the ole 'no-show' answer from Bartlett. When will the industry grow tired of this worn out scenario? How many outages has your name been used? Prairie Island is 15 Senior RPs short. North Anna faired even worse with 20 Senior RPs missing on the first day of training. Vermont Yankee, had two house techs quit and go to 9 Mile before the ship starts to sink. They are also 18 Senior RPs short for the outage. Bartlett and DZ Atlantic continue to post ads needing Senior RPs. Hanford is still looking for 30 Senior RCTs through several companies. Idaho National Labs, Savannah River, and Portsmouth continue to have openings."

I am going to address each and every one of these claims in this statement in order to show what the truth is and what amounts to blatant lies and half truths that are being used to deceive and manipulate you, the nuclear power industry's contractor work force.

First off there is the claim that "...DC Cook began their outage assuming they were only going to be three to four Senior RPs short.  That was due to Bartlett using the shell game of fluffing the staffing numbers. The RPM was notified just days before the outage began that they were going to be 14 Senior RPs short for the outage. It's the ole 'no-show' answer from Bartlett."
In response to this I can only say the Cook was continuously kept up to speed as far as how many techs were hired and how many we were short.  They were well aware of how short they were prior to the commencement of their outage, 6 Senior Health Physics Technicians short in fact, not the 14 the author claims. There were 8 back outs – no not the type of back outs that the author of the above quote would have you believe, you know, the theory that Bartlett had names on the roster of techs that were never hired for the job, but actual 8 SHP techs that had confirmed and for one reason or another had to back out of the job.  So the site ended up 6 SHP short, not 14 that the author would have you believe. 

Secondly there is this quote "It's the ole 'no-show' answer from Bartlett. When will the industry grow tired of this worn out scenario? How many outages has your name been used?" 
Now some vendors may have done this in the past and some may do this in the present, but I can tell you, and take this with a grain of salt if you would like, that in the 40+ staffing seasons I have been doing this, Bartlett has never and I repeat never placed a name on a roster as being confirmed unless that name was actually confirmed.  We have however placed names on rosters to hold spots. When we have done this those names were identified on the roster(s) as not being confirmed and that they were on there to hold a slot while the individual checked on a myriad of things prior to officially confirming, normally at the bequest of the individual tech themselves so that they would not lose the slot while they were trying to decide what to do.   This practice of holding slots for individuals by placing their name on the roster & noting that it was a "hold slot" deal was abandoned after the spring 2008 season.  On a side note, because we stopped that practice, we now are accused of strong arming techs to confirm for jobs by telling them that we can't guarantee their slot will be there next time they call in if they don't want to confirm at this time.

Third there is this part of their statement "Prairie Island is 15 Senior RPs short" –

That may have been true for either the last outage or possibly outages prior to last falls outage, as for this season's outage, S2010, Prairie Island is 100% staffed for all requested positions. 

Fourth is this portion of the statement "North Anna faired even worse with 20 Senior RPs missing on the first day of training."
Nothing like distorting the truth to serve you own agenda.  North Anna, when they realized that they were not going to get the full contingent of road tech SHP's that they had originally requested Bartlett to supply, revised their request to Bartlett dropping just under half of the slots from their request stating they would get internal support from Dominion to make up for those slots.  After our crew arrived on site, 2 individuals came up with a story about having to leave for "DOE" work only to have us find out they lied and went to another outage. 

Fifth is the following portion of the statement – "Vermont Yankee, had two house techs quit and go to 9 Mile before the ship starts to sink. They are also 18 Senior RPs short for the outage. "
I don't know about two VY House techs, we did however hire one and I have heard no rumors of VY being 18  SHP's short

This last portion of the statement of course has truth in it "Bartlett and DZ Atlantic continue to post ads needing Senior RPs. Hanford is still looking for 30 Senior RCTs through several companies. Idaho National Labs, Savannah River, and Portsmouth continue to have openings."
I can't speak for DZA, but yes BNI continues to run ads for SHP, it is what we've always done when we have openings for any discipline.  Look at nukeworker's stats, Bartlett is one of, if not, the top job advertiser(s) in the industry, at least thru nukeworker.com   

Now I understand that BNI has a target on its back because it is the "big boy" on the block, the one that others feel they need to take a piece of to prove themselves.  I can tell you BNI did not get to the size we are at or make the relationships we have with our clients by playing the games that this absurd statement accuses us of playing.  The only thing to be achieved by playing a game like the one that the author accuses us of is to lose contracts.  And yes we do have SHP slots at Hanford & INL, Portsmouth happens to be staffed and Savannah River is still trying to sort out their needs.   

So to wrap things up all I wish to say is believe what you will and who you will.  You can believe the company that for over 30 years has continued to champion better compensation packages for the contractor work force or you can believe the ranting of a blatant liar that the only way he/she can drum up support is to mislead those that he/she is looking for support from, either way it's your call.


I wish you all a productive and prosperous year. 

Eric

[Camella Black]

It is a sad day when a "professional" organization acts in this way... rather than promote their own accomplishments and what they have to offer they negative and misleading statements about their competition.

[Brett LaVigne]

Secondly there is this quote "It's the ole 'no-show' answer from Bartlett. When will the industry grow tired of this worn out scenario? How many outages has your name been used?" 
Now some vendors may have done this in the past and some may do this in the present, but I can tell you, and take this with a grain of salt if you would like, that in the 40+ staffing seasons I have been doing this, Bartlett has never and I repeat never placed a name on a roster as being confirmed unless that name was actually confirmed.  We have however placed names on rosters to hold spots. When we have done this those names were identified on the roster(s) as not being confirmed and that they were on there to hold a slot while the individual checked on a myriad of things prior to officially confirming, normally at the bequest of the individual tech themselves so that they would not lose the slot while they were trying to decide what to do.   This practice of holding slots for individuals by placing their name on the roster & noting that it was a "hold slot" deal was abandoned after the spring 2008 season.  On a side note, because we stopped that practice, we now are accused of strong arming techs to confirm for jobs by telling them that we can't guarantee their slot will be there next time they call in if they don't want to confirm at this time.

I have a short story I'd like to share about an outage I worked a couple of years ago in Nebraska (I am not going to name plants or people in a public forum). Sorry for the length.

I was working a steam generator outage on the west coast, non-Bartlett. Toward the end of that outage I got a call from Bartlett along with several of my other co-RP's. The request was that when we get done with our current job, could we support an outage in Nebraska. The timing was ok and Bartlett had always treated me good so I confirmed. Several of my co-workers, for what ever reason decided not to accept the offer. When those of us that did confirm, arrived to the site for training there was a roster of the techs that were scheduled to work the outage. The different areas of the plant had already divided up many of the names and put them on schedules for the outage, plant supervisors told us that they were expecting those people to show up. Only one problem, not one of the dozen or so people that were missing had ever confirmed for the outage. I had personal conversations with techs that told me they had turned it down when they were called wanting the summer off. They didn't "tenatively" accept anything. There was much conversation about this, I am kind of suprised that it never bubbled up to your level.

I am sure that many things happen in the field under the corporate radar screen, it happens with all companies that have many layers of management. I am sure that you (Eric) would not condone this type of behaviour, but as management, you inherit the responsibility of being accountable for the actions of the folks below you. Or better yet, accountable for managing these problems with the folks below you. From my personal perspective, it seems to me that this is a problem or at least has been a problem at some time. Based on your statement I felt I owed you the information.


Peace

Brett

[PWHoppe]

What Eric wrote regarding the status of staffing at DC Cook is fact. I'm curious what industry publication this was posted on, and who/where the original information came from.

[Camella Black]

What Eric wrote regarding the status of staffing at DC Cook is fact. I'm curious what industry publication this was posted on, and who/where the original information came from.

It is posted on the NPUA website.

[thenukeman]

Bartlett, Gave me a job when I needed it, did what they said they would do always, answered my questions, treated me professionally, and when offered a outage I did not want explained that it would be more money, They were right!! Only problem is the Bartlett whiners, thinking they are owed something,or always bad mouthing them when I never saw anything they were talking about, for the most part these people needed to man or woman up and get the job done, thats what we are for, Now I could describe a typical Bartlett Whiner, but I would be banished to PolySci. so thats enough.

[Bonds 25]

Eric Bartlett

^^^^^^^^^^^^


Always has been.....and always will be THE MAN !!!!!

[vinman]

I dont make many posts but I think I should respond to this one.  I worked for Bartlett for about 10yrs.  Both as a long term contractor and a road tech.  I can think only once that I ever had a problem with an assignment and we worked it out.  When you are on the road the only things that you have is your work ethic and your word.  If  you are a keep your word, you work.  Whenever I wanted to go to a plant I was usually able to get there.  Once I gave my word I did not complain.  Bartlett was always up front on pay and hours.  Very rarely did I ever work for another contract company.

In the current climate it is hard to staff any outage completely.  Even when I was on the road they would try to skip you from outage to outage  . Leaving outages early to make sure you made a staff date for another outage.  We all remember those days.  Its harder to staff now with shorter outages and they all run together.  You are lucky to get three outages a season because of the overlaps. So I guess what I am trying to say is that Techs have more opportunities to be selective  They wait for the last minute to commit to any outage.  This is one of the biggest issues with staffing right now I believe.  I may have missed the point but I feel better

[roadhp]

Only one problem, not one of the dozen or so people that were missing had ever confirmed for the outage. I had personal conversations with techs that told me they had turned it down when they were called wanting the summer off. They didn't "tenatively" accept anything. There was much conversation about this, I am kind of suprised that it never bubbled up to your level.

I am sure that many things happen in the field under the corporate radar screen, it happens with all companies that have many layers of management. I am sure that you (Eric) would not condone this type of behaviour, but as management, you inherit the responsibility of being accountable for the actions of the folks below you. Or better yet, accountable for managing these problems with the folks below you. From my personal perspective, it seems to me that this is a problem or at least has been a problem at some time. Based on your statement I felt I owed you the information.

Something along those lines happened to my wife and I a few years back.  We were at Palo Verde's SGRP and were asking about Salem's SGRP in the spring.  When someone who hadn't been there before was accepted and we were still waiting, I asked about it (we had been at the previous Salem outage) and was told that SGT was doing the tech assignments.  We asked what else was available and we confirmed for Brunswick.  This was in November.  Two weeks before we were to show up at Brunswick in February, MA unemployment cancelled our claims, saying Bartlett told them we were back at work.  When we called Bartlett, Frank Cohen took care of the situation and appologized for the problem, but our unemployment claim didn't get up to date for about two weeks.  Since we had to come up with the money for the rental, we called up the per Diem office to see if we could pick up our advances a day early.  We were told that was against policy.  I asked to speak to the department head and asked why we couldn't get our advance early since it was Bartlett's fault.  He said it wasn't their fault we didn't show up at Salem.  We have worked for Bartlett only since 2001 and this is the biggest problem we have had, but it goes to point.  Enough said.

[btkeele]

Brett.. I don't have all the facts, but, I can tell you what I know about the situation in Neb.    I also saw a plant schedule when I arrived that had names of technicians who had declined the offer of employment that outage, I know those names were not on the Excel Spreadsheet sent
and updated by the Bartlett recruiters.  At some point early in the
spring myself and others working at DCPP were asked to help
in staffing the Neb outage, which we did (some more agressive than others)...but, the uncertainty of the end date at DCPP made for a lot of
last minute decisions.  At some point the Neb plant got a list of available
technicians (I don't know from whom) and I believe they (Neb) assumed
they were all coming.  As soon as I saw the list I told the Neb HP Supv
that it was not accurate, they then received the official list from RN.
That is all I remember, but, just wanted to confirm Brett's account.
From my experience I can tell you it is not how business is conducted
by Bartlett, I have some theories as to where the un-official list came from, but, do not want to speculate.  btw, the Neb plant was very happy with the
quality of technicians that outage (even the self-proclaimed "greatest tech in the world").(JF)  LOL

[Eric_Bartlett]

I have a short story I'd like to share about an outage I worked a couple of years ago in Nebraska (I am not going to name plants or people in a public forum). Sorry for the length.

I was working a steam generator outage on the west coast, non-Bartlett. Toward the end of that outage I got a call from Bartlett along with several of my other co-RP's. The request was that when we get done with our current job, could we support an outage in Nebraska. The timing was ok and Bartlett had always treated me good so I confirmed. Several of my co-workers, for what ever reason decided not to accept the offer. When those of us that did confirm, arrived to the site for training there was a roster of the techs that were scheduled to work the outage. The different areas of the plant had already divided up many of the names and put them on schedules for the outage, plant supervisors told us that they were expecting those people to show up. Only one problem, not one of the dozen or so people that were missing had ever confirmed for the outage. I had personal conversations with techs that told me they had turned it down when they were called wanting the summer off. They didn't "tenatively" accept anything. There was much conversation about this, I am kind of suprised that it never bubbled up to your level.

I am sure that many things happen in the field under the corporate radar screen, it happens with all companies that have many layers of management. I am sure that you (Eric) would not condone this type of behaviour, but as management, you inherit the responsibility of being accountable for the actions of the folks below you. Or better yet, accountable for managing these problems with the folks below you. From my personal perspective, it seems to me that this is a problem or at least has been a problem at some time. Based on your statement I felt I owed you the information.


Peace

Brett

Hey Brett - I appreciate your input as always, hope life is treat'n ya good.  Anyways what happened that season was the reason we no longer use the practice of "holding slots" on rosters for individuals.  Our representative at the site that all of these techs were coming from relayed some bad info to our office as far as who was interested, who wanted to confirm, who wanted a slot on hold, who was thinking on it, etc...I don't believe it was done intentionally or with any malice but it happened, a simple failure of communication that happened between our rep and our office.  The roster in question when it was sent to the receiving site was misinterpreted, basically i don't think it was explained clearly enough to the client that tech names A, B, C, D & E, etc... were on the roster to hold them a slot while they decided what they wanted to do.  Because of that episode i stopped the practice of letting the recruiters put a name on a roster to hold that individual a slot.   Anyways, once again thanks for the input and if you see or experience anything that seems shady in the future please notify me so i can look into it and explain it or fix it.

Take it slow,

Eric

[johnnyreb]

  your shure to have problems with; pay, perdiem, travel or insurance. funny how every "mistake" is in bartletts favor. if you work for them you must watch them as you would a thief

[Brett LaVigne]

I appreciate Barry chiming in, I certainly was not trying to out any one person. The roster on the wall at Cooper (now that we all know) had names on it that had never shown interest in the job. It was an obvious BS play by a Bartlett supervisor level person. It was the wrong thing to do misleading a utility about the staffing numbers and I am sure we all agree with that. My point is this...it happened, and it probably happened without the knowledge of corporate management (AKA Eric). So should we as technicians (employee's) hold Bartlett nuclear (AKA Eric or other manager at similar level of responsibility) responsible for those actions of one person who's integrity may be compromised? Unfortunately, yes we should. That is the way chain of command works in a professional business. In my life as a plant manager, I was held responsible for the actions of the people that reported to me...all 250 of them. It can be an uncomfortable position but it is exactally what I signed on for as a manager. I wasn't measured against the poor actions of a back shift hourly employee, I was measured against how well I managed that problem employee and if the behaviour continued going forward with that person or any other person. As a manager, it was my responsibility to break the chain of reoccurring operational and administrative problems.

What you are seeing on this forum is Bartlett employee's or people who have worked for Bartlett holding the company responsible for the BS of field level managers. I have long thought that Bartlett (like many other companies) has weaknesses with recruiting field level managers. Typically I see seasoned RP techs get these jobs, and no real thought  is given to the idea that these folks need to be not only qualified to make RP type decisions, but they also need to be seasoned managers and possess the skills needed to interface with the plant management, Bartlett management, the people working for them and act with integrity balancing the needs of Bartlett as well as the utility, openly and honestly.

I have always tried to give honest opinions about Bartlett on these forums without going so far as to demonize them for malfunctions in their system. That makes some of my RP buddies angry that I don't hate big blue. Bartlett is not operationally excellent, and that is ok. The bigger and more appropriate issue is...Do they really have a handle on the things going on in the field? Do they really know how they are being represented by lower level management to the utility? Are they managing problem employee's when they identify a problem? Do they have a designated change agent that is constantly working on improving the system with the help of ALL levels of employee's? Do you have a robust recruiting process that actively goes after current qualified employee's with experience in both Rad Protection, managing customers and their expectations, managing people and their expectations and acting in the best interest of the company even when the conversation is going to be difficult. If the answer to these questions is no, and I am sure that no is the answer to at least a couple of those questions. Then you, as a corporate manager, do not have your thumb on the pulse of the company.

One last thought, sorry. When trying to get to the root a a problem, we need to ask the question "Why?" more than once or twice. My opinion of the root cause leads back to recruiting. I don't mean recruiting techs for an outage, I mean recruiting managers for the field. If the field level employee's (folks on this forum) are telling you there is a problem with your process or operation, then the only thing you as a manager need to do is BELIEVE that there is a problem. Understand that the actual problem might only be an employee's PERCEPTION of what is going on and not what really is going on, it's still an operational problem. There is a reason they think there is a problem and that is what you need to focus on so the perception can be adjusted to match what is actually occurring. And, of course, be humble enough to know that you can't possibly know the actions of all employee's and give some initial merit to the complaint until it can be weeded through. Pretty sure Eric is that guy, I just think a closer look at the issues raised by many is fair. Something is driving those poor opinions.

That was way too much...sorry for the length and thanks if you read it all the way through.

[RAD-GHOST]

EB,

I do have one question:

Two weeks before we were to show up at Brunswick in February, MA unemployment cancelled our claims, saying Bartlett told them we were back at work.  When we called Bartlett, Frank Cohen took care of the situation and appologized for the problem, but our unemployment claim didn't get up to date for about two weeks.

Is this situation real, or just a fabricated story?

No Answer, is an Answer..........

RG.....



   

[roadhp]

this is NOT a made up story.  Pissed us off.  Finally got the money straight, and no one will confirm whether or not we were on any list at Salem, but that was the answer the per Diem office manager gave me.  PM me if you don't believe me, and we'll talk.
                                                            Bill Dowdy