Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Nuclear access

Author Topic: Nuclear access  (Read 4750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

swanssong

  • Guest
Nuclear access
« on: Apr 23, 2004, 05:52 »
IS anyone familiar with regaining a nuclear security access if pulled by a company. Appeal with the NRC?. Obtaining federal background  type of record etc. to see what is being said. Or does a company pulling an access for argueably lame reasons necessarily mean that person is barred from the industry for good?  No drugs or alcohol involved and no threatening actions.  Just the company yanking an access to do their dirty work for them. 
« Last Edit: Apr 25, 2004, 11:20 by swanssong »

harleygirl

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear access
« Reply #1 on: Apr 24, 2004, 09:18 »
Swanssong, did the company fire you, let you resign or list actual reasons for pulling your access? If it wasn't drugs, alcohol related and there are no threatening actions you should be able to regain clearance elsewhere.
It really depends on why your clearance was pulled. Did the company just think you didn't fit with their ideas anymore and let you go and if that is the case are they willing to give you good referrals?? You do not really need a good referral but it couldn't hurt. Nowadays because of law suits most company's won't state why they let you go they will just verify your term of employment with them.
Are you looking to gain your old job back or just move on and go elsewhere? I had my access yanked by a company once for a verbal outburst and I had to go talk with a shrink before I could be reinstated. My clearance was reinstated but I then had the pain in the arse of listing it on my security questionaire to every plant I went to after that. No company ever further questioned that incident or turned down an employment opportunity because of it either pre and post 9/11. I say that because my verbal outburst occurred with a security guard.
The only way you wouldn't regain access is if it is something illegal or you would be a threat in someway.
If it is an issue where you really feel it was unjustified you can appeal it with the NRC.

EdwardR

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear access
« Reply #2 on: Apr 25, 2004, 01:43 »
If  drugs or alcholol or threatening actions were not involved then I would have to assume the access was denied for behavioal reasons as the previous poster implied.
 Companies maintain several tools within their legal arsenals. One of them is a catagory taken directly from the CFR's  c***ed "Trustworthy and reliable" .  A  subjective and somewhat vague type of catch *** phrase used when a company can't pin anything else on an employee that fits the catagory of "for cause" yet they still want to  send that employee in a different direction. I have heard of this method being used with "over concientious" employee's.  "Over concientious" employee's are protected by the EEOC to some extent. They can, however,  be a spurr in the heel of an employer, espeaci***y if the nature of that employer's business is sensitive and is related to public safety or health.

With one  precedenting  innocent  'miss placed step' the employee's integrety f***s under otherwise undue scutiny. It becomes a major issue and hence greatly exagerated to such an  extent that the unsuspecting and consequential participants  gain highly prejudiced and very skewwed impressions of that employee.

It is of legal importance to a company to attempt to destroy a over concientious employee's credibility if theere intent is to take actions against the said employee or vice versa.   

The employee would be lucky if the company sent him or her to  a "Psychologist"  and that this  doctor re-cleared that employee for access.  Typic***y these "Doctors" are contracted by the company and are kept on a retainer.  Almost on the payroll, but not quite.  This maintains the Doctors "Independant" evaluation and lends a hand to the "credibility" factor should the case get complicated.   This could also have a tendency for a decision that , if questionable, would, in *** likelyhood, f*** more to the favour of the company's desired ends then contribute to the employee's over*** benefit.  This is not neccessarily true in *** cases and these doctors may or may not even be aware of their role in the company's web that is being woven for the employee.  Although I would tend to doubt that they do not know.  Typic***y the doctor will administer a series of qustionably outdated testing  techniques and an interview.  Then the doctor will recommend to the company that the person either be reinstated or  not be granted access either permenantly or temporaly,  based upon these tests and interviews.  *** can be very subjective and could be skewed by the doctor having had interviews with the company managers or supervisors prior to the employee ever been seen by him or her such that the doctor views you with a preconcieved  mind set and perhpas even contempt.
 
Having the access removed or even suspended,  now means that the employee cannot fulfill their essential job function IF that job requires nuclear access.

Having said this,  one should keep in mind that the company can now state that the employee could not fullfill the essential job functions and , even under EEOC criteria and the Americans with Disabilities Act,  this is sufficient grounds to release that employee based on the professional and independant opinion of a board qualified Doctor.
 
This is a sort of "pilot washed his hands" approach. *** very neatly done and nearly foolproof to the company's benefit.

 Keep in mind that these Doctors are typic***y 'Psycologists'  and not psychiatrists. Meaning that you have not been sent there for help or medication. They are there to"evaluate your behavour as it relates to nuclear safety."  they re***y have no personal care for you at ***.  And as in ***  medical  industries, there are good Doctors as well  bad. 

My first question would be whether or not the employee f***s under any type of union contract. And if so is, or has, that
avenue been fully explored or exhausted?

Then it would go from there.  It could be an uphill battle. But can be won.  If anyone here has experience with this then I would encouage feedback.

 The EEOC would be the next avenue. But there are very limited time constraints here. And I find that the atmosphere in the EEOC these days is less favouable to the employee than in years past. But it is a necessary hurdle.

There is also a very strong move towards the resurgance of Nuclear power underway from within the current administration. In my opinion many Federal agencies have gotten the message from the powers who wish to make it so. There could be some silent "standing down" orders out there. But that would be difficult to impossible to prove if it were true.

Be carefull though. I am new here,  but I would assume company "snoops" to be reviewing this type of site on a routine bases.  And the sponsers here may be  leaning more towards the company then you might think.  I say this not because I feel they are the bad guys, but only because this is a situation where the "company" is not necessarily a friend of the employee in question. If you havn't already summized>

Keep the Faith

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?