Job Security

[Fermi2]

Great posts Mike and Derek. Everyone wanting to start license class should take heed.

Derek I do not believe that item about HR is true at all.

[hamsamich]

I think people that weren't actually involved don't know what really happened.

[Fermi2]

I think people that weren't actually involved don't know what really happened.

Yet earlier you blatantly accused their utility of lying..

[hamsamich]

I did?  Quote me the post and we will see if you have really been reading my posts.

[hamsamich]

 I would expect such a superior lic. operator to pay more attention to detail.

[matthew.b]

I'd have to disagree with this as some with Aspergers do well at test taking, not all but some.  I don't know that we'd need to "weed out" anyone with Aspergers.  We'd probably be surprised (maybe not) at the actual numbers in the plants, though I think they're higher in the engineering department due to characteristics of the syndrome.

I'm an engineer and yep, lots of engineers are on the spectrum.  But when you're talking about operation folks, I don't think they'd fit in.  There's just too much importance on personal interaction and teamwork.

[DDMurray]

Great posts Mike and Derek. Everyone wanting to start license class should take heed.

Derek I do not believe that item about HR is true at all.

True or not, I know about 7 or 8 other guys who heard the same thing (our class was split between plant and CR at the time).

[Fermi2]

It isn't true...

[hamsamich]

Unbelievable.  So now I guess Derek and the 7 or 8 guys are liars now.  According to our friend from TVA.  Once again, he knows more about an occurance than the people that were actually there.  nice.

[hamsamich]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gku_xU2BXBs&feature=related


hello in there mike......tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

[LaFeet]

A little rough on BZ aren't you JTC???   

[hamsamich]

I'd like this board to be of use to people, and it is.  Questioning whether something actually happened or not is one thing, but saying it didn't happen unequivocally when it may or may not have is annoying and misinformative.  Let's hear from the people who were there.  I like knowing how different plants treat employees so I can gage whether I want to go there or not if given the opp.

[Bleyse]

BZ may not have been there, but he is not speaking in a vacuum, in this case.  DDMurray and he both work for the same company, but at different plants.  So while BZ wasn't in the room, he deals with the same HR department.

Personally (which means this is my opinion, and therefore I can't prove it) I believe there is likely some truth to what DDMurray heard (i.e: rumor) but officially, it does not happen (BZ's statement).

[hamsamich]

BZ is a good source of info.  Just have to take him with a grain of salt.  Reading between the lines here....I agree with Bleyse.  Saw the same type of thing happen here at SRS.

[DDMurray]

Here's the scenario:  We were in EOPs or IPO.  One of our guys had failed the most recent exam and had been struggling some in the simulator.  He was one of four guys that had not attended mini-systems or had on-shift time with the AUOs like the rest of us (a different story).  In start-up cert training one of the four failed an exam and was rolled back two classes so he could repeat systems and do his AUO time.  Another guy was struggling academically and had some issues at home.  They heard from OPs Mgmt that they were being rolled back to the class that was just starting systems.  They both moved into the new classroom.  A week or two goes by and lo and behold at the official TRB, plant management put the kibosh on the rollbacks and sent them back to our class.  About this same time, three guys from the class ahead of us who had failed their NRC exam rolled into our class.  Confused yet?

So one day the OPs Training Manager, our ILT lead instructor, and a senior SM assigned to training sat us all down and explained what had happened.  During this brief, they basically told us that despite what had happened in the past, there was no guarantee of employment if you did not license.  They also said, like I previously posted, that HR (pretty sure it was Corporate HR) challenged them to justify keeping guys when they hired us assuming a 70% success rate and our manning plan didn't have positions for these guys to fill.

Summary:
Dropout #1 (no mini-systems):  Assigned two classes behind us.
Dropout #2 (no mini-systems):  Rolled back just before the audit to the class behind us.
Dropout #3 (poor grades/family issues):  Removed from class, in PERgatory (works for OPs Support, no decision on his future)
Dropout #4 (pulled out just before Audit, previous SRO):  Issued 90 day letter. 
Dropout #5 (Rolled in from the class ahead us, failed our Audit hard, previously qualified RO on a BWR):  Hired as a Work Week Manager at our plant.
Dropout #6 (in class the whole time):  Rolled back to the class behind us.

Pending any more questions or challenges, end of brief.

[jimbo0697]

For questions regarding the validity of facts about the class as it was given, I took the time to forward all emails about the class from my work email to my personal email.  Some people questioned wether or not they were hearing a one sided story from disgruntled employee's.  I would be happy to send emails minus names from the company stating what was said.  As for me, I'm not upset.  I learned a great deal from this experience.  It was a hard lesson, but one I will not need to learn again.  I will never be mediocre.  I will never work for that utility again (if I ever have the opportunity).  Last but not least, everything is a evalution.  There are no "free looks".  The company pays too much to give them out.

[Fermi2]

Here's the scenario:  We were in EOPs or IPO.  One of our guys had failed the most recent exam and had been struggling some in the simulator.  He was one of four guys that had not attended mini-systems or had on-shift time with the AUOs like the rest of us (a different story).  In start-up cert training one of the four failed an exam and was rolled back two classes so he could repeat systems and do his AUO time.  Another guy was struggling academically and had some issues at home.  They heard from OPs Mgmt that they were being rolled back to the class that was just starting systems.  They both moved into the new classroom.  A week or two goes by and lo and behold at the official TRB, plant management put the kibosh on the rollbacks and sent them back to our class.  About this same time, three guys from the class ahead of us who had failed their NRC exam rolled into our class.  Confused yet?

So one day the OPs Training Manager, our ILT lead instructor, and a senior SM assigned to training sat us all down and explained what had happened.  During this brief, they basically told us that despite what had happened in the past, there was no guarantee of employment if you did not license.  They also said, like I previously posted, that HR (pretty sure it was Corporate HR) challenged them to justify keeping guys when they hired us assuming a 70% success rate and our manning plan didn't have positions for these guys to fill.

Summary:
Dropout #1 (no mini-systems):  Assigned two classes behind us.
Dropout #2 (no mini-systems):  Rolled back just before the audit to the class behind us.
Dropout #3 (poor grades/family issues):  Removed from class, in PERgatory (works for OPs Support, no decision on his future)
Dropout #4 (pulled out just before Audit, previous SRO):  Issued 90 day letter. 
Dropout #5 (Rolled in from the class ahead us, failed our Audit hard, previously qualified RO on a BWR):  Hired as a Work Week Manager at our plant.
Dropout #6 (in class the whole time):  Rolled back to the class behind us.

Pending any more questions or challenges, end of brief.

The point is I know what the 70% number was based on as I helped with the manning plans for both sites. It was not a number above which a cut was made and HR never supported that.

[mwdavis]

We had 3 test left including the comp test to bring our average to a 85 from a 80.  With 7 test factored in it was impossible. 

9 weekly tests and a final comp might have been a clue as to how "free" it was ever intended to be.....

[Contract SRO]

I think people that weren't actually involved don't know what really happened.

Having been a SRO Licensed training instructor since 1991, I have observed all sorts of motivation used with students in training.  I have been on the receiving end and I have been on the giving end.  It has been explained pretty well in the previous posts but seems some do not want to see any other point of view except their own.  Commercial nuclear power is unforgiving in it's expectation.  It needs to be.  This is not a trivial industry.  It was explained previously that you are always under a microscope.  You let down your guard and you will pay for it.  Does it put you under a lot a pressure, yes and no.  If you go into it with an intent to do what ever it takes to make it through the process, your odds are pretty good of success.  It you think that you can take on school and have a dozen other outside activities that you participate in at the same time, good luck.  I have observed some very bright people fail out because they did not keep there eye on the goal of getting through school.  Some things that you choose to call lies are nothing more than motivational tools to find out what a person is made of.  I retired from the utility that this thread was start about so I know a little about how they do business.  They are far from perfect but having worked as a consultant for several utilities I have found that there is very little difference in the underlying thought process they use.  Some may dress it up a little different but bottom line they are in business to make money and there is some give and take but there is a point when they protect the bottom line.

I have had gut wrenching feelings seeing people cut out of the program but sometimes people are just not in the right place in their life or the right mindset to be in school at the time they are there.  I hope people will consider that there are many factors here at work and there is not always a black and white, right or wrong to some decisions.

Thanks for letting me run on about the subject.

[DDMurray]

The point is I know what the 70% number was based on as I helped with the manning plans for both sites. It was not a number above which a cut was made and HR never supported that.

So you were responsible for the numbers of NAUOs we have that is a key driver of many of our challenges with RO upgrades and minimal staffing on shift to support work?  We had a saying for this kind of help in the Navy, maybe you remember it :  Thanks Shipmate!   

[LaFeet]

Just remember   Buddy is only half the word......

[hamsamich]

That's fine contract SRO.  If that is what get's results, good for them.  But if someone says one thing and does another, what is that bottom line?  And again, I wouldn't want to be part of something that needs to flirt the line with dishonesty (dishonesty that may have cost people jobs) to get results.  We can dress this situation with alot of talk about "you want me on that line you need me on that line!" but (I don't know since I wasn't there) people may have been lied to here.  For all the people that get on here and ask for help in situations where they didn't do the right thing, they are treated unmercifully by some on these forums.  But when it seems like a company didn't do the right thing, those same people jump up and down in defense of the company. 

Maybe it is necessary to lie to people for successful licensed reactor operations, or whatever you want to call it, how about "pretending one thing than doing another"?  Fine, that is a point that can be argued and I will agree that because I don't have a lic, I'm not qualified to argue that point at all.  All I'm saying is that these people may have been lied to, not whether it was for the greater good or not.  Separate conversation.

[Contract SRO]

I agree with you.  Dishonesty is should never be a motivational tool.  If someone/company (the individual is often the case as opposed to the company) is using it that way then either one is wrong.

I have also seen things start out with good intentions and turn bad as things went on.  Example - a class is told that this will not count assuming that everyone will still put forth their best effort and when they do not put their best into it someone changes the rules.  This is not right from either side but the key to dealing with it is regular communications not last minute knee jerk reactions.

I did not mean to indicate that dishonesty is OK or even acceptable just trying to encourage trainees to put your best into your training and you will have a fighting chance at being successful.  Anything less, you may have had fun(a wonderful quality of life) but find yourself hunting another job.

[Jazz]

Aside from a few key details missing, its been stated several times the very nature of this is business. Moving forward, would it be wise for one to list a termination like this on a resume or just leave it as a gap in employment? Future employers seldom consider specifics when 'terminated while on probationary period' is in the meat of a employment history. Or is there a bright side?

[VTnuke]

This is true @ my plant.  However, its an 87 for SROs.