Thursday, December 20, 2007

biased & unfair DLSE/DIR exam results and the State Personnel Board's complete lack of oversight

For years, the DLSE has done things their way; in their habit of doing things their way, they have slanted, doctored, and mismananged these promotional exams that were originally intended to find and select the best person for the best job. This has not happened for a long time because the DIR/DLSE does not want it that way, and everyone working here with a double-digit IQ knows that. I can't speak to the computer exam allegations (because I'm still waiting for the paperwork....mail to T. Zatori, POB 26212; Austin, TX 78755), but I can speak to the DLC III and DLC IV exams I took.
People were on those panels that should have never been on those panels...when there's a questions about Corrales, it's insane (read: conflict of interest) to have Denise Padres on the panel, but that's the arrogance of the DIR/DLSE; the DIR/DLSE does whatever it wants, and the end result is that Denise Padres is on the panel, asking about Corrales.
This is the same department that qualified Lauro Cons to be a DLC III, and this guy is afraid of his own shadow...he cannot wipe his own butt without asking his boss-Susan Nakagama on how to do it.
This is the same department that promoted Eric Rood, a guy transferring from another department who's barley old enough to drive, whereas there were qualified managers like Henry Huerta and Jorge Gomez who were told they failed the exam. What kind of a department fails their own people with this kind of percentage ratio? Is it because these supervisors aren't prepared/don't have the experience for the job of a DLC IV, or is it because the department cannot prepare their own loyal & dedicated staff for the responsibility if a DLC IV? If that's the case, then how did Denise Padres jump from a DLC II to a DLC IV?
Denise Padres was not promoted because she's a woman or because she's sleeping with someone on the job (I'm sure she's happily married to Frank Padres, her husband of many years). Denise was promoted for her loyalty and her Hearing Officer decision in Hartwig that GAS and the DIR/DLSE wanted; that's why *sshole DIR lawyers helped "guide" her in writing the decision, so that (then) Labor Commissioner Donna Dell could use it as a Precedential Decision, then all DLSE offices could use this to f*ck those workers who were looking for meal & rest periods beyond the 1-year trick box. When the heck do we ever see any *sshole DIR lawyer helping a Hearing Officer write a decision...unless there's politics involved? Please pull your head out of the sand.
Denise wanted to please her handlers, and she was rewarded for putting her name on a (currently) worthless Precedent Decision. At the end of the day, she either knew what she did was wrong, or she's a moron (she's not smart enough to know what a 'cutout' is, and she wasn't used that way). In any event, she was not the best person for the job, but the DIR/DLSE deemed her to be the the pick of the litter. Hence, her DLC IV promotion and her current DLC VI promotion. The DIR/DLSE conducts worthless promotional exams, and there is absolutely no supervision by the State Personnel Board. Whoever receives the upcoming DLC IV promotion (Padres' vacancy) will be some other retard that can't get it right, or in Rood's case, will take years to get up to speed.

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home