So displacing the first 500, the second 730 and then finally the last 300 people from LLNL in FY-08 has absolutely nothing to do with reducing the cost of each employee to the project or program at all. It looks as if the entire process has to do with making up a $130M shortfall. I guess that explains why the 2008 Lab Pricer shows each employee as being more expensive than in 2007. So if the FY-08 RIF only solves the $130M shortfall what plan do they have to reduce the cost of each employee. It should be evident by now to LLNS that Riffing the entire workforce isn't going to resolve anything. What's your next move LLNS?PT14. Can someone please explain how "the cost of managing the Lab" has increased since the fee to manage the Lab was a fixed amount in the bid? What changed to make that cost increase to a point where we are now talking about voluntary and involuntary separations?
As of March 2007 the estimate of the additional costs in FY08 over FY07 for a private organization, LLNS, in managing the laboratory was approximately $80M, split between management fee, estimated taxes, and estimated 401K matching. The new contract does not provide any additional funds for these costs. LLNL must take them out of operating funds. This level of additional cost had been planned for by allowing attrition to take our staffing level down 500 in the last two years.
However, as we moved into this fiscal year under the new contract, several issues arose that increased the additional contract costs $50M more to approximately $130M. These include a higher than anticipated 401K match, higher management fee than originally estimated from the Request for Proposal (RFP), and increases in the cost of health care with a smaller pool of participants.
This, combined with inflation and a lower federal budget, create a financial challenge that requires the laboratory to assess the size of its workforce.
9 comments:
That is correct. The current series of RIFs has nothing to do with reducing employees cost. It was never slated to achieve that goal since laying people off doesn't reduce burdens place upon your head. It only reallocates the funds to pay off the debt. As debt increases and projects dry up and eventually go away, so will more people. Why do you think ULM keeps telling you that things look bleak for the next two years or more and you should expect a reply come FY-09. What you need to understand is if you have a job be very glad since once your job is gone and your usefulness has expired in todays current LLNL job market, you will be gone too. There's no place to go, except out the gate. So as you can see the man power issues will resolve themselves over the course of time. Plan your life accordingly. You have a very limited time to become financial solvent to the point where your bank account or minuscule pension will allow you to keep a roof over your head, food on the table and the electric on. Be happy with that because it's only going to get worse.
Has anyone with a brain see what I see. This entire transition was a waste of money and it now cost more to run LLNL with LLNS at the wheel then it did with UC in control. For the workers this has been a lose, lose situation from day one. What idiot/s came up with this magic pill.
Your good ole congress!!!!
The RIFs have nothing to do with the buget, the RIFs are for the complex plan DOE is Pitching to washington. Doe needs to cut and wack 33.33% of the weapons complex employees to help pay for their grand new weapons complex wich will be built at NTS by Bechtel. If you need proof check out NNSA web page.
Please site URL so we all can read this.
What a bunch of dumb jackasses.
i identified and estimated each of these costs in my original objection to the RFP for LANL three years ago.
NNSA doesn't care.
like jackass bush the junior, they'll do the dumb thing rather than think.
easy people to hate.
sweet revenge is, they were given a rope and used it to hang their reputations.
While Congress,was hummed merrily along.
disgusted. if this is the best america can do, we deserve only to lead from behind
Ya know.
If the Lab didn't change management, it could have given the taxpayers back $80M per year and still provided capability that 8300 dedicated-folks provide.
This decision was Texas-dumb.
It is nice to demonstrate for posterity Bodman's equine posterior tenure.
The only way you will ever lower the cost of each employee as it is structured is to fire everyone and hire in contract labor, tear down about 50% of all the buildings on site, or cut ULM by 66%. This of course may all happen over a course of time since the mission is over, global economy creates a cheap labor force, the corporate giants always chose foreign over domestic. At this point we have the domino affect. No work, no people, no need for buildings. This equates to cost savings since the burden to maintain all relative expenses is lowered by virtue of lack of demand. What's this tell you people?
"LLNS tear down those structures"
Envy is a destructive thing. Forestall envies the environs, pay, camaraderie, mission, benefits, recognition and superior intellect of Livermore.
So unlike some recalcitrant Mesa meat heads, with no real Livermore screw ups on which to blame the need for change, they just followed bushbutt the minor's sage advice; "ready, shoot, drink, snort, DUI,lie and aim; but at all costs, don't think"
Post a Comment