BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email


  • Stay on topic.
  • No foul, vulgar, or inflammatory language.
  • No name calling.
  • No personal attacks or put-downs of other blog users.
  • Be patient. Moderator checks and approves new posts several times a day.

Suggest new topics here


Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Congress incompetence for the 3rd year in a row!

We are funded once again through a continuing resolution through March 09!


Rumor corner

Back by popular demand, this is the rumor corner!
Have you heard of any changes? more cuts? or even anything good?

Any budget news?

Anonymous wants to know who/what is getting funded and who/what is getting cut.
Any news?

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Share your reasons

Anonymous asked:
1) Why did you leave LLNL?
2) Why are you staying?
3) Are you better off?

Opinion on Miller and Bodman's talk?

What did you think? were you listening? or did you just tune out? Tell us!

Monday, September 22, 2008

Tax the speculators!

An article from the Institute of Policy Study. Making the speculators pay is do-able.
Read on

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Complete picture

Anonymous said:
I read this entire thing and then quit paying extra on my home. I was hoping to pay it off but I asked myself why do I want to pay off a house that I've made zero equity on in the last 18 years and in the end have paid four times what it worth while I could be taking the extra money and doing something with my life

Financial markets

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Contributions to TCP1 soon?

Anonymous said:

Another pay cut for TCP-1's coming soon. Could the16% that was talked about during the transition finally to become true. After all the stock market lost $700B in one day what better way to make up those loses but on the backs of those who chose TCP-1.

[September 12, 2008]

The following is a letter to UC employees from Judy Boyette, Associate Vice President, Systemwide Human Resources and Benefits.

Dear Colleague:

The purpose of this letter is to update you regarding the restart of employer and employee contributions to the UC Retirement Plan (UCRP).

As you know, the University has been engaged in a multi-year process concerning the need to keep UCRP fully funded in order to ensure the plan remains able to pay retirement benefits to employees in the future, and that UC’s benefits remain competitive in the marketplace. At their July meeting, the Regents discussed a proposed funding policy for the UCRP to accomplish these objectives.

This proposal, which includes restarting employer and employee contributions, is now being brought to the Regents for approval at their September 16-18 meeting. If you have not already seen the proposal and would like to, it is available online.

As it states, the proposal establishes the date of July 1, 2009, subject to collective bargaining where applicable, for the resumption of employer and employee contributions to the UCRP. However, the actual amounts of employer and employee contributions will not be decided at the September meeting – that is expected to happen at a future meeting. In November, UC’s actuary will present the Regents with the annual valuation for UCRP, and information regarding the total recommended level of contributions required from both UC and employees to keep UCRP fully funded. Then, at one of their 2009 meetings, Regents are expected to determine the amount of resources available, and how contributions should be divided between the University and employees (i.e., the amounts UC will contribute and the amounts employees will contribute). As the proposal also indicates, the level of employer contributions from the UC will never be lower than what employees are contributing.

Although, we won’t know specific contribution amounts for several months, as previously announced the University’s expectation is that there would be no impact on employee net take-home pay in the first year of contributions, because employee contributions could begin in the form of a redirection of mandatory employee contributions currently going into the UC Defined Contribution Plan. Additionally, the university expects that its long-term approach to how UC and employees share the cost of UCRP benefits will be consistent with the State’s approach to contributions to CalPERS (see below websites for current CalPERS rates).

As you know, the University has been very fortunate in that it has enjoyed a UCRP funding surplus since the early 1990s which has allowed the Regents to suspend UCRP contributions. This has meant that, unlike the vast majority of employees at other institutions, UC employees have not been required to contribute to the cost of their pension benefits for the last 18 years.

At the same time, it was understood that this “contribution holiday” would end at some point and that contributions, from both UC and its employees, would be needed to keep UCRP fully funded. The market returns on UCRP have declined over the 2007-08 year, due to the performance of the financial markets. In addition, we are seeing the impact of delaying the restart of contributions.

We will continue to update you about the restart of contributions as decisions are made. Meanwhile, you are encouraged to visit the following websites to learn more about the process the University has been engaged in concerning this issue, and the CalPERS approach to contributions:

The Future of the UC Retirement Plan

CalPERS – Employer Contribution Rates

CalPERS – Employee Contribution Rates (Cal State University example)


Judith W. Boyette
Associate Vice President
Systemwide Human Resources and Benefits

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Salaries, in short

Contributed by 76:

FY09 Allocations: Merit Allocation
Administrative (400s ) 2.30%
Technical (500s) 2.00%
S&E's (200s) 2.11%
Technical (300s) 1.54%
A&S Administrative Services (Axx) 1.00%

Meltdown in US finance system pummels stock market

Anonymously contributed:

Does this get your attention?

Meltdown in US finance system pummels stock market

The Great American Yard Sale

Anonymously contributed:
Looks who's buying America every time the stock market crashes. When all is said and done who will our bosses be and who will determine our lifestyle

The Great American Yard Sale

Contractor's misconduct

With so many government contractors misconduct cases, why does governement still award contracts to the same contractors over and over.

Here is a long list

Monday, September 15, 2008

341 gun move to HEAF??

Anyone know anything about the gun from Building 341 moving to HEAF (Building 191???) I overheard a conversation today about a big project at HEAF. Anyone know something?

Monday, September 8, 2008

New layoff policy . . .

Well, NewOnLine had this today- if someone can figure out how to link the whole article, please do. At any rate - read the document while you can

DRAFT – New language highlighted in YELLOW (text in red, not highlighted)
III Layoff
III.1 Layoff for 200-Series Employees
III.1.1 Policy
This section pertains to 200-Series indefinite career employees only. It applies when a layoff is necessitated due to a lack of work or a lack of funds, which could result from such factors as, but not limited to, budget reduction, reorganization, or reduced scope of work. It does not apply to postdoctoral, term or temporary employees, who are subject to other employment and termination policies, nor does this policy apply to flexible term or key personnel. . .

etc, etc

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Money, money, money, money (stolen from food network)

Any word on our next raise package? OK, you can stop laughing now and answer the question.

So, has your workload increased?

I know that since the VSOP and ISP, we lost a bunch of people in my department. The work hasn't decreased, just the number of people doing the work. Now, we've a bunch of people who are over worked, doing jobs they've never done before, with no one to ask (nor time to do so) if they are doing the job right. I smell an incident.

Safety at LANL

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Lab safety, security show improving trends
By Tatjana K. Rosev
September 3, 2008

Safety and security at the Laboratory is showing continued improvement. A recent report confirmed that both safety and security showed positive tendencies in the time period from July 2007 to July 2008.

With worker injury performance measured in total recordable cases (TRCs) and days away, restricted or transferred (DART), the TRC rate went down by 35 percent and the DART rate decreased by 34 percent during the same time period.

According to the report, which was presented at an all-manager’s meeting on August 18, the number of severe security incidents also went down. While four IMI-2 incidents were reported during fiscal year 2007, only one IMI-1 and one IMI-2 incident was reported over the past 12 months. The number of incidents reportable to the Department of Energy also decreased in the time period from August 2006 to July 2008.

Dick Watkins, associate director for Environment, Safety, Health & Quality (ADESHQ), complimented Laboratory employees for the improving safety performance. “These measurable successes are a credit to each and every one of you. Your attention to safety and security while accomplishing your mission is laudable and key to success today and in the future,” he said.
Posted by Frank Young at 12:02 AM

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

What do you think of the Ed Moses presentation about LIFE?

Anonymously contributed:

What do you think of the Ed Moses presentation about LIFE? Will we really be able to unload any old kind of nuclear waste into a vessel, send a laser in, get out electricity and be left with almost no spent fuel to dispose of and have it be economical? Why is this being pushed now, before NIF has been demonstrated? Maybe to open up a new funding stream for NIF, since it is perpetually behind schedule and overbudget? Should there be a public peer-review of this concept?

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days