Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
19 comments:
Managers don't read this blog, except maybe for a few who try to ID if any of their folks are complaining--so they can be ranked in the last group.
I am a manager and am helpless. I have been screaming at my manager for ways to improve how people feel.
Right now, 99% of what we do is geared towards LLNS contract success (big chunk of that is compliance with NNSA). How is that better than the UC managed Lab?
April 23, 2009 7:44 PM
Big Brother is watching.
It's not clear to me that many people at all read this blog.
"How is that better than the UC managed Lab?"
Real Benefits and we were part of the UC community!
April 24, 2009 7:07 PM
I think people have given up hope of things ever being the same or ULM listening to what they feel. It is what it is and there is nothing anyone can do about it. ULM's feeings are, _"if you don't like it here pack your bags and move on down the road",__ "you're one less person on the payroll and one less person we have to worry about whe the next RIF comes"._ LLNL as it was IS OVER and will never be the same again. I feel sorry for anyone who comes to work here thinking they have a career. Sorry to disappoint you.
I think less than 1% of the people that read this blog ever write anything or comment by voting. Recently, Some of the topics have been really off-base and clearly written by the fringe making hard to believe these people work at the lab. However, I know of several mid to low level managers that do read the blog.
As an aside, I recently went to a training class and I was stunned by how many people had less than 5 years at the lab or more than 20. I've been around more than 10 years.
I agree with you 9:33PM.
They should have keep employees in UC, and LLNS could have brought in any needed ULM from the parent companies.
There was zero creativity in designing the LLNS LLC bid by UC. There were other options, such as LLNS LLC being a UC owned company. But after LANS beat out LM-UT for LANL, UC decided to use the exact same approach on the LLNL bid.
I will go to my grave wondering what would have happened in LANS had lost to LM-UT, which had absolutely no interest in LLNL. I doubt UC would have continued teaming with Bechtel for a bid on LLNL. Also UC was not going to let UT run a national lab in Calif, and would have done everything it could to keep the LLNL contract out of UT's hands.
Maybe UC would have teamed with LM to compete against the NG team.
I don't think our current management has a clue how to fix anything. Like Midas lesser known brother Crapo, anything they touch turns to merde...
This is the fundamental difference between UC and LLNS.
Under UC, the same people could fix about anything.
In essence, LLNS was a lobotomy.
LLNL is so poorly managed now that, for its own integrity, UC should jump ship from the partnership as soon as practical.
LLNS is a shipwreck and some poor coxswain is going to take the blame.
I don't think our current management has a clue how to fix anything. ... Under UC, the same people could fix about anything.Perhaps then *part* of the problem is not the ULM, but the new contract enforced by NNSA. They wanted more direct control by being a tightly contractual customer rather than a distant patron of the programs and a cloud of science.
If there was more of a time window to see how the LANS transition unfolded, maybe the LLNS proposal would have been structured differently. On the other hand, with our usual certainty, any difficulties there might have been considered impossible at LLNL.
Seems like there are plenty of organizations flourishing as Federal contractors. We should be able to figure that out, too. But it will take time and probably some management succession. Even a dash of humility.
"LLNL is so poorly managed now that, for its own integrity, UC should jump ship from the partnership as soon as practical."
That's going to be a little difficult. I have heard that the contract was written in a way that UC can't back out for the full contract period (including renewals)which is up to 21 years. This was a bone of contention for the UC board of governors when they looked at the contract more closely after it was approved.
It reminded me of when congress had another rake the labs over the coals panels and were surprised the cost of running the labs had jumped hundreds of millions.
UC sold the lab employees down the river and sold their soul as well.
If you have any ability and more than a few years until retirement, look closely at leaving the Lab. This place is going down the drain rapidly. The senior managers will take their pensions and flee--many already are gone. No one cares about you, so if you don't take care of yourself, no one else will. I know because I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
Hey Guys,
The LLNS ship is heading for the rocks. Bail out as soon as you can before you have a heart attack! Best thing: go into business for yourself, and take charge of your life. I did and I am doing great!
Things will continue to go downhill unless two things happen: (1) the for-profit LLCs are kicked out and replaced by non-profits, and (2) the weapon research labs are taken away from NNSA highly dysfunctional mis-management.
Neither of these two things are likely to happen.
The best we can hope for is the NNSA goes away. Most of its senior managers except TD have gone to greener pastures, and DOE cannot even find someone who will take TD's place. It appears as if the new Secretary is letting NNSA die on the vine.
"It appears as if the new Secretary is letting NNSA die on the vine."
April 29, 2009 7:15 PM
Shhhh! Keep quiet. Don't let the little secret get out.
Fire abusive managers. Fire managers that do not do their job. Fire managers who have no purpose. Then after you have done that, reduce the managers to such a small number, they would not have enough time to interfere with the people working on projects. Put too much work on their plate so they don't have time to mess up the people trying to do the work. Some of us don't mind layoffs, as long as it is the managers. Why were they spared? They should have been the first to go.
To the managers who supposedly do not read this blog (they do, trust me, whether they admit it is another thing), check out some of the online rate your job websites. You guys are not exactly getting a ringing endorsement from the comments.
Post a Comment