Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it. Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
Comments
There is no job security left in working for the NNSA labs. Look elsewhere to create a solid, healthy and long lasting science career.
This is true. Chinese university faculty are abundantly funded for their research and have generous government benefits, including housing subsidies for life.
September 10, 2009 10:22 PM
When the Titantic is sinking, the most effective thing to do is to re-arrange all the chairs on deck. Right?
More workers, more responsive, cheaper, more effective, less managers covering their behinds.
Life is great at LLNS, sit back and collect the check.
EUREKA! I think he's got it!!!
When does it ever stop? At what point does LLNL finally become too expensive for doing any scientific work? This constant jacking up of the overhead rates is crazy.
September 17, 2009 8:45 PM
It's clear that NNSA, LLNS and LANS don't want to see WFO projects at the weapons labs. They may say otherwise in public, but look at their actions and not their words. They are doing their very best to slowly kill it off.
Since LLNS took over on Oct 1, 2007, over 2000 (employees and SLOs) have been laid off from LLNL... what to guess how many NNSA employee in the site office have been let go?... Zero. In fact they've added NNSA employees.
We're doing less work at the Lab with less workers, but federal oversight keeps growing.
September 17, 2009 8:45 PM"
The "new" WFO Security burden is similar to the burden you paid in prior years that was finally taken off back in July. This goes to pay the WFO portion of the guards/gates/fences type security. In the old/old days, it was all part of the G&A. Then DOE got into the act because there were a few "publisized" security events and they thought there would be more control if it was funded directly and not subject to "indirect budget reductions". Since WFO are direct funded projects, they needed a way to contribute their share. So since 2000 when DOE started funding security directly - you guessed it, there have been budget cuts. For FY10, the guidance has been unclear about whether we should return to charging WFO for security or not and if so, how much. If you ask me, DOE doesn't know what it wants and they are on track for sending the guidance late - just like for FY09. That means that if they follow the same schedule, you will not have your WFO projects burdened until late in the year when you may have already completed your project - then WHAM! surprise bill. Hopefully the burden rate will be lower than it was in prior years, however, no guarantees. Having security funded partially by DOE as direct funding and partially as a burden on WFO projects is confusing and inefficient. However, any change that comes will probably come with budget cuts and you'll see one less gate open. My only hope is that we might hear a few less announcements about training drills and blank ammunition.
um, there are 20+ openings in the jobs page for 285s. I would think they would move Q cleared 285saround, rather than retraining/reclearing people.