Anonymously contributed:
The Lame Ducks spill the beans.
It is interesting to read these two articles:
http://www.independentnews.com/news/article_7a30ea08-72bd-11e0-bd4d-001cc4c002e0.html
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/local%20news/Cost-crunch-takes-toll-on-science-at-LANL
Both are write ups of Miller's and Anastasio's testimony before the National
Academy of Science meetings. It seems that now that they have nothing to lose,they can begin to tell it like it is.
Miller points out that other entities of the government would like to do
business with LLNL but are thwarted by NNSA policy.
Anastasio indicates that the extra cost of running LANL by Bechtel inc. has "taken lot of flexibility taken out of the institution." Miller makes it a little more blunt by saying the change has caused a loss of morale and
stability.
When Miller was asked whether something should be read into the fact that the leaders of LANL, Sandia and LLNL were all departing, he smiled.
And once I leave this once great institution that is now circling the drain, I too will smile.
28 comments:
Think about all of the many years of hard work that you and everyone else has dedicated to this place (our country) and the answer is to just walk away from it and then speak up about it on the way out the door?
Think about all of the many years of hard work that you and everyone else has dedicated to this place (our country) and the answer is to just walk away from it and then speak up about it on the way out the door?
May 3, 2011 2:43 PM
Isn't that what you as an employee are planning??
So it has been a total failure.
Some highlights
http://www.independentnews.com/news/article_7a30ea08-72bd-11e0-bd4d-001cc4c002e0.html
"In the meantime, he acknowledged that the contract change had brought additional costs that sap the Laboratory's scientific resources by adding overhead expenses of about $130-$150 million each year. These have led to personnel reductions and significant losses of morale and sense of stability. Stability concerned him particularly, he said, because some key scientific positions demand unusually long periods of training and experience before high levels of competence can be reached."
"No one had a simple answer. Miller's view was that the essential problem is that the system is a bureaucracy governed by short term interests. "
"He said that innovation has always been an American strength. We seem to be allowing it to slip away."
"both the new for-profit contractor, Lawrence Livermore National Security, and the Lab's federal sponsor, the National Nuclear Security Administration, had "lost the trust" of employees and retirees by allowing them to be "swindled out of their job security by making them at-will employees."
"we're adopting the bureaucratic characteristics of our opponent, the Soviet Union."
"The quality of science and technology (at the Lab) is as good as ever. But it's not as broad as five years ago, and it's not as resilient. It's more easily disrupted than five years ago.""
There are been plenty of reports and investigations in the past that all said the same things -- bureaucratic costs are out of control, the NNSA is too risk adverse and the bloated levels of lab management and their CYA policies are insane.
Nothing was ever done about it. Nothing will be done now. Learn from history. The NNSA "science" labs are slowly dieing thanks to the for-profit LLCs like Bechtel (a CONSTRUCTION company, for G-d's sake!) and the DOE/NNSA. RIP.
Thanks for bringing these links to our attention. So Miller is aware morale stinks but did nothing to fix it. Great, we are stuck with bad morale and a lab that is in worse shape than before, and he takes his giant salary and leaves. Thanks for all that fine work.
Here's an idea that would improve morale and the functioning of the labs. Fire 26 out of 28 layers of management. The scientists would still do their work, they would have a much lower overhead, research would no longer be impeded by managers trying to justify their existence, and after, the remaining managers would be so busy, they would not have time to interfere with the innovation. But somehow I suspect the NAS will suggest another layer of management to oversee the ineffectual management. That should do it.
We've been here before. Every time this situation occurs NNSA declares they are just so understaffed to do a proper job. NNSA hires more staff & blames the Contractor for all the criticisms. A slew of new DOE Orders & away we go again.
Here's an idea that would improve morale and the functioning of the labs. Fire 26 out of 28 layers of management.
May 3, 2011 10:39 PM
Sig Hecker tried this at LANL. It was a complete disaster. One Director and 26 Division Leaders reporting to him. At the time it was called "flat-land." A perfect recipe for 26 non-accountable fiefdoms, which is exactly what happened. No upper manager (or any manager) can deal with 26 direct reports. I hope there are enough people still around who remember that fiasco that it won't be tried again.
May 4, 2011 10:34 AM
I guess it's all perspective. Lots of us thought flatland was great. The Divison leaders were so busy trying to keep Sig happy, they didn't have time to harass the rest of us as we got some great science done. Check out lab scientific productivity (referred publications/employee)as a function of year, and you'll see that Sig's flatland years were some of the best.
Check out lab scientific productivity (referred publications/employee)as a function of year, and you'll see that Sig's flatland years were some of the best.
May 5, 2011 8:21 PM
Some of the worst, as far as DOE was concerned. Many of the egregious security concerns had their genesis then, as well as disregard for environmental responsibilities and worker safety among the fiefdoms. There was no one in control and no one to hold accountable except Sig, a situation neither Sig nor DOE could allow to continue. Even Division Leaders need oversight. Productivity is NOT everything. Accountability and responsibility were lost - not a good thing in the long run for a taxpayer-funded institution.
Well if you want to talk about taxpayer accountability, then try justifying $400K in overhead for a person who make $100K a year. That is a tremendous waste of money that produces no science, no productivity, but does line the pockets of division leaders that are paid like CEO's now. If you think all this management is good, then you MUST be a manager. Because the people doing the work are all saying there is WAY too much management. People making big bucks and we can't even figure out what they do. Why? Because nothing of productive value has come out of them that would tell us what they do. Oh, but they do tell us how important and necessary they are. Well George's own words, things are not going well, and folks, that is managements fault. They should at a minimum be cleared out for poor performance. And I don't mean moved to another management position. They need to be fired. That is what a company would do to managers with performance George is describing in the article.
I find it interesting that Bechtel employees (and management in particular) that have accepted employment at LANS/LLNS did not have had to compete for their jobs. That is, they did have to apply and compete for their positions. Is that because they don't have the experience or credentials to compete with employees currently at the labs? This practice, aside from being unfair, reflects poorly on the credentials of these employees.
May 6, 2011 8:08 AM
Your failure to proofread before posting completely screwed up your point (whatever it was).
May 6, 2011 8:08 AM
Your failure to proofread before posting completely screwed up your point (whatever it was).
May 6, 2011 11:29 AM
This practice, aside from being unfair, reflects poorly on the credentials of these employees.
Can't you read or are you from Bechtel?
This practice, aside from being unfair, reflects poorly on the credentials of these employees.
Can't you read or are you from Bechtel?
May 6, 2011 12:05 PM
Yes, I can read. Unlike you, I read the first two sentences of the May 6, 2011 8:08 AM post. Do they make sense to you?
I'm appalled at the number of posts sumarily junked by the so-called blob meister.
I'm appalled at the number of posts sumarily junked by the so-called blob meister.
May 6, 2011 7:32 PM
It seems his definition of "off topic" has become "posts I don't like." Too bad.
I cannot imagine that Bechtel will be very happy with these comments from the soon to be former Directors. I am worried that they are going to make LANL and LLNL pay dearly for this.
The proper comments should have been.
"LLNL and LANL are better than ever, doing great. We should have Bechtel run more things for the government."
The proper comments should have been.
"LLNL and LANL are better than ever, doing great. We should have Bechtel run more things for the government."
May 8, 2011 9:47 AM
You forget that for the (soon to be) former LANL and LLNL Directors, the "golden parachutes" are coming from UC, not Bechtel. Those deals were struck before they agreed to become Director.
When the Directors have All-Hands meetings they tell the staff everything is better than ever. However, when they talk to the National Academies of Science, the truth comes out.
Why do they lie to their own workers? The lies they tell them to their faces show they have no respect for their own staff!
Tell us the truth. We can't stand the constant lies from our management.
"Why do they lie to their own workers?"
To keep the peasants from revolting, that's why the lies occur. There is a small smidgen of bonus that may still be based on scientific output and as such, as any good company president, the bottom line rules. So tell us things are ok and we will continue to produce.
Remember all the years that UC would either buck inane orders from DOE or put a higher value on science rather that toeing the line caused the creation of NNSA. The NNSA in turn needed a whipping boy and Bechtel is more than willing to be that, just as long as the profit comes in. UC's hands aren't clean in this, they too have benefited from the higher fees and I am not sure that they have plowed the money back into research as they routinely did before the contract change.
At the end of their careers the two directors mildly let loose on a commission that is probably toothless, so nothing will change. They in turn get to leave with a slightly cleaner conscious knowing they have voiced (whispered) the truth.
I would like to think that Anastasio and Miller did push back on NNSA and that things might have been worse had they not done so. Is that true, beats me, I'm down in the trenches. But it will be interesting to see who takes their place and what type of change occurs, either positive or negative. And remember, a positive change in NNSA's eyes is sure to be a negative one in our eyes.
I think the entire game is about to change. With the severe budget cuts that are certainly coming for FY12 and beyond, I believe NNSA will have to seriously scale back its mission. The most visible and effective places to cut budget are the hyper-expensive, constantly escalating in cost, and extremely unpopular construction projects, particularly at LANL and Y-12. Other examples may also be found at LLNL and SNL, though lower in potential budget savings. These cuts, if they occur, will threaten primarily the non-scientific staff. Large design and construction contractors and laboratory engineering staff (non-weapons engineering), environmental types, and safety people will be the ones on the block. Science will be seen as cheap by comparison. Weapons people know how to do more with less, as they did during the Carter years, but the folks involved in major construction projects will have nowhere to turn. Just my opinion.
Does is ever occur to anybody that George had a total conflict of interest in even talking to this committee? He is the president of the company whose only goal it is to maximize the fee for doing absolutely nothing and sending in useless Bechtel people who sit around until they can be placed somewhere else. While DOE is truly a hopelessly inept not and sometimes evil agency, not once did George push back when he could have because his loyalty was divided. There is plenty of blame to go around for the sorry state the Labs are in. It is convenient for George to blame DOE for everything including stuff we did to ourselves.
I have been smiling since I left over 2 years ago ...
May 9, 2011 12:46 PM
George's "conflict of interest" only applies if he still considers himself president of LLNS. Obviously he doesn't, but considers himself a free agent able to say what he thinks (at last). Have you never heard of a very highly-paid employee who must do what his employer wants or lose everything? I'm not excusing any bad behavior, but speaking the truth at the end is better than never speaking it. None of us will ever know what pressures were put on either Mike or George that made them do what they did. It is easy to say they should have "done the right thing" but from some small personal experience, I can say the issues and solutions are really never that clear from that level.
I'm so glad these three told it like it was but in reality it won't do any of us any good. The transition to LLNS and LANS screwed most of us big time. Now LLNL and LANL are nothing more than "work for life" facilities especially since the populace thinks a 401k is a retirement plan. NOT !!. Your future is completely manipulated by the market which can falter any time "those in control" think you are getting out of your class. It's all been so very well orchestrated.
Your future is completely manipulated by the market which can falter any time "those in control" think you are getting out of your class. It's all been so very well orchestrated.
May 16, 2011 12:21 PM
You forgot to mention who "those in control" are, according to your paranoid delusional fantasies. Please elaborate.
When will we eventually get to see this NSF report on the state of the NNSA labs? Will it ever see the light of day?
Post a Comment