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 jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
LLNL RIFs in April
Rumors starting to surface regarding the first round of RIFS to begin at LLNL in late April! Anyone care to share in inf on this subject?
Brewster McFrisk
60 comments:
Anonymous
said...
with a $50M indirect budget cut this year, there may be reason to expect a RIF. Also if NIF misses it's milestones for March that may result in a RIF for the NIF employees.
That's one thing we can count on California for is "to be first in everything", including a RIF. We have no fear of anything happening in New Mexico, "Land of Manana". LANS also has the LISC (LANS Institute of Stupidity ad Complexity) Senior Executive Team approving or disapproving everything being done at LANS to improve our efficiency. No worries, the LISC Team is also highly motivated, they just divvied-up their award fee and will be getting their raises in a few weeks. Life is good at LANS!
What a difference from one year ago at LANL. Anastasio announced he was leaving, now the Lab has a different make up. Only a very few top managers still in their positions. Hard to get what MacMillan sees in Wallace, but maybe more layoffs will clear that up.
Well I guess the chumps just didn't make enough money in 2011 so they have to get some more so they can continue their experiments. Check this out folks. Someone who is retired should e-mail every congressman and senator and ask them a simple question. If it only cost $8M when LLNL was under UC where is the cost saving after reading this, or, was the sole purpose of the transition to screw the employees over the best way possible.
FYI... See how much LLNS is getting
MORE DETAILS ON LLNL FEE FOR FY 2011 Lawrence Livermore National Security, the Bechtel and University of California-led manager of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, earned $12.8 million in fixed fee during Fiscal Year 2011 and was paid a total of $47.0 million for managing the lab, according to details of the contractor's performance released by the National Nuclear Security Administration late last week. The fixed fee is in addition to $26.3 million (out of $29.7 million) of at-risk fee-reported last week by NW&M Monitor-and $7.95 million in fee for Work for Others activities at the lab. LLNS could have earned up to $50.5 million, and in receiving 88.7 percent of its at-risk fee, it earned a "very good" rating from the NNSA and a one-year "award term" extension to its contract, stretching the deal through 2016. LLNS earned $45.7 million out of $49.8 million available in FY2010.
What a difference from one year ago at LANL. Anastasio announced he was leaving, now the Lab has a different make up. Only a very few top managers still in their positions. Hard to get what MacMillan sees in Wallace, but maybe more layoffs will clear that up.
January 11, 2012 7:41 AM
Terry Wallace and Mike Burns are nothing more than Anastasio's/McMillan's trophies to demonstrate that the "local boys" from Los Alamos High School (LAHS) "do good". I've never been impressed by either one of these dudes (Burns/Wallace). Their grades in college were appalling.
My $.02 worth from LANL. This only a single individuals opinion but with 35 years in at LANL. I would anticipate something as far as RIF or VRIP by end of March (final). This still allows 1/2 the FY to realize any savings. It also doesn't penalize employees as much. They will only have garnerd 1/4 of their yearly salary so any separation or incentive money will not affect tax brackets. I could see an announcement coming right before a 3 day weekend (probably Presidents day) which would allow everyone a long weekend to contemplate.
If not first quarter then the next opportune time would be Oct/Nov announcement with it being effective early Jan. Again doing something that can save budget early in a FY and not affecting tax bracketing, etc. Again maybe Veterans Day weekend to allow contemplation.
I don't think the cost is any different between a RIF and an incentive. With a RIF they still have to pay separation which is 1 week for each year of service up to 39 week max and I think they would make it the same for incentive. Spend $80M to save $200M.
Problem comes from each method. A RIF can be more selective in targeting. Programs with funding issues, poor performers, etc. It would probably take more RIFs to meet a target goal (admin types = $150K/person savings, older staff members - $450K/person).
Incentives are mainly targeted at the $450K/person who is nearing retirement. There may be some employees who want to go back to school, join academia, etc. An incentive doesn't allow targeting. Sometimes it might be a brain drain. But LANL seemed to have survived the last incentive.
I base a lot of this on the 2008 incentive. It took about the number of people we would have to see take it now. If salary + overhead ranges from $150K - $450K then the average might be $350K to give 600 people needed to reach $200M.
Letting contractors and limited term employees go through a RIF equates to trying to save money through pencil and paper purchases, double sided printing, and travel restrictions. They don't work and you don't realize the savings you think you will. Just postponing the inevitable. Downsize Downsize Downsize and resist the temptation to staff up again.
The LLC contract for LANS says that there must be a waiting period (~ 90 days?) between the official announcement of layoffs and when those layoffs could actually occur. Not sure if this "cooling off" period applies with a voluntary incentive program to downsize.
Rumors are flying all over LANL about "3/3", "5/5" age & service credit early retirement incentives to the pension benefits that may (or may not) be given to employees. I have my doubts.
The only incentive they gave with the last downsizing operation back in 2008 was to allow severance to those who would voluntarily leave the lab.
Budgetary problems have only become worse at LANL since the last downsizing as LANS management has continued to run up costs with layer after layer of highly compensated upper management and greater bureaucracy.
I can't see where any of the money would come from for a "3/3" or "5/5" type incentive. Not from NNSA and certainly not from the LANS annual profit fees. The LANS corporate partners have made it very clear in the past that their annual profits will not be shared with the general staff under any circumstances.
Terry Wallace and Mike Burns are nothing more than Anastasio's/McMillan's trophies to demonstrate that the "local boys" from Los Alamos High School (LAHS) "do good". I've never been impressed by either one of these dudes (Burns/Wallace). Their grades in college were appalling.
January 12, 2012 7:11 AM
Good grades in college or not, they are now the ones doing the grading for who stays and who goes.
I don't think they can do a 3/3 or 5/5 anymore with ERISA. With UC being a defined plan and an education institution then you could do the years service/age options. That option would also be available to only TCP-1 folks and would not apply to TCP-2 folks.
Many of us took our UC retirement back in 2006 and are now in TCP-2.
Truth is, Bill Reis recognized Mike Burns incompetence. Unfortunately, there was so much outrage by Burn's wife and friends, that they successfully conspired to get rid of Reis. Mike Burns has successfully ridden on his wife's "skirt tails" ever since they met at Berkeley. If you ever wondered why Mike doesn't have a PhD, his MS grades were horrible, absolutely horrible. He's got everyone snookered at LANS.
"... I've never been impressed by either one of these dudes ..."
Allow me to disagree...I don't know Wallace, but know Burns very well. Best 1st year engineer I ever saw, among perhaps 100 over 35 years. But he moved to LASL, where I could no longer judge, except by fast-track career growth, which has been outstanding. Tremendous talent and excellent long-ball hitter.
New Mexico has produced two outstanding engineers, one likely to lead LANL engineering and the other likely to lead LLNL engineering. Excellent engineers and excellent managers.
So you were part of the Berkeley mechanical engineering faculty at the time?
My bet is that you don't even know who Tien is,let alone what he is famous for.
January 13, 2012 10:21 PM
Tien was OK. Hsu, Mote, and Naghdi were outstanding, they were teaching the tough non-linear mechanics, not basic heat transfer. Incidently, I saw Burns grades when he interviewed at LANL. They were horrible!
Allow me to disagree...I don't know Wallace, but know Burns very well. Best 1st year engineer I ever saw, among perhaps 100 over 35 years. But he moved to LASL, where I could no longer judge, except by fast-track career growth, which has been outstanding. Tremendous talent and excellent long-ball hitter.
January 13, 2012 10:15 PM
Hi Carol! Now you are a great chemist and manager!
People keep posting these rumors of buyouts, retirement incentives etc and I believe they are living in the past. Perhaps LANL has some hidden checkbook someplace but those costly ideas at LLNL were squashed after the layoffs in 2008. The layoff policy was re-written in a drastic manner. There is NO x weeks of pay for y years of service (which by the way was only for the professional rank). It has been replaced by 30 days notice with up to two weeks of pay in lieu of notice.
When the 2008 layoffs occurred NNSA required all of the professionals who did receive the big payouts to hang around the lab (Sunshine building) and "look" for jobs via the workstations supplied there. If you weren't looking for a job, you were off the payroll. Now how many people actually came in everyday and did the song and dance to get the money, I don't know. I do know the policy was re-written to make it much cheaper and much easier to get people out the door.
VRIP, VSIP, those are quaint notions from an AEC/UC era. Those days are dead and gone.
But if there was a VRIP and you got between me and the door, I guarantee my footprints would all over you.
Any retirement incentive (VRIP) I'm sure would not be funded by DOE, but would be funded by LANS. It's easy and good business to spend $50M to rid the org of 800 people if it saves $200M and allows you to keep getting decent scores to keep the contract.
LANL RIF policy says 1 week for every year up to 39 weeks if you have over 20 years. Policy is policy and they just rewrote it in 2008 after the last voluntary.
To the person that states that LLNL has 1 weeks pay / year, 26 weeks max, I disagree.
This may not come out right due to formatting issues, but here's the layoff policy straight out of the manual:
______________ III.1.4 Notice of Layoff to Employees In the event of a layoff, Staff Relations shall prepare written notification to be given to the employee. The minimum notice period will be thirty (30) calendar days'. up to two weeks pay in lieu of notice may be given. ________________ No other section of the layoff policy makes ANY statement of pay whatsoever. That was yanked out in October 2008, after the layoffs.
In other words, the professional staff was reduced to the same reimbursement as the technical staff. If someone can find where the policy currently states LLNL will give 1 week / year separation pay, I'd like to see the link.
I tried posting the entire policy, it's greater than the 4K limit.
Straight out of the NNSA prime contract with LANS (look for the same section in the LLNS prime contract for the truth):
SECTION VI – PAYMENTS ON SEPARATION
(a) Reduction in Force (RIF). When employees are terminated due to a RIF, the following costs are allowable:
(1) Pay in lieu of notice. Any employee who is laid off or terminated due to a RIF may be given pay in lieu of the required minimum written notice of termination to the extent permitted by law. Accumulated vacation credit is also paid.
(2) Severance pay benefit. Any employee who is laid off or terminated due to a RIF shall be given severance pay as calculated in Schedule A or B.
Severance Payment Schedule A For those LANL employees that transferred from U.C. to LANS on June 1, 2006 Length of Service Benefit Allowance Up to and including 2 years 2 weeks of pay Over 2 years but less than 6 years 1 week of pay for each year of service 6 years +
1 week of pay for each year of service through 6 years, plus 2 weeks of pay for each year of service in excess of 6 years, not to exceed a total of 39 weeks.
Severance Payment Schedule B Schedule B is applicable for new LANS employees hired on or after June 1, 2006. Length of Service Benefit Allowance 6 months up to 1 year of service 1 week of pay 1 year + 1 week of pay for each year of service, not to exceed a total of 26 weeks of pay.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe severance is not a guaranteed benefit like the pensions. It can be declared "null and void" at any time by the LLCs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe severance is not a guaranteed benefit like the pensions. It can be declared "null and void" at any time by the LLCs.
January 16, 2012 10:22 AM
Correct. The contract language cited by another poster is:
"When employees are terminated due to a RIF, the following costs are allowable:"
This means the costs of the benefit would be paid by NNSA under the contract, but does not REQUIRE the LLCs to provide the benefit. In the UC days, They would happily provide any benefit DOE would cover, and then some. Those days are over.
to Joe Ptfslpk, who posted on January 16, 2012 12:03 PM :
Before spreading any more gloom and doom blather, please read LANL P-713-1 rev 3 (8/15/11) "Reduction in Force, 3.4 Severance Pay Regular employees who are terminated because of a RIF are eligible for severance pay as described below." Followed by the same tables as in the contract.
"Career employees, trainees, apprentices, term appointees, and key personnel who are eligible for vacation and sick leave credits and who are laid off from employment (see Section K, Part III, “Layoff”) for an indefinite period due to lack of work or lack of funds, are eligible for severance payments in accordance with the following provisions."
"The severance payment will be made in an amount equal to one week’s pay for each calendar year of continuous fulltime equivalent service (a fractional year of fulltime equivalent service of six months or more is counted as one year of service) not to exceed a total of twenty-six (26) weeks’ pay."
Before spreading any more gloom and doom blather, please read LANL P-713-1 rev 3 (8/15/11) "Reduction in Force, 3.4 Severance Pay Regular employees who are terminated because of a RIF are eligible for severance pay as described below." Followed by the same tables as in the contract.
Go hide under some other bridge!
January 16, 2012 4:31 PM
All I said was that the NNSA contract does not REQUIRE the LLC to provide the benefit. That the LLC currently does provide it by policy does not change that fact. The LLC can choose to change its policy and no longer provide the benefit at any time, without violating the NNSA contract. That was my point, and it still stands.
The LLCs don't need to use a "carrot" to get older employees to leave. They can use a big "stick" like they recently did at SNL to financially beat up their older employees.
Sandia changed the retirement medical and pension benefits so that those who didn't leave before Jan 1st of this month would loose about 10% of their annual retirement payments when they finally made it to retirement in 2015 with around 28 years of service. Given that bleak future, most of the older staff decided to not make a bet on surviving for another 3 years at SNL only to then see a 10% cut in what they would have originally received from their pension. It was a pretty big "stick" held over their heads and it was used to beat them senseless.
These same older SNL employees would also have their medical retirement payments capped at the current levels (no future increases to cover for increasing medical costs) unless they ran out the door and retired by the 1st of this January.
I think it is reasonable to expect that LLNS and LANS may use the same "stick" method to beat the heads of their older employees. You can expect that little or no severance will be paid out and talk of a "3/3" pension incentive for adding to age and service credit of those who voluntarily leave is pure fantasy.
The current stick that LANS is using is to make employees pay for their pension on TCP-1. The plan is to increment it by 2% every year. I will personally be paying 8% of my salary to TCP-1 in April 2012. LANS also froze my salary when they took over 6-years ago.
As an aside, Bret Knapp (PAD for Nuclear Weapons) is still be quoted as saying "I still need to get rid of people".
The fact that you are asking the question means that 1) you are one of the reaming clueless LANS employees who have had their heads in the sand for the past 6 years, or 2) you are just now realizing your career is over. I hope it is the latter. Find an employer who values its employees, knows the meaning of ethical behavior, and best of all, doesn't require you to live in the sh*thole of Los Alamos New Mexico. I retired and and I am through living in a third-world country. I am really looking forward to getting back to the States. My well-earned pension money and my accumulated economic power goes with me, back to where people can speak English without an accent, when their ancestors have lived here for only two generations, instead of those who can't speak English at all after 20 generations among English speakers. Adios, losers! Now go visit your drop-out kid in BCDC.
Supposedly after the all managers meeting at LANL this week there was a dision leader meeting with McMillan where the question was asked about an incentive. His answer was "absolutely not".
That doesn't mean a lot because if he would have said yes it would have been old news within an hour.
Quite a bit of Fraud, Waste and Abuse going on at LANL. If anyone in the news media reads this blog and is interested in some juicy information leave your contact info on this blog and I will contact you. I am ready to spill the "Real Story".
Hello fellow DOE contractors at LANL. Here in Oak Ridge, ORNL and Y-12 are taking sick leave days away, raising our pension costs, and reducing our medical coverage. Tennessee is a right to work state. Has the union for professionals, that is the recognized agent for benefits, helped or hurt retain your benefits over the last ten years? Should professionals organize at ORNL and Y-12? Your advice is appreciated.
How much does Director McMillan make now that he's taken over after Mike Anastasio left last year? Is it two million per year or did he finagle a deal for three?
Regardless of whether it is $2 million or $3 million, you can be sure that the LANS upper management team is not the least bit interested in giving any juicy extra benefits or incentives to the remaining workforce that sits under them. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Should professionals organize at ORNL and Y-12? Your advice is appreciated.
January 19, 2012 8:13 PM
I always enjoyed working with you folks at Y-12, however, you are asking the wrong folks at LANS and LLNS about organizing. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us [not including me] have been ambivalent about "organizing". We continue to get pummeled by managers like Bret Knapp. I have no idea what it will take "to wake up and smell the heap of crap that LANS/LLNS has dumped on us". PU!
Hello again from Oak Ridge. Prior to LANS and LLNS, the "superior" management team worked at Y-12. Then went west to rape and pillage you guys. They were losers at Lynchburg, at Y-12, and now at LANS and LLNS. They have only one thought in mind. $$$ for them and them only. They do NOT care about the DOE/NNSA workforce and are the ”enforcers” for the federal government to cut costs. Why not cut their management fee first?
to organize? I can tell that it has worked here at llnl. here are examples of what a bargaining unit contracts has obtain; 1.8.39% pay raise for 08-10 2.1-1/2% bonus 11-12 years, 2013 pay raise equal to the average of raises given to other llnl employees or whichever is greater. 3. preserves health and safety rights,and protections from arbitrary discipline. 4.demotions do not apply to bargaining unit members. 5.perserves vacation and sick leave 6.adds limits on the duration of supplemental labor positions. 7.flex term employees converted to fte's. 8.locked in 2007 ppm manual. 9.kept shift differential aspart of base retirement income. 10. any change to the pension system must be bargain.
Sounds like a workers' paradise. Who's paying for all that?
January 23, 2012 10:17 AM
You are buddy! You're a taxpayer right?
January 27, 2012 5:38 AM
Too true, and too telling about the sense of entitlement among unions, especially public-sector unions. The only solace is that their hard-won pensions will mysteriously disappear when they are well into dependence on them in their 70's. All laws can be changed. No savings? Thought the government would always take care of you? So sad, too bad, you're done. Congratulations.
We are nearing the halfway period in February, the WARN act requiring 60 days notice would put us into late mid to late April. That combined with no mention made by Parney in his speech this past week would indicate that the RIF in April is vapor ware.
Now, a budget based on continuing resolution - and we can't reasonably expect any more than that in an election year - that funding stream could induce a RIF.
I wish LLNL would bite the bullet and offer a voluntary program. The earlier one is offered, the sooner they can realize savings. A program funded mid year can be offset by the end of the year and position the lab to afford next year's budget. With all the electioneering by the politicians, there is a100% likelihood of a CR. the presidents budget cut NIF when they had been lobbying for additional funds to pay the higher rates they face next year. Who thinks NIF can last the whole year on the budget that came out Monday? They have already started sending people back to the matrix. That will be a flood in October.
I hope our new director understands the meaning of the word "agile". It is today's new reality and you only prolong and add to the pain by delaying decisions
60 comments:
with a $50M indirect budget cut this year, there may be reason to expect a RIF. Also if NIF misses it's milestones for March that may result in a RIF for the NIF employees.
I heard WCI is planning a rif right after the last of the material leaves the block.
Word spreading rapidly is indicating April as the target month which doesn't make much sense as it seems that most layoffs are during the holidays !
The last one was right before Memorial day. They celebrated by laying off veterans.
That's one thing we can count on California for is "to be first in everything", including a RIF. We have no fear of anything happening in New Mexico, "Land of Manana". LANS also has the LISC (LANS Institute of Stupidity ad Complexity) Senior Executive Team approving or disapproving everything being done at LANS to improve our efficiency. No worries, the LISC Team is also highly motivated, they just divvied-up their award fee and will be getting their raises in a few weeks. Life is good at LANS!
What a difference from one year ago at LANL. Anastasio announced he was leaving, now the Lab has a different make up. Only a very few top managers still in their positions. Hard to get what MacMillan sees in Wallace, but maybe more layoffs will clear that up.
Congress cut funding for CMRR, along with a no-construction order...I wonder what up with that?
Well I guess the chumps just didn't make enough money in 2011 so they have to get some more so they can continue their experiments. Check this out folks. Someone who is retired should e-mail every congressman and senator and ask them a simple question. If it only cost $8M when LLNL was under UC where is the cost saving after reading this, or, was the sole purpose of the transition to screw the employees over the best way possible.
FYI... See how much LLNS is getting
MORE DETAILS ON LLNL FEE FOR FY 2011
Lawrence Livermore National Security, the Bechtel and University of California-led manager of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, earned $12.8 million in fixed fee during Fiscal Year 2011 and was paid a total of $47.0 million for managing the lab, according to details of the contractor's performance released by the National Nuclear Security Administration late last week. The fixed fee is in addition to $26.3 million (out of $29.7 million) of at-risk fee-reported last week by NW&M Monitor-and $7.95 million in fee for Work for Others activities at the lab. LLNS could have earned up to $50.5 million, and in receiving 88.7 percent of its at-risk fee, it earned a "very good" rating from the NNSA and a one-year "award term" extension to its contract, stretching the deal through 2016. LLNS earned $45.7 million out of $49.8 million available in FY2010.
"where is the cost saving" ...
Don't forget ... 2,000 employee were
axed ... $100K/emp X 2000 = $200M.
Where did the $200M end up .... ??
Let me guess ... higher salary for managers, Bechtel, bonuses,...
Congress cut funding for CMRR, along with a no-construction order...I wonder what up with that?
January 11, 2012 1:01 PM
Oh don't worry, there is a ton a bricks being loaded on a roof right now that is about to be dropped on LLNS/LANS employees. Mark my word....
What a difference from one year ago at LANL. Anastasio announced he was leaving, now the Lab has a different make up. Only a very few top managers still in their positions. Hard to get what MacMillan sees in Wallace, but maybe more layoffs will clear that up.
January 11, 2012 7:41 AM
Terry Wallace and Mike Burns are nothing more than Anastasio's/McMillan's trophies to demonstrate that the "local boys" from Los Alamos High School (LAHS) "do good". I've never been impressed by either one of these dudes (Burns/Wallace). Their grades in college were appalling.
Apparently, LANS has sent "the letter" to NNSA/DOE announcing their requirement to "downsize". They have given DOE/NNSA two choices:
(1) Pay for the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP).
(2) Watch Knapp "The Hun" hack-away at the staff. Why? Because, he hates Los Alamos and the staff at LANL.
You heard it here first. Interestingly, the timing of this coincides with LLNS action to downsize.
My $.02 worth from LANL. This only a single individuals opinion but with 35 years in at LANL. I would anticipate something as far as RIF or VRIP by end of March (final). This still allows 1/2 the FY to realize any savings. It also doesn't penalize employees as much. They will only have garnerd 1/4 of their yearly salary so any separation or incentive money will not affect tax brackets. I could see an announcement coming right before a 3 day weekend (probably Presidents day) which would allow everyone a long weekend to contemplate.
If not first quarter then the next opportune time would be Oct/Nov announcement with it being effective early Jan. Again doing something that can save budget early in a FY and not affecting tax bracketing, etc. Again maybe Veterans Day weekend to allow contemplation.
I don't think the cost is any different between a RIF and an incentive. With a RIF they still have to pay separation which is 1 week for each year of service up to 39 week max and I think they would make it the same for incentive. Spend $80M to save $200M.
Problem comes from each method. A RIF can be more selective in targeting. Programs with funding issues, poor performers, etc. It would probably take more RIFs to meet a target goal (admin types = $150K/person savings, older staff members - $450K/person).
Incentives are mainly targeted at the $450K/person who is nearing retirement. There may be some employees who want to go back to school, join academia, etc. An incentive doesn't allow targeting. Sometimes it might be a brain drain. But LANL seemed to have survived the last incentive.
I base a lot of this on the 2008 incentive. It took about the number of people we would have to see take it now. If salary + overhead ranges from $150K - $450K then the average might be $350K to give 600 people needed to reach $200M.
Letting contractors and limited term employees go through a RIF equates to trying to save money through pencil and paper purchases, double sided printing, and travel restrictions. They don't work and you don't realize the savings you think you will. Just postponing the inevitable. Downsize Downsize Downsize and resist the temptation to staff up again.
2013 is not going to be great for funding at LANL, they are planning to downsize in two steps. Voluntary in April, forced in Oct.
The LLC contract for LANS says that there must be a waiting period (~ 90 days?) between the official announcement of layoffs and when those layoffs could actually occur. Not sure if this "cooling off" period applies with a voluntary incentive program to downsize.
Rumors are flying all over LANL about "3/3", "5/5" age & service credit early retirement incentives to the pension benefits that may (or may not) be given to employees. I have my doubts.
The only incentive they gave with the last downsizing operation back in 2008 was to allow severance to those who would voluntarily leave the lab.
Budgetary problems have only become worse at LANL since the last downsizing as LANS management has continued to run up costs with layer after layer of highly compensated upper management and greater bureaucracy.
I can't see where any of the money would come from for a "3/3" or "5/5" type incentive. Not from NNSA and certainly not from the LANS annual profit fees. The LANS corporate partners have made it very clear in the past that their annual profits will not be shared with the general staff under any circumstances.
Terry Wallace and Mike Burns are nothing more than Anastasio's/McMillan's trophies to demonstrate that the "local boys" from Los Alamos High School (LAHS) "do good". I've never been impressed by either one of these dudes (Burns/Wallace). Their grades in college were appalling.
January 12, 2012 7:11 AM
Good grades in college or not, they are now the ones doing the grading for who stays and who goes.
I don't think they can do a 3/3 or 5/5 anymore with ERISA. With UC being a defined plan and an education institution then you could do the years service/age options. That option would also be available to only TCP-1 folks and would not apply to TCP-2 folks.
Many of us took our UC retirement back in 2006 and are now in TCP-2.
Good grades in college or not, they are now the ones doing the grading for who stays and who goes.
January 13, 2012 8:17 AM
Yeah, revenge of the C-students.
Truth is, Bill Reis recognized Mike Burns incompetence. Unfortunately, there was so much outrage by Burn's wife and friends, that they successfully conspired to get rid of Reis. Mike Burns has successfully ridden on his wife's "skirt tails" ever since they met at Berkeley. If you ever wondered why Mike doesn't have a PhD, his MS grades were horrible, absolutely horrible. He's got everyone snookered at LANS.
You would be more credible, if you would know that it was Rees and not Reis
"... I've never been impressed by either one of these dudes ..."
Allow me to disagree...I don't know Wallace, but know Burns very well. Best 1st year engineer I ever saw, among perhaps 100 over 35 years. But he moved to LASL, where I could no longer judge, except by fast-track career growth, which has been outstanding. Tremendous talent and excellent long-ball hitter.
New Mexico has produced two outstanding engineers, one likely to lead LANL engineering and the other likely to lead LLNL engineering. Excellent engineers and excellent managers.
Their grades in college were appalling...
So you were part of the Berkeley mechanical engineering faculty at the time?
My bet is that you don't even know who Tien is,let alone what he is famous for.
Oski says,
"Envy of a Berkeley grads is forgivable, if accompanied by Wild Turkey."
Send Mike a bottle.
So you were part of the Berkeley mechanical engineering faculty at the time?
My bet is that you don't even know who Tien is,let alone what he is famous for.
January 13, 2012 10:21 PM
Tien was OK. Hsu, Mote, and Naghdi were outstanding, they were teaching the tough non-linear mechanics, not basic heat transfer. Incidently, I saw Burns grades when he interviewed at LANL. They were horrible!
Allow me to disagree...I don't know Wallace, but know Burns very well. Best 1st year engineer I ever saw, among perhaps 100 over 35 years. But he moved to LASL, where I could no longer judge, except by fast-track career growth, which has been outstanding. Tremendous talent and excellent long-ball hitter.
January 13, 2012 10:15 PM
Hi Carol! Now you are a great chemist and manager!
Let's face it, the only reason Mike got into Los Alamos was due to Carol, who the Lab really wanted. Mike got in as a "spousal courtesy".
"excellent long-ball hitter."
January 13, 2012 10:15 PM
Wonder what this REALLY means?
People keep posting these rumors of buyouts, retirement incentives etc and I believe they are living in the past. Perhaps LANL has some hidden checkbook someplace but those costly ideas at LLNL were squashed after the layoffs in 2008. The layoff policy was re-written in a drastic manner. There is NO x weeks of pay for y years of service (which by the way was only for the professional rank). It has been replaced by 30 days notice with up to two weeks of pay in lieu of notice.
When the 2008 layoffs occurred NNSA required all of the professionals who did receive the big payouts to hang around the lab (Sunshine building) and "look" for jobs via the workstations supplied there. If you weren't looking for a job, you were off the payroll. Now how many people actually came in everyday and did the song and dance to get the money, I don't know. I do know the policy was re-written to make it much cheaper and much easier to get people out the door.
VRIP, VSIP, those are quaint notions from an AEC/UC era. Those days are dead and gone.
But if there was a VRIP and you got between me and the door, I guarantee my footprints would all over you.
LANL has a RIF policy with defined severance.
Any retirement incentive (VRIP) I'm sure would not be funded by DOE, but would be funded by LANS. It's easy and good business to spend $50M to rid the org of 800 people if it saves $200M and allows you to keep getting decent scores to keep the contract.
LANL RIF policy says 1 week for every year up to 39 weeks if you have over 20 years. Policy is policy and they just rewrote it in 2008 after the last voluntary.
LLNL Severance
1 week's pay per year worked (max of 26 weeks).
To the person that states that LLNL has 1 weeks pay / year, 26 weeks max, I disagree.
This may not come out right due to formatting issues, but here's the layoff policy straight out of the manual:
______________
III.1.4 Notice of Layoff to Employees
In the event of a layoff, Staff Relations shall prepare written notification to be given to the employee. The minimum notice period will be thirty (30) calendar days'. up to two weeks pay in lieu of notice may be given.
________________
No other section of the layoff policy makes ANY statement of pay whatsoever. That was yanked out in October 2008, after the layoffs.
In other words, the professional staff was reduced to the same reimbursement as the technical staff. If someone can find where the policy currently states LLNL will give 1 week / year separation pay, I'd like to see the link.
I tried posting the entire policy, it's greater than the 4K limit.
Straight out of the NNSA prime contract with LANS (look for the same section in the LLNS prime contract for the truth):
SECTION VI – PAYMENTS ON SEPARATION
(a) Reduction in Force (RIF). When employees are terminated due to a RIF, the following
costs are allowable:
(1) Pay in lieu of notice. Any employee who is laid off or terminated due to a RIF
may be given pay in lieu of the required minimum written notice of termination
to the extent permitted by law. Accumulated vacation credit is also paid.
(2) Severance pay benefit. Any employee who is laid off or terminated due to a RIF
shall be given severance pay as calculated in Schedule A or B.
Severance Payment Schedule A
For those LANL employees that transferred from U.C. to LANS on June 1, 2006
Length of Service Benefit Allowance
Up to and including 2 years 2 weeks of pay
Over 2 years but less than 6 years 1 week of pay for each year of service
6 years +
1 week of pay for each year of service through 6
years, plus 2 weeks of pay for each year of
service in excess of 6 years, not to exceed a total
of 39 weeks.
Severance Payment Schedule B
Schedule B is applicable for new LANS employees hired on or after June 1, 2006.
Length of Service Benefit Allowance
6 months up to 1 year of service 1 week of pay
1 year + 1 week of pay for each year of service, not to
exceed a total of 26 weeks of pay.
The "1 week's pay per year worked (max of 26 weeks)" comes from the LLNL Personnel Policy Manual, Section L, Section II.10 "Severance Pay"
I stand corrected, 1 week of pay up to 26 weeks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe severance is not a guaranteed benefit like the pensions. It can be declared "null and void" at any time by the LLCs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe severance is not a guaranteed benefit like the pensions. It can be declared "null and void" at any time by the LLCs.
January 16, 2012 10:22 AM
Correct. The contract language cited by another poster is:
"When employees are terminated due to a RIF, the following
costs are allowable:"
This means the costs of the benefit would be paid by NNSA under the contract, but does not REQUIRE the LLCs to provide the benefit. In the UC days, They would happily provide any benefit DOE would cover, and then some. Those days are over.
to Joe Ptfslpk, who posted on January 16, 2012 12:03 PM :
Before spreading any more gloom and doom blather, please read LANL P-713-1 rev 3 (8/15/11) "Reduction in Force, 3.4 Severance Pay Regular employees who are terminated because of a RIF are eligible for severance pay as
described below." Followed by the same tables as in the contract.
Go hide under some other bridge!
Speaking of wrong bridges, the original topic was "llnl rifs" not lanl rifs. The payout structure was changed under llns.
from the LLNL procedure manual, Section L:
"Career employees, trainees, apprentices, term appointees, and key personnel who are eligible for vacation and sick leave credits and who are laid off from employment (see Section K, Part III, “Layoff”) for an indefinite period due to lack of work or lack of funds, are eligible for severance payments in accordance with the following provisions."
"The severance payment will be made in an amount equal to one week’s pay for each calendar year of continuous fulltime equivalent service (a fractional year of fulltime equivalent service of six months or more is counted as one year of service) not to exceed a total of twenty-six (26) weeks’ pay."
Before spreading any more gloom and doom blather, please read LANL P-713-1 rev 3 (8/15/11) "Reduction in Force, 3.4 Severance Pay Regular employees who are terminated because of a RIF are eligible for severance pay as
described below." Followed by the same tables as in the contract.
Go hide under some other bridge!
January 16, 2012 4:31 PM
All I said was that the NNSA contract does not REQUIRE the LLC to provide the benefit. That the LLC currently does provide it by policy does not change that fact. The LLC can choose to change its policy and no longer provide the benefit at any time, without violating the NNSA contract. That was my point, and it still stands.
The LLCs don't need to use a "carrot" to get older employees to leave. They can use a big "stick" like they recently did at SNL to financially beat up their older employees.
Sandia changed the retirement medical and pension benefits so that those who didn't leave before Jan 1st of this month would loose about 10% of their annual retirement payments when they finally made it to retirement in 2015 with around 28 years of service. Given that bleak future, most of the older staff decided to not make a bet on surviving for another 3 years at SNL only to then see a 10% cut in what they would have originally received from their pension. It was a pretty big "stick" held over their heads and it was used to beat them senseless.
These same older SNL employees would also have their medical retirement payments capped at the current levels (no future increases to cover for increasing medical costs) unless they ran out the door and retired by the 1st of this January.
I think it is reasonable to expect that LLNS and LANS may use the same "stick" method to beat the heads of their older employees. You can expect that little or no severance will be paid out and talk of a "3/3" pension incentive for adding to age and service credit of those who voluntarily leave is pure fantasy.
The current stick that LANS is using is to make employees pay for their pension on TCP-1. The plan is to increment it by 2% every year. I will personally be paying 8% of my salary to TCP-1 in April 2012. LANS also froze my salary when they took over 6-years ago.
As an aside, Bret Knapp (PAD for Nuclear Weapons) is still be quoted as saying "I still need to get rid of people".
Do you think LANS is sending us a message?
Do you think LANS is sending us a message?
January 18, 2012 1:59 AM
The fact that you are asking the question means that 1) you are one of the reaming clueless LANS employees who have had their heads in the sand for the past 6 years, or 2) you are just now realizing your career is over. I hope it is the latter. Find an employer who values its employees, knows the meaning of ethical behavior, and best of all, doesn't require you to live in the sh*thole of Los Alamos New Mexico. I retired and and I am through living in a third-world country. I am really looking forward to getting back to the States. My well-earned pension money and my accumulated economic power goes with me, back to where people can speak English without an accent, when their ancestors have lived here for only two generations, instead of those who can't speak English at all after 20 generations among English speakers. Adios, losers! Now go visit your drop-out kid in BCDC.
You should have left a career ago.
Supposedly after the all managers meeting at LANL this week there was a dision leader meeting with McMillan where the question was asked about an incentive. His answer was "absolutely not".
That doesn't mean a lot because if he would have said yes it would have been old news within an hour.
It's only a secret if one person knows.
Quite a bit of Fraud, Waste and Abuse going on at LANL. If anyone in the news media reads this blog and is interested in some juicy information leave your contact info on this blog and I will contact you. I am ready to spill the "Real Story".
Can anyone recommend a good lawyer in Northern New Mexico that specializes in Labor Law and particularly talkiing to the media and my rights.
Hello fellow DOE contractors at LANL. Here in Oak Ridge, ORNL and Y-12 are taking sick leave days away, raising our pension costs, and reducing our medical coverage. Tennessee is a right to work state. Has the union for professionals, that is the recognized agent for benefits, helped or hurt retain your benefits over the last ten years? Should professionals organize at ORNL and Y-12? Your advice is appreciated.
How much does Director McMillan make now that he's taken over after Mike Anastasio left last year? Is it two million per year or did he finagle a deal for three?
Regardless of whether it is $2 million or $3 million, you can be sure that the LANS upper management team is not the least bit interested in giving any juicy extra benefits or incentives to the remaining workforce that sits under them. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Should professionals organize at ORNL and Y-12? Your advice is appreciated.
January 19, 2012 8:13 PM
I always enjoyed working with you folks at Y-12, however, you are asking the wrong folks at LANS and LLNS about organizing. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us [not including me] have been ambivalent about "organizing". We continue to get pummeled by managers like Bret Knapp. I have no idea what it will take "to wake up and smell the heap of crap that LANS/LLNS has dumped on us". PU!
Hello again from Oak Ridge. Prior to LANS and LLNS, the "superior" management team worked at Y-12. Then went west to rape and pillage you guys. They were losers at Lynchburg, at Y-12, and now at LANS and LLNS. They have only one thought in mind. $$$ for them and them only. They do NOT care about the DOE/NNSA workforce and are the ”enforcers” for the federal government to cut costs. Why not cut their management fee first?
to organize? I can tell that it has worked here at llnl. here are examples of what a bargaining unit contracts has obtain;
1.8.39% pay raise for 08-10
2.1-1/2% bonus 11-12 years, 2013 pay raise equal to the average of raises given to other llnl employees or whichever is greater.
3. preserves health and safety rights,and protections from arbitrary discipline.
4.demotions do not apply to bargaining unit members.
5.perserves vacation and sick leave
6.adds limits on the duration of supplemental labor positions.
7.flex term employees converted to fte's.
8.locked in 2007 ppm manual.
9.kept shift differential aspart of base retirement income.
10. any change to the pension system must be bargain.
UPTE LOCAL9119 CWA AFL-CIO SKILL CRAFTS
UPTE LOCAL9119 CWA AFL-CIO SKILL CRAFTS
January 20, 2012 8:51 PM
Sounds like a workers' paradise. Who's paying for all that?
UPTE LOCAL9119 CWA AFL-CIO SKILL CRAFTS
January 20, 2012 8:51 PM
Sounds like a workers' paradise. Who's paying for all that?
January 23, 2012 10:17 AM
You are buddy! You're a taxpayer right?
UPTE LOCAL9119 CWA AFL-CIO SKILL CRAFTS
January 20, 2012 8:51 PM
Sounds like a workers' paradise. Who's paying for all that?
January 23, 2012 10:17 AM
You are buddy! You're a taxpayer right?
January 27, 2012 5:38 AM
Too true, and too telling about the sense of entitlement among unions, especially public-sector unions. The only solace is that their hard-won pensions will mysteriously disappear when they are well into dependence on them in their 70's. All laws can be changed. No savings? Thought the government would always take care of you? So sad, too bad, you're done. Congratulations.
Hello UPTE LOCAL9119 CWA AFL-CIO SKILL CRAFTS member,
The list you documented was very positive. Does your local have a web site that gives more detail on the items you mentioned?
Your friend from Oak Ridge.
OAK RIDGE CHECK OUT UPTE.ORG
We are nearing the halfway period in February, the WARN act requiring 60 days notice would put us into late mid to late April. That combined with no mention made by Parney in his speech this past week would indicate that the RIF in April is vapor ware.
Now, a budget based on continuing resolution - and we can't reasonably expect any more than that in an election year - that funding stream could induce a RIF.
I wish LLNL would bite the bullet and offer a voluntary program. The earlier one is offered, the sooner they can realize savings. A program funded mid year can be offset by the end of the year and position the lab to afford next year's budget. With all the electioneering by the politicians, there is a100% likelihood of a CR. the presidents budget cut NIF when they had been lobbying for additional funds to pay the higher rates they face next year. Who thinks NIF can last the whole year on the budget that came out Monday? They have already started sending people back to the matrix. That will be a flood in October.
I hope our new director understands the meaning of the word "agile". It is today's new reality and you only prolong and add to the pain by delaying decisions
Post a Comment