Anonymously contributed:
I had 27+ yrs(as a) LLNL employee; (was) laid off in 2008 & a part of the lawsuit against the Lab. I've been searching the web with no luck, trying to find out the name, members, and head of the committee in D.C. that promoted/ramrodded/whatever the privatization of the Labs. Several months ago I came in on the tail end of an NPR interview with the head of the committee (I believe) who said something to the effect that, "...some of the efficiencies we expected have yet to materialize..."
I would also like to know who in Congress voted for privatizing the Labs (and who did not).
Does anyone have that information?
Thank you!
15 comments:
For-profit privatization of all the management contracts within the NNSA complex was mostly a DOE/NNSA decision.
Tom D'Agostino was the sole person allowed to make the contract selection of LANS (Bechtel) at LANL.
Likewise, a single person, NNSA laywer, Tyler Przybylek -- aka "Mr. Substantial Equivalent"-- made the decision to select LLNS (Bechtel) for LLNL.
Tyler Przybylek has moved on to find a very profitable position working alongside one of the many NNSA contractors. It's expected that D'Agostino, likewise, will find very lucrative employment with an NNSA contractor once he leaves as the head of NNSA.
NNSA loves this "revolving door" system they created because it allows them to rake in the big bucks during their final years of work.
Anymore questions?
I believe it was former NNSA Head Linton "Nimrod" Brooks that started the "privatization" of the Labs, which explains everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linton_Brooks
Brooks was the prime force in privatizing the major DOE laboratories. While the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs were formerly run by contractors on a non-profit basis, Brooks decided to change the contracts to a for-profit basis. He defended the move by advocating a theory that the inclusion of industrial partners would bring greater efficiency, justifying the additional cost over time. "That was the theory, and that was my belief," he said.[3] A few years later, former Los Alamos director Sig Hecker testified before Congress about the change, and stated: "When we went the direction of contractorization we made a grievous error pushing the laboratories in a direction that simply isn't right for this country and we've suffered from that. The whole environment at these laboratories has changed." [4]
With the new contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory, the agency decided to raise the contractor fee from $8 million to $79 million. The additional funds were to be extracted from the existing budget of the laboratory.[5] When asked by LANL employees how the additional costs were to be paid, Brooks replied in December 2005 that the new contractor would "realize operational efficiencies." On November 20, 2007, the new LANL manager announced layoffs.[6]
It was a republican congress with a republican president who did it.
It is the GOP's firm belief that private companies can do it better than the government.
Actually, it was a Republican Congressman, Hobson from Ohio who started it all.
P.s. Hobson wanted to contract for the labs to go to Batelle, which is why he initiated the privatization.
Led by then Representatives Hobson (R-OH), and I think maybe Stupak (D-MI) from the other side of the aisle, Congress made it a statutory requirement that any lab managed without competition for 50 years or more be put up for bid. I think only the UC labs fit that description.
NNSA was handed the job of holding the competition and making the decision.
Are you telling me that a former two-bit cop and former lobbyist from Michigan (Bart Stupak) was ultimately responsible for the demise of the National Labs? Only in America, only in America!
NNSA was handed the job of holding the competition and making the decision.
March 23, 2012 9:26 PM
Not to mention doing a "heck of a job" carrying out the decision, heck of a job NNSA! NNSA is so brain dead they still have not figured out there's nothing (i.e. money) in it for them.
For-profit privatization of all the management contracts within the NNSA complex was mostly a DOE/NNSA decision.
March 23, 2012 2:17 PM
Let's not forget who was the congressional power behind the creation of the NNSA: Pete Dominici, whose ex-constituents have suffered the consequences. ever since.
Congress ultimately forced DOE to bid the Lab contract, but it was DOE that prodded them on. Remember Wen Ho Lee, the LANL hard drives. According to DOE, those issues could be corrected by a private contractor--right (not ever proved there really were issues). Had DOE not pushed for privatization, Congress would have moved on to other issues.
Now that the weapon labs have all been privatized as for-profit run businesses and are operating so well, I see no further need for all those DOE and NNSA bureaucrats.
It's time for massive layoffs at both DOE and its sister agency, NNSA. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Privatization has been a huge booster to the salaries of the top managers at the NNSA labs. They have all gone up by 300% to 500% since the "for-profit" LLCs took over.
It has also helped those federal employees who leave NNSA and then take lucrative jobs with the NNSA contractors.
But for regular employees at the weapon labs, privatization has not been such a great deal. Salaries have stagnated and benefits have been cut almost every year since the LLCs took control. Morale has been devastated.
It's also been an expensive cost to the taxpayer who now pay over $200 million each year just to cover the costs for the LANL privatization effort. Previous costs for LANL management with the old, non-profit UC contract only ran about $8 million per year.
And the costs... they just keep piling up, up, up at the labs over time!
It's also been an expensive cost to the taxpayer who now pay over $200 million each year just to cover the costs for the LANL privatization effort. Previous costs for LANL management with the old, non-profit UC contract only ran about $8 million per year.
And the costs... they just keep piling up, up, up at the labs over time!
March 28, 2012 11:18 PM
Don't forget the $50M LANS is spending in severance to chase off 557 employees. McMillan was very deceptive on this emphasizing the Government "owned" this VRP and also suggesting that the Government was paying this $50M.
Don't forget the $50M LANS is spending in severance to chase off 557 employees.
April 4, 2012 4:37 AM
LANS didn't spend a cent on the VSP. It all comes out of the operating budget,as if the 557 were still on the payroll but on extended vacation for the next 39 weeks.
Post a Comment