Sunday, April 22, 2012
LANL Director Makes $1M
Anonymously contributed:
*** LANL Director Makes $1M ***
-----------------------------
By ABQ Journal Staff on Thu, Apr 19, 2012
The director of Los Alamos National Laboratory now makes more than $1 million a year — about three times what the position paid before the lab’s management was privatized in 2006.
LANL director Charles McMillan’s compensation was $1,081,059 in 2011. The amount, which apparently includes health insurance, pension costs and other benefits, is public because the lab has to provide what’s paid to top officials as a condition of accepting money under the federal stimulus program.
That’s up from the $800,348 for McMillan’s predecessor Michael Anastasio in 2009, the federal reports show.
The Nuclear Watch New Mexico group called attention to the latest salary figures Wednesday.
“We specifically call upon Los Alamos lab to fully explain to northern New Mexicans why it needs to cut some 600 jobs while at the same time the for-profit management corporation is enjoying record profits and the director’s salary has nearly tripled in six years,” said Nuclear Watch director Jay Coghlan.
The lab, citing flat or reduced budgets, recently cut its payroll by about 560 jobs with a voluntary buyout plan. LANL’s budget is about $2.2 billion this year, about $300 million less than the previous year.
Coghlan’s press release noted that in 2005 — when the lab was still operated as nonprofit entity by the University of California — the director’s job paid $348,000.
In 2006, the lab’s management contract was awarded to the for-profit Los Alamos National Security LLC, a consortium that includes the university, Bechtel Corp. and other companies.
The federal reports still show Sandia National Laboratories, run by Lockheed Martin, paying its director $1.7 million, the same as in 2009.
But it’s possible the compensation rate may actually be different now. Paul Hommert replaced Tom Hunter in 2010, but the online stimulus money reports continue to list Hunter as the top executive making $1.7 million.
No comment was available from LANL officials Wednesday. A Los Alamos lab spokesman said in 2009, when the stimulus money reports first showed the lab directors’ salaries, that not all of their compensation comes directly from taxpayer money, with a portion coming from the private corporations that manage the labs.
--
www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/04/19/north/
lanl-director-makes-1m.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
All I can say is WOW! And he is in front of Congress asked from more $$$ for an already bloated lab, his salary exceeds the $700,000 limit, he is being paid more than the Sec. of Energy, and much more than the President of the United States.
Almost all of his salary comes from the tax-payers. This needs to change.
Come on, is this guy worth over a million dollars a year? The tax payers and northern New Mexico should ask that his salary be reduced, the lab is out of control, at the present rate the Director will soon make over 2-3 million dollars a year, this is an outrage to all employees and citizens of NM and the nation.
How much does he rake in with the bonus and LANS contributions? Any guesses?
A million dollars a year for a guy who can't put two sentences together without saying uhhhh or uummm an average of 5-times per minute. What a waste of money!
The bigger outrage is the shear number of Upper Managers that work for McMillan making just under 1-million a year. Furthermore, LLNS/LLNS/SNL salaries are held under the veil of secrecy.
This includes the present value of the pension, i am pretty sure. That was certainly why Hunter's salary looked so big.
This includes the present value of the pension, i am pretty sure. That was certainly why Hunter's salary looked so big.
April 22, 2012 9:22 PM
Yes, the story makes this absolutely clear. Lots of knee-jerk outrage here.
...and much more than the President of the United States.
But just about what the men's basketball coach at UNM was making in 2007.
\ he is being paid more than the Sec. of Energy, and much more than the President of the United States...
The presidents of western democracies recieve multimillion dollar payoffs from friends they have served after they leave office. SecDOEs ain't worth a wooden nickel.
All is well in corporate American boardrooms.
As I stated at my last All-Hands meeting as advice for the remaining staff at LANL... Follow the money. It's what I did!
( Charlie 'MIT' McMillan )
It's amazing to see people suck up the false PR info LANS is putting out to defend McMillan's salary.
The average staff member making around $100k+ after 30 years of service credit has a 'lump sum' pension worth slightly over a million (even though TCP1 no long allows 'lump sum' disbursements).
McMillans pension 'lump sum' value at his high salary would be far more than this. Telling the press that the reason McMillan's salary is so large is because of "pension and benefits" is a sad joke!
McMillan is making over a million a year in cold, hard cash. The fact that LANS PR is trying to obfuscate this information is disgusting but that's how Bechtel and the LANS upper management team rolls.
The whole compensation scheme for McMillan and upper management where they draw a salary from LANL and then get bonuses on top of that from there parent companies (LANS) should be a conflict of interest. It surely looks rotten. Upper management at the labs have become just as greedy as the shady CEO's of the financial firms and others.
charlie base is approx. 400k. He is likely or will be a 35 years of service at 60 something. So, conservatively, his LANS pension is 75% of base. 300k a year. That doesn't count possible UC secret parachutes and definite Bectel bonuses. So, I don't know quite how you factor future benefits into an annual estimate. But if he lives till 85-90, that's 9-10 million from LANS pension alone.
The whole compensation scheme for McMillan and upper management where they draw a salary from LANL and then get bonuses on top of that from there parent companies (LANS) should be a conflict of interest.
April 23, 2012 4:02 PM
You are seriously confused. No one gets a "salary from LANL" - every employee of LANL gets a salary from LANS (they are employees of LANS, not LANL). So, any "bonuses on top of that from there (sic) parent companies (LANS)" are just bonuses paid by the same employer. The only difference is whether the payments are reimbursed by DOE/NNSA under the contract salary provisions. Regular salary = yes. Bonuses paid to upper level management = no. At least try to get your facts straight.
As I stated at my last All-Hands meeting as advice for the remaining staff at LANL... Follow the money. It's what I did!
( Charlie 'MIT' McMillan )
April 23, 2012 9:57 AM
OK McMillan. Where's the money? Is it a secret or are you just hiding it? Show your employees the money if you want us to follow it.
RE: April 23, 2012 7:24 PM
The fee is still taxpayer money. If we all, not just managers are doing so great then how come we do not get a slice of the fee as a bonus as well. It still stinks and induces the managers that get bonuses to look out for the parent organizations.
The fee is still taxpayer money. If we all, not just managers are doing so great then how come we do not get a slice of the fee as a bonus as well. It still stinks and induces the managers that get bonuses to look out for the parent organizations.
April 24, 2012 4:01 PM
The fee is taxpayer money, but comes out of the award fee that LANS and it's members are free to spend any way they like. Again you are confused: LANS is NOT a "parent company" - it is your employer. Bechtel, UC, and the rest are "parent companies," i.e., the members of the LLC called "LANS." Get it yet? You don't "get a slice" since you are a regular employee with no contractual commitment to the corporate management board of LANS, which upper level managers have. Of course upper managers are going to "look out for" the corporation they are under specific contract to. Get a clue about corporate America, because you are now part of it.
This "specific" issue may be the beginning of the end for one of the National Labs. Bottom line they have become much to expensive and extravagant. And are now flaunting it to both Congress and the citizens of this nation.
For once, I agree with Jay C.
This "specific" issue may be the beginning of the end for one of the National Labs.
April 25, 2012 9:17 AM
The National Labs are nothing more than locations where research is carried out by private corporations with US government funding. Nothing particularly unique or special about that. Get over yourselves.
The press story that compared salary of university presidents to lab directors was funny. It did a good job of demonstrating that the release is out of touch with the reality of what a university president does. Except for Hecker, it is hard to see any of the recent lab directors lasting more than a year in a university leadership position.
There is a strong reason that LLNS and LANS upper management immediately made salaries "corporate proprietary information" on the day they took control.
They don't want the regular staff or the public to know the ways in which they are 'pig-ing out' now that a profit based corporation is controlling the labs. You'll have more success finding the compensation of companies on Wall Street than you will with these highly secretive frankenstein-like corporate entities.
If you've read the news, LANS agreed to make upper management "total compensation" public as a condition to accepting stimulus money, and they have done so.
So the blog claim that Charlie makes 2M per year may be correct if he made 1M in 2011, since he was Director for six months last year.
If we all, not just managers are doing so great then how come we do not get a slice of the fee as a bonus as well.
That's exactly what LLNS has done this year and last. Obviously 1.5% won't change anyone's lifestyle, but it can still be appreciated.
Astonishing. We get a 1% raise that does not even keep up with the inflation rate, then have to pay into the pensions to boot, and the guys at the top are getting rich.
Astonishing. We get a 1% raise that does not even keep up with the inflation rate, then have to pay into the pensions to boot, and the guys at the top are getting rich.
April 27, 2012 12:01 AM
You know of some place where this is NOT true in corporate America? Pretty naive.
April 26, 2012 3:32 PM,
The amount reported to DOE was total compensation as of the time of the report, not a W-2 statement of earnings to date.
The blog claim of his salary is false, as is 10:02 AM's comment. Object to his salary if you want, but get the facts. 6:50 PM is most accurate.
The blog claim of his salary is false, as is 10:02 AM's comment. Object to his salary if you want, but get the facts. 6:50 PM is most accurate.
May 1, 2012 8:02 AM
So what do you have to gain in "protecting" McMillan's salary? Who are you, his financial adviser, attorney, or worst yet, Rich Marquez?
So what do you have to gain in "protecting" McMillan's salary? Who are you, his financial adviser, attorney, or worst yet, Rich Marquez?
May 4, 2012 6:20 AM
Boy, you've really gone far over if you think telling the truth is "protecting" Mcmillan. Anyone who is against the lying witch hunt is suspect, huh? Go look at yourself in the mirror and see if you recognize him.
Post a Comment