BLOG purpose

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


  • Stay on topic.
  • No foul, vulgar, or inflammatory language.
  • No name calling.
  • No personal attacks or put-downs of other blog users.
  • Be patient. Moderator checks and approves new posts several times a day.

Suggest new topics here


Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Personnel policies changes

FAQs were released. What is your opinion?


Anonymous said...

Oh this is a mixed bag. Its really simple. You only change policy like this when you get ready to make change. In the last round it cost a lot of money and was difficult to dismiss people based on the current policy. Changing it means its cheaper, more effective and can be done with less consequences to the company.

Take a look around. Contracts are nearing an end and its time to impress by making big change. Perhaps they will earn there bone and receive a second go around.

So much money and so little fusion. After Nov. 30th what do you think is going to happen?

Look at all of the drama with certain key people in the last 6-8 months.

Its kind of hard to look at the lab with any credibility from a congressional perspective at this point.

Anonymous said...

November 17, 2012 11:28 AM

I'm thinking this. The new policy came out because they already know there's going to be a 10% cut ~ 800 to go soon after we all get back from new years vacation. I think this will be done no later than March 2013. I also think they already know the names of the 800 they are going to cut the second NNSA picks up that phone and says, get-r-done Parney ! In the flash of an eye and e-mail will go out to all the admins and those soldiers in ULM that do the cutting will be marching people out the gate at mach 1. All you can hope for is they like you and would like to keep you for all good reasons. After those 800 are gone six months later we'll be lloking at FY-14 funding and 10% mre will go due to budget cuts once again. As someone said many times these lay-offs are never going to stop and it'll 10% a year for as long as NIF survives. If NIF goes LLNL is SOL and 10% cuts will look like childs play. You all better hope for the best. God Bless ALL of You and may all of you have a happy holiday and make the best of it since it may be the last you have for a long, long time. Once they start using the national labs as means to pay off the debt and satisfy the voters assuring them we're finally making progress by getting rid of those pesky government workers and bringing down the elite, it will never stop. Sequestration 2013 is just one of the many to come.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if the personnel policies change and change again and then change again. Nothing ever changes. If you are an honest, smart, hard-working employee, you are a resource to be used and not rewarded. If you are an incompetent loudmouth, raises and promotions will rain down upon you.

Anonymous said...

"If you are an honest, smart, hard-working employee, you are a resource to be used and not rewarded."

Very true.

"If you are an incompetent loudmouth, raises and promotions will rain down upon you."

Not exactly.

I'd say it's more like if you are someone who has:

- no technical ability (and therefore can't help on that end)
- plays internal politics 24/7
- goes along with the Bechtel line on everything (shows no signs of critical thought)

....and due to the weakness of your negotiating position (no tech skills, no ability to have a job outside LLNL, kids/wife/mortgage/etc) you seem very malleable and they have distinct leverage on you. Then you join the leadership.

As your salary builds and you become periodically EBA, you keep getting re-inserted into mgmt because you can't move the lab forward on the tech side, your salary is too high to have a non-mgmt job (and there is no mechanism for lowering it), and your yes-man bona fides have been qualified.

Anonymous said...

November 17, 2012 4:24 PM You may be absolutely corect. These games are going to be played year after year. WHY? The radio just said even if the tax everyone who makes more than 250K to the max it will only account for $1B dollars over the next ten years. How fast is the national debt show our debt is increasing per second. Take a look for yourself and you'll figure this out. It's all about making the Obama voters feel as if they've finally got their way and are effectively bring down the rich. Since most of the 62M who voted for him have no clue what a national debt clock is and can't do the math they'll just keep voting for STUPID. What a way to win and brin down a nation.

Anonymous said...

Nope, we have HOPE and CHAGE and if we do get laid off the massiah will make out mortgage payment for us.

Anonymous said...

You got your facts wrong there, no one jacked up the national debt like Reagan and Bush.

Obama did too, but under great depression circumstances. Let's see what he does in second term.

Btw, Clinton, by far did the best job on controlling spending.

And Republicans were running this year on a promise to jack up the bloated DOD by another $2T.

As a fiscal conservative (who doesn't care about the christian right social stuff), it's tough to know who would be better.

But the stats show dems have been better on spending historically.

Though past performance doesn't guarantee future performance.

Bottom Line: they've all spent like crazy, because that spending gets funneled to folks (whether it's defense contractors or labor unions) who fund them.

We need to take the economic incentive away. Either by banning all contributions or by shrinking gov to so small there isn't much benefit to bribing it. Either solution is fine by me, or both. Let's just do it. Constitutional amendment, whatever it takes.

Anonymous said...

"November 18, 2012 7:56 PM"

You are only half right, this is a Christian country. We cannot get our economic house in order without first getting our moral house in order and this means following Gods law and rule. We have drifted to far and this is the outcome. A social conservative is not a real conservative but a liberal that likes money.

Anonymous said...

This is a FREE country.

Which means we american citizens certainly do not follow "god's law and rule"...

...we follow our own.

Anonymous said...

These right-wing christians live in their own little insular world.

Wake up! Like the guy above says, here in the good ol' USA we live in a Democracy. You have ~20% of the vote. You need to get ~50% to create the Theocracy you crave. Good luck with that.

Also, get ready for wake up call #2, because republicans, if we plan to ever win an election again, are going to distance ourselves from your small-minded bigotry and get back to being a party of small government, individual freedom, liberty and rights.

Anonymous said...

...and fiscal conservatism.

Anonymous said...

The radio just said even if the tax everyone who makes more than 250K to the max it will only account for $1B dollars over the next ten years.

The November 17th issue of the The Economist (page 28) lists $442B in revenue over ten years if the top rates return to their previous level. That sounds a lot more plausible than under $1B.

Anonymous said...

"Both sides are going to feel pain."

Agreed, only one side earned what they have and the other side was given what they had. The way I see it the side the was just given what they had will feel more pain. The other side knows that it can always just "work harder" to get more. The other side is going to do what, "whine more" to get more.

Anonymous said...

Well, I read the 13 previous comments. With the exception of one guy who thinks Reagan and Bush spent as much as Obama (who has overspent more than all previous presidents combined), everthing appears to be totally accurate. The new policy allows for maximum cronyism and minimal law suits (they think). Whent they throw seniroity out the window and lay off a 37 year secretary and keep the georgious young one, we will see. Any organization that states out loud that it is "no longer considering senority when they did before, going into a layoff, will get age discrimination law suits, and they deserve them. Lab management is begging employees to organize a union, I imagine BHO will help with that.

Anonymous said...

The new changes dont affect employees who are covered under a bargaining agreement, ie unionized.
I bet there are many white collar types that wish they had voted in 2007 to have SPSE represent them.
The changes are geared towards leaving very little room for lawsuits following future RIFs.

Anonymous said...


Ever hear of Hostess....there is an upside with Unions for the short term but don,t forget if you study the issues Unions are probably 20-30% of the reason are government is so screwed up.

I talked with my sister-n-law who is a teacher and their High School is totally screwed up and she said they have some really bad teachers but because of the Union they cannot be fired.

Eventually if in a Union your dues will go to the Democratic Party (Unions gave Jerry Brown 85 million for his campaign). I am not ok with that.

I am not ok with prevailing wage.
i am not ok with project labor agreements (cost the gov't 30% more on contracts, but they get it back in political donations)
i am not ok with collective bargaining .
I am not ok with not allowed to sweep a floor if it interfers with the custodial union.
I am not ok with some popular, GED, cadillac driving thug of a union boss telling Parney how to run the Lab.
I am not ok with hating the Lab.
I am not ok with a union mentality, lazy worker (not all but a majority).
On many union construction jobs many workers are high....this is true just ask a friend who works in the union trades.
I am not ok with a Union craftworker in California making $80 and hour or changing light bulbs on the San Mateo bridge for $115 an hour...true.
There is a big downside with Unions.

Anonymous said...

Ever hear of the steel mills.....common wisdom (and the media)say they are closed because of Chinese imports......
How about the unions priced them out of the market.
Think about it...1 million jobs...makes Hostess look like a corner store.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of your religious or political zeal the very first comment on this topic pretty much hit the nail on the head. Get ready for big change. If your a worthy asset to the institution and are a part of moving it forward I think you will be ok.


Anonymous said...

Unions can be very useful in RIFs due to budget cuts. Over the short-term the existance of a written contract can be a real impediment to a one-sided policy changes by the institution. This can slow-down the process and force the institution to seek cuts elsewhere from the contract-protected bargaining unit to other classes that are governed only by policies and procedures.

They also force management to be very careful in laying of members of the bargaining unit, scupulous even, in following labor law, holding the threat of a lawsuit as a counterbalance to roughshod treatment.

In the long-run however, if employees, union or not, are much more expensive than other available employees, they are at risk.

It is my opinion, that the transition from UC to LLNS would have been much different, much slower, with much fewer take-aways had a large number of the professional staff been covered by a contract at LLNL. Stooges like Sodertrom and Rossi would not have been able to just change things. Negotitions would have show to all what foolish and unqualified people they are. Instead Soderstrom still hurts LLNL folks regularly with her stingy decisions. Rossi at least is gone. Good riddance.

The lessons to professional employees is to put a bargaining unit in place well prior to the next contract transition so that each takeaway can be negotiated. Otherwise the new contractor will promise lower costs to get the contract, as is done with contract labor now, and the employees with continue to lose.

Anonymous said...

So why don't you mention the downside of unions with the selling points.
It is very typical for a union to price themselves out of the market.

I just do not see how it is advantageous for us to have some union boss telling Parney how to run the Lab?
I have met Parney and he is a good man.
You do not nor will you ever speak for me. I can negotiate my own wages.
I wonder if it is a coincidence that NUMI was Toyota's only unionized plant. SO those workers (followers) who believed the union thug are now part of obama's welfare state (with free cell phones).

I think a good argument can be made that unions have morfed into part of the "Entitlement Nanny State"
Like the California construction unions (15% of the market) can only get Public Jobs (Nanny state)because they have priced themselves (and the workers) out of the market...a union construction compan cannot get a private job because they are not competitive in the world economy.

Finally if you want to really see a downsized, screwed up Lab that would be a unionized Lab.
Cannot wait to see some high school graduate union thug sitting across from Parney explaining to him how he should be doing
I want to hear from the union mentality (the central hive) how great are schools are doing by not be able to fire a is that working.......

Anonymous said...

Wow, some (not all) like to take topics in really off directions from what I think was intended in the original post.

It really takes the discussion away from the real issue at hand. Whether not it could be management doing it intentionally on their spare time or on their blackberry while taking a long one, in order to change the conversation... or whether people really do think that taking it in weird directions is really helping employees get better informed about issues and events at the lab... I'm just glad a number of people are pulling it back onto topic.

Anonymous said...

The policy change was made to protect LLNS butt frombeing sued so they can lay off who they want. Look for antone with 30+ years to go even of they aren't 62-65 years old. They cost to much and LLNS can hire two for the cost of one and they'll be contract slace labor. That sums up the intent very well I think. management will not be touched, they're to valuable.

Anonymous said...

First to go - educated, hard working person with social skills. Last to go - incompetent who talks fast and loud. All at LLNL is the opposite of the private sector in the real world.

Anonymous said...

The management bloat at the NNSA labs has become much worse since the for-profit LLCs took over. It's now at insane levels! This is driving costs to get things done at the labs to unsupportable levels.

The LLC solution? Layoff more hard working staff and place more highly paid mangers in place of the peons.

Anonymous said...

In LLNL’s Personnel Policy Changes “Frequently Asked Questions” I was struck by the answer to question #14 vis a vis what the new changes mean to career-indefinite employees. The answer in part is: Fluctuations in funded assignments are a normal part of programmatic work. Each career employee is responsible for securing funded work suitable to his/her skill set. If, after a reasonable period of time....(Italics are mine).
I have been a Lab employee for over 43 years and, although I have occasionally had issues with funding because of realignment in program priorities, I have continued to be fully funded. However, I don’t recall ever signing any document or otherwise being informed that this responsibility was a condition of my employment. Perhaps the circumstances are different with younger employees. In any case, this begs the question: What the hell is management for? Within these new “personnel policy changes” I see absolutely no reciprocal responsibility dictate that management will be bumped if RIF’s occur. I mean, what’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days