Weapons Complex Monitor
February 28, 2013
Livermore Poised To Roll Out Salary Reduction/Closure Day Plan
Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory is poised to roll out a "salary reduction
and closure day" plan to deal with the impact of across-the-board
budget cuts that are set to go into effect Friday, lab Director Parney
Albright told employees at an all-hands meeting yesterday. With the lab
facing a potential $120 million shortfall, Albright detailed the
potential plan in a recent memo to employees, outlining a plan that
would temporarily reduce salaries for employees by 10 percent and
bi-weekly closure days for full-time employees in which the lab would
operate every other Friday similar to how it runs on a weekend. The plan
could go into effect as soon as the week of March 10, but Albright said
the lab might wait until after a Congress decides how it will fund the
government after a Continuing Resolution expires March 27. “I realize
any program involving a salary reduction is difficult for employees, but
this plan would have less impact on employee benefits than a
traditional furlough program,” Albright said. “This plan also mitigates
concerns about the ability to maintain continuous business operations
and, especially, safe operations in an environment of unpredictable
staffing, while still reflecting the fact that work scope must change
when the Lab's funding has been reduced.”
Alternate work
schedules also would be temporarily suspended under the plan, and Parney
said the lab is proposing to suspend the planned increase (from 5
percent to 7 percent) in employee contributions to the lab’s TCP1
pension plan. Benefits like 401(k) contributions, life insurance,
vacation and sick leave payout would also be subject to the 10 percent
reduction, Albright said. He said the lab is also considering
restrictions on travel, reducing or canceling a Variable Compensation
[aka salary bonus] Program, and reducing procurements, overtime and
on-call pay. Albright emphasized that the program was not a typical
furlough plan. “While sequestration may require us to temporarily reduce
salaries and working hours, I felt it was important to look for ways to
minimize impact to employees' benefits, such as vacation and sick
leave, to the greatest extent possible,” he said.
55 comments:
Why is LLNL immediately jumping on the salary reduction train? SNL has said that the sequester will lead to no additional significant impact for the remainder of this fiscal year. Has LLNL not planned for the sequester? Is LLNL more vulnerable since it is more dependent on DOE/NNSA funding, and less diversified like SNL?
LLNL less diversified: yes
LLNL less prepared: yes
True Reason:
SNL already did away with its pension.
Using sequestration/CR as an excuse, LLNS is pretending to do a furlough, while actually not doing a furlough at all. What LLNS is doing, is in effect freezing the LLNL pension.
The day this goes into effect, all LLNL TCP1ers will be frozen at their HAPC of 36 months ago. If they do something similar every 35 months going forward (for even one day), LLNL employee HAPC will never rise.
To clarify: LLNLers will be frozen at the HAPC they *earned* 36 months ago but has not fully baked in.
To7:34: Oh yeah. That's the "true reason."
LLNL is less diversified, but much (most?) of SNL's diversification is in other Federal budgetary space. There will be impacts with sequestration, but SNL was talking about hiring 1000, which they probably couldn't do fast enough to spend the money budgeted. Thus they can perhaps hold tight and see what happens.
SNL never had the "substantially equivalent to UC" requirement that LLNS and LANS had to deal with. They just did what was right and sustainable for the employees, which the former UC labs never even considered as an option. That said, all the TCP1 employees worried about their HAPC ought to be worried about their jobs instead. What's worse, a lower pension in 10 years, or no job at all tomorrow? Get ready.
Well, seeing that there has been no reason to keep both LANL and LLNL in business for over 20 years now, I would be worried too. Oppenheimer created LLNL to spawn competition for weapons development. But in the days of no weapons development, they should have just put NIF at LANL and shut down LLNL to save taxpayer money.
Well, seeing that there has been no reason to keep both LANL and LLNL in business for over 20 years now, I would be worried too. Oppenheimer created LLNL to spawn competition for weapons development. But in the days of no weapons development, they should have just put NIF at LANL and shut down LLNL to save taxpayer money.
Agree completely! NIF, Terascale and a few other projects/buildings can remain as standalones. Devoted increasingly scarce resources to LANL or whatever they have planned in Nevada. I can't imagine that operating in California has any upside at all these days?!
HAPC--maybe I don't fully understand the impact or the frozen at 36 months ago comments.
Let's say from 2008 until now a staff scientist made $100k, $110k, $117, $120, $140 (big jump), $145 (145-14.5=130.5)
36 months ago the hapc was 327/3= $109k. Last three is 390.5/3=$130.x k
now, even with 10% reduction (for a year--unlikely to happen) it is higher, right? Or, use 2010-2012?
Oppenheimer created LLNL to spawn competition for weapons development.
March 1, 2013 at 5:50 AM
You need to brush up on your history. Teller founded Livermore to build the "super" and to be free of Los Alamos control. It had nothing to do with a desire for competition.
How about if we just shut down all R&D both government and private, do with what we have and call it good for the next 25 years or so.
You need to brush up on your history. Teller founded Livermore to build the "super" and to be free of Los Alamos control. It had nothing to do with a desire for competition.
March 1, 2013 at 9:24 AM
So in other words, LLNL is even more useless that I had previously supposed....OK thanks for brushing up my history.
But, but, the marvelous NIF instrument of discovery must be exempt from salary cuts and furloughs as it sets sail on the endless Sea of Science.
So how do you "boys" at Livermore like Parney now?
So how do you [folks] at Livermore like Parney now?
Parney is OK by me. He hasn't been co-opted by all the usual constituencies. He talks to us more openly than any director I've heard before. I'm glad he's communicating with Washington on our behalf.
@ 8:46 PM
Parney is not perfect, but no director is. Where he excels is in understanding how Washington operates, and applying that background to position the lab. Since most times it is a zero sum proposition for the redundant design labs, he has been cleaning Charlie's clock for the past year at every turn.
I was in a meeting with Parney and was very impressed as are other people I talked with who met him.
He has to make business decisions for the Lab and it seems to me he is trying to do it in a way that avoids lay-offs.
He is a good man............
An 8% reduction in salary to support the declining pension, continuous benefit cuts and now a 10% additional cut in salary to support the loss of federal funding due to sequestration.
Ouch!!!!! This is beginning to rapidly reduce the stagnant salaries of the non-management staff. Of course, management made out like bandits after the for-profit LLCs rolled in and so they'll feel little of this financial pain.
"SNL never had the "substantially equivalent to UC" requirement that LLNS and LANS had to deal with." - 9:49 pm
You still belief this lie about "substantially equivalent" to UC? It was only a verbal promise, easily forgotten. You're delusional.
You still belief this lie about "substantially equivalent" to UC? It was only a verbal promise, easily forgotten.
March 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Wrong. Specific contract wording in both LANS and LLNS contracts.
"Wrong. Specific contract wording in both LANS and LLNS contracts."
I believe "substantially equivalent" was for Day-1 (Oct. 1, 2007) only. No where in the contract is written: "substantially equivalent to be maintain after Oct. 1, 2007".
No where in the contract is written: "substantially equivalent to be maintain after Oct. 1, 2007".
March 2, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Wrong again. You really should do your homework. The "substantially equivalent" requirements are specifically and directly stated (for LANS) in contract section H-36, (d)(1)(i)(I) and H-36 (i)(1). This is the current (conformed) contract from the NNSA Los Alamos Site Office web pages.
"Substantial equivalent" clauses in any NNSA contract can be easily modified if NNSA so wishes.
"Substantial equivalent" clauses in any NNSA contract can be easily modified if NNSA so wishes.
March 2, 2013 at 8:29 PM
Of course it can, but with the many (at least two dozen) contract modifications since 2007, it hasn't. What other protection would you prefer? A divine writ? Obama's promise? (Or do you think they're the same?)
The "substantially equivalent" requirements are specifically and directly stated (for LANS) in contract section H-36, (d)(1)(i)(I) and H-36 (i)(1).
The Contractor shall provide a total compensation package for
Transferring Employees that is substantially equivalent to that
provided by the predecessor contractor as of June 1, 2006
(NOTE: Sub. Eq. "as of June 1, 2006" only)
(e) Pension Plans
(3) (i) Pension Plan One. The Contractor shall consider amending Pension Plan
One to be consistent with any changes made by the Board of Regents of
the University of California to the UCRP during the term of this Contract
(NOTE: key wording "shall consider", not "shall amend"
The budget issues will be resolved at the end of March so the question is why is Parney so gung ho about furloughs? Is he trying to make the problems of NIF everybody's problem?
...because it's a back door way of freezing the pension.
NOTE: key wording "shall consider", not "shall amend"
March 3, 2013 at 12:45 AM
So you'd prefer that if UC makes some really bad decisions, perhaps based on the fiscal situation in California, that LLNS and LANS be forced to follow them?
Why a 10% cut? There are other ways. How about cutting the 401K employer matching for people in TCP2? After all, you are requiring TCP1 employees to contribute then lower their salary so the HAPC does't grow. How about managing travel and training better? Global Security has gone to Russia so many times (twice this Febuary). This must be costly. How about cutting back on unnecessary management? There is lots of that. Lastly, how about making employees accountable. Too many don't put in their 40 hours. Management needs to make sure their people are working 40 hours. If not, maybe a reduction in their percent time will be in order. There is a lot of waste going on. I think LLNS is needed and should continue but lets do business better.
Why a 10% cut? There are other ways.
March 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Not within the rules of the sequester legislation. Across-the-board programmatic cut. No leeway, no choice. Internal adjustments to address waste, etc. don't count.
March 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM
How about turning TCP-1 over to PBGC and save the tax payers a ton of money. This would assure that those in TCP-1 get what they deserve and are worth.
Why a 10% cut? There are other ways.
Yeah there are....like the f'ing VSIP that could clear the personnel issue for more than one year! Most people will hang on through furloughs....screwing off on the internet, taking long lunches, leaving early...give them an incentive to go and you probably lose 10%!
If you're lucky you'll only get 20% less productive labor from them during the furlough period.
Voila budget/personnel issues solved without crippling morale. They might as well do it now when they still have a semi-motivated workforce instead of waiting until no one gives a crap!
They might as well do it now when they still have a semi-motivated workforce instead of waiting until no one gives a crap!
March 3, 2013 at 7:06 PM
Good idea, but too late!
ULM mismanaged things like NIF and now they are using the sequester as an excuse for furloughs. The sequester is not the budget problem - ULM made the budget problem long ago and have been looking for a way out. It is no wonder the employees have a feeling of helplessness unlike anything ever before.
A major 10% cut in salaries for LLNL staff due to sequestration while Sec. of State John Kerry goes to Egypt and hands them a quarter billion in aid with a promise for a full billion to come.... what the heck!
A major 10% cut in salaries for LLNL staff due to sequestration while Sec. of State John Kerry goes to Egypt and hands them a quarter billion in aid with a promise for a full billion to come.... what the heck!
March 3, 2013 at 11:29 PM
You obviously don't understand the sequestration law. Under sequestration, The cuts are not fungible. Your money is being cut because it is required to be. Kerry's is not because it is not required to be.
And you obviously don't understand that we need Egypt much more than LLNL and NIF!
HAPC--maybe I don't fully understand the impact or the frozen at 36 months ago comments.
Let's say from 2008 until now a staff scientist made $100k, $110k, $117, $120, $140 (big jump), $145 (145-14.5=130.5)
36 months ago the hapc was 327/3= $109k. Last three is 390.5/3=$130.x k
now, even with 10% reduction (for a year--unlikely to happen) it is higher, right? Or, use 2010-2012?
///////////
In your example, you would have to use 2010-2012 and the raises you got in 2011 and 2012 would never fully bake in.
Is the for-profit part of the "consortium" at LLNL going to take a 10% cut in profits (stockholders in bechtel)? As many have suggested, a 10% across-the-board reduction in pay (on top of having to contribute 8% for retirement) is a serious blow. And let's not forget that when the consortium took over, scientists at the lab were expected to request 130% of costs from clients over what they used to need, to pay for increased costs under the new management. Why is it that the for-profit management costs so much more than when UC ran the place? Privatizing does not seem to have provided a cost benefit in this case.
Also, we all know that the dedicated scientist often work on weekends, so they will continue to put in 50-60 hour work weeks no matter what they're paid.
"Is the for-profit part of the "consortium" at LLNL going to take a 10% cut in profits (stockholders in bechtel)?"
Parney answered this at the all-hands: Bechtel and friends are going to contribute ABSOLUTELY ZERO to meeting the $120m shortfall.
Bechtel and friends are going to contribute ABSOLUTELY ZERO to meeting the $120m shortfall.
March 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM
Neither would I if I were them. No reason a managing contractor should lose fee if the contracting entity cuts programs. It's not their fault. The same level of management is still required. Otherwise you are asking the M&O contractor to shoot itself in the foot. Get real.
If the lab topline is reduced 10% then so is the fee.
"same level of management is still required"
Aghm, I thought we all weren't going to be working 2 days a month, so Bechtel won't need to "managing" us those 2 days either.
I thought we all weren't going to be working 2 days a month, so Bechtel won't need to "managing" us those 2 days either.
March 4, 2013 at 8:10 PM
Again, programmatic funds are being cut. Management fees aren't. Sequester cuts are not fungible.
Bechtel ALWAYS keeps their lab "blood money".
They are like that image of the corrupt people at Goldman Sachs described by Matt Taibbi in his famous Rolling Stones article of July 2009:
-- The Great American Bubble Machine --
"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
Yep, that's Bechtel. Two birds from the same nest.
The current temp funding cuts are an incentive for TCP2rs to leave before the March 27th anticipated start date. TRhe plan was cleaverly designed to disincentivise our continued employment. After 35+ plus years I do fear the future for the next gen. No raises, incresed taxes, lower pensions, less reliable and secure employment, less training; bleak picture.
Look over your numbers.
Two years ago, with 33 years on the job around age 60, my take home changed little when I elected to become a pensioner. Leave rather than suffer the insult of 2 years of wage freezes.
If you subtract a 7% salary reduction for pension contributions on top of a 10% sequester salary reduction, I'll bet the breakeven point, the point where you work for free, it now back at 25 years of service at age 60 or perhaps 30 years at age 57. Look it over. Remember social security is no longer collected either.
Pension is nice. No Grief.
Furthermore:
The 7% pension contribution is post-tax at LLNL (unlike at UC where it's pre-tax, so much for substantially equivalent), so it's actually more like 14% + 10% = 24%.
Add in no social security 6.2% and you're talking about a 30% differential.
Really something to think about.
Really something to think about.
March 6, 2013 at 8:48 AM
Anyone at either LANL or LLNL over the age of 50 who hasn't already done this calculation in great detail is doing him/herself a great disservice and needs to wake up ASAP.
Unless they are TCP2, in which case the calculation is irrelevant, and they can focus on getting their jobs done.
Wrong! TCP2ers will take a 10% hit to their 401k matching due to this furlough.
Unless they are TCP2, in which case the calculation is irrelevant, and they can focus on getting their jobs done.
March 6, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Better to focus on whether they will have a job. This is no time for a head-in-the-sand approach. "Getting your job done" is irrelevant if you won't have a job. You must wake up and take control of your future, unless you want others to do that for you and your family. Man up!
Just wait until LLNS and LANS decide to implement the "Sandia Plan" in regards to pension payouts.
SNL has a hybrid pension (combo 401k + smaller pension) for their older employees. However, two years ago they changed from the standard "highest 3 year avg earnings" calculation to using just the last 3 years of earnings.
With salary reductions, this method quickly gets to older staff running out the door to keep what they have in terms of their future pension payments.
The "last 3 years" method specifically targets the defrocked senior managers that continue to hang around at all three labs. No one seems to be able to get rid of this dead wood, but maybe Sandia has hit on the answer.
Adam Rowen (manager of the Materials Chemistry department) from Sandia National Laboratories does not have a Ph.D.
Post a Comment