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, August 25, 2013
What did Parney say?
Did Parney have an all hands meeting last Wed. to discuss FY14 and if so, what was said?
44 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I guess no one can recall or they’re too scared to post the facts for the world to see. Seems like LLNS has you right where they want you. Scared sheeetless with your tail between your legs. Pitiful.
Explanation of why lab didn't pay $88m in to pension as they had stated they would in a previous all-hands. (lobbyists got a change in the pension pay-in formula snuck into the MAP21 transportation bill), so lab no longer "legally" had to do it.
Employees, however, had to go to a 7% pension pay-in because we need to maintain "substantial equivalence" with UC pension.
(No mention that that is an apples and oranges comparison, because the UC employee pension pay-in is pre-tax and LLNL is post-tax.)
Mention that UC is going to 8% employee pay-in July 2014.
Well, will the $100M short fall cost LLNL 466 more people? My bet is they'll all go before Dec 25th, 2013. I'll also bet most will come from the EBA and Transition list . Say bye-bye bubba.
I fear of a replay some 7 years ago after the VSP, just before ThanksGiving, the layoffs that are in the courts today! Start planning my friends , don't let them take you by surprise!
The last all hands said that the contribution in 2013 would be $40M not $88M. Parney said that the graduated approach he started (and briefed before) was betting on a turn upward in interest rates, against the risk that they don't and if not bigger contributions later. Seems like some people hear what they want to hear and not what was said.
If LLNL was serious about reducing cost they would start with the immediate cessation of operations in Nevada. They employ only a handful of personnel now as most have quit or moved back to LLNL. Of those remaining 1 actually does meaningful work, 2 are underemployed former managers with ZERO on their plate ( this is for the last 24 months people) and one Office Leader that is nothing more than a Bureaucrat with an overly inflated ego of himself with little to no respect for those that are forced to work around him. The LLNL Office leader does nothing to promote work being brought to Nevada for LLNL, instead he discourages it by constantly pissing off the M&O contractor and the local Federal Staff.
May 2012 is not what was said at later all hands. Parney has been consistent all year. Might be worth checking the column he put out about a year ago explaining the pension issue.
What Parney DID NOT say is equally important. He DID NOT say anything about prospects for new work. He DID NOT say how NIF will handle the $ shortfall and non-ignition embarrassment which is having budget ramifications "on the hill". He DID NOT say anything about strategic long-range planning. He DID SAY, however, that he wants us to wear bike helmets. Thank goodness for that.
On this pension thing, LLNL needs to start being straight up. If the pension is truly (by some reasonable actuarial measure) underfunded then we, employees and employer, need to pitch in and shore it up.
It needs to be a two-way street. Everyone takes a piece of the pain, and we get it back in the black. No problem with that.
I have a problem with the BS "substantial equivalence with UC" (when their pay-in is pre-tax, ours post-tax, ie 2x theirs), LLNL playing actuarial games with their contribution (allowing them to not pay it) and gambling on future rates, while employees have to pay ever-escalating pay-in, and the employee contribution continues to rise and will never go back down (per comment at an all-hands).
We need a clear, transparent read on where the pension is at, shared sacrifice to fix it, regular updates on our progress towards the goal, and no games.
Parney commented that he keeps getting all these pension questions, if he just did the above that would take care of it.
At the pension contribution meeting, the problem was laid out, and the solution too. It was sold to us as shared sacrifice. I think everyone was concerned, but clear about the issue/solution, and ok with that.
The deviation from that initial story is where the trouble came in.
Did LLNS, Parney, and DOE buggers deliberately orchestrate a pension payment bait and switch?
Did TCP1 member employee contribute $40M last year to a pension plan that its partner, the US government did not see the need to contribute it's half?
Why was it collected if it is not needed? If it is needed why did the government not pay its share? Is this true?
If so, LLNL employees should reject his leadership, wholesale. If so, he is not truthful and is unfit to be followed.
It appears that at first he promised that if LLNL employees acquiesced to significant, large salary reductions for renewed employee TCP1 pension payments to cover a portion of the dubious TCP1 shortfall that the government would pay its equal share.
(An aside -- TCP1 is currently 120% overfunded. The government appears to have declined to pay its share of the shortfall. Pensions do not return excess contributions to heirs. TCP1 has returned to historically normal returns. Pension excess is owned by the employer.)
Now Parney appears to serve up an ruse why our partner bailed out but we must continue with our half anyway. If so, this kind of leadership should be ignored. By his actions he has proved himself unfit.
In defense of this apparent bait and switch The Penrose cites the lie of the need for substantial equivalency to UCRS, which unlike the solid TCP1 is currently underfunded by 15% and striving to achieve full funding. To achieve this, UC employees pay half of the shortfall and UC pays half of the shortfall. Meanwhile TCP1 has no shortfall. Yet it penalizes employees with an unneeded contribution that the govenment partner, the party responsible for TCP1 solvency, sees no neec to make.
If this it true, that the goverment sees no need for current contributions to an overfunded plan, how can The now Reeking Penrose, in good conscience, continue to ask for contributions?
If the facts above are true, it appears that Penrose Albright is a liar and and cheat, and that he should be ignored and shunned. He must feel the pain or he is not going to act on your behalf.
I have to admit that this looks really bad, Parney.
At the bottom line, we have to contribute more (which is essentially a pay cut) while the company is contributing less than it is supposed to.
And I can't believe that we're trotting out the "substantially equivalent" words again, Parney. You do realize that those are fighting words for everbody in TCP-1, don't you?
Does anyone know what LLNS put into the pension in 2012?
We (employees) started contributing in 2012, LLNS said they were going to put in $88m.
How much did they actually put in for 2012?
As an aside: I feel odd asking this on a blog, this information should be easily available on a website. It's bizarre how we have to piece together details about the pension from little asides Parney drops during all-hands or when he answers questions.
This blogs been more informative about LLNS little secrets than anything you'll ever get from your managers and it's been that way before the scumbags LLNS and LANS took over and always will be. Want to know the dirt, come here and tell it like it is for the PUBLIC to read.
Why would Parney fight for us TCP-1 employees, He is TCP-2. If his take home pay was cut by 7% after tax, he might take a little more notice. You could tell from the all hands he is annoyed with this subject and he feels he has fully explained it.
It bothers me too that Parney seems to always be very annoyed that people want to know factual things about the state of our pension.
If he just put the facts out there on a website, or a quarterly mailing to us, then fine. But they don't. And anytime we get any visibility into the pension, it's clear they're playing games.
I wonder if Parney had 25-30 years vested into our pension if he might feel/act a lot different.
Have a sense of deep stewardship, instead of annoyance.
For us, it is our retirement. We have no Fed Pension (like Parney has) or Bechtel bonuses/whatever he gets (tough to know, since, again, it's not public). TCP1 is our retirement, so obviously we care a lot about it. Why is that so hard for Parney to understand...
No, he gets his bonus from LLNS, of which he is President, like all the other "key personnel." He gets his pension, which is neither TCP1 nor TCP2, from UC.
Parney (as Lab Director and LLNS President) is picked by UC. The head of the LLNS Board of Govenors is a UC Regent.
If you look through the UC Regent minutes on ucop.edu you will see from May 2011 joint finance/DOE Lab committee...
"The (UC) President be authorized to expend, for the following purposes and in the following amounts, from the University’s net share of Los Alamos National Security (LANS) and Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) LLC income earned between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011, the following amounts: Supplemental compensation and other payments (including accruals) approved by the Regents for certain LANS LLC and LLNS LLC employees..."
Parney's bonus comes from UC. He has no pension. LLNS makes no contribution to the pension, not now nor ever. It is covered by DOE. LLNL takes that contribution from a payroll tax. In 2013 it was $40M. The employee contribution was probably around $15M or so. If Parney were to raise the employer contribution he would have to do a lay off, since the overall contribution comes out of whatever DOE provides the lab, and any increase in overhead is a decrease in program. Parney has been pretty consistent in saying that he is betting on a rise of long term bond yields and reducing the need for big contributions to the pension. What he is really saying is he is betting on the rise of those yields to minimize the need for layoffs. There is right now no, repeat, no, need for contributions to the pension. Parney has got permission from DOE to raise the overhead rate in advance, and make pension contributions in advance, to avoid the risk of something around $120M contribution if the 100% threshold is breached. That would be a catastrophe for the workforce. DOE approved these early contributions on condition that employees contribute the same amount as UC. DOE could care less if the impact is pretax or posttax.
Not biting. If so why was this not made clear? No it we get no information and that can only be for one reason and that is they are hiding something. Sorry the trust is gone between management and the workforce and it is never coming back. It is us vs them, class warfare, winner take all, perception is everything reality is nothing. I do not know who you are but you need to wake up the real world and get with the program, in this system you are a lion or a gazelle, a manager or a worker.
I don't hear "September 2, 2013 9:52 PM" roaring so better stop chewing the grass make sure someone in the herd is paying attention. You need to get the facts straight and start paying attention or your pension will be gone, you job will be gone, and you dignity will be gone. If there is one thing we have leaned since the contract change is don't listen to what they are saying, don't go toward the light, don't let the zombies bite you. You think that by sucking up that they will let you join the club? Ha they will turn on you just as fast.
"There is right now no, repeat, no, need for contributions to the pension"
Exactly, yet we're paying more than our full contribution, while the lab ducks it's full contribution.
You're using one set of calculations to make us contribute and an entirely different set of calculations (based on a lobbyist inserted change to how pensions are calculated inserted into a transportation bill called MAP21) to allow you to "legally" duck your full obligation.
The BS and weasel-wording you management guys engage in is sickening.
Whatever they pay you, it's not worth living a life of constant lies and spinning. Some day you'll realize that.
Making a full contribution would be "catastrophe for the workforce"....
Only in the way Bechtel does layoffs. There is a ton of added management fat that could be easily cut...especially now that we have way fewer employees. But the lab continues to merrily hire new folks on overhead.
That argument is disingenuous and a typical scare tactic. Let's put together an employee committee and figure out where to cut in order to make our pension obligations. I think it would resolved in short order.
"Remind me, what happened to the last overhead surplus.
September 4, 2013 at 1:45 PM"
It went into the huge salary increases of managers and the extra people from the LLNLs brings into cover for the three years. There is a formula to maximize overall profit which a combination of the fee and "leverage profit". The leverage profit is how much extra you can get out by moving people into the new company, getting building contracts, extras and anything else you can legally get away with. NASA has been destroyed this way, we are in the process. The entire military is next.
There is no leverage profit. There was no "huge salary increase for managers". It is one thing to speculate on facts, another to state wholly made up fiction as fact.
Salaries for most are driven by the same CIP everyone sees, and the pay bands are published. It would be hard but not impossible for there to be a policy of paying managers outside the pay bands. There are a few managers, like Parney himself, who can and probably are paid up to the limit set by doe, and anything over that would have to come from fee. But there are only a few of those, and they are probably already at the cap. So the statement that excess overhead funds goes in to manager salaries doesn't add up. You can say the same about the odd statement of "leverage profit". There are not that many Bechtel employees at the lab, hardly enough to make any bump in Bechtel profits, which would have to come from any overhead Bechtel charges to their reimbursed salary.
"There is no leverage profit. There was no "huge salary increase for managers". It is one thing to speculate on facts, another to state wholly made up fiction as fact.
September 5, 2013 at 8:12 PM"
What on earth? What planet are living on, leveraged profit is now standard practice anytime a private or LLC runs a former government operation. LLNL's is no different. You are the one living in the land of fiction. As for the managers salary this comes in 2 forms. (1) The actual pay went up and they get a bonus. The min bonus is 50k the max is 500k, of course this is just rumors since we no longer know what the salary is but there are leaks, not to mention that a number of them have much nicer cars, clothes and vacations in the last 5 years. By much nicer and mean really nice (2) The number of managers has grown since the contract change. There is a plot that was done about a year ago and it was even posted on this blog showing the large increase in the number of managers.
Finley if you really do work at LLNL or LANL just look around you, have you seen one improvement? The workforce is now demoralized and does not trust the management, a number of the best people left, and we never get any kind of clear information. These are facts how can you deny them?
Parney gave the usual talk. He spun the negative finacial picture, then moved on to science where he learned enough about the slides he was presenting to convince himself he is a scientist with insight into all things. He ended with the Director spin that the future is so bright you will have to where shades, because we are the worlds best scientists. I could give the talk next time.
The plot on the number of managers I have seen is a LANL chart. Pretty bad. - 5:56 PM
Given that the data on that LANL plot is now at least 1 year old and even more staff has fled this demoralized institution over the last year, the ratio of managers to worker-bees must look even worse today!
44 comments:
I guess no one can recall or they’re too scared to post the facts for the world to see. Seems like LLNS has you right where they want you. Scared sheeetless with your tail between your legs. Pitiful.
...but you all need to cut back on your travel...because, hey, budgets are tight.
On the Pension Front:
Explanation of why lab didn't pay $88m in to pension as they had stated they would in a previous all-hands. (lobbyists got a change in the pension pay-in formula snuck into the MAP21 transportation bill), so lab no longer "legally" had to do it.
Employees, however, had to go to a 7% pension pay-in because we need to maintain "substantial equivalence" with UC pension.
(No mention that that is an apples and oranges comparison, because the UC employee pension pay-in is pre-tax and LLNL is post-tax.)
Mention that UC is going to 8% employee pay-in July 2014.
Well, will the $100M short fall cost LLNL 466 more people? My bet is they'll all go before Dec 25th, 2013. I'll also bet most will come from the EBA and Transition list . Say bye-bye bubba.
I fear of a replay some 7 years ago after the VSP, just before ThanksGiving, the layoffs that are in the courts today! Start planning my friends , don't let them take you by surprise!
The last all hands said that the contribution in 2013 would be $40M not $88M. Parney said that the graduated approach he started (and briefed before) was betting on a turn upward in interest rates, against the risk that they don't and if not bigger contributions later. Seems like some people hear what they want to hear and not what was said.
I hear exactly what was said. And save the slides.
LLNS Defined Benefit Plan Contribution Briefing
May 2 & 3 2012
Slide 26:
"Will employer contributions increase?
LLNS will be requesting DOE approval to increase employer contributions to $88 million"
Has Parney been trying to spin this recently, yes he has.
But the facts are that when they laid the pension contribution on us, they said they would be contributing $88m. Which they did not.
Correct. $88m employer contribution was briefed to employees.
Other interesting tidbits:
Parney said pension was 109% funded.
Projected LLNS Pension Pay-in Schedule:
2013: 40m
2014: 60m
2015: 80m
I was at this meeting, and have my notes. The 88m was briefed and was on a slide, as described.
If LLNL was serious about reducing cost they would start with the immediate cessation of operations in Nevada.
They employ only a handful of personnel now as most have quit or moved back to LLNL. Of those remaining 1 actually does meaningful work, 2 are underemployed former managers with ZERO on their plate ( this is for the last 24 months people) and
one Office Leader that is nothing more than a Bureaucrat with an overly inflated ego of himself with little to no respect for those that are forced to work around him. The LLNL Office leader does nothing to promote work being brought to Nevada for LLNL, instead he discourages it by constantly pissing off the M&O contractor and the local Federal Staff.
May 2012 is not what was said at later all hands. Parney has been consistent all year. Might be worth checking the column he put out about a year ago explaining the pension issue.
What Parney DID NOT say is equally important. He DID NOT say anything about prospects for new work. He DID NOT say how NIF will handle the $ shortfall and non-ignition embarrassment which is having budget ramifications "on the hill". He DID NOT say anything about strategic long-range planning. He DID SAY, however, that he wants us to wear bike helmets. Thank goodness for that.
"May 2012 is not what was said at later all hands"
My point exactly.
On this pension thing, LLNL needs to start being straight up. If the pension is truly (by some reasonable actuarial measure) underfunded then we, employees and employer, need to pitch in and shore it up.
It needs to be a two-way street. Everyone takes a piece of the pain, and we get it back in the black. No problem with that.
I have a problem with the BS "substantial equivalence with UC" (when their pay-in is pre-tax, ours post-tax, ie 2x theirs), LLNL playing actuarial games with their contribution (allowing them to not pay it) and gambling on future rates, while employees have to pay ever-escalating pay-in, and the employee contribution continues to rise and will never go back down (per comment at an all-hands).
We need a clear, transparent read on where the pension is at, shared sacrifice to fix it, regular updates on our progress towards the goal, and no games.
Parney commented that he keeps getting all these pension questions, if he just did the above that would take care of it.
At the pension contribution meeting, the problem was laid out, and the solution too. It was sold to us as shared sacrifice. I think everyone was concerned, but clear about the issue/solution, and ok with that.
The deviation from that initial story is where the trouble came in.
Is what is stated here is true?
Did LLNS, Parney, and DOE buggers deliberately orchestrate a pension payment bait and switch?
Did TCP1 member employee contribute $40M last year to a pension plan that its partner, the US government did not see the need to contribute it's half?
Why was it collected if it is not needed? If it is needed why did the government not pay its share? Is this true?
If so, LLNL employees should reject his leadership, wholesale. If so, he is not truthful and is unfit to be followed.
It appears that at first he promised that if LLNL employees acquiesced to significant, large salary reductions for renewed employee TCP1 pension payments to cover a portion of the dubious TCP1 shortfall that the government would pay its equal share.
(An aside -- TCP1 is currently 120% overfunded. The government appears to have declined to pay its share of the shortfall. Pensions do not return excess contributions to heirs. TCP1 has returned to historically normal returns. Pension excess is owned by the employer.)
Now Parney appears to serve up an ruse why our partner bailed out but we must continue with our half anyway. If so, this kind of leadership should be ignored. By his actions he has proved himself unfit.
In defense of this apparent bait and switch The Penrose cites the lie of the need for substantial equivalency to UCRS, which unlike the solid TCP1 is currently underfunded by 15% and striving to achieve full funding. To achieve this, UC employees pay half of the shortfall and UC pays half of the shortfall. Meanwhile TCP1 has no shortfall. Yet it penalizes employees with an unneeded contribution that the govenment partner, the party responsible for TCP1 solvency, sees no neec to make.
If this it true, that the goverment sees no need for current contributions to an overfunded plan, how can The now Reeking Penrose, in good conscience, continue to ask for contributions?
If the facts above are true, it appears that Penrose Albright is a liar and and cheat, and that he should be ignored and shunned. He must feel the pain or he is not going to act on your behalf.
If this is true.
Hey, why are you taking my money when you don't want to pitch in yours! Shame on you LLNS.
The employee contribution to tcp1 is not close to $40m. Do the math.
I have to admit that this looks really bad, Parney.
At the bottom line, we have to contribute more (which is essentially a pay cut) while the company is contributing less than it is supposed to.
And I can't believe that we're trotting out the "substantially equivalent" words again, Parney. You do realize that those are fighting words for everbody in TCP-1, don't you?
You really need to do something, Parney.
Time to unionize.
"Substantially Equivalent" is triply not true:
UC employee pension pay-ins are BEFORE-taxes.
LLNL employee pay-ins are AFTER-taxes.
Huge difference.
UC is putting in their employer portion.
LLNL is ducking theirs (and gambling on the future)
LLNL pension is OVERfunded at 109%
UC pension is UNDERfunded at 85%
Does anyone know what LLNS put into the pension in 2012?
We (employees) started contributing in 2012, LLNS said they were going to put in $88m.
How much did they actually put in for 2012?
As an aside: I feel odd asking this on a blog, this information should be easily available on a website. It's bizarre how we have to piece together details about the pension from little asides Parney drops during all-hands or when he answers questions.
Name calling doesn't advance your argument, nor our knowledge or understanding or credibility or progress on any front.
Let's try to keep it on the facts.
August 29, 2013 at 10:16 PM
This blogs been more informative about LLNS little secrets than anything you'll ever get from your managers and it's been that way before the scumbags LLNS and LANS took over and always will be. Want to know the dirt, come here and tell it like it is for the PUBLIC to read.
Why would Parney fight for us TCP-1 employees, He is TCP-2. If his take home pay was cut by 7% after tax, he might take a little more notice. You could tell from the all hands he is annoyed with this subject and he feels he has fully explained it.
It bothers me too that Parney seems to always be very annoyed that people want to know factual things about the state of our pension.
If he just put the facts out there on a website, or a quarterly mailing to us, then fine. But they don't. And anytime we get any visibility into the pension, it's clear they're playing games.
I wonder if Parney had 25-30 years vested into our pension if he might feel/act a lot different.
Have a sense of deep stewardship, instead of annoyance.
For us, it is our retirement. We have no Fed Pension (like Parney has) or Bechtel bonuses/whatever he gets (tough to know, since, again, it's not public). TCP1 is our retirement, so obviously we care a lot about it. Why is that so hard for Parney to understand...
Aug 30 at 3:28 PM,
Parney is UC, so he gets his bonus from them.
Parney is UC, so he gets his bonus from them.
September 1, 2013 at 2:15 PM
No, he gets his bonus from LLNS, of which he is President, like all the other "key personnel." He gets his pension, which is neither TCP1 nor TCP2, from UC.
Parney (as Lab Director and LLNS President) is picked by UC. The head of the LLNS Board of Govenors is a UC Regent.
If you look through the UC Regent minutes on ucop.edu you will see from May 2011 joint finance/DOE Lab committee...
"The (UC) President be authorized to expend, for the following purposes and in the following amounts, from the University’s net share of Los Alamos National Security (LANS) and Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) LLC income earned between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011, the following amounts:
Supplemental compensation and other payments (including accruals) approved by the Regents for certain LANS LLC and LLNS LLC employees..."
LLNS will be requesting DOE approval to increase [2012] employer contributions to $88 million"
Did DOE actually approve this amount?
Parney's bonus comes from UC. He has no pension. LLNS makes no contribution to the pension, not now nor ever. It is covered by DOE. LLNL takes that contribution from a payroll tax. In 2013 it was $40M. The employee contribution was probably around $15M or so. If Parney were to raise the employer contribution he would have to do a lay off, since the overall contribution comes out of whatever DOE provides the lab, and any increase in overhead is a decrease in program. Parney has been pretty consistent in saying that he is betting on a rise of long term bond yields and reducing the need for big contributions to the pension. What he is really saying is he is betting on the rise of those yields to minimize the need for layoffs. There is right now no, repeat, no, need for contributions to the pension. Parney has got permission from DOE to raise the overhead rate in advance, and make pension contributions in advance, to avoid the risk of something around $120M contribution if the 100% threshold is breached. That would be a catastrophe for the workforce. DOE approved these early contributions on condition that employees contribute the same amount as UC. DOE could care less if the impact is pretax or posttax.
"September 2, 2013 at 9:52 PM"
Not biting. If so why was this not made clear? No it we get no information and that can only be for one reason and that is they are hiding something. Sorry the trust is gone between management and the workforce and it is never coming back. It is us vs them, class warfare, winner take all, perception is everything reality is nothing. I do not know who you are but you need to wake up the real world and get with the program, in this system you are a lion or a gazelle, a manager or a worker.
I don't hear "September 2, 2013 9:52 PM" roaring so better stop chewing the grass make sure someone in the herd is paying attention. You need to get the facts straight and start paying attention or your pension will be gone, you job will be gone, and you dignity will be gone. If there is one thing we have leaned since the contract change is don't listen to what they are saying, don't go toward the light, don't let the zombies bite you. You think that by sucking up that they will let you join the club? Ha they will turn on you just as fast.
"There is right now no, repeat, no, need for contributions to the pension"
Exactly, yet we're paying more than our full contribution, while the lab ducks it's full contribution.
You're using one set of calculations to make us contribute and an entirely different set of calculations (based on a lobbyist inserted change to how pensions are calculated inserted into a transportation bill called MAP21) to allow you to "legally" duck your full obligation.
The BS and weasel-wording you management guys engage in is sickening.
Whatever they pay you, it's not worth living a life of constant lies and spinning. Some day you'll realize that.
Making a full contribution would be "catastrophe for the workforce"....
Only in the way Bechtel does layoffs. There is a ton of added management fat that could be easily cut...especially now that we have way fewer employees. But the lab continues to merrily hire new folks on overhead.
That argument is disingenuous and a typical scare tactic. Let's put together an employee committee and figure out where to cut in order to make our pension obligations. I think it would resolved in short order.
But lets increase the overhead anyway, to cover that employer pension contribution, and spend the money elsewhere.
Remind me, what happened to the last overhead surplus.
"Remind me, what happened to the last overhead surplus.
September 4, 2013 at 1:45 PM"
It went into the huge salary increases of managers and the extra people from the LLNLs brings into cover for the three years. There is a formula to maximize overall profit which a combination of the fee and "leverage profit". The leverage profit is how much extra you can get out by moving people into the new company, getting building contracts, extras and anything else you can legally get away with. NASA has been destroyed this way, we are in the process. The entire military is next.
There is no leverage profit. There was no "huge salary increase for managers". It is one thing to speculate on facts, another to state wholly made up fiction as fact.
How would either of you know?
Salaries are no longer public, so we have no idea what salaries/benefits managers are receiving.
Seems both of you are speculating.
Salaries for most are driven by the same CIP everyone sees, and the pay bands are published. It would be hard but not impossible for there to be a policy of paying managers outside the pay bands. There are a few managers, like Parney himself, who can and probably are paid up to the limit set by doe, and anything over that would have to come from fee. But there are only a few of those, and they are probably already at the cap. So the statement that excess overhead funds goes in to manager salaries doesn't add up. You can say the same about the odd statement of "leverage profit". There are not that many Bechtel employees at the lab, hardly enough to make any bump in Bechtel profits, which would have to come from any overhead Bechtel charges to their reimbursed salary.
Sure, managers make the same as everyone else, and get the same pay raise too.
Please don't insult our intelligence.
We also know that a % of a big salary is more actual dollars than a % of a small salary.
"There is no leverage profit. There was no "huge salary increase for managers". It is one thing to speculate on facts, another to state wholly made up fiction as fact.
September 5, 2013 at 8:12 PM"
What on earth? What planet are living on, leveraged profit is now standard practice anytime a private or LLC runs a former government operation. LLNL's is no different. You are the one living in the land of fiction. As for the managers salary this comes in 2 forms. (1) The actual pay went up and they get a bonus. The min bonus is 50k the max is 500k, of course this is just rumors since we no longer know what the salary is but there are leaks, not to mention that a number of them have much nicer cars, clothes and vacations in the last 5 years. By much nicer and mean really nice (2) The number of managers has grown since the contract change. There is a plot that was done about a year ago and it was even posted on this blog showing the large increase in the number of managers.
Finley if you really do work at LLNL or LANL just look around you, have you seen one improvement? The workforce is now demoralized and does not trust the management, a number of the best people left, and we never get any kind of clear information. These are facts how can you deny them?
Parney gave the usual talk. He spun the negative finacial picture, then moved on to science where he learned enough about the slides he was presenting to convince himself he is a scientist with insight into all things. He ended with the Director spin that the future is so bright you will have to where shades, because we are the worlds best scientists. I could give the talk next time.
The plot on the number of managers I have seen is a LANL chart. Pretty bad. I don't think LLNL is the same. Do you have any more data?
The plot on the number of managers I have seen is a LANL chart. Pretty bad. - 5:56 PM
Given that the data on that LANL plot is now at least 1 year old and even more staff has fled this demoralized institution over the last year, the ratio of managers to worker-bees must look even worse today!
Post a Comment