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 authors serve as moderators. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Privatizing National Lab Management Misguided

Thanks very much for your continued upkeep of the blog. I'm not one to post there myself but I thought our OpEd "Privatizing National Lab Management Misguided" might be of interest. http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Privatizing-national-lab-management-misguided-4843513.php

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Absolutely correct.

Anonymous said...

They got the headline right: "Privatizing National Lab Management Misguided"

But then failed to support it with any of the relevant points/analysis.

The fee is a small issue, compared with everything else that has happened...

Anonymous said...

The U.S. debt is pushing $17 trillion. Can LLNS employees make a compelling performance and or cost benefit argument to NNSA for a return to UC management of LLNL or UC plus other non-profit Universities (Texas Tech, etc.)?

Anonymous said...

Nice subliminal message using the word "tenured".

Anonymous said...

The real cost argument would be "opportunity cost" of mission work foregone due to increased management fee. Would anyone of consequence find this compelling?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the DOE IG might find "opportunity cost" and or performance arguments compelling. The IG has made cost savings recommendations on the labs before.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/energy-department-ig-pushes-cost-savng-moves-national-labs/


Anonymous said...

The LLNS annual fee to run LLNL, plus its "for profit" tax status is a ~10% budget burden. A non-profit (UC, other) institution running the lab would produce a savings comparable to a lab wide furlough event that nobody wants to see occur.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The LLNS annual fee to run LLNL, plus its "for profit" tax status is a ~10% budget burden. A non-profit (UC, other) institution running the lab would produce a savings comparable to a lab wide furlough event that nobody wants to see occur.

September 29, 2013 at 11:44 AM

It's all about making money for the big corporations just like Obamacare. The people aren't going to benefit, well at least not the working ones, but big business medicine, supplies and hospitals are all while the working cannot afford the monthly premium and then get taxed at the end of the year for not having medical insurance.

Anonymous said...

At least one LLNL scientist has the guts to tell it as it is. Why do so many of us huddle in the corner waiting for the ax to fall. Speak up! Act up! I know you have a mortgage to pay, two kids in college, but how can you allow this to happen to you and your colleagues. If we really are working in the national interest then how can we allow ourselves to be part of an organization that is most certainly not working in the national interest?

Blog Archive