Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
38 comments:
The fed employees get their pay raise this year. I guess we're only a "team" for pay raise freezes.
The "day to day" workers were never really accepted or valued as LLNS employees.
LLNS is a management company.
My understanding is that Federal workers are getting one percent after several years of pay freezes under Obama. Much worse situation than at the Labs, I can tell you, and the Federal pension system for workers hired after 1987 is much worse than the UC and LLNS systems at the Labs under TCP1. Much worse.
Oh, they took a 14% pay reduction?
Federal professionals paid on the GS system are underpaid by ~30% compared to equivalent jobs in the private sector. For example a $130K job at LLNL would pay less than $100K as a federal job in the bay area, with equal or more responsibilities in the Federal position, even with an adjustment for the higher cost of living here.
Don't confuse Federal job pay and benefits with State, County or City jobs (fire, police, teachers, administrators).
I've seen data that indicates they are overpaid.
I think it comes down to the source & calculation components (entire benefits package).
Why argue about it, the federal pay increase is only 1% not enough to compensate for the COLA here in SF and Bay Area.
Given that the LLNS CIP is most likely a percent, why not just forego the expense of "committee thinking" and distribute it to everyone.
The fed worker comparison should be why the LLNS workers get all the bad news & none of the good news.
"...Given that the LLNS CIP is most likely a percent, why not just forego the expense of "committee thinking" and distribute it to everyone..."
Because to do so would undermine their highly paid existence, shrink inflated egos, and would contrast their command and control management styles. Management self-importance has swollen significantly since LLNS took over.
One must annually refresh the "I'm in charge of the worker bees" mentality to justify those disproportionately high salaries. Its a showmanship over substance game.
(Cost of Total Man-Hours for Ranking)/($ bring in) x 100 = ____ %?
You don't give raises before a RIF.
You don't give raises before a RIF.
December 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Of course you do. You reward the people you want to keep and say sayonara to the rest. Not getting a raise is your signal to pack up your stuff.
but, but, but the labs proclaim they manage by salaries, not by raises.
By looking at their salaries they've done a good job for themselves.
A tiny 1% raise for lab employees is swamped by the large amount of salary being taken to support the TCP1 pension for those who are on it.
The pension benefits at the lab are very nice but are going to be very costly for those who have many years to go before retirement. Giving the constant threat of layoffs, many of these people will never make it to the "Promised Land" of 30 years of service and an age of 60, which is where the lab pension payout becomes esp. generous.
The contribution that federal GS employees must pay into their pension is much, much smaller than that of lab employees on TCP1. Most federal employees pay only 0.8 % of their salary into the federal pension, over and order of magnitude less than lab TCP1 employees!
Fed Pension pay-in is rapidly escalating:
Hired 2012 and before: 0.8% pay-in
Hired 2013: 3.1% pay-in
Hired 2014: 4.4% pay-in
We did way more, and way quicker, regardless of "hire" date.
Geez, I wish I could get away with paying just 0.8% of my salary into the TCP1 pension because I was hired before 2012!
I suspect that the US Treasury is also putting far more of the government's money into the GS pension system than their federal employees. LLNS and LANS have made it very clear that none of their annual profit fees will ever be used to help support the employee pensions. There is nothing to stop the mandated employee salary contributions to TCP1 rising to 15%, 20%, 25%.... who knows how high it could eventually go?
stop complaining about the pension contribution; those of us with 401ks have to contribute 10% or more just to hope for something equivalent to the pension, but with no guarantee. and oh yeah, we get paid the same amount. people in tcp1 had effectively been getting paid more.
Just a discussion on why LLNS held back on what DOE said to distribute.
Federal workers under the gs system are fairly paid, even overpaid. Across the board, they are inferior in ability and in real job responsibility. Most federal jobs have almost no independant responsibility. Even within the labs, a senior professional can't independently authorize a thing. There are many, many watchers. Overpaid, underworked. Lots of time off, low stress. A very good job, a gjob. Something to be treasured by the holder and one ripe for cuts by the overworked taxpayer looking for savings. This applies to most 0S ratings above -4 as well.
Like the bums running the obamacare website fiasco within HHS.
Brash, cocky, mellifluous, well-protected incompetents. 2nd and 3rd teamers faking it at taxpayer expense.
Well paid, poor workers. And they are the best of the GS motormouth pool.
Endemic corruption
December 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM:
Be sure to let us know if you ever have a new thought.
"Be sure to let us know if you ever have a new thought.
January 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM:"
What's your point?
What's your point?
January 2, 2014 at 7:18 PM
That you seem to make the same inane comment repetitively.
"That you seem to make the same inane comment repetitively.
January 3, 2014 at 12:21 PM"
The point raised was not inane. Variants of this point may have been made before but not this explicit point. Besides some points bare repeating your point however is not one of them.
inane: adjective
1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas
The repetitive use of the comment "endemic corruption" without further elaboration of how, where, or who seems to fit the definition quite well.
Saying there is endemic corruption at the lab is like saying water is wet. But sometimes we need to be reminded of the wetness of water. The other is so blatantly obvious.
No one on this thread has yet to explain what's going on.
DOE approved the LLNL CIP and now LLNS is refusing to distribute it???
Refusing to distribute? It could be lay off preperation.
The CIP "approval" just means LLNS is free to pay it out of normal annual operating funds. No new allocation or NNSA funding is involved. LLNS is also free to decide not to deplete current funds by this disbursement.
wow...that would be a raw deal considering the lack of raises for the past 4-5 years.
What's the mystery?
Last year was a fiscal perfect storm due to sequestration and the government shutdown. LLNS is just trying to get a handle on the disbursement breakdown for the rest of this year to see where it stands.
Remember that salaries (changed via CIP) and lab budgets (changed through yearly budget negotiations) are handled as mostly seperate subjects.
Budgets are what is negotiated with sponsors. This determines the actual amount of income to the lab.
When a CIP comes along it does NOTHING except increase the cost of labor. CIP is the act of DOE allowing us to cost more. It does not add any money to anybody's pot.
So it's pretty easy to imagine a lab director, biesieged by limited budgets, possible sequestration, etc., thinking very carefully about whether he really wants to increase his labor costs, even if DOE allows him to.
That's what's going on here.
The director is aware of the downside of not implementing the CIP: employee upset, higher attrition, loss of talent, etc.
It's up to him to choose wisely.
Good explanation. Thanks.
I thought sequestration was eliminated for 2014???
"...The director is aware of the downside of not implementing the CIP: employee upset, higher attrition, loss of talent, etc..."
What latitude does the director have to selectively pass along raises to address probable attrition in needed job classes, while electing to eliminate raises for job classes
in less demand independent of salary surveys and ranking? No more salary lists folks and LLNS is not big on such disclosures.
Post a Comment