-
So..we've got a budget for the next two years! Apparently a "hatchet
man" sits in the directors chair....when can we expect the next
RIF/VSIP?
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.
-
Tax dollars gone to waste for the "chili cookoff" http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/100730.html Rumor has it this project didn't a...
149 comments:
Perhaps there will be no mass lay off. The opportunity for group lawsuits is too risky. This time the layoffs might continue to be distributed in time and well below Warn Act levels. They don't want laid off worker bees talking to each other. Laid off worker isolation is the best defensive strategy.
If you are that concerned about losing a job, how free are you? You people are 21st century slaves. You have been duped your entire lives. It is obvious everyone took the blue pill.
POS
If you are that concerned about losing a job, how free are you? You people are 21st century slaves. You have been duped your entire lives. It is obvious everyone took the blue pill.
POS
Strong words from POS....now here's Bob with the weather.....
March 1, 2014 at 8:08 AM
Thanks for a grin to start the day!
" If you are that concerned about losing a job, how free are you? You people are 21st century slaves. You have been duped your entire lives. It is obvious everyone took the blue pill.
POS
March 1, 2014 at 6:24 AM"
POS may not have taken the blue bill but he sure has been taking a variety of other pills.
POS may not have taken the blue bill but he sure has been taking a variety of other pills.
Disagree.....I'm guessing he's not taking "his" pills.
Let's not bug POS. What about the RIF or SSVSP?
Any news?
I know of two people 60 years old at LLNL who just retired on very short notice, 2-5 days. One of them let it slip that he was given 26 weeks pay to retire. He said part of his agreement was he couldn't talk about the terms of his retirement. Was he forced out? The other person did not appear all that happy about his retirement. Is LLNL forcing out people. Giving them the choice of retirement with dignity or being laid off? Does anyone know of anything similar?
I know of two people 60 years old at LLNL who just retired on very short notice, 2-5 days. One of them let it slip that he was given 26 weeks pay to retire. He said part of his agreement was he couldn't talk about the terms of his retirement. Was he forced out? The other person did not appear all that happy about his retirement. Is LLNL forcing out people. Giving them the choice of retirement with dignity or being laid off? Does anyone know of anything similar?
March 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM
I bet Knapp has his hand in this "method" of ridding itself of old-folks. Knapp loathes folks older than 50-years old.
Very, very interesting. It's abundantly clear that LLNL is deliberately trying to circumvent a full Warn Act RIF, which I presume is illegal?
" I know of two people 60 years old at LLNL who just retired on very short notice, 2-5 days. One of them let it slip that he was given 26 weeks pay to retire. He said part of his agreement was he couldn't talk about the terms of his retirement. Was he forced out? The other person did not appear all that happy about his retirement. Is LLNL forcing out people. Giving them the choice of retirement with dignity or being laid off? Does anyone know of anything similar?
March 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM"
I know they fired a scientist 5 at LANL a couple of weeks ago. The person had been on overhead and was told that management was within their rights to terminate the person. The other version of the story was that he was outstanding scientist but was outspoken. The group is in shock.
Not sure if there is going to be a lawsuit.
I also know of one person who retired recently and everyone is silent about the whole thing but it looks like the person was told they needed to go or else. Not a happy place. Everyone knows what is going on.
I haven't heard of any layoffs but we got a bunch of people in WFO who do not have full coverage. Not sure what will happen with that, probably nothing good.
One of them let it slip that he was given 26 weeks pay to retire.
Gosh darn, I only got 22 weeks and a couple 'shake coupons for In-n-Out.
Oops, was that a slip?
They gave me 40 weeks and a dozen free massages. The other fellow should have held out for more.
Gosh darn, I only got 22 weeks and a couple 'shake coupons for In-n-Out.
Oops, was that a slip?
They gave me 40 weeks and a dozen free massages. The other fellow should have held out for more.
I wonder if the people who post disinformation or false statements on here are from management or just some of their stoolies doing their bidding for them? At any means, we see thru your sad and pathetic attempt to dilute the facts and hide the truth. I do expect they will fire back after being called out on this.
Someone never acquired a sense of humour.
"Follow the money, follow the money...." McMillan
Like the unalarmed frog (worker bees) in increasing hot water, LLNS management has floated and implemented policy changes making employees little more than "at will" status and easily discarded. "Career Indefinite" is near meaningless now.
If the "at will" and seniority changes were part of the pre October 2007 LLNS proposal, LLNS would have been railroaded out of the contract bidding process or forced to amend their proposal. We were "baited", the "switch" took a little longer but is now complete.
Supplemental labor will play a larger role going forward, while FTEs will be viewed as a "carry over" artifact of another time. We are in for perpetual "deliberate operations" folks.
Targeted incentive or severance pay would be approved by the NNSA.
Maybe that's where any possible raise money is going, to targeted incentives to retire or quit.
Maybe that's where any possible raise money is going, to targeted incentives to retire or quit.
March 2, 2014 at 10:15 AM
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
Each Directorate can lay off up to 50 employees and no WARN Act is required. So be prepared! The severance pay is maxed out at 26 weeks only if you qualify; i.e. you have worked at the lab equal or more than 26 years. Your maximum severance pay will be 26 weeks. To accept this term, you have to sign the waiver agreement never ever to sue the Lab for laying you off!
It is such a stressful environment and you cannot trust anyone.
"...Your maximum severance pay will be 26 weeks. To accept this term, you have to sign the waiver agreement never ever to sue the Lab for laying you off! ..."
Someone correct me, but I believe the waiver agreement is not limited to the lay off event. The waiver agreement is comprehensive and shields LLNS from subsequent lawsuits, grievances, and complaints in any form.
Why is anyone concerned about a RIF. I was just told the budget was so good they didn't have to shit-can anyone over the next two years. Was I lied to?
Why is anyone concerned about a RIF
Because we work for the lab!
"I believe the waiver agreement is not limited to the lay off event. The waiver agreement is comprehensive and shields LLNS from subsequent lawsuits, grievances, and complaints in any form."
Correct, shields them from everything and anything in perpetuity.
The waiver is definitely not worth it. I recommend not signing it.
Anonymous thief said...
Why is anyone concerned about a RIF
Because we work for the lab!
March 2, 2014 at 2:44 PM
So what is the actually $'s in cuts. 200M , 400M, 600M what. The only hit I heard about was weapons work for two years. Someone put some facts out here so the people can figure out what to do.
Take the red pill.
Separation Agreement Consequence (name removed)
"...It is clear, however, that since the alleged protected disclosures and the alleged retaliation (her termination) both occurred prior to the date Ms. _____ signed the Separation Agreement, her rights or claims arose prior to the effective date of the Separation Agreement. Accordingly, these matters have been settled and are therefore rendered moot by the Separation Agreement..."
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/09/f2/WBU-13-0013.pdf
Someone put some facts out here so the people can figure out what to do.
March 2, 2014 at 3:39 PM
HaHaHaHaHa!!! You are asking this on an anonymous blog??!! HaHaHaHa!! Try getting your facts from a factual source.
If you have a secure source of funding for the rest of this year (and hopefully, the next) or are in the "protected" managerial class or the support class living off overhead, you are fine.
If you at a technical staff member whose funding is gone or inadequate, then you are not fine. You are in their target sights for firing. It's only a matter of time before they get around to you. And please remember that past performance -- no matter how exemplary -- will in no way change their view that you are now a dead beat and must be shown the exit. It's a brutal situation for many people in the ranks of the technical staff.
Does anyone have a link to what the correct legal limits are for how many people can be RIF'd without invoking the Warn Act? I hear there is a "per directorate" number, and a revolving total number in a 3-month period, but it would be helpful to know what the real limits are.
Since when can a directorate be considered a separate employer to negate the triggering of the WARN Act? Something is amiss here.
Something is amiss here.
March 3, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Nope, it has all been carefully considered and analyzed by the LLNS legal team, and they are confident that no violation exists that they can't argue their way out of.
"...California’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act (Labor Code Section 1400-1408) expands on the requirements of the federal WARN Act and provides protection to employees, their families and communities by requiring employers to give affected employees and other state and local representatives notice 60 days in advance of a plant closing or mass layoff..."
http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/hrqa/Pages/CaliforniaWARNNotices.aspx
Compartmentalizing layoffs by "directorate" to circumvent Warn Act requirements would undermine Warn Act value as described above. "provides protection to employees, their families and communities".
In terms of community impact, LLNS should be defined as a single unit or plant.
In terms of community impact, LLNS should be defined as a single unit or plant.
March 3, 2014 at 12:06 PM
Unfortunately, you are not thinking like a lawyer.
"...Nope, it has all been carefully considered and analyzed by the LLNS legal team, and they are confident that no violation exists that they can't argue their way out of..."
I don't disagree with your point. If true though, just about any large company or plant could subdivide its workforce assigning each with distinctive titles to avoid Warn Act requirements.
By my read, less than 50 people per 30 day period does not trigger the Warn Act. Whether or not that's 50 people total out of the lab, or 50 per directorate, is not so clear but it seems like it would be risky to interpret that as 50 per directorate. Then again the penalties do not seem so severe (http://www.edd.ca.gov/jobs_and_training/Layoff_Services_WARN.htm), so perhaps the lawyers think it's worth the risk.
It is a sad reality when LLNS employees are compelled to ask such questions on a blog rather than asking HR and risk being identified as "outspoken"...
It is a sad reality when LLNS employees are compelled to ask such questions on a blog rather than asking HR and risk being identified as "outspoken"...
March 3, 2014 at 12:52 PM
So if you feel you are at risk, why not pay a good employment lawyer $150 for a consultation and get a professional opinion?
"...So if you feel you are at risk, why not pay a good employment lawyer $150 for a consultation and get a professional opinion?..."
Thanks for making my point about the environment at LLNS. Impacted or not, an employee shouldn't need to contact an outside lawyer to identify a change or new interpretation of a LLNS policy. At least not as a first step. This place is sinking fast.
...an employee shouldn't need to contact an outside lawyer to identify a change or new interpretation of a LLNS policy.
March 3, 2014 at 1:12 PM
True, but this isn't about a change in LLNS policy, it is about whether LLNS is complying with the law. It is never a good idea to pose that question to HR.
"... It is never a good idea to pose that question to HR..."
No argument here. Why would a young engineer or scientist want to work in such an environment other than for a few short years of resume building? LLNS is ripe with blatant cronyism and this is making the working environment worse. Who is watching the store?
I say the lab should lay off about 50% of the management. This would increase the money available to do work, we'd get more work done not having so many paper pushers around, morale would go up, and all the remaining managers would have to do work that is actually essential. Not the make work they do now to justify their existence. As things stand now in WFO the multilayer management above me shows virtually no interest in the work itself, and rarely inquire about it. They spend all their time on project sheets or things related to paperwork for the project. I have four layers of management above me for this purpose. They make no effort to bring in funds due to budget cuts and people being short. There are conflicts between project deadlines that require some decisions by the managers on what they want done when. Four layers of deadweight and I can't even get that. And when managers fail at their job they should be fired! That is what happens to those of us who do work. I myself am getting ready to quit shortly as the lab seems to exist for the sole purpose of having managers with big paychecks. I thought we had some kind of mission here...wouldn't know it from the manager's priorities. Brett if you read this why not comment on the top heavy management we have and what you plan to do about it at the next all hands. Many supervisors don't hold group meetings and do not meet with you individually either. Clear evidence that these people are not managing at all and should go.
Brett if you read this why not comment on the top heavy management we have and what you plan to do about it at the next all hands. Many supervisors don't hold group meetings and do not meet with you individually either. Clear evidence that these people are not managing at all and should go.
March 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM
At LANL, at LANL, at LANL.....
Signed, Brett Knapp
What has LLNS Acting Director Bret Knapp done at Los Alamos to make him unpopular there IF this is true, and how does it materially relate to the management of LLNS today? What did he do well at Los Alamos? Please provide specific examples.
I say the lab should lay off about 50% of the management.
Well said. I could have written almost exactly the same thing.
You know there is a big problem when you are required to write five progress reports every month for a small $50K project, with only one of the reports going to your sponsor. The other four are required by different management entities at the Laboratory - and of course all must be written in different formats.
Laboratory management does next to nothing except increase the overhead rate and decrease employee productivity due to all of the unfunded mandates.
I am getting ready to quit soon too. This place is a management joke - or nightmare.
Employee morale at LLNS is at an all time low and yet is still a safe haven for ineffective and or redundant managers.
I say the lab should lay off about 50% of the management.
March 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM
You know of course that no one, absolutely no one, cares what you say. Lab management considers WFO (with the possible exception of DHS because of a separate DOE policy for them) to be just moochers off the DOE/NNSA owned infrastructure and capabilities. Your WFO sponsor might pay for your operations overhead, but does nothing for your medical, dental, retirement, etc. If you can work for XXX agency at LLNL, why can't you work for them anywhere else? Answer: There IS nowhere else they can get you that cheap. You may enjoy your "independence" from DOE/NSA programmatic hassles, but you are skating on some pretty thin ice.
People who have options to quit would be nuts not to. Unfortunately many employees, particularly older employees who have been around for years, have a hard time finding something else and may find themselves escorted offsite before they line up a new position. If you're not looking now, it's past time to start - unless of course you are protected management fully funded as overhead by worker bees, in which case you're safe...
unless of course you are protected management fully funded as overhead by worker bees, in which case you're safe...
March 4, 2014 at 7:52 AM
Not so sure about that. Fewer "worker bees" means less overhead money to fund managers. It's pretty hard to justify to DOE/NNSA (or anyone else) having a fully-funded manager, with office support and infrastructure support, to "manage" only a few workers. If the reduction in workers is significant, there will have to be some restructuring, especially at the low- to mid-management levels. Even evil upper management types recognize that there are economies and efficiencies of scale that must be maintained.
"...Not so sure about that. Fewer "worker bees" means less overhead money to fund managers. It's pretty hard to justify to DOE/NNSA (or anyone else) having a fully-funded manager, with office support and infrastructure support, to "manage" only a few workers. If the reduction in workers is significant, there will have to be some restructuring, especially at the low- to mid-management levels. Even evil upper management types recognize that there are economies and efficiencies of scale that must be maintained..."
Hmm.
1. How many EE and ME managers did we lose when the two groups merged years ago?
2. Have we lost a proportional number of managers compared to the number of worker bees laid off or placed on EIT or EBA status?
Can I hear a nope and nope.
No one expects manager "losses" to be "proportional." The situation is more complicated than that. First of all, even if it were :proportional, what is the ratio of managers to workers? Whatever it is, one would expect a much smaller number of managers to be let go than workers. Second, the management structure is somewhat elastic - As shown by the fact that there is currently a fairly wide range of direct-reports for the same level of manager across the lab. However, if the tend across all organizations is downward, something has to give. It will start with smaller organizations, especially those whose function is similar to another smaller organization. Just saying that managers are not "safe" just because they are managers.
Something has to give somewhere, and worker staff reductions, voluntary or involuntary, represent one cost savings. Looks like GS funding at LANL is about 50% of what it was a few years ago, but the management staff has expanded.
Everyone but management knows it is reaching critical mass. The national laboratories are not management companies.
Because they're on overhead or assigned to a project, they will never lack "funding", and never be eliminated.
As time goes on something will have to give. There will be no workers left. Managers will be managing managers!
As time goes on something will have to give. There will be no workers left. Managers will be managing managers!
March 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM
Since only one of the five Performance Objectives that NNSA rates the labs on involves "leadership and management" and the other four involve actually doing work, I doubt that NNSA will allow LANS or LLNS to go too far down that road. Also LANS and LLNS realize the money goes away (and so do they) if they lose the contract for poor performance.
Evidently the LANS & LLNS haven't gotten the word concerning management reduction.
March 3, 2014 at 1:01 PM said... So if you feel you are at risk, why not pay a good employment lawyer $150 for a consultation and get a professional opinion?
A short talk with a lawyer who does not know the situation is not going to help much. Some of us who were pushed out or escorted out are already talking to lawyers, but you must have suffered damages before anyone will have much interest in spending time with you.
What's fitting is that LANS just failed at the Operations PBI due to asinine decisions like this. Good job Knapp, good job...
March 4, 2014 at 5:47 PM
Not exactly. Quoting from the FY13 report(dated 12/2013): Performance Objective 4 – Operations & Mission Excellence - Satisfactory. The overall rating of Satisfactory for this Performance Objective is an aggregate of many noteworthy accomplishments, sustained high performance in many areas, some material shortcomings, and a subjective judgment about the tempo of progress toward several longstanding, well-documented challenges, framed against the high standards of the bilateral Performance Evaluation Plan.
Doesn't sound like "failure" to me. Wishful thinking on your part.
you must have suffered damages before anyone will have much interest in spending time with you.
March 4, 2014 at 6:22 PM
You don't need someone who "knows the situation" you need someone who knows the law. If you have the money, they have the time. You decide whether it is worth it to have real information, or "information" from a blog.
You must never have tried to talk to a lawyer about what's going on at the lab.
You must never have tried to talk to a lawyer about what's going on at the lab.
March 4, 2014 at 8:03 PM
If you did that, you are a fool. What did you want, sympathy? Lawyers are not in that business. They don't care a whit for "what's going on at the lab." Are you kidding me???!! They aren't your Mommie. They are there to defend your rights if you have been wronged legally or if the law has been broken and you are a victim of that. You, the (paying) client. That's it. If you want a lawyer to whine to, good luck. Permanent retainer might get you that, but not from a lawyer with any professional ethics. Grow up.
You sure do read a lot into simple statements, do you have some kind of chip on your shoulder 8:59 pm? Anger management issues maybe?
Anonymous said...
"No one expects manager "losses" to be "proportional." The situation is more complicated than that. First of all, even if it were :proportional, what is the ratio of managers to workers? Whatever it is, one would expect a much smaller number of managers to be let go than workers. Second, the management structure is somewhat elastic"
Umm, when LLNL did their layoffs, they got rid of 400+ staff and I think it was 700 contractors (not sure on the exact number on the second). They showed the figures for the groups that got laid off. So nearly 15% of the workforce went away. Guess how many managers were laid off? Go ahead, guess. Two. Elastic indeed. The managers are so elastic they are still critical to lab functioning even when %15+ of the people they manage disappear. That folks is what you call bloated management that needs serious, serious trimming back.
Perhaps the LLNS definition of management "elasticity" is the ability to expand (not contract) or if all faced with EIT or EBA status, the ability to morph back into a technical role without the threat of classification or pay reduction.
You can quietly observe either of these 2 elastic properties. However, like touching any part of a spider web, asking questions draws the attention of the LLNS command and control elite.
"...Not exactly. Quoting from the FY13 report(dated 12/2013): Performance Objective 4 – Operations & Mission Excellence - Satisfactory. The overall rating of Satisfactory for this Performance Objective is an aggregate of many noteworthy accomplishments, sustained high performance in many areas, some material shortcomings, and a subjective judgment about the tempo of progress toward several longstanding, well-documented challenges, framed against the high standards of the bilateral Performance Evaluation Plan.
Doesn't sound like "failure" to me. Wishful thinking on your part..."
Performance as assessed by whom? Of all the 3rd graders in the class picture, parents and extended family will undoubtedly say their kids looked and were dressed the best. This is understandable for a parent.
Objective parent performance assessment of their 3rd grader is problematic at best.
"There IS nowhere else they (WFO sponsors) can get you that cheap. " (7:18 pm)
Are you kidding me? The cost of a technical staff member's labor for one year, fully burdened, is now running over $600k on average!
The NNSA national labs are not "cheap" for these outside sponsors and many of them are calling it quits and looking elsewhere for their technical expertise. Large segments of the WFO work at the labs have been slowly dying off.
This will further reduce the labs operating budget and probably result in the burden rates on the TSMs who remain to go even higher to feed the bloated lab management system, not that the LLC "for-profit" management seems to care.
Maybe if you guys get lucky they'll let 400+ more go as they did mid 2013 and they'll continue this every year therefore after.
Umm, when LLNL did their layoffs, they got rid of 400+ staff and I think it was 700 contractors (not sure on the exact number on the second). They showed the figures for the groups that got laid off. So nearly 15% of the workforce went away. Guess how many managers were laid off? Go ahead, guess. Two. Elastic indeed. The managers are so elastic they are still critical to lab functioning even when %15+ of the people they manage disappear. That folks is what you call bloated management that needs serious, serious trimming back.
March 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM
The pay is too good for the poor managers.
They'll never leave. In the outside world, they wouldn't be carried.
LLNS has some good managers in the mix, but the pendulum has swung too far in favor of these managers. More pay with less education and or less experience in many cases, upward mobility, and significantly better job security.
upward mobility, and significantly better job security.
March 6, 2014 at 5:09 PM
Yep, that's called getting into management. It has always been that way at the national labs, and always will be. Upward mobility for scientists not in management is called "Distinguished Professor" or "Professor Emeritus." If you want that, don't work at LLNS.
"...Yep, that's called getting into management.."
To a degree yes, but the pendulum has swung too far and to the point where the geese that lay the golden eggs are wanting out. The geese being the technical and scientific staff that are the driving force of our Lab.
...the pendulum has swung too far and to the point where the geese that lay the golden eggs are wanting out. The geese being the technical and scientific staff that are the driving force of our Lab.
March 7, 2014 at 9:24 AM
So the non-management technical staff are "wanting out" because they are resentful that management gets more perks than workers? Seems a little immature.
I was hoping for another RIF/VSIP soon, but it's not worth the wait. Life is too short to be miserable at your work place, especially for a professional, regardless of the state of the economy. Having had an extensive career at LLNL, I can confirm that it has become a sad shadow of itself. Perhaps if I didn't have that past history I wouldn't know the difference and be content with it as it is today. Life is too short indeed.
If you feel that way, you'll probably be happy to leave. I felt the same way after many years, and I'm very happy I bailed out last year. There's a whole big world out here that I never knew, looking out from inside the gates.
I hope both of you in the two previous posts have taken, or will take, the time to write to your Congressman, your local paper, and to your previous sponsors in DC, relating what you related here. Just a few well written, factual, calm, and attributable letters like that can do much more good for those who remain at the labs than any number of inflammatory, accusatory, vitriolic, or whining anonymous posts on this blog.
"...So the non-management technical staff are "wanting out" because they are resentful that management gets more perks than workers? Seems a little immature...."
"Perks" do not properly describe the growing disparity at LLNS. Offering "Pandora" or iphone freedoms at LLNS are "perks". Think it through.
"...I hope both of you in the two previous posts have taken, or will take, the time to write to your Congressman, your local paper, and to your previous sponsors in DC, relating what you related here. Just a few well written, factual, calm, and attributable letters like that can do much more good for those who remain at the labs than any number of inflammatory, accusatory, vitriolic, or whining anonymous posts on this blog..."
Nice theory and not too risky for "short timers". If you don't understand why, you are probably a new employee and do not understand the Lab culture yet.
Blogs pop into existence for a reason.
Think it through.
March 7, 2014 at 1:16 PM
I guarantee that my thinking it through isn't going to get me to your conclusion.
Nice theory and not too risky for "short timers". If you don't understand why, you are probably a new employee and do not understand the Lab culture yet.
Blogs pop into existence for a reason.
March 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM
What "risk" is involved if someone has already quit or retired? Too many use that excuse. Blogs like this are absolutely useless for the same reasons they pop up. Anonymity fosters dishonesty and sociopathic behavior. That's the reason "blogger" has become an epithet.
"...What "risk" is involved if someone has already quit or retired?..."
Perhaps you have misunderstood the point. Ask a fellow LLNS employee what a "short timer" is. It is not a retired person.
So the non-management technical staff are "wanting out" because they are resentful that management gets more perks than workers? Seems a little immature.
No. Non-management technical staff want out because of the hostile environment created by the management culture at the Laboratory. Lab management reduces overall worker productivity by over 50%. And the people who bring funds into the Laboratory - the technical staff - have to pay to have their productivity reduced. The vast majority of sponsor funds is used to pay management costs, not technical work.
At LLNL, management is the end result. It is the final product. Little else matters.
People do not leave jobs, they leave management. Staff in the top 50% have little difficulty finding outside employment. And that's what's happening. The Lab is losing the workers it can least afford to lose. It has little to do with salary and so-called perks. It has everything to do with an out of control management structure.
Has LLNS management made a public accounting for % management overhead referenced to technical or scientific productivity, or have they favored anonymity as mentioned in the earlier post?
Face facts. Managers are in the game for money. Technical Staff are in the game for glory. No one is in it for service to the Nation.
Honestly, I'm not sure I care enough to write my Congressman. And if I did, it would not do any good because politicians think the same way current lab management thinks: It's all about me.
"...Face facts. Managers are in the game for money. Technical Staff are in the game for glory. No one is in it for service to the Nation..."
Knowledge of turnstile and "at will" employment status will exacerbate your concern to the extent it is true. Where is the strategic vision?
Lab management reduces overall worker productivity by over 50%. ...
The vast majority of sponsor funds is used to pay management costs, not technical work.
March 7, 2014 at 3:49 PM
These claims are ridiculous and not supported by facts. Try supporting your grievances with actual data. Otherwise you just look foolish and juvenile.
Honestly, I'm not sure I care enough to write my Congressman. And if I did, it would not do any good because politicians think the same way current lab management thinks: It's all about me.
March 7, 2014 at 5:36 PM
You sound like you think it's all about you. Remember the old ditty:
"Nobody likes me; everybody hates me; I think I'll eat some worms"?
If you "don't care enough" about you, who else do you expect to care about you?
I think you misunderstand, I don't care enough because I've already resigned. The lab will continue going down the tubes, and there really isn't anyone with the power to stop it who cares enough to stop it. Just the way it is, and other folks can make their own decisions.
"March 7, 2014 at 3:49 PM
These claims are ridiculous and not supported by facts. Try supporting your grievances with actual data. Otherwise you just look foolish and juvenile"
You must not work at the lab. I will use the overhead charged for my work. Based on my salary, how much I "cost" when i charge a project means every day the overhead cost 3 times what I am paid in salary. Now the DAILY amount for my health insurance and other benefits is small. Note I have to pay half of my insurance costs AND deduct 7% of salary for pension. This comes pretty close to 3X what I am paid. So lets say the lab is pretty costly to run, while I doubt this is the case, lets call it 50% of this overhead is for running the lab not including paying managers. The amount remaining is enough to pay a manager, and mind you pay that manager much more than me. My salary is probably average for the lab, and if others have the same overhead that means everybody who works on projects is supporting 1 or 2 managers equivalent (depending on salary level). I do not know how many managers are at the lab but this leaves two possibilities, there is a 1:1 manager ratio to those that work on projects (unlikely i think) but based on my overhead alone one manager could be paid for at 50% higher pay than myself. The other possibility is there are fewer managers than the number of people working on projects, looking around my division and the four layers of managers, the ratio appears to be about 5 workers per manager. This ratio does not include management above my division. If this number is correct, then the managers are making HUGE salaries that on average are MUCH higher than 150% of my salary. A 1:5 manager to worker ratio is a huge management burden, and this is just at the division level. Add the lab director and all the deputy whatevers, and assistant something or others,and the ratio is worse. I realize this calculation is a guesstimate, but I am being pretty generous to the lab in the calculations. This means we are paying a lot for a lot of managers (1:1 ratio), or there are fewer (but still bloated, 1:5 is still absurd) managers than a 1:1 who are making HUGE amounts of money. The only possible "silver lining" is if there are MORE than one managers per project worker, then at least on average they are not making as much. But such a ratio would be insane. What do think? This back of the envelope sound right?
"Life is too short to be miserable at your work place, especially for a professional, regardless of the state of the economy." (11 am)
I nominate this as the most insightful comment on this particular posting. Yes, life is short so choose happiness. Mitigate as best you can everything else.
This back of the envelope sound right?
March 7, 2014 at 8:24 PM
Nope. You need a course in how lab overheads are calculated. HR conducts them all the time for new managers - I'm sure they wouldn't notice someone sitting quietly in the back of the room. Hints: Your actual salary has nothing to do with it. You don't pay anywhere near half your insurance costs. Managers have overhead cost too. Many of the people you are calling "managers" are actually paid for a significant fraction of programmatic work. Your estimates are based on many faulty assumptions.
Well that is funny, my paycheck breaks out what I pay and what the lab pays. I pay half. So I guess you are saying they are putting false info on my paycheck? You need to get your facts straight. My numbers are wrong? Well then lay out the correct ones. I would certainly like your explanation for the faulty information that is documented on my paycheck, in writing, by the lab.
"Nope. You need a course in how lab overheads are calculated. HR conducts them all the time for new managers - I'm sure they wouldn't notice someone sitting quietly in the back of the room. Hints: Your actual salary has nothing to do with it. You don't pay anywhere near half your insurance costs. Managers have overhead cost too. Many of the people you are calling "managers" are actually paid for a significant fraction of programmatic work. Your estimates are based on many faulty assumptions.
March 7, 2014 at 9:10 PM"
There was a chart posted on this blog a few years back of the faction of people on overhead (managers, administration.. ect).
In 2000 it was something like 25% The number showed slow rise and after the contract change it went to over 50%. This seems to track with the overhead fairly well. I know LANL had some plots of loss of productivity during this time.
Some of our former directors have testified before congress about how productivity is taking a hit.
You also heard about how NNSA head Held has also said that privatization has not worked out. One of the reasons is that the promised efficiencies have not happened. Our high level managers make huge salaries now with bonuses. Tell me where is the value added?
"...Some of our former directors have testified before congress about how productivity is taking a hit.
You also heard about how NNSA head Held has also said that privatization has not worked out. One of the reasons is that the promised efficiencies have not happened. Our high level managers make huge salaries now with bonuses. Tell me where is the value added?..."
Disproportional salaries, excessive overhead, working environment, etc., all boil down to the need for greater disclosure which will be strongly resisted. Something about those with the gold...? For those a little younger,
those on the "Star Trek Nexus" will never self deport.
Comprehensive disclosure doesn't benefit management in the short run so it won't happen through their efforts alone.
NNSA will do nothing before the mid-term elections that will force members of Congress who are up for reelection to take a position or state an opinion. That is why Held's statements are less than definitive with regard to intentions or time frame. Don't hold your breath.
The labs will need to collapse under the weight of needless and excessive managers.
Nothing will change before then, except the actual workers taking the hit.
And yes we know we don't need to work here.
Some seem to forget that the national labs do not exist in order that their workers can have jobs. If you aren't complaining about the damage being done to US national security by mismanagement of the labs, you have no right to complain about anything.
"...Some seem to forget that the national labs do not exist in order that their workers can have jobs..."
Labs don't exist for the sole benefit of its managers, the sky is blue, and water is wet. These observations don't help much.
Disclosure and review are the systematic path forward not this endless conjecture.
Disclosure and review are the systematic path forward not this endless conjecture.
March 8, 2014 at 2:26 PM
Disclosure by the people in charge so that things you don't understand can be reviewed by you? Yeah, that'll happen.
"...Disclosure by the people in charge so that things you don't understand can be reviewed by you? Yeah, that'll happen..."
Disclosure to all, but you know that. I guess the PR department is a little defensive these days.
Disclosure to all, but you know that. I guess the PR department is a little defensive these days.
March 8, 2014 at 9:54 PM
Disclosure of what, exactly? LLNS is allowed under the contract, and by law, to keep certain information from public disclosure. DOE/NNSA is required to disclose anything under its purview that is not prohibited by law from public disclosure. FIOA and CPRA are there for a reason if you feel that those guidelines are being violated. If you don't like the legal guidelines, tough noogies.
Nope. You need a course in how lab overheads are calculated
I am not the person you responded to but it is clearly you who does not understand Laboratory financial processes. I do. I am quite aware of how overheads are calculated. I understand the various rates, rate structures, and how they are tiered to create total FTE costs. I understand Laboratory taxes on procurements, travel, and related needs and their implications. I understand effort factors. I understand a host of other financial issues because I deal with them on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis. I am also aware of how the Laboratory hides additional overhead costs in their usage of payroll burden and standard salary rates (particularly troublesome in prior years), and how they often provide selective if not purposely misleading information regarding overhead costs. Yes, I have seen all the VG's.
The bottom line is that when I bring funds into the Laboratory as a PI, the vast majority of these funds pay for management and management created costs. They pay for people on overhead. Everyone but you seems to know this. Only a fraction of the funds I generate go to pay my salary, my benefits, and the specific needs of my projects (including reasonable facility or site support costs). Personally, my current multiplier is 3.8 for DOE and 4.0 for WFO funds.
When we used to pay facility costs based on office square footage (these absurd costs are now buried in site support), my office space cost my projects about $35K/yr, or about 20 times what it would have cost a private business to rent comparable office space. LLNL must have some pretty expensive electricity.
Why is our current payroll burden (benefits) 63.8%? It was excessive even when we were with UC. It was twice the typical campus rate for non-faculty staff at that time even though the benefits packages were nearly identical. Do the math. Add the major benefits components (employee leave, employer paid SS and medicare, medical insurance, and now retirement contributions). It doesn't add up.
In general, overhead rates at LLNL are about twice those of other organizations (except LANL). They are significantly higher than SNL and LBNL. Lab management cannot even stick to its own budgets. Overhead rates are often changed throughout a given year. I do not have this luxury as a PI. My sponsors expect me to meet deliverables with the funds provided at the beginning of a project. I cannot tell them that I have mismanaged my budget so they need to send me more funding.
The worst aspect of this is that I spend the majority of my time each and every day dealing with management created hassles and other unfunded mandates. I used to keep track. Approximately 60% of my "8-to-5" time was spent on these unfunded tasks. It continues to be overwhelming. This is why the best employees (top 50%) leave the Laboratory.
Wow! I agree absolutely with March 9, at 2:07pm analysis on Lab overhead costs. You must be a long term Lab PI in order to understand all the nuances about Lab overhead structures. The PI works hard to bring in the funds for his projects; however, the folks from the overhead organizations never understand it. They want to create more layers of reporting and monitoring your projects. With many WFO reports that the PI must write to satisfy many layers of management, no wonder the level of dissatisfaction and unhappiness is so obvious. I am totally and completely empathize with you.
Excellent write-up on LLNL overhead by "March 9, 2014 at 2:07 PM". Spot on and you've got all the details and implications correct.
March 9, 2014 at 2:07 PM
Well at LANL at least we know that the overhead goes to 4k for a night at the opera.
"March 9, 2014 at 2:07 PM"
Stop your whining. In case you have not noticed we are a corporation now and this is how it works in the real world. The lab is not here for you, it is here to make money. If you vanish the lab and the managers still get a bonus. If you have a problem with it than get out and don't let the door hit your ass. Show me where in the contract where it says that WFO, or other DOE projects leads to an increase in the bonus. It does not so you are not needed. This is the real world baby and it ain't going away so you can take your attitude elsewhere.
Spoken like a true LANS & LLNS manager.
Anyone speaking about the problem should leave.
Spoken like a true LANS & LLNS manager.
Anyone speaking about the problem should leave.
5:43, you have it exactly wrong: The lab is not here to make money, LLNS is here to make money off its management fees and indirectly for some of its constituent corporations (like Bechtel) through other contracts. Perhaps it is you who ought to avoid the swinging door, since you don't even have the basic stuff down.
"Spoken like a true LANS & LLNS manager.
Anyone speaking about the problem should leave.
March 9, 2014 at 6:03 PM"
What problems? The only problems have been the staff. They are the ones that cause the security problems and the safety problems. Do your job safely and securely. The cowboy culture was a problem for a reason. If you cannot live within these confines than by all means please get out. In this economy you can be replaced in a second and probably by someone much better who will not complain. Remember that no matter what you have no right to complain, the labs are not here for you, if you are a worker you are here for the lab.
Not trying to be a facetious, but is excessive management and managers of any benefit to the lab?
DOE acknowledges differences of opinion (we call that a problem), and has a policy on how it should be addressed.
I guess we don't have to leave after all.
Thank you, Brett, er, I mean, 6:32.
Brett is not, by a long shot, the only one who feels that way. The labs are being killed by the anonymous whiners.
It's amusing you think anonymous whiners on a blog wield so much power that they can kill the labs.
Having a large negative effect doesn't mean you have "power."
Any management company that can't take a little honest criticism should leave (the same advice given to the workers).
...and thank YOU, Craig, er I mean, 7:14, or should I say, "anonymous 7:14?"
No. Craig knows how to spell Bret's name.
Criticism of workers is the purpose and right of management. Criticism of management is the one-time self-indulgence of workers. That has been the truth for many centuries. You think you are special, fine. You'll eventually find otherwise. No one needs you if you are a problem.
Just like the Romanovs found otherwise, and Louis XVI, Ceausescu, Batista, Charles I, General Motors in 1937... (rolls eyes)
So you consider all management to be dictators who deserve to be overthrown? Workers Unite!! HaHaHaHa. Look, just go occupy something, ok? There are people who live in the real world trying to have a conversation here.
You dont seem to understand, this is much bigger than "manager vs. worker bee", it's a national security issue. People at the labs, managers and worker bees, once cared about that, but maybe you are an example of the new wave that does not. The shrinking new wave. Sad times.
"You dont seem to understand, this is much bigger than "manager vs. worker bee", it's a national security issue. People at the labs, managers and worker bees, once cared about that, but maybe you are an example of the new wave that does not. The shrinking new wave. Sad times.
March 11, 2014 at 10:17 PM"
In case you forgot it was the workers with the security issues. The new management was sent in to clean it up. In many ways the workforce are the real liabilities at the lab than managers have to put with.
You still don't get the big picture here... I hope you are not a manager.
The big picture is if you lose your clearance and therefore your job based on a security incident after the security rules have been tightened so much (in response to non-events) that no one understands them or can get any work done.
Just to revive the top post here:
"When is next RIF/VSIP?"
Answer: It will never be announced, but it will happen slowly over the next three years or so, until a new Administration, and possibly beyond that until a Republican Congress and President are elected.
I have found in one division that the manager violate the rules and coverup for safety and security violations. But no one cares.
Concerned citizen of the US.
Republicans gave us LANS and LLNS. There are no white knights in Washington, only people who want to slash budgets and get re-elected by their constituents. Not even our CA senators and representatives care enough to do anything.
The issue is not who gave us privatization. It about who will adequately fund nuclear weapon research, development, testing, and maintenance.
The issue is spending your money in a wise and prudent manner.
Managing your resources.
The issue is spending your money in a wise and prudent manner.
Managing your resources.
March 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM
Yeah, that'll happen, with a government $17T in debt, and a President who doesn't care and wants to borrow and spend more.
Just like the previous President and his party's Congress. Suddenly the Republicans found religion, but where were they when they buried the country in debt from 2000-2008 and presided over the financial meltdown in 08?
Just like the previous President and his party's Congress.
March 14, 2014 at 11:20 PM
Your point? It's ok for Obama to keep "burying the country" because Bush started it? It's ok that Obama's debt far exceeds Bush's because Bush started it? It's ok for Obama to continue to want to borrow and spend because Bush started it? OK, so let's stipulate that Bush started it. What's your response now?
You are rabid and need your shots.
OK, so let's stipulate that Bush started it. What's your response now?
March 15, 2014 at 9:36 AM
You are rabid and need your shots.
March 15, 2014 at 11:24 AM
Just about what I expected. No refutation or argument, just personal attack. I wonder why it doesn't seem to gall liberals to be so glaringly predictable. Question the othodoxy, get attacked. The world is starting to see how tissue-thin the Obama veneer is.
It has nothing to do with Obama, I simply don't waste my time discussing important issues with parrots. A parrot keeps repeating the same thing over and over again, no matter what you say, because someone else got there first and, after all, it's just a parrot. It might be amusing for a little while, but only a litle while - and it frustrates the parrot.
Can anyone tell me what managements responsibilities are? Bring in money for the projects? Not doing that, so it must not be one. Making sure the lab is run efficiently? Apparently that is not it either. Employee morale? Now that is a big negativo. Self promotion? That is clearly one. When layoffs come, make sure managers are not laid off? Check. Belittle those who do the work and downplay their accomplishments while taking credit themselves? Check. Get on this blog and tell anyone who points out management incompetence they should "just leave"? Check. Tell us over and over again how hard their jobs are? Check. Create layers of redundant management and creating busy work? Check. Have a sense of entitlement to have a high paid position regardless of performance? Check. Berate employees who actually produce as having a sense of entitlement? Check. Can anyone point to some management led efforts that have dramatically improved the lab organization? And by this I do not include things done by people doing the projects which the managers tout as evidence of THEIR work.
It has nothing to do with Obama, I simply don't waste my time discussing important issues with parrots. A parrot keeps repeating the same thing over and over again, no matter what you say...
March 15, 2014 at 2:35 PM
Oh, your mean like "it's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault"? HeHeHe. You are so predictable.
March 15, 2014 at 9:36 AM
Look, Obama came in because of Bush. I too am disappointed in Obama because in the end he was no different than Bush. Ok maybe it would be worse if Bush was in. The point is that Obama let lots of people down and towed the same line that Bush did. He still went to war, still kept up the police state, still kept Gitmo open, still kept taxes down, still bailed out the rich, still spies on the US people, keeps the wars going, the drones bombing, keeps pot illegal on the federal level, still has a death penalty, has not made gay marriage a federal right, and still is corrupt. Again I suppose it could be worse with Bush, like we would declare war on the moon of something but all in all Obama is not all the different than Bush.
Off topic, but Obama is a lot different than Bush Jr. At least Bush senior and junior would know enough to not "mess with the bear"
get my drift !
Obamacare is Bush's fault! Oh, do I sound like an idiot? Of course I do. I'm an evil idiot that voted for Obama.
There is a Lyndon La Rouche nutzo among us.
7:03 is making too much sense.
Can anyone point to some management led efforts that have dramatically improved the lab organization? And by this I do not include things done by people doing the projects which the managers tout as evidence of THEIR work.
Exactly. Laboratory management spends hundreds of millions of dollars on themselves every year, purportedly to make the Laboratory a better place. What do they do with these overhead funds? Simple question. What specially have they accomplished over the last several years that justifies their expense? Is it the endless reorganizations that they never seem to get right? Is it the shrinking budgets? Is it the demoralized workforce?
"Exactly. Laboratory management spends hundreds of millions of dollars on themselves every year, purportedly to make the Laboratory a better place. What do they do with these overhead funds? Simple question. What specially have they accomplished over the last several years that justifies their expense? Is it the endless reorganizations that they never seem to get right? Is it the shrinking budgets? Is it the demoralized workforce?
March 16, 2014 at 5:16 PM"
You are a bitter person who hates those that succeed. Every organization has managers or they would not exist and LLNL is no different. The only difference is that LLNL is filled with workers that think they are special and whine all the time. The transition to the real world has been tough for a lot of you. I know you think that you do something special, I have news for you, you do not. You are here for a LLC to make a profit. Whining and complaining does not make profit nor does it advance your career for you to get a share of the profit. Think about this, why would you or anyone else want this job? It is for the money, and if you do not want do what it takes to get the the money than someone else does. The labs where prioritized for a reason so get over it.
You are here for a LLC to make a profit.
March 16, 2014 at 8:52 PM
Not quite. LLNS does not make a "profit" since it invests nothing. It gets an award fee for managing a government entity. LLNL does not belong to LLNS, it belongs to DOE/NNSA. The government hired LLNS to run LLNL because of the national security interests of LLNL's activities. LLNS's "profit" is irrelevant to the government. LLNS is in no way like any other profit-making corporation. LLNS has no existence outside the context of the LLNL contract. It can be evaporated in an eyeblink if DOE/NNSA feels it has broken the contract or failed to meet the contract requirements.
PS: The labs were "privatized" not "prioritized."
Nor "where prioritized".
March 16, 2014 at 9:10 PM
I agree with you, however all I ever hear from manages is that we are now corporate and have to play by corporate rules and corporate standards. They say " well things are done this way because we are now a for profit company". "We need to have corporate sized salaries since we are a corporation now". "There are different rules for managers and workers just like in the corporate world". It just goes on and on. It seems like they use this excuse to justify all their actions. Maybe someone should remind them that they are not working Fortune 500 company.
Post a Comment