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.
Here is a pot-pourri of comments made before the post got posted. Normally, I delete such comments. Please the warning before leaving a comment before post is posted.
Anonymous said...
Can't blame this bad apple on Bechtel. The deputy was hand picked by Charlie, going outside the ranks of Bechtel. An article in the LA Monitor some time back indicates that an investigation turned up a mess and the deputy was at the center of it. March 7, 2014 at 1:49 PM Anonymous said...
Charlie did a heck of job covering this up. He should have fired her weeks ago. Heck of a job Charlie, heck of a job! March 7, 2014 at 3:30 PM Anonymous said...
Strange how these lab Deputy Director's (who are always brought in from Bechtel) seem to leave under such "unusual" circumstances.
Anyone remember LAN's first Deputy Director back in 2006 who also left under similar mysterious circumstances shortly after LANL went "for profit"?
RULE: If it comes from Bechtel then it's probably crooked and highly unethical. March 7, 2014 at 7:33 PM Anonymous said...
What's the inside story? What did she do to bring about the need for her to resign? March 7, 2014 at 8:35 PM Anonymous said...
RULE: If it comes from Bechtel then it's probably crooked and highly unethical.
March 7, 2014 at 7:33 PM
Did you bother to read the earlier post? She was NOT from Bechtel. March 7, 2014 at 8:45 PM Anonymous said...
" Anonymous said...
What's the inside story? What did she do to bring about the need for her to resign?
March 7, 2014 at 8:35 PM"
She appeared not to disclose connections about relative that received a lucrative consulting position at LANL. She of course is innocent but for the good of the institution she offered to resign, Charlie honored her self sacrifice and accepted her resignation. March 8, 2014 at 9:20 AM Anonymous said...
I have heard stories about managers acting unprofessional and harassing, which is against policy, if not illegal. However, HR lead by Jennifer Szutu I would say encourages this behavior. Does anyone have any stories ? Also is this an abusive of power underneath DOE guidelines . March 8, 2014 at 9:32 AM Anonymous said...
Oooh...
Did the Chili Cookoff guy (Tim Shepodd) from Sandia move to LLNL?
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/12839142/timothy-jon-shepodd March 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM Anonymous said...
Wow paid 4k to go the Santa Fe Opera. I remember when they said after the Mustang incident (No Mustang was ever stolen), that LANL had a culture of theft. Well it looks like after the contract change we do have a culture of theft. This is the second in command at LANL! What else is going on, I would bet that this is just the tip of the iceberg. March 8, 2014 at 7:39 PM Anonymous said...
At the APS March Meeting in Denver last week they had Enrico Fermis granddaughter Olivia Fermi, gave a talk on women and the Manhattan project. She mentioned that since the contract change at LANL that the moral has dropped and how a number of the top people have left. So the word is getting out about what the contract change did to the labs. March 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM Anonymous said...
The inappropriate things going on at LANL happen at the other labs too. It's not just an LANL thing.
This scandal from Sandia involved a Congress representative:
This isn't the high stakes world of private business. This is a national lab management contract: tax payer money.
When you go to work managing a fortune 500 company feel free to demand excessive perks for you & your family. March 11, 2014 at 5:32 AM Anonymous said...
"This isn't the high stakes world of private business. This is a national lab management contract: tax payer money.
When you go to work managing a fortune 500 company feel free to demand excessive perks for you & your family.
March 11, 2014 at 5:32 AM"
The whole point of making the labs for profit was so that they would act fortune 500 companies with all the business incentives. LANS has to play by those rules now if it is to be competitive with other companies. What is so hard to understand about that? March 11, 2014 at 6:44 AM Anonymous said...
LANS has to play by those rules now if it is to be competitive with other companies. What is so hard to understand about that?
March 11, 2014 at 6:44 AM
Competitive in what field? It's not like there are lots of other companies out there competing for LANS's customers (DOE/NNSA). If you are thinking of WFO, think again. If LANS really wanted WFO customers, it would not make itself so incredibly expensive. March 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM Anonymous said...
Why did we privatize the labs? March 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM Anonymous said...
"We" didn't. Congress did. Why? Because Congress, based on UC management, believed university management had no incentive to comply with security rules, was too uninvolved, and too soft on the "cowboy" scientists. March 11, 2014 at 12:39 PM
""We" didn't. Congress did. Why? Because Congress, based on UC management, believed university management had no incentive to comply with security rules, was too uninvolved, and too soft on the "cowboy" scientists.
March 11, 2014 at 12:39 PM"
But there was no cowboy scientists. The UC worked great for 60 years. We privatize LLNL because on non-existence cowboys, lose a great number of the best people, have money literally being stolen, and we still have security incidents. Where was the added value? March 11, 2014 at 1:34 PM Anonymous said...
But there was no cowboy scientists. The UC worked great for 60 years. We privatize LLNL because on non-existence cowboys, lose a great number of the best people, have money literally being stolen, and we still have security incidents. Where was the added value?
March 11, 2014 at 1:34 PM
That's why I put "cowboy" in quotes. UC did not "work great." It completely failed during the Wen Ho Lee investigation, and continued that failure to lead or to make the appropriate decisions during all the other investigations. It does not matter that all the others (at least pre-LANS) eventually came to nothing, UC's fate was already sealed. Congress decided they'd had enough of university-style hands-off management, and they did something about it.
Answer: There is no "added value." As is the case with most of what Congress does. March 11, 2014 at 1:56 PM Anonymous said...
"It completely failed during the Wen Ho Lee investigation, and continued that failure to lead or to make the appropriate decisions during all the other investigations."
Why did LLNLs need to have a contract change as well? I would say the FBI screwed up the Wen Ho Lee investigation not UC. Also there was political pressure to get Richardson since they new he might end up as Al Gores running mate and he had to be taken out.
Anonymous said...
"Why did LLNLs need to have a contract change as well?" - good question. All the DOE M&O contractors paid the price for LANL's misdeeds, plus they had some of their own, so we all paid the price. Some important Congressional personnel were very unhappy at the answers they got in response to security, safety, cost management, etc, and their answer is always to privatize. UC could have bid its offer to run the labs without Bechtel etc involved and probably would have won because at the time LLNL was perceived (recall this was mostly pre-NIF) not to share all of LANL's problems, but the UC/LLNS bid team had promised Bechtel that if they assisted LANS in winning the contract for LANL, then Bechtel would also be part of the bid for LLNL immediately following the LANL award. March 11, 2014 at 3:36 PM Anonymous said...
In the fortune 500 companies, managers must produce or they're out.
At these LLCs they're in forever, even during layoffs! March 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM
In the fortune 500 companies, managers must produce or they're out.
At these LLCs they're in forever, even during layoffs!
March 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM
You obviously don't understand the difference between large US corporations with millions of customers around the world, and the LANS/LLNS LLCs with only one customer, only one purpose, and only one money source: US taxpayers. If the lab LLCs lose their one contract, they evaporate immediately - they were created only to run the labs. You are comparing apples and oranges. March 11, 2014 at 7:17 PM Anonymous said...
Then management is the one comparing apples to oranges when they play the industry / corporate standard card. March 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM Anonymous said...
Then management is the one comparing apples to oranges when they play the industry / corporate standard card.
March 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Regarding what exactly? The post at March 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM was referring to management keeping their jobs where or not they "produce" (whatever that means for a manager). What "card" are you referring to?? March 11, 2014 at 8:45 PM Anonymous said...
After sexual harassment by top level management, the lab worker bees all got subjected to additional online training on sexual harassment. I predict more online training requirements for ethics after this latest top level management fiasco.
Of course, the top level management never bothers to take these growing number of mandatory online courses because they are "too busy managing". It's a sad state of affairs. March 12, 2014 at 12:20 AM Anonymous said...
"Regarding what exactly? The post at March 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM was referring to management keeping their jobs where or not they "produce" (whatever that means for a manager). What "card" are you referring to??
March 11, 2014 at 8:45 PM"
I think the card is that the manager make huge salaries, receive all sorts of perks that are perceived to come along with CEOs of business corporations.
Privatization works where there is free market competition so that there are inherent checks and balances. There is nothing like that at LLNLs so the thing can run completely amok with crazy business decisions. You can say "what about the contract". True but LLNLs wrote the contract. I know it is nuts. It seems like the people that scream privatization do not really understand how capitalism works. March 12, 2014 at 6:25 AM Anonymous said...
UC never managed the Labs - at least not in the way many misinformed thought. UC ran the Labs the same way it - the Regents and UCOP - runs the campuses. They would select a Lab Director just like they select a campus Chancellor. The employees at the Lab were UC employees (just like campus employees were UC employees). That was it. In the eyes of the Regents and UCOP, the day to day decisions "were" being made by UC - by all of these UC employes at the Labs. There was not a group of "nutty" professors or tree hugging liberals from "UC" going out to the Labs and directing things. The managers and leaders running Lab security, safety, and business operations were not grad students on their first job - but highly qualified professions in their fields hired by the Lab (and therefore UC employees).
So in the eyes of UC it was no more "hands off" management of the Labs, than UC has "hands off" management of the campuses. March 12, 2014 at 7:40 AM vive.
The whole point of making the labs for profit was so that they would act fortune 500 companies with all the business incentives... March 11, 2014 at 6:44 AM
That's ridiculous. The labs are funded by taxpayer money and have no competition, no sales, no profit, no shareholders, I could go on. Corporate management of the labs could work fine, but the change was to stop what Congress perceived as non-management by UC, and replace it with something that a majority favored for ideological reasons. Simple. The labs will never resemble fortune 500 corporations, and therefore they can't be run like fortune 500 companies. March 12, 2014 at 7:56 AM Anonymous said...
Given all the discussion above, tell me again why part of my pay raise needs to go back into the discretionary spending coffers? March 12, 2014 at 8:21 PM Anonymous said...
It's not "your" pay raise until they give it to you. Just be glad you have a job. If you lose it, you'll likely never work again. March 12, 2014 at 8:47 PM Anonymous said...
" It's not "your" pay raise until they give it to you. Just be glad you have a job. If you lose it, you'll likely never work again.
March 12, 2014 at 8:47 PM"
Why are the workers paid so much at LLNL? I can understand people in silicon valley good money since people pay for it. I have never understood this aspect of the labs. March 13, 2014 at 6:18 AM
Post a Comment March 11, 2014 at 3:17 PM Anonymous said...
What ever became of the "Bechtel Spouses" that where given jobs during the management change.
Called "industry standard" at the time. March 9, 2014 at 11:07 AM Anonymous said...
How many other top managers at LANL have sweetheart deals for their spouses? March 9, 2014 at 3:32 PM Anonymous said...
Once again, upper management gets a pass. What she and her husband did is illegal; they should both be in jail for fraud. March 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM Anonymous said...
The industry standard spouse employment happened at LLNS too.
I've got to looking up worker bee industry standards. There has to be a perk for me too. March 9, 2014 at 6:07 PM Anonymous said...
This really burns me up. What they did was standard corporate practices. By punishing them we may not be able to attract to the quality of managers that our corporate labs need. They will go to other more lucrative companies. In order for LLNL and LANL to be competitive in the business world we need to have the best business leaders. This is a sad day for LANL. March 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM Anonymous said...
Are you saying that in order to find a competent manager for a national laboratory we owe the spouses a job too?
Any chance of that being entry level, or an actually needed skill set? March 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM Anonymous said...
What she and her husband did is illegal; they should both be in jail for fraud.
March 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM
I doubt it. Please cite a statute. March 9, 2014 at 7:06 PM Anonymous said...
Securing a position for one's spouse, usually in "Protocol", is an established tradition in upper management at LANL.Nothing new here, they just forgot to file the required paperwork to legitimatize it. March 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM
Since when has the DOE science and national laboratories had a existing protocol or established tradition of hiring manager's spouses. March 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM Anonymous said...
Since 1943. March 9, 2014 at 9:13 PM Anonymous said...
"What she and her husband did is illegal; they should both be in jail for fraud.
March 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM"
Please keep the paranoia to yourself. They did not even do anything serious. I say this is just a big nothing burger and yes, it is standard corporate practice to have perks for the CEOs. March 9, 2014 at 9:17 PM Anonymous said...
I thought that within a corporation there was only one CEO to cash in on this perk? March 10, 2014 at 5:40 AM Anonymous said...
You're right stealing $4k outright isn't fraud at all. No crime here! I've known people who were fired for taking a $100 multimeter home. Standard corporate practice my ass. March 10, 2014 at 6:10 PM Anonymous said...
"I thought that within a corporation there was only one CEO to cash in on this perk?
March 10, 2014 at 5:40 AM"
It is all the high up management that gets perks. Standard practice and the way the real world works. In order to be competitive in hiring the best people this is how it is done. March 10, 2014 at 7:26 PM Anonymous said...
"You're right stealing $4k outright isn't fraud at all. No crime here! I've known people who were fired for taking a $100 multimeter home. Standard corporate practice my ass.
March 10, 2014 at 6:10 PM"
Look you pay a high level consultant a fee. He does his business and talks to the right people at the right dinners, concerts, social events, parities,..you name it. If it is a dinner you could have to pay for 500$ bottle of crystal. This is how the business world works. Sine nights you score other you miss. You put out 25k for a few hours of perks and you could get 25 million in deals in return. It does not always work out that way but you need to take some chances in the business world to close the big deal. Executives and managers are paid big bucks and get to play with the big boys for a reason. In the real world this would not even be brought up. LANL may have lost a lot of great connections and potential profit by this. The labs are a for profit corporation now and they need to play by the corporate rules if they are to sur
How could she NOT realize it was a breach of ethics when it was her own husband gaining the lucrative contract?
And being accused of taking $4k in funding before the contract was even signed and billing hours to the lab while he was attending the Santa Fe Opera? Wow!
" How could she NOT realize it was a breach of ethics when it was her own husband gaining the lucrative contract?"
It is part of the standard business practices today. Ethics is all in the eye of the beholder.
" And being accused of taking $4k in funding before the contract was even signed and billing hours to the lab while he was attending the Santa Fe Opera? Wow!
March 16, 2014 at 10:27 PM"
These are where the big deals go down. You have give your rainmakers the room and slack they need to make the magic happen. You want the labs to be a for profit organization this is how it works.
You want the labs to be a for profit organization this is how it works.
March 16, 2014 at 11:01 PM
The LLC can never make more "profit" than the maximum amount of the award fee. You might be right if you are talking about indirect benefit to the parent companies (or kickbacks to LLNS management), but that benefit will never be felt by the labs or their employees.
It's not and has never been industry or corporate standard to violate company policy, behave unethically, or have your spouse (a non employee) dip into company funds for a few extra bucks.
If it's authorized & acceptable behavior, why did she step down?
For sure, it was not authorized by the government. It was acceptable, at least to those involved at LANL. Charlie knew about it for a couple years, and kept her as his Deputy. When you know about unauthorized actions, and do not publicly show them to be unacceptable, you become part of the problem and give up the ability to be part of the solution.
For sure, it was not authorized by "the government. It was acceptable, at least to those involved at LANL. Charlie knew about it for a couple years, and kept her as his Deputy. When you know about unauthorized actions, and do not publicly show them to be unacceptable, you become part of the problem and give up the ability to be part of the solution.
March 18, 2014 at 7:04 AM"
My guess is that this a common practice and considered acceptable by the current management culture. Think about where all the overhead is going? You see more and more services vanishing and less support. Every year the overhead goes up, something is really rotten in Denmark. I think the deputy is just one person who got a bit sloppy, everyone else is still in the "legit" with the current policies.
19 comments:
Here is a pot-pourri of comments made before the post got posted. Normally, I delete such comments.
Please the warning before leaving a comment before post is posted.
Anonymous said...
Can't blame this bad apple on Bechtel. The deputy was hand picked by Charlie, going outside the ranks of Bechtel. An article in the LA Monitor some time back indicates that an investigation turned up a mess and the deputy was at the center of it.
March 7, 2014 at 1:49 PM
Anonymous said...
Charlie did a heck of job covering this up. He should have fired her weeks ago. Heck of a job Charlie, heck of a job!
March 7, 2014 at 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...
Strange how these lab Deputy Director's (who are always brought in from Bechtel) seem to leave under such "unusual" circumstances.
Anyone remember LAN's first Deputy Director back in 2006 who also left under similar mysterious circumstances shortly after LANL went "for profit"?
RULE: If it comes from Bechtel then it's probably crooked and highly unethical.
March 7, 2014 at 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...
What's the inside story? What did she do to bring about the need for her to resign?
March 7, 2014 at 8:35 PM
Anonymous said...
RULE: If it comes from Bechtel then it's probably crooked and highly unethical.
March 7, 2014 at 7:33 PM
Did you bother to read the earlier post? She was NOT from Bechtel.
March 7, 2014 at 8:45 PM
Anonymous said...
" Anonymous said...
What's the inside story? What did she do to bring about the need for her to resign?
March 7, 2014 at 8:35 PM"
She appeared not to disclose connections about relative that received a lucrative consulting position at LANL. She of course is innocent but for the good of the institution she offered to resign, Charlie honored her self sacrifice and accepted her resignation.
March 8, 2014 at 9:20 AM
Anonymous said...
I have heard stories about managers acting unprofessional and harassing, which is against policy, if not illegal. However, HR lead by Jennifer Szutu I would say encourages this behavior. Does anyone have any stories ? Also is this an abusive of power underneath DOE guidelines .
March 8, 2014 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...
Oooh...
Did the Chili Cookoff guy (Tim Shepodd) from Sandia move to LLNL?
Remember this?
http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2013/07/more-waste-at-sandia.html
His profile lists LLNL as his institution:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/12839142/timothy-jon-shepodd
March 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...
Wow paid 4k to go the Santa Fe Opera.
I remember when they said after the Mustang incident (No Mustang was ever stolen), that LANL had a culture of theft. Well it looks like after the contract change we do have a culture of theft. This is the second in command at LANL! What else is going on, I would bet that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
March 8, 2014 at 7:39 PM
Anonymous said...
At the APS March Meeting in Denver last week they had Enrico Fermis granddaughter Olivia Fermi, gave a talk on women and the Manhattan project. She mentioned that since the contract change at LANL that the moral has dropped and how a number of the top people have left. So the word is getting out about what the contract change did to the labs.
March 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM
Anonymous said...
The inappropriate things going on at LANL happen at the other labs too. It's not just an LANL thing.
This scandal from Sandia involved a Congress representative:
http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2013/11/ex-congresswoman-heather-wilson.html
Remember that one? I think this Sandia one is more unethical!
March 8, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Anonymous said...
This isn't the high stakes world of private business. This is a national lab management contract: tax payer money.
When you go to work managing a fortune 500 company feel free to demand excessive perks for you & your family.
March 11, 2014 at 5:32 AM
Anonymous said...
"This isn't the high stakes world of private business. This is a national lab management contract: tax payer money.
When you go to work managing a fortune 500 company feel free to demand excessive perks for you & your family.
March 11, 2014 at 5:32 AM"
The whole point of making the labs for profit was so that they would act fortune 500 companies with all the business incentives. LANS has to play by those rules now if it is to be competitive with other companies. What is so hard to understand about that?
March 11, 2014 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...
LANS has to play by those rules now if it is to be competitive with other companies. What is so hard to understand about that?
March 11, 2014 at 6:44 AM
Competitive in what field? It's not like there are lots of other companies out there competing for LANS's customers (DOE/NNSA). If you are thinking of WFO, think again. If LANS really wanted WFO customers, it would not make itself so incredibly expensive.
March 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...
Why did we privatize the labs?
March 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...
"We" didn't. Congress did. Why? Because Congress, based on UC management, believed university management had no incentive to comply with security rules, was too uninvolved, and too soft on the "cowboy" scientists.
March 11, 2014 at 12:39 PM
March 10, 2014 at 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...
""We" didn't. Congress did. Why? Because Congress, based on UC management, believed university management had no incentive to comply with security rules, was too uninvolved, and too soft on the "cowboy" scientists.
March 11, 2014 at 12:39 PM"
But there was no cowboy scientists. The UC worked great for 60 years. We privatize LLNL because on non-existence cowboys, lose a great number of the best people, have money literally being stolen, and we still have security incidents. Where was the added value?
March 11, 2014 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...
But there was no cowboy scientists. The UC worked great for 60 years. We privatize LLNL because on non-existence cowboys, lose a great number of the best people, have money literally being stolen, and we still have security incidents. Where was the added value?
March 11, 2014 at 1:34 PM
That's why I put "cowboy" in quotes. UC did not "work great." It completely failed during the Wen Ho Lee investigation, and continued that failure to lead or to make the appropriate decisions during all the other investigations. It does not matter that all the others (at least pre-LANS) eventually came to nothing, UC's fate was already sealed. Congress decided they'd had enough of university-style hands-off management, and they did something about it.
Answer: There is no "added value." As is the case with most of what Congress does.
March 11, 2014 at 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...
"It completely failed during the Wen Ho Lee investigation, and continued that failure to lead or to make the appropriate decisions during all the other investigations."
Why did LLNLs need to have a contract change as well? I would say the FBI screwed up the Wen Ho Lee investigation not UC. Also there was political pressure to get Richardson since they new he might end up as Al Gores running mate and he had to be taken out.
Anonymous said...
"Why did LLNLs need to have a contract change as well?" - good question. All the DOE M&O contractors paid the price for LANL's misdeeds, plus they had some of their own, so we all paid the price. Some important Congressional personnel were very unhappy at the answers they got in response to security, safety, cost management, etc, and their answer is always to privatize. UC could have bid its offer to run the labs without Bechtel etc involved and probably would have won because at the time LLNL was perceived (recall this was mostly pre-NIF) not to share all of LANL's problems, but the UC/LLNS bid team had promised Bechtel that if they assisted LANS in winning the contract for LANL, then Bechtel would also be part of the bid for LLNL immediately following the LANL award.
March 11, 2014 at 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...
In the fortune 500 companies, managers must produce or they're out.
At these LLCs they're in forever, even during layoffs!
March 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...
In the fortune 500 companies, managers must produce or they're out.
At these LLCs they're in forever, even during layoffs!
March 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM
You obviously don't understand the difference between large US corporations with millions of customers around the world, and the LANS/LLNS LLCs with only one customer, only one purpose, and only one money source: US taxpayers. If the lab LLCs lose their one contract, they evaporate immediately - they were created only to run the labs. You are comparing apples and oranges.
March 11, 2014 at 7:17 PM
Anonymous said...
Then management is the one comparing apples to oranges when they play the industry / corporate standard card.
March 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Anonymous said...
Then management is the one comparing apples to oranges when they play the industry / corporate standard card.
March 11, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Regarding what exactly? The post at March 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM was referring to management keeping their jobs where or not they "produce" (whatever that means for a manager). What "card" are you referring to??
March 11, 2014 at 8:45 PM
Anonymous said...
After sexual harassment by top level management, the lab worker bees all got subjected to additional online training on sexual harassment. I predict more online training requirements for ethics after this latest top level management fiasco.
Of course, the top level management never bothers to take these growing number of mandatory online courses because they are "too busy managing". It's a sad state of affairs.
March 12, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Anonymous said...
"Regarding what exactly? The post at March 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM was referring to management keeping their jobs where or not they "produce" (whatever that means for a manager). What "card" are you referring to??
March 11, 2014 at 8:45 PM"
I think the card is that the manager make huge salaries, receive all sorts of perks that are perceived to come along with CEOs of business corporations.
Privatization works where there is free market competition so that there are inherent checks and balances. There is nothing like that at LLNLs so the thing can run completely amok with crazy business decisions. You can say "what about the contract". True but LLNLs wrote the contract. I know it is nuts. It seems like the people that scream privatization do not really understand how capitalism works.
March 12, 2014 at 6:25 AM
Anonymous said...
UC never managed the Labs - at least not in the way many misinformed thought. UC ran the Labs the same way it - the Regents and UCOP - runs the campuses. They would select a Lab Director just like they select a campus Chancellor. The employees at the Lab were UC employees (just like campus employees were UC employees). That was it. In the eyes of the Regents and UCOP, the day to day decisions "were" being made by UC - by all of these UC employes at the Labs. There was not a group of "nutty" professors or tree hugging liberals from "UC" going out to the Labs and directing things. The managers and leaders running Lab security, safety, and business operations were not grad students on their first job - but highly qualified professions in their fields hired by the Lab (and therefore UC employees).
So in the eyes of UC it was no more "hands off" management of the Labs, than UC has "hands off" management of the campuses.
March 12, 2014 at 7:40 AM
vive.
Anonymous said...
The whole point of making the labs for profit was so that they would act fortune 500 companies with all the business incentives...
March 11, 2014 at 6:44 AM
That's ridiculous. The labs are funded by taxpayer money and have no competition, no sales, no profit, no shareholders, I could go on. Corporate management of the labs could work fine, but the change was to stop what Congress perceived as non-management by UC, and replace it with something that a majority favored for ideological reasons. Simple. The labs will never resemble fortune 500 corporations, and therefore they can't be run like fortune 500 companies.
March 12, 2014 at 7:56 AM
Anonymous said...
Given all the discussion above, tell me again why part of my pay raise needs to go back into the discretionary spending coffers?
March 12, 2014 at 8:21 PM
Anonymous said...
It's not "your" pay raise until they give it to you. Just be glad you have a job. If you lose it, you'll likely never work again.
March 12, 2014 at 8:47 PM
Anonymous said...
" It's not "your" pay raise until they give it to you. Just be glad you have a job. If you lose it, you'll likely never work again.
March 12, 2014 at 8:47 PM"
Why are the workers paid so much at LLNL? I can understand people in silicon valley good money since people pay for it. I have never understood this aspect of the labs.
March 13, 2014 at 6:18 AM
Post a Comment
March 11, 2014 at 3:17 PM
Anonymous said...
What ever became of the "Bechtel Spouses" that where given jobs during the management change.
Called "industry standard" at the time.
March 9, 2014 at 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...
How many other top managers at LANL have sweetheart deals for their spouses?
March 9, 2014 at 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...
Once again, upper management gets a pass. What she and her husband did is illegal; they should both be in jail for fraud.
March 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...
The industry standard spouse employment happened at LLNS too.
I've got to looking up worker bee industry standards. There has to be a perk for me too.
March 9, 2014 at 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...
This really burns me up. What they did was standard corporate practices. By punishing them we may not be able to attract to the quality of managers that our corporate labs need. They will go to other more lucrative companies. In order for LLNL and LANL to be competitive in the business world we need to have the best business leaders. This is a sad day for LANL.
March 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM
Anonymous said...
Are you saying that in order to find a competent manager for a national laboratory we owe the spouses a job too?
Any chance of that being entry level, or an actually needed skill set?
March 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...
What she and her husband did is illegal; they should both be in jail for fraud.
March 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM
I doubt it. Please cite a statute.
March 9, 2014 at 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...
Securing a position for one's spouse, usually in "Protocol", is an established tradition in upper management at LANL.Nothing new here, they just forgot to file the required paperwork to legitimatize it.
March 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...
Since when has the DOE science and national laboratories had a existing protocol or established tradition of hiring manager's spouses.
March 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...
Since 1943.
March 9, 2014 at 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...
"What she and her husband did is illegal; they should both be in jail for fraud.
March 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM"
Please keep the paranoia to yourself. They did not even do anything serious. I say this is just a big nothing burger and yes, it is standard corporate practice to have perks for the CEOs.
March 9, 2014 at 9:17 PM
Anonymous said...
I thought that within a corporation there was only one CEO to cash in on this perk?
March 10, 2014 at 5:40 AM
Anonymous said...
You're right stealing $4k outright isn't fraud at all. No crime here! I've known people who were fired for taking a $100 multimeter home. Standard corporate practice my ass.
March 10, 2014 at 6:10 PM
Anonymous said...
"I thought that within a corporation there was only one CEO to cash in on this perk?
March 10, 2014 at 5:40 AM"
It is all the high up management that gets perks. Standard practice and the way the real world works. In order to be competitive in hiring the best people this is how it is done.
March 10, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...
"You're right stealing $4k outright isn't fraud at all. No crime here! I've known people who were fired for taking a $100 multimeter home. Standard corporate practice my ass.
March 10, 2014 at 6:10 PM"
Look you pay a high level consultant a fee. He does his business and talks to the right people at the right dinners, concerts, social events, parities,..you name it. If it is a dinner you could have to pay for 500$ bottle of crystal. This is how the business world works. Sine nights you score other you miss. You put out 25k for a few hours of perks and you could get 25 million in deals in return. It does not always work out that way but you need to take some chances in the business world to close the big deal. Executives and managers are paid big bucks and get to play with the big boys for a reason. In the real world this would not even be brought up. LANL may have lost a lot of great connections and potential profit by this. The labs are a for profit corporation now and they need to play by the corporate rules if they are to sur
Someone didn't take their mandatory ethics training.
Anonymous said...
Someone didn't take their mandatory ethics training.
At that level, shouldn't someone already know right from wrong without taking a stupid read-and-sign on UTrain?
Oh. Never mind.
Workers have to take it because of management behavior.
How could she NOT realize it was a breach of ethics when it was her own husband gaining the lucrative contract?
And being accused of taking $4k in funding before the contract was even signed and billing hours to the lab while he was attending the Santa Fe Opera? Wow!
" How could she NOT realize it was a breach of ethics when it was her own husband gaining the lucrative contract?"
It is part of the standard business practices today. Ethics is all in the eye of the beholder.
" And being accused of taking $4k in funding before the contract was even signed and billing hours to the lab while he was attending the Santa Fe Opera? Wow!
March 16, 2014 at 10:27 PM"
These are where the big deals go down. You have give your rainmakers the room and slack they need to make the magic happen. You want the labs to be a for profit organization this is how it works.
You want the labs to be a for profit organization this is how it works.
March 16, 2014 at 11:01 PM
The LLC can never make more "profit" than the maximum amount of the award fee. You might be right if you are talking about indirect benefit to the parent companies (or kickbacks to LLNS management), but that benefit will never be felt by the labs or their employees.
It's not and has never been industry or corporate standard to violate company policy, behave unethically, or have your spouse (a non employee) dip into company funds for a few extra bucks.
If it's authorized & acceptable behavior, why did she step down?
Where's the person to tell us to quit our jobs & leave management alone?
I guess you miss him.
"If it's authorized & acceptable behavior, why did she step down?
March 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM"
Ok it is not technically "ethical" but is is the way of the world. Why should LLNL be exempt?
This is the age of Obama so stop living in the past like ethics still matter.
"If it's authorized & acceptable behavior"
For sure, it was not authorized by the government. It was acceptable, at least to those involved at LANL. Charlie knew about it for a couple years, and kept her as his Deputy. When you know about unauthorized actions, and do not publicly show them to be unacceptable, you become part of the problem and give up the ability to be part of the solution.
For sure, it was not authorized by "the government. It was acceptable, at least to those involved at LANL. Charlie knew about it for a couple years, and kept her as his Deputy. When you know about unauthorized actions, and do not publicly show them to be unacceptable, you become part of the problem and give up the ability to be part of the solution.
March 18, 2014 at 7:04 AM"
My guess is that this a common practice and considered acceptable by the current management culture. Think about where all the overhead is going? You see more and more services vanishing and less support. Every year the overhead goes up, something is really rotten in Denmark. I think the deputy is just one person who got a bit sloppy, everyone else is still in the "legit" with the current policies.
Post a Comment