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.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Carl Beard is leaving LANL
Carl Beard is leaving LANL per LANL-wide email today and I also hear LANS is all done in 2018 running LANLWord is LANS lost its contract extension or something like that for two years in a row so that apparently means they are all done when their current term expires at the end of FY17. This is also the reason Carl Beard had to go.
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
If true, UC should team up with Lockheed-Martin to bid on the LANL contract in 2018.
As usual, a LANS Manager gets a promotion and a raise for being LANL's "point man" i.e. the Operations Principal Associate Director (PAD) on the WIPP fiasco. Question is McMillan paying his folks to keep the truth from Congress and the public?
If a new contract is produced to run either LLNL or LANL, the DOE/NNSA "substantial equivalent" promise made to those staff members who transitioned over to the for-profit management scheme under the LLCs become "null and void", right? And the lab pensions? Will they be passed off to yet another corporate Frankenstein-like profit based LLC entity like a used, wet kleenex?
Changing the weapon lab contracts could be just another sneaky way for the NNSA to further reduce the benefits of both the current workforce and lab retirees. Don't think for a minute that the people over at DOE/NNSA haven't plotted about this as a means of changing the lab status quo.
Before you choke on your own vomit, you should read the contract transition provisions in both the NNSA/LANS and NNSA/LLNS contracts, where the "substantially equivalent" language of the original LANS/LLNS contracts is perpetuated.
8 comments:
If true, UC should team up with Lockheed-Martin to bid on the LANL contract in 2018.
If you must be stupid if you come to a Blog for "real" information.
If you must be stupid if you come to a Blog for "real" information.
I am certainly not coming here to learn English from you.
So the Beard got trimmed because the WIPP was not available.
As usual, a LANS Manager gets a promotion and a raise for being LANL's "point man" i.e. the Operations Principal Associate Director (PAD) on the WIPP fiasco. Question is McMillan paying his folks to keep the truth from Congress and the public?
If a new contract is produced to run either LLNL or LANL, the DOE/NNSA "substantial equivalent" promise made to those staff members who transitioned over to the for-profit management scheme under the LLCs become "null and void", right? And the lab pensions? Will they be passed off to yet another corporate Frankenstein-like profit based LLC entity like a used, wet kleenex?
Changing the weapon lab contracts could be just another sneaky way for the NNSA to further reduce the benefits of both the current workforce and lab retirees. Don't think for a minute that the people over at DOE/NNSA haven't plotted about this as a means of changing the lab status quo.
November 30, 2014 at 7:50 PM
Before you choke on your own vomit, you should read the contract transition provisions in both the NNSA/LANS and NNSA/LLNS contracts, where the "substantially equivalent" language of the original LANS/LLNS contracts is perpetuated.
One might also look to the cost-saving measures going on at Y-12 and Pantex for a glimpse of what a new contract might hold.
Post a Comment