BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Salary facts

"...If there were damning factual evidence of anything untoward, it would obviously have been brought forward with great fanfare..."

Well there are some facts

(1) McMillan makes three times more than the last Director before the contract change.

(2) The number of Divisions at LANL increased from 30 to the current number of 120. The number of Directorates also increased by 
a factor of four. 

(3) The overhead rated have nearly doubled since the contract change. 

It stands to reason that if the Director is being paid substantially more than most other managers are also being paid more. It is also a fact that there are now many more managers than before. Now where is the value added to having all this management? 


http://www.abqjournal.com/495490/news/lanl-chiefs-compensation-tops-15m.html
SANTA FE – The annual compensation for Los Alamos National Laboratory director Charles McMillan has topped $1.5 million, federal records show.

That’s up from the $800,348 director’s compensation that the same records showed for 2009 and is nearly three times the LANL chief’s compensation in 2006, the last year the lab was still run by the University of California.




Los Alamos lab watchdog Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group, in an email calling attention to McMillan’s compensation, referred to the performance-based fee adjustments that LANS receives based on evaluating how it met standards set by the federal government.

“So the performance-based bonus system is working just fine, right?” Mello wrote. “It really helped with LANL’s performance vis-a-vis WIPP, didn’t it?”

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

Disclosing LANSLLNS salaries by 4 digit classification (not by name) as a function of time would be a good first step to address perceived asymmetrical salary concerns.

The DOE and NNSA believe the current "for profit" business model for LANSLLNS managed Labs is a failure. By extension, increasingly disproportionate high salaries for Lab managers, as opposed to comparable or greater recognition for the science and engineering staff, is a legitimate concern within mission objective space.

DOE/NNSA should force LANSLLNS to publish their salary data to help evaluate salary vs mission objective trends.

Anonymous said...

DOE/NNSA should force LANSLLNS to publish their salary data to help evaluate salary vs mission objective trends.

March 31, 2015 at 10:05 AM

Help who? If DOE/NNSA wants the data, it gets it. For anyone else, it is not their business. Rabble rousers want to fuel more resentment and disinformation. If you are dissatisfied with what you make compared to someone else, go work for another employer (who will also not publish employees' salaries). Welcome to the real world.

Anonymous said...

"... If DOE/NNSA wants the data, it gets it. For anyone else, it is not their business. Rabble rousers want to fuel more resentment and disinformation..."

When the DOE IG requested "for cause" investigation information from the Hanford Site, they were told to "take a hike" by Bechtel and URS (both LANSLLNS members). So no, DOE/NNSA can't get all Contractor data they may want anytime they may want.

Releasing LANSLLNS salary data as described does not "fuel" "disinformation" it extinguishes it. Clearly you believe you and your LLC management pals would be hurt by such a disclosure. A salary examination that prompts near zero management raises for years out to rectify the situation is not something to encourage.

If you don't like the idea of having your 4-digit classification salary exposed as part of a greater Lab mission objective assessment, you may elect to work elsewhere too.

Anonymous said...

That published figure of $1.5 million for LANL Director, Charlie "GQ" McMillan, is old news. I'm sure it's gone much higher by now.

Anonymous said...

"That published figure of $1.5 million for LANL Director, Charlie "GQ" McMillan, is old news. I'm sure it's gone much higher by now.

March 31, 2015 at 5:44 PM"

Why do you care what other people make? It is not your business and you just sound jealous and pathetic. If you have a problem with labs than please leave, there are ten others who will take your place for much less pay and will complain less.

Anonymous said...

Why do you care what other people make? It is not your business and you just sound jealous and pathetic. If you have a problem with labs than please leave, there are ten others who will take your place for much less pay and will complain less.

March 31, 2015 at 10:20 PM

You don't care that LANS is "fleecing" your taxpayer money with inflated salaries at the highest level? Get a life dude.

Anonymous said...

"...Why do you care what other people make? It is not your business and you just sound jealous and pathetic..."

What LANSLLNS employees make by a 4-digit classification sort vs time (pre and post UC), not by name, is a legitimate review tool in mission objective space, and fits in well with the updated contractor business model proposed by DOE/NNSA.

Most salary range brackets including manager and non-managers positions by classification are released every year as spreadsheets, but brackets alone do not address potential salary disparities in "parallel growth" paths or brackets.

Feel free to state how a comprehensive salary review does not fit in mission objective space for the Labs if you wish, but please try to reason through what is being discussed and turn down the emotional outbursts. They do not help your viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

Feel free to state how a comprehensive salary review does not fit in mission objective space for the Labs if you wish...

April 1, 2015 at 7:08 AM

It does, just not by you.

Anonymous said...

"...It does, just not by you..."

Stating myself, the majority of lab employees, and DOE/NNSA, "just not by LANSLLNS management" would be a more accurate capture of the position.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Looks like the LANSLLNS salary review "distraction displays" are in play here. Are the manager to non-manager salaries that out of whack at Livermore and Los Alamos Labs?

"....Distraction displays, also known as deflection display, diversionary display or paratrepsis,[1] are anti-predator behaviours used to attract the attention of an enemy away from an object, typically the nest or young, that is being protected..."

Anonymous said...

Why do you care what other people make? It is not your business and you just sound jealous and pathetic. If you have a problem with labs than please leave, there are ten others who will take your place for much less pay and will complain less.

If there are 10 other people who can perform my job for much less pay, then the Laboratory is doing the country a great disservice by keeping me employed (with annual raises). The public needs to be informed of this inappropriate allocation of government funds. This alone is sufficient reason why salaries should be public.

As an American taxpayer, I care about the costs of government and government-like employees. Is their cost equivalent to their value, or as you claim, can other people do their work for less?

As a Laboratory PI, I care what I pay in overhead costs for management and management-related activities. Is there a value-added return on investment (or is the ROI negative)?

As a programmatic hiring manager, I care what prospective employees will cost. Salary code information is available, but this doesn't inform of cost adjustments likely to occur in the future.

Anonymous said...

April 2, 2015 at 9:13 AM

None of your comments constitute an argument for making salaries public; they only argue for managers in your position to have access to them. The "public" does not care, and even if it did, it has absolutely no power to do anything about it. Do you also think that any private corporation that does any work for the government should make public the salaries of its employees? The reductio ad absurdum becomes evident quite quickly.

Anonymous said...

"...Do you also think that any private corporation that does any work for the government should make public the salaries of its employees?..."

You have carefully constructed an irrelevant and universal salary question that does not directly apply to LANSLLNS in 2015.

DOE and NNSA have publicly acknowledged the current LANSLLNS "for profit" focus business model as a "get more for less" failure. Contractor "profit" includes corporate and site management salary expenditures that are disproportionate to their respective "value added", and present zero sum budget collateral damage and burden to the primary science and engineering mission objectives of these Labs.

A comprehensive manager and non-manager salary review sorted by 4-digit classification as a function of time is one of many steps needed to improve Contractor performance expectations and inefficiencies defined and identified by DOE and NNSA.

A bloated population of managers having exclusive access and excessive latitude on self-compensation is not the solution at LANSLLNS, it is the problem at LANSLLNS.

Anonymous said...

That is "get less for more"

Anonymous said...

Contractor "profit" includes corporate and site management salary expenditures that are disproportionate to their respective "value added"

April 2, 2015 at 12:55 PM

Well, your take on economics and accounting is quite unique. Every other business in the world thinks that "profit" is what is left after costs, including salary costs. To include the salaries of individual employees as "profit" to the company is not exactly in line with the GAAP. Unless you think the employees donate their salaries to the LLC instead of taking them home.

Anonymous said...

"...To include the salaries of individual employees as "profit" to the company is not exactly in line with the GAAP..."

LANSLLNS manager vs non-manager salaries are very much "in line" and within DOE/NNSA stated mission objective space. To ignore Contractor salary breakdowns within a cost/benefit analysis assessment would be ill advised.

Anonymous said...

"... To ignore Contractor salary breakdowns within a cost/benefit analysis assessment would be ill advised..."

"...To ignore Contractor salary breakdowns within a cost/benefit analysis assessment would be ill advised...", and after ~7-8 years of LANSLLNS management history, would be just straight up reckless.

Anonymous said...

To ignore Contractor salary breakdowns within a cost/benefit analysis assessment would be ill advised.

April 2, 2015 at 3:09 PM

Perhaps. But that is far from April 2, 2015 at 12:55 PM claiming that employee salaries are to be included in LLC "profit," which is definitely not standard accounting practice for the US.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe the "for profit" focused business strategy comment was meant to imply the salary of Engineer A or Scientist B goes to the LLC, but instead meant the LANSLLNS "for profit" focus or mindset has placed excessive dollar resources to on site managers where the lab mission value added is not readily evident outside of allegiance to the LLC itself. This "for profit" prime focus feedback loop has created an apparent performance expectation tipping point in the minds of DOE and NNSA officials.

Anonymous said...

Could someone please explain to me why making salaries public are such a disster?
Most states do it, the federal govt does it, so what is wrong with it?

We had it under the UC, and the world did not come to an end. (and please don't tell me that this was the reason the UC lost the contract)

So I am waiting for rational arguments.

Anonymous said...

"So I am waiting for rational arguments.

April 3, 2015 at 8:27 AM"

Jealousy causes problems at the work place. Plus it is not your business what your manager makes. Worry about doing your job rather than complaining about the pay of others.

Why should LLNL/LANL be so special that the salaries need to be made public? Name one corporation that makes their salary public?

Anonymous said...

"...Jealousy causes problems at the work place. Plus it is not your business what your manager makes. Worry about doing your job rather than complaining about the pay of others..."

Another lab employee character attack and "distraction display". Lab employees are in good company since DOE and NNSA are both concerned about this mission objective related issue. Seven plus years into the LLNS contract failure and management here is fighting tooth and nail to preserve the status quo. Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

So I am waiting for rational arguments.

April 3, 2015 at 8:27 AM

The only explanation that matters: UC thought it in their best interests to provide that data. LANS LLC apparently does not. End of story. No court in the US would compel such a thing from a private company. UC took it upon themselves to violate individual employees' privacy rights. The fact that you are willing to give up your privacy places no obligation on anyone else.

Anonymous said...

"...The fact that you are willing to give up your privacy places no obligation on anyone else..."

So how does a comprehensive LANSLLNS salary review by 4-digit job classification (names withheld) as a function of time pre and post LLNS, violate your privacy exactly? Your argument response is to a salary review step not proposed here.

Anonymous said...

Detailed statistics on every LANSLLNS 4-digit job classification code over time would be useful. Names would not be needed to summarize salary trends. Expect any lab employee making disproportionate "fat stacks" under LANSLLNS to moan loudly for any level of salary transparency regardless of the justification.

Anonymous said...

End of story.


What a strong argument. And then
No court in the US would compel such a thing from a private company.

Love it, just because no court would compel does not make it right. The supreme court for years supported racism here, the nazis had their own laws, which people thought were okay.

Still waiting for a rational argument.

Anonymous said...

DOE/NNSA funded *private companies called Contractors must comply with a basket of fluid conditions that regular private companies without the asterisk, don't have to worry about. It is the price LANSLLNS has to pay for being dependent on the federal budget to float a paycheck.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for a rational argument.

Rule of law.
It's a concept that traces back millennia, and is apparently endorsed by the current president.

If you don't like the laws, too bad for you.

Anonymous said...

DOE/NNSA funded *private companies called Contractors must comply with a basket of fluid conditions...

April 3, 2015 at 4:56 PM

Absolutely correct. Those don't include releasing salary information. What about "contractors" to the US government such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Aegis, etc. Want their salary info to be public too? Good luck with that. Running out of windmills yet?

Anonymous said...

There are a bunch of whiners here who could never hack it as lab managers and yet seem to think they are entitled to a nice managers salary.

It is none of your business how much managers at LLNS or LANS make. It's corporate proprietary information and you have no right to know. The labs are no longer run by non-profit institutions.

If you don't like the non-disclosure policy on salaries then find some other place to work that publishes such things. The efficient, business-like, corporate run NNSA labs are not the place for you. Maybe you can get a job at the Post Office sorting mail.



Anonymous said...

"...The efficient, business-like, corporate run NNSA labs are not the place for you..."

"The efficient, business-like corporate run NNSA labs"? Friday night humor? Thanks, we all need a good chuckle now and then.

Anonymous said...

"...The efficient, business-like, corporate run NNSA labs are not the place for you..."

Apparently the LANSLLNS Labs "are not the place" for "as is" DOE/NNSA future funding, since the DOE/NNSA have openly communicated the current LANSLLNS business model is an expensive mission objective failure.

Anonymous said...

the DOE/NNSA have openly communicated the current LANSLLNS business model is an expensive mission objective failure.

April 3, 2015 at 9:18 PM

Which they will do absolutely nothing about because it is not within their power to do so. Congress must make changes. This Congress? HaHaHaHa!!

Anonymous said...

April 3, 2015 at 8:18 PM

Reading comprehension not your forte.

But anyway, I am not trying to debate the laws, my original point was: Give me a rational argument for not publishing the salaries.

Just a little hint: Because the laws say so, doesn't make it right. As I was trying to point out in my second post.

Since it seems hopeless to get a decent discussion going, I stop here.

Anonymous said...

Just a little hint: Because the laws say so, doesn't make it right.

April 4, 2015 at 6:15 AM

Just a little hint: Legal vs illegal is a matter of fact. Right vs wrong is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is worth just exactly what everyone else's is.

Anonymous said...

The laws make it so. Period.

Diffusion time through thick skull...not clear.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Irrational "Go work someplace else you pathetic rabble rouser" has really gone off the deep end here.

Anonymous said...

No one has provided a reason why "...detailed statistics on every LANSLLNS 4-digit job classification code over time would be useful. Names would not be needed to summarize salary trends..." would violate individual rights for DOE/NNSA Contractor Lab employees because they can't. Instead, those opposed to the such a salary review must create a scenario not suggested that their individual names and salaries will be disclosed to the public.

It really matters not. Given the LANSLLNS investment/return ratios, DOE/NNSA will need little convincing to move forward with a salary review and any other potential root cause prompting their publicly announced "business model" changes for the current and future Contractors of these Labs.

Anonymous said...

It really matters not.

April 5, 2015 at 9:26 AM

Does that mean you will stop harping on it?

Anonymous said...

The easiest "solution" to this salary matter would be for someone in HR or Accounting to secretly leak the files on salaries. There must be plenty of people at the lab who have access to this data.

Anonymous said...

There are DOE/NNSA approved annual budget allocations for employee salaries and raises at LANSLLNS.

If a comprehensive salary review reveals management salaries have grown collectively disproportionate to non-managers, it will prompt additional written justification for the current and future management population and future management raises.

Any individual LANSLLNS manager near or above new 4-digit classification salary targets will receive smaller or zero raises until the distribution of salaries reach their new targets.

Salary disclosure by name need not be disclosed to the public for such a review. However, individual salary growth and management opportunities going forward could be impacted as post review action items. THIS is the primary concern behind the DOE/NNSA salary review pushback from the "concerned" beneficiaries of the status quo.

Anonymous said...

The easiest "solution" to this salary matter would be for someone in HR or Accounting to secretly leak the files on salaries.

April 5, 2015 at 10:07 AM

Right. As if anyone in HR or Accounting would willingly risk his/her career to make a bunch of harping rabble-rousers happy.

Anonymous said...

There are DOE/NNSA approved annual budget allocations for employee salaries and raises at LANSLLNS.

April 5, 2015 at 11:00 AM

Absolutely wrong. There are NEVER annual allocations from DOE/NNSA for salary increases. DOE/NNSA simply approves (or not) LLNS/LANS requests to use CURRENT OPERATING FUNDS for such raises. Do some homework before you spout off.

Anonymous said...

"...DOE/NNSA simply approves (or not) LLNS/LANS requests to use CURRENT OPERATING FUNDS for such raises..."

What a LANSLLNS salary review game changing budget process revelation, not. Your telegraphed management salary disclosure anxiety is heard loud and clear.

Anonymous said...

What a LANSLLNS salary review game changing budget process revelation, not. Your telegraphed management salary disclosure anxiety is heard loud and clear.

April 5, 2015 at 12:48 PM

I guess pointing out a simple factual error is some kind of subtle psychological marker? You are way, way too full of yourself. Plus, it leads one to believe there are other errors in your reasoning...

Anonymous said...

"...Plus, it leads one to believe there are other errors in your reasoning..."

Please list any reasoning errors you believe have been posted here regarding the need for LANSLLNS salary disclosures and value added review.

Anonymous said...

Just the one so far.

Anonymous said...

Why do you give a sh+t what your boss makes? If you have a job at the LANSLLNS labs, you are earning a hell of a lot more than the average dude turning burgers; so collect your checks, pick up a six pack, and be cool.

Anonymous said...

"...Why do you give a sh+t what your boss makes?..."

The reasons for a salary review are in the comments above. Wanting to know "what your boss makes" is an inaccurate over simplification that does not begin to capture what has been communicated here as reasons supporting a comprehensive salary review at the LANSLLNS managed Labs. Take your time and read through the comments.

Anonymous said...

Wanting to know "what your boss makes" is an inaccurate over simplification...

April 5, 2015 at 4:45 PM

Thou doth protest too much. I suspect that you are an employee who strongly feels that your personal salary is way less than you deserve or that others make whom you perceive do the same or less work than you do.

Anonymous said...

"Jealousy causes problems at the work place. Plus it is not your business what your manager makes. Worry about doing your job rather than complaining about the pay of others. "

Oh yes it IS my business what my manager makes, since I'm the one who brings in the money that pays into the obscene level overhead.

I have to cover my own salary, while the management and all the support staff sit pretty covered 100% by overhead.

Anonymous said...

Thou is on an unprecedented LANSLLNS gravy train and wishes not to depart. All protestors must be discredited and ignored, for this train and its riders can not justify its existence upon inspection at any station.

Anonymous said...

"...Jealousy causes problems at the work place. Plus it is not your business what your manager makes..."

If DOE/NNSA audit salary statistics over time at LANSLLNS, it will be prompted by a perceived cost to value erosion at the Labs due to increasing management overhead expenditures. If a LANSLLNS scientist, engineer, or PI express the same concern with their own Lab budgets, it is classified as "jealousy" by Lab management (?). Though not readily acknowledged, every bully has limited domain.

Anonymous said...

this train and its riders can not justify its existence upon inspection at any station.

April 6, 2015 at 7:49 AM

And I have to justify my existence to you, the self-appointed "inspector"? Not likely. Why don't you just accept the fact that you don't have any say over the way the world works?

Anonymous said...

"...And I have to justify my existence to you, the self-appointed "inspector"? Not likely. Why don't you just accept the fact that you don't have any say over the way the world works?..."

A classic LANSLLNS defensive response. Isolate and portray any legitimate inquiry of an employee as a "self-appointed sheriff" of all matters where only he or she alone, to the exclusion of coworkers, has a stake in the matter at hand. Nice try, but bullying is not a substitute for your weak reasoning on this salary subject which impacts the overhead of thousands of lab employees and lab mission objectives.

Anonymous said...

A classic LANSLLNS defensive response....Nice try, but bullying is not a substitute for your weak reasoning

April 6, 2015 at 9:53 AM

Typical liberal/progressive response. If someone disagrees with you and refuses to adhere to your orthodoxy, you are being "bullied." Seems everyone who disagrees with you is a bully. Poor baby. And it apparently completely eludes you that you can't call a response "defensive" and "bullying" at the same time. Talk about weak reasoning...

Anonymous said...

Complaining about the pathetic situation at the NNSA weapon labs will get you nowhere.

The real solution is to simply leave and find a better job. Those better jobs are out there if you have the skills that are in demand. Go for it. If you deserve better then why not?

Anonymous said...



All you complainers about the labs should leave. If you so great and deserve to be treated better than other Americans that please leave. There are so many people out there that would love to have what you are paid the benefits. Whats makes you so special?

Anonymous said...

April 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM wrote:

"The only explanation that matters: UC thought it in their best interests to provide that data."

UC provided that data for one reason only -- they were required to do so by law. Under UC, all LLNL employees were State of California employees, and under the California Public Records Act, salaries of state government employees are a matter of public record.

Anonymous said...

Whats makes you so special?

April 6, 2015 at 2:09 PM

What makes us special is that we can construct a coherent, grammatically correct sentence in the English language.

Anonymous said...

Law trumps desire, in nearly all cases.

This is a statement of fact, is not defensive, and does not bully.

If you are worth more than you are being paid, or can get access to better resources than you are buying, then let the free market work in your favor.

Bye.

Anonymous said...

"....If you are worth more than you are being paid, or can get access to better resources than you are buying, then let the free market work in your favor..."

Or if you are worth less than you are being paid at LANSLLNS, do everything you possibly can to keep it a secret so you don't end up in the real free market.

Anonymous said...

"...You cannot be worth less than you are being paid..."

Put your bong down for the night and get some rest.
It will be much clearer to you in the morning, or maybe the morning after that.

Anonymous said...

April 6, 2015 at 10:12 PM

Pretty transparent attempt at disinformation about April 6, 2015 at 9:54 PM's post. Fortunately, everyone can see the part of the sentence you left out, which makes all the difference. How about this: "Your employer pays you what he believes you are worth"? Better?

Anonymous said...

For those interested, please see new topic link:

"OFCCP Announces Proposed Rule Barring Contractor Pay Secrecy Policies, Retaliation"

"...Sept. 15 — The Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Sept. 15 announced a proposed rule under Executive Order 11,246 that would prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from maintaining pay secrecy policies and from discriminating against employees and applicants who discuss, disclose or inquire about compensation..."

Anonymous said...

Its amazing to me how everyone has had there heads in the sand (polite) for so many years. The huge upper management salaries and "executive benefits plans" have been going on since the privatization takeover. Thats one of the first things done. People are just now figuring that out? Before the privatization ALL EMPLOYEES were in the same boat and treated pretty much fair and square as well as equitable and the morale was good. Now, its in the shitter and unless some real drastic steps are done REAL soon the whole nuclear complex is going to be in the cesspool. Greg Mello won by default incompetence.

Anonymous said...

Scooby stealth deletions!! Again!! Thanks for the Nazi censorship Scooby!! Seig Heil!!

Blog Archive