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. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Employee 360 review

"Will LANS and LLNS employees have an opportunity for a "360 review" of their respective LLC employer to be evaluated by DOE and NNSA?" 

Lab employee opinions of their relatively new "for-profit" employers varies from "they are the best thing to happen to the labs" to "they hijacked the labs for their own non-mission related interests". 

From a mission objective perspective, why wouldn't the DOE and NNSA leverage the unedited and anonymous experiences of "boots on the ground" lab employees to help formulate a plan forward for these two labs? 

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

"...From a mission objective perspective, why wouldn't the DOE and NNSA leverage the unedited and anonymous experiences of "boots on the ground" lab employees to help formulate a plan forward for these two labs?..."

In past "surveys", lab employee participation and credibility based enthusiasm were low. Remember Director Parney's plea to lab employees to participate the last time?

If it is generally believed that LANSLLNS would be the puppet master for such a "360 review" it will not be perceived as credible by lab employees and would not help DOE or NNSA evaluate current or future NNSA Contractor terms, business models, and operations.

Address these concerns and you might have a useful "360 Review" if designed for actionable improvements and trackable results, not just an exercise in fluff.

LANSLLNS would cry foul for any such review process they didn't have control over, even if the 360 Review template was uniform across the Complex.

Anonymous said...

A "morale survey" conducted by LANL back around 2009 indicated massive lack of trust by employees in LANS management.

It was a huge embarrassment for LANS and will not be repeated anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

"...It was a huge embarrassment for LANS and will not be repeated anytime soon..."

Your assumption being the NNSA Contractor LANSLLNS, is squarely in the drivers seat, and can dictate to the DOE and NNSA what they will and will not comply with at their (NNSA funded) Contractor discretion. Interesting.

Anonymous said...

April 14, 2015 at 7:37 PM: DOE/NNSA has publicly telegraphed its clear dissatisfaction with the existing NNSA Lab's "for profit" business model. A "360 review" may simply further validate their new found realization.

April 14, 2015 at 8:38 PM: Your assumption being the NNSA Contractor LANSLLNS, is squarely in the drivers seat, and can dictate to the DOE and NNSA what they will and will not comply with at their (NNSA funded) Contractor discretion.


Well, someone obviously thinks that DOE/NNSA is a much more reliable proponent of LANSLLNS employees' interests than is LANSLLNS. Where that retrograde thinking comes from is a mystery. "Publicly telegraphed"?? "may simply further validate their new found realization"?? You've got to be kidding. If you think LANSLLNS cannot "dictate to DOE/NNSA what they will and will not comply with" you haven't been paying attention for the last 7 years. DOE/NNSA has absolutely no say or power over that, it has to come from Congress, as the original decision to privatize did. And if you haven't noticed, Congress is no longer capable of doing anything. Good luck with your fantasy.

Anonymous said...

It would be a great idea if it were taken seriously, but it would not be. And holding such a review and collecting data obligates the takers to act, so the mere idea would be enough to frighten all the lawyers involved. I wondered years ago why no one in NNSA bothered to come talk to NIF scientists, all of them, and find out what was really going on and not going on within the NIC, but then I understood. They didn't want to hear it, right or wrong the course was set and more information would just hurt plausible deniability.

Anonymous said...

Before a 360 view, each employee should look into the mirror.

Anonymous said...

"...Before a 360 view, each employee should look into the mirror..."

Sure, just like every LANSLLNS manager does each and every time they evaluate an employee. Right?

Anonymous said...

"...Before a 360 view, each employee should look into the mirror..."

This person either does not understand the purpose of a 360 review, or simply does not want to be subjected to it.

Anonymous said...

Before a 360 view, each employee should look into the mirror.

April 16, 2015 at 10:40 AM

The above disparaging remarks notwithstanding, the poster is correct in that it takes a solid grasp of oneself and one's motives in order to provide a serious, constructive, and valid review of another employee, whether it is a subordinate or a superior. If you go at it with vengeance in mind, or some other similar bad motive, it will always turn out badly or at least not as you had wished. If employees use the opportunity for a "360 degree" review to simply bash managers they don't like, the entire exercise is wasted and will likely never happen again. Be careful how you use the opportunities you are afforded. Acting in good faith despite your feelings of victimhood could bring a good result. What have you got to lose?

Go ahead and flame me, but I assure you I am not a LANSLLNS manager. Just someone who has learned the ultimate poor results of continual strife.

Anonymous said...


I agree a 360 review would not be constructive nor provide very useful information. Sure you will see lots of complaints and whining but you will always have that. In many ways management and workers are at odds and has to be that way. The management wants workers to full-fill their tasks in a timely fashion for a specific amount of money, the workers want too do the least amount of work for the most amount of money. Workers will naturally resent having to even be managed. There are no workplaces where people like their bosses and the labs are no exceptions. Why do we need to do a 360 review to know what every other business already knows.

Anonymous said...

The management wants workers to full-fill their tasks in a timely fashion for a specific amount of money, the workers want too do the least amount of work for the most amount of money. Workers will naturally resent having to even be managed. There are no workplaces where people like their bosses and the labs are no exceptions.

April 17, 2015 at 6:33 AM

I'm sorry your McDonald's burger flipping experience doesn't carry over to the national labs, but my experience is very much the opposite. Good managers want to grow employees and grow scope, good employees appreciate being given more responsibilities and kudos, and good employees also appreciate seeing slackers reprimanded and even kicked out the door if they don't keep up. All employees, managers and otherwise, appreciate good leadership.

Anonymous said...

The topic:

"...Employee 360 review

"Will LANS and LLNS employees have an opportunity for a "360 review" of their respective LLC employer to be evaluated by DOE and NNSA?"

Lab employee opinions of their relatively new "for-profit" employers varies from "they are the best thing to happen to the labs" to "they hijacked the labs for their own non-mission related interests".

From a mission objective perspective, why wouldn't the DOE and NNSA leverage the unedited and anonymous experiences of "boots on the ground" lab employees to help formulate a plan forward for these two labs?..."

Although it could be included in a comprehensive "360 Review", I don't think the orginal poster intended to limit it to an employee review of their manager.

As I read the orginal post, it would be an in the aggregate mission objective based LANSLLNS "360 review" of all aspects of its management, efficiency, business practices, overhead rates, compensation, employee morale, and safety type assessment. All of which to be digested by DOE/NNSA and acted on now or during a contract change as appropriate.

Anonymous said...

All employees, managers and otherwise, appreciate good leadership.

April 17, 2015 at 7:00 AM

Well said.

Anonymous said...



All employees, managers and otherwise, appreciate good leadership.

April 17, 2015 at 7:00 AM

Well said.

April 17, 2015 at 9:07 AM

Simple, but not true in realty. Management...is..."leadership", and there can be no "leadership" beyond management. The workforce would be completely out of control without a strong handed management. Doubt this?... than recall the words of Nanos and Bodman about the arrogance of the scientists and engineers at the labs. Nuff said about this since we are all in agreement about the cultural problems. For those of us who are still in doubt than consider this, why was there was a contract change to begin with?. Do not fool yourself, we will Never, NEVer, EVER go back to what the labs where before 2006...EVER. Get it, got it, GOOD. Now there may be a changes in the specific private corporation that controls the labs but the labs will from this point onward until they are no-more be privately run for some form of a for-profit corporation. Accept this as a fact since it is a fact. It has too be, so it will be, so it is in order to contain, control, and manage the cultural issues of the workforce. There will of course be changes in certain specific managers, but it will also bring about great opportunity to others who can promise and lead the change in cultural issues at the labs that the NNSA and DOE have so desperately sought after and needed from the very beginning. So back the original point, management is about leadership, specifically leadership that is strong enough bring about a new culture, which means crushing old cultures. So do not disrepair, as long as the labs exits, there is still great personal profit to be gained for the patient and the wise.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like poster 10:14 pm has been inhaling his own fumes for far too long. Get it, got it, GOOD.

Anonymous said...

recall the words of Nanos and Bodman about the arrogance of the scientists and engineers at the labs

April 17, 2015 at 10:14 PM

Referencing the words of complete idiots does not bolster your arguments.

Anonymous said...

LLNL is so full of scumbag charletan managers it's incredible. The top managers of WCI have no weapons testing experience. One only has a masters. Total joke. We used to work with people who were hand picked by Teller or Foster, now we get code jokeys who washed out from other positions and landed here.

Anonymous said...

A 360 would be a complete waste. Who (in a position to act) would care? Demonstrably, no one.

Anonymous said...

6:40 LANS too. Most of the so-called Senior Management couldn't remodel a bathroom. It truly gets old carrying these losers around in the name of national security.

Anonymous said...

"...As I read the orginal post, it would be an in the aggregate mission objective based LANSLLNS "360 review" of all aspects of its management, efficiency, business practices, overhead rates, compensation, employee morale, and safety type assessment. All of which to be digested by DOE/NNSA and acted on now or during a contract change as appropriate..."

Agreed and yet some think it would be worthless.
Thousands of man-hours $$$ are spent every year to evaluate employees for performance, rank, salary, feedback to the employee, and to divvy up the 1-2% pay packages, but evaluation of the federal contractor with much less frequency is completely worthless? Haha. No not worthless, just potentially damaging to the LLC.

Anonymous said...

Its called the "Truth". Management and the LLC's do not want to know the truth. The goal is to hide it. Its a giant Ponzi scheme.

Anonymous said...

What is this ratio typically?

(Man-hour dollars spent to rank employees)/(salaries x 2% average raise on a given year)

If the ratio is > 1 to 10, it is too high.

Anonymous said...

LLNL is so full of scumbag charletan managers it's incredible. The top managers of WCI have no weapons testing experience. One only has a masters. Total joke. We used to work with people who were hand picked by Teller or Foster, now we get code jokeys who washed out from other positions and landed here.

April 18, 2015 at 6:40 PM

LANS is in the same position. The W-division Leader, James Owen has a "wimpy" Associate degree (also failed at getting his M.S. from U. of Colorado after being on campus for 2-years) from New Mexico State University, the ADW, John Benner does not have a PhD, and Craig Leasure PADW has virtually no "hard-core" weapons experience. All these guys are nuclear weapon fluke wannabes. None of these guys have "solid" weapons experience let alone can knew of the Nevada Test Site. Sandia, same examples.

Anonymous said...

6:40 LANS too. Most of the so-called Senior Management couldn't remodel a bathroom.
April 19, 2015 at 8:20 AM

The men's bathroom in 121 is pink.

Anonymous said...

"...The men's bathroom in 121 is pink..."

I'd worry less about the B121 bathroom being pink and more about being careful not to disturb the asbestos all over B121 and in equally old nearby buildings.

Anonymous said...

The men's bathroom in 121 is pink.

April 21, 2015 at 10:55 AM

Its the color that McMillan wanted. It matches the color of socks he wears on Wednesdays.

Anonymous said...

Really?? The color of socks McMillan wears is of interest to you?? Either you have a thing for him or you need a hobby desperately.

Anonymous said...

If weapons test experience at the NTS is a prerequisite for being a weapons programs manager, we'll very soon run out of suitable weapons programs managers. Last test was nearly 25 years ago, folks. Even the scientists who were quite young back then are nearing retirement. The best who are most suitable as managers are either already managers, already retired, or have gone elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

"why wouldn't the DOE and NNSA leverage the unedited and anonymous experiences"

I've been employed at LLNL for close to a decade and a half. I'm less worried about DOE/NNSA than about the fact that LLNS (and before that, UC) HR/upper management has never asked me: what I like about LLNL; what keeps me here; why I resist begin recruited by Twitter/Google/etc. I enjoy working at LLNL, and intend to stay. But why is no one asking me why, or why I might leave? This is very frustrating.

Anonymous said...

But why is no one asking me why, or why I might leave? This is very frustrating.

April 28, 2015 at 7:45 PM

Because nobody gives a flip. Why do you think you are so important to anyone? Grow up.

Anonymous said...

"...Because nobody gives a flip. Why do you think you are so important to anyone? Grow up..."

The troll that attempts to discredit by packaging all comments as exclusively important to one individual is back. Give it up.

LANSLLNS cares about the likely outcome of "asking" or surveying employees, which is precisely why they will not promote such an action willingly. LANSLLNS is very comfortable with how easily manipulatable their NNSA Field Offices are outside of major events that "go viral". Controlling the flow and direction of information is key to managing and staying in control of their own "report cards".

Anonymous said...

The troll that attempts to discredit by packaging all comments as exclusively important to one individual is back.

April 29, 2015 at 8:03 AM

Well, when a comment is full (to the brim) of "I" and "me" and does not mention anyone else or any kind of general survey of all employees, it is easy to come to that conclusion. Occam's Razor.

Anonymous said...

"Well, when a comment is full (to the brim) of "I" and "me" and does not mention anyone else or any kind of general survey of all employees, it is easy to come to that conclusion. Occam's Razor.

April 29, 2015 at 8:52 AM"

Spoken like a typical WFO science jerk. In my experiencing, I have meet a much of such self serving indulgent folks. I have no sympathy for them. Perhaps I should leave for Google, but why is no on asking me why I should stay and listen to the whiners on this blog? You have to ask me this and give a good reason to stay or I and the other people like me who do whine will think otherwise.

By the way who the hell is Occam and why the hell should I or any other sentient being give a rats rear end what he has to say? You pukes make me sick. I think you should all buzz off. Best and brightest I think not.

Anonymous said...

Best and brightest I think not.

April 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM

Well, you are clear evidence to support your opinion.

Anonymous said...

why is no on asking me why I should stay and listen to the whiners on this blog? You have to ask me this and give a good reason to stay or I and the other people like me who do whine will think otherwise.

April 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM

Please leave. PLEASE LEAVE. Please...No one wants you, and more importantly, no one likes you.

Anonymous said...

You know who could use a 360?
Baltimore! Git ur dun!

Blog Archive