If Charlie takes questions at this week's all-call, could be interesting to hear what he has to say about TCP-1 allegedly now not being a closed plan.
Since LANS and LLNS are, for all meaningful purposes, one in the same, whatever he says will have ramifications for those working at LLNL.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
- ► 2017 (337)
- Sounds familiar?
- Bechtel plans on bidding for LANL
- UC is done!
- UC not interested in Sandia?
- High executive pay, antiquated computers
- Problems with for-profit management of the NW comp...
- Lockheed Martin has strong competition for the SNL...
- University of New Mexico (UNM) will announce propo...
- Are our benefits going to take a hit?
- Disposition of the lab management fee earned by UC...
- Will he stick around?
- Going away from contractor hosted web sites
- Satan 2 missile
- FY 2015 NNSA site evaluations now posted
- LLC model
- Another lawsuit
- Questions about LLNL
- No Public Funds For Legal Fees for Contractors Who...
- NNSA recommendations for SNL
- NNSA manager optimistic about LANL budget
- More on LANS extension
- LANS extended through 2018
- TCP1: closed-ended or open-ended?
- Has LANCE improved?
- ▼ May (24)
- ► 2015 (330)
- ► 2014 (309)
- ► 2013 (431)
- ► 2012 (258)
- ► 2011 (162)
- ► 2010 (157)
- ► 2009 (231)
- ► 2008 (374)