LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
Comments
It will be interesting to see the composition of the Board of Governors/Directors for Triad - it there is one. I really hope that there isn't a BOG like clone. Looking at both ORNL and PNNL, it appears that Battelle does not use a "corporate" Board model for oversight of lab leadership and management. Considerable costs - money and time - will be saved by Lab staff not having to prepare watered down "everything is fine - we're doing great" powerpoint presentations for BOG meetings.
Still hard to determine what A&M has to do with Triad, other than pulling out the share of annual fee?
On a more serious note, the ALD for simulation and computation is still awaiting announcement.
Curious how the proposal was RFP compliant with a TBA in the key personnel, since contracts were to be included in that. Anyone want to venture that something smells very bad here??
July 18, 2018 at 3:07 PM
That does seem way out of bounds from the RFP.
It is not the cowboys from Texas I am worried about, it is the UC cowboys who no doubt made sure to marginalize Texas AM, because they think they are the best and brightest.