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. THIS BLOG WILL NOT POST ANY MAGA PROPAGANDA OR ANY MISINFORMATION REGARDLESS OF SOURCE. 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, March 13, 2025

Taxpayers pay for LLNS legal fees!


While seeking out Federally funded waste, will DOGE audit DOE/NNSA past and present history of bankrolling contractor legal fees so they can defend against at the taxpayer expense, whistleblowers and other self-serving contractor expenses (2008 “Gray March”)?

Still a relevant concern in 2025:

“You’ve probably heard of the government’s, “War on Whistleblowers… But what you probably didn’t know is that these vendettas against truth-tellers are routinely funded with your tax dollars… the government managed to turn four dollars worth of unauthorized phone calls into a ten million dollar bill for taxpayers.”

“Legal Swindle”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D6JDZvPvV4g&pp=ygUXbGVnYWwgc3dpbmRsZSBsaXZlcm1vcmU%3D

Publish
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
©2025 Blogger - Privacy Policy

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Financially rescuing and enabling federal contractors for their unjust decisions at the taxpayers expense? Yes, DOGE should have a serious investigation to include the perspective of those employees impacted.

Anonymous said...

Going after the witnesses of harassment over a $4.00 surely shows management’s position. This is a prime example why many hourly employees are represented by a union to stand up to management. This is exactly why the admins need this protection.

Anonymous said...

“Going after the witnesses of harassment over a $4.00 surely shows management’s position. This is a prime example why many hourly employees are represented by a union to stand up to management. This is exactly why the admins need this protection.”

I don’t disagree with your points. LLNS is a for-profit LLC. The root cause of its indifference to lab employees in unions or not, hourly or salary, is they know the NNSA will reimburse them for virtually all of their legal expenses. Therefore LLNS has no financial consequence (no downside) for making bad decisions that are self-serving. In practice, despite DOE guidelines to the contrary, the legal expense reimbursements occur with little or no objective review criteria. Unless these very low threshold for NNSA legal expense reimbursements end, expect more of the same unions or not.

Anonymous said...

“ I don’t disagree with your points. LLNS is a for-profit LLC”

Actually this occurred under UC a non-profit.

Anonymous said...

Neither are perfect, but indifference to employees working at LLNL became significantly worse when we switched from UC/LLNL to LLNS management.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days