Mason sent an all hands out on Wed saying that lab needs to cut indirect funding and become much more efficient. The goals are to move people to direct funding but keep the same number of people. We need to stop hiring people to backfill positions. We will keep AI funding going.
So a couple of points.
(1) If this was the goal why did we have to wait 8 years to do this? It seems a bit odd that suddenly we not want to cut our crazy overheard.
(2) How on earth do you cut overhead costs when half the people at the lab are on overhead? The only way to do this is to get rid of people. Some of the more cynical are thinking we are going to fire all the science staff and move everyone on to their codes. Who knows but everyone I knows says this is simply not going work.
17 comments:
It’s pretty simple. If you are not ACTUALLY helping the programs, you should be fired. Say goodbye to DEI offices, about half of HR and RP, six-sigma blackbelts, the entire area office, and much of the upper management. That’s about a quarter of the Lab right there. If you also eliminate poor performers, and STEM wannabees who never should have been hired in the first place, that’s another quarter. The remainder will be vastly more productive.
What is a STEM wannabee? I thought the point was to keep STEM people and get rid of the non STEM indirect costs? I simply do not follow your logic.
Somehow how your numbers make no sense. However you seem to grasp that if Mason wants to really reduce indirect costs you are going to have to get rid of people.
Also what exactly is indirect costs, does that count BES money, NIH, money, work for others, DARPA? I believe these are direct costs.
Also you have the issue with LDRD which only like 5% of the budget is that indirect? This by the way is taxed already so like 2.5% in actual money for
work.
Also why are doing this now, why did we not try this in 2015?
>and much of the upper management.
What has amazed me about the management is the sheer numbers relative to those who do actual work. In our department we have a manager that manages one employee. I guess shortly we will have managers that manage nothing, although I suspect this is already the case. The second thing is that once a manager you virtually cannot be fired. And if you position goes away, they will create a new one even if it is not needed. I see a lot of people trying to become managers I think because they know once the foot is in the door they no longer need to worry about lay offs, performance etc. The lab needs to lay off about 50% of the management, but this will never happen. They will lay off the people doing the work to preserve their positions for just a little while longer, even if it does damage to the labs long term health. With that you can see the attitudes described above. The people doing the work are not of any importance, it is the layers and layers of managers that are oh so critical. They have to have that attitude, otherwise the game is up and they have to admit there are way too many managers.
12/27/2012 2:12 PM
“…once a manager you virtually cannot be fired. And if you position goes away, they will create a new one even if it is not needed. I see a lot of people trying to become managers I think because they know once the foot is in the door they no longer need to worry about lay offs, performance etc…”
At LLNL, Pico used to call what you just described about Lab manager status, as a “ticket to the show”. It will take a DOGE like external audit to make a dent in this chronic problem of
mission needed talent and performance, always taking a back seat to management status, preservation, and growth.
Perhaps a STEM wannabe is somebody like an art history major hired to maintain weapons codes or spectroscopy experiments?
“At LLNL, Pico” shortly after the transition gave the managers, superintendents and supervisors a 10% raise while giving the 900’s a de minimis raise that was about $0.10 per hour, while healthcare deductions increased and TCP1 went to 7% “pre tax.” They couldn’t figure out why their apprentices were leaving right after finishing their program. As said in an all hands meeting with Pico and 900 superintendent Schoenberger “I don’t see anyone leaving” in the next year they lost about 12 people. Got mine motto
I see so many complaints. The solution. To overcome that, do what silicon valley techies do: leave.
The only reason not to is if you are a couple of years from retirement or you simply aren't convinced you can cut it elsewhere. Any other reasons?
“At LLNL, Pico” shortly after the transition gave the managers, superintendents and supervisors a 10% raise”
Pico was a classic case of a “ticket to the show” recipient no degree needed Lab hire employee, and later, Lab manager that could never be demoted or fired for any reason.
“I see so many complaints. The solution. To overcome that, do what silicon valley techies do: leave.”
Silicon Valley “techies” work in the real free market, where there can be immediate company consequences for losing talented employees. Not so with LLNS. When lab employees leave, new hires occur, deadline goalposts are moved, and the profits keep coming in uninterrupted. You are offering an apples and oranges workforce comparison.
The “ticket to the show” individual mentioned above should be retired by now collecting a 100% pension. Who is running the show now?
“Do what Silicon Valley Techies do” …
That’s a very different comparison as you can just drive down the road in the valley to the next startup and work there. In terms of the OP regarding LANL they call it the land of entrapment for a reason. At least in the good old days you could outreach to your colleagues at Lawrence get a job. With UC running both “shows” your years of service, retirement and benefits would follow you.
The “ticket to the show” individual mentioned above should be retired by now collecting a 100% pension. Who is running the show now?
Why do you ask and how does it materially change or improve the LLNS management situation?
Pete Nanos stepped down as LANL Director in 2005, yet he is often mentioned on this blog 20 years later.
4/21/2025 6:53 “Why do you ask”. IDK ranking, raises and the layoff list. BTW he is still here, it’s a rhetorical question on who is now running the “show” however some (one) of the new senior superintendents in a PAD below him seems to raise a bigger question.
12:19, Nanos hasn’t been mentioned once in this thread. However, since YOU mentioned his omnipresence, the reason he is oft referred to is his complete lack of ability which has, unfortunately, metastasized in the modern management circles at the Labs. He will always be remembered for destroying the Labs.
So how they going to save money?
The fraction of LANL devoted to non-weapons work has already decreased to almost as low as it can go. That is to say, what this article fears has actually already happened. A certain small fraction of attractive non-weapons work is needed to attract talent and keep the myth of omnipotent LANL science alive, so that small fraction of non-weapons-funded work may not be able to go much lower even if LANL management were given over to the wicked Heritage Foundation. At present, with enough PR and gullible journalists, 3% non-weapons work can be spun as 30%, keeping the myth alive. An expert for everything, it says above. Oh, brother.
“BTW he is still here, it’s a rhetorical question on who is now running the “show” however some (one) of the new senior superintendents in a PAD below him seems to raise a bigger question.”
What “bigger question” is that?
Post a Comment