Skip to main content

Fire some, hire some

Image
By scooby

Contributed by anonymous:
The Laboratory is making some changes to its posting and hiring practices in the wake of workforce restructuring.

Tammy Jernigan, associate director of Strategic Human Capital Management, announced the changes in an interdepartmental memo.

All principal associate directors (PADS) will submit staffing/hiring plans to the Director’s Office to ensure the Lab proceeds cautiously with hiring activities. Jernigan said hiring will continue at a “very conservative" level and be monitored against hiring plans.

The Director’s Office will review and approve external hiring requests, including supplemental labor personnel. A lateral or promotional hire of an internal employee on a posted position, which does not effect a change in the employee’s appointment status, requires approval at the PAD and Strategic Human Capital level.

PADs have been given discretion to laterally reassign employees within the PAD in the same job family and pay grade, when it is necessary to facilitate workforce management.

Hire requests, and extensions of Lab associates and fixed-term retirees must include justification that directly tie to meeting immediate programmatic and transfer of knowledge needs.

Requests for an early conversion of flex-term to indefinite status should generally be postponed at this time.

An institutional brokering committee, chaired by Jernigan and Engineering Associate Director Steve Patterson, will review all postings to facilitate placement of employees currently in unfunded positions.

After the brokering review process, unfilled positions may continue to be posted internally and/or externally if a suitable candidate is not available. However, “internal only” postings will be limited to career indefinite employees.

For more information, contact Employment Division leader, 3-7904, or designated employee specialists.

Comments

Anonymous said…
If anyone wants to reminisce about what LLNL had to say before Oct 1st , 2007 here is a good look back in time. I only wish we could have continued with these points of view on the other LLNL blogs but they were dissolved for by two entirely difference circumstances.
12/07/2007 9:47 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more