Layoffs likely at Livermore Lab
Facility's finances continue to weaken, director says
By Betsy Mason, STAFF WRITER
Article Created: 03/23/2008 02:37:54 AM PDT
More layoffs may be in store for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory after a voluntary buyout program fell short of reducing the work force by 10 percent.
Lab director George Miller told employees in an e-mail Friday that 215 permanent employees left with severance packages on March 14, far fewer than the goal of 750.
"We clearly are moving in the right direction," Miller wrote. "But it is not sufficient."
Since October 2006 the lab has dropped from 8,057 employees to 7,104. That reduction includes 450 supplemental laborers and employees with fixed-term contracts who were laid off in January, the 215 who took buyouts, as well as normal attrition.
Miller said the lab's financial situation continues to worsen in the wake of the management changeover in October from the University of California to a newly formed company, Lawrence Livermore National Security, which is partly owned by UC.
Switching to a corporate manager resulted in increased costs for the lab due to loss of its tax-exempt nonprofit status, higher than expected retirement and health benefit costs and a yearly management fee increase from $8 million to $46 million.
Higher than expected inflation and cuts to the Department of Energy budget have compounded the problem.
The new manager anticipated about $80 million in increased costs, but Miller wrote Friday that the actual number has spiraled to $280 million.
"We need to reduce our annual support costs by more than $200 million," he said.
Miller said he has set up a team led by two associate directors at the lab, Ed Moses and Frank Russo, to look for ways to cut costs and evaluate suggestions from employees.
Further job cuts will be part of the solution, Miller wrote. Management will look at attrition and shedding more temporary and supplemental employees.
But he is also discussing the possibility of layoffs of the permanent, career work force with the National Nuclear Security Administration, the branch of the DOE that oversees the nuclear weapons labs and has the final call on the matter.
If the NNSA approves layoffs, it would be the first time in 35 years that there have been layoffs from the permanent work force, lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton said.
Houghton said they would first look for ways to reduce supporting jobs such as resource analysts, facilities managers, graphic artists and information technology workers, perhaps by combining those functions for several departments.
"There are no easy answers," Miller said in his e-mail. "I firmly believe the actions we are taking are essential for a robust future.
"I want to position the Laboratory to continue to provide the exceptional public service that is our history by applying world-class science and technology to the most challenging issues of our time."
Betsy Mason can be reached at 925-952-5026.
32 comments:
BS:"If the NNSA approves layoffs, it would be the first time in 35 years that there have been layoffs from the permanent work force, lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton said."
Combining divisions does not save money: "Houghton said they would first look for ways to reduce supporting jobs such as resource analysts, facilities managers, graphic artists and information technology workers, perhaps by combining those functions for several departments."
There will be layoffs and outsourcing is the game. Someone has to go.....
I'd say NNSA should approve the additonal 1000 LLNS is asking for and then do another 1200-1500 next year. That'll get the population down to 4500 and maybe everyone will have a job instead of being on the EBA list or sheltering their favorites in NIF where they can't be laid off in hopes that RRW returns. Give it up George and get the lay-offs on the road. Stop the procrastination. Everyone knows the game and how they shuffle people to jobs they know are going away or onto the EBA list so when the RIF comes these people can't find jobs and then are just gone. It's typical of every company in America. LLNL is no different.
March 23, 2008 8:10 AM
Ask yourself this. Why would NNSA / DOE _NOT_ approve it. They want cuts, there's no work and no foreseen budget to support the amount of people LLNL has on the work force. If I were NNSA I'd be asking LLNS, { "Is this all you want", "are you sure you don't want 2,500 this year so we don't have to do this over again on 2009"? You know it's not going to get any better and no democratic president is going to support that lab or it's mission, the little it has. You also know that once NIF is complete that organization is going to have to dump about 500 more simple because PS&T isn't going to get those DOE contracts' they are striving for.} Those laser weapons proposals are going to the private sector.
March 23, 2008 8:10 AM that sounds great, unless one happens to be among those laid off. Say, perhaps you'll be one of those.
Why isn't DOE paying extra for the 401k costs instead of LLNS out of the existing budget?
"It's typical of every company in America"
Not entirely. There are some companies out there that work in the interest of the employees. Not many, but they are out there.
They also get exponentially more resumes than they have jobs for.
This is what happens when certain physicists with no business knowledge are in charge. They don't have a vision of how to have a productive balanced business operation. Worst, they surround themselves with their marginally skilled and poorly prepared "cronies" and "yes" people. At least past directors chose to have a variety of competent people around them that spoke their minds, since their personal wealth wasn't dependent on being puppets.
People moderately competent would have known early on what the true additional costs of the new contract would be (only fools or sycophants believed it was only $80Million. Do we really have a business operation that didn't understand taxes and benefit cost changes with an LLC????), or did they just refuse to tell it like it was, since it wasn't what management wanted to hear at the time.
This management "team" will do a good job of looking out for themselves (adding to their personal riches) while they eliminate jobs based on something other than real need, and ruin the lives of many, and the Lab in the process.
As the poll indicates. If ULM would have told the workers of LLNL there was going to be a RIF, 20% reduction in force and a 30% reduction in building more people would have went TCP-2. I guess you all know now why they lied.
If you knew about the workforce reduction, would you have chosen TCP1? ( look at the results ) and please all people at LLNL to visit.
Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer
1999 HARRISON ST.
SUITE 1600
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Ph # 510-832-5411
FAX # 510-832-1918
E-MAIL:webinfo@GICCB.com
It really didn't matter to ULM, they got TCP-3 just like Mikey A. in LANL. It has been nothing but win, win, for them and will continue to be so until they get maximum 100% retirement for the rest of their lives just like our senator and congressman. What they do to you during their reign doesn't affect their wonderful future.
I was let go from my job(TRED) last week.
My boss said it wasen't because of my work but because of their miscalculation of head count !
Only one month ago we had a group meeting and the PAD director said the FT employees are the future of the laboratory. I wasted a year at the lab with emotions up down and around and now out. The good ole boy system is alive and well at LLNL.
TRED is Technology Resources Engineering Division. I was matrixed out to NIF National Ignition Facility. I was told not to worry about my job because NIF is well funded. NIF is becoming a sinkhole for taxpayers if they ever realize what the capital return on investment is. Maybe the boys at Bechtel will figure it out sooner than later because Moses doesn't have a clue.
Thank you 6:23PM for explaining what TRED means.
"I was told not to worry about my job "
Another example of being lied to from management.
After reading the directors e-mail on Friday 3-21-08, it is very clear he will have to reduce the workforce significantly more than he already has. After giving it a great deal of thought this weekend, I would now be willing to give up my position with Facilities and Infacstructure Directorate and leave LLNL.
By doing this, I feel I could save a younger persons job.
I bet there are several other workers at LLNL that have many years of service that would re-consider a voluntary buyout if the VSSOP were to be opened up. I recommend our director re-open the VSSOP for a week or two before the layoffs begin. Even if only 40 or 50 employees signed up, it would probably save some workers from losing their jobs.
March 24, 2008 7:57 AM
Not a chance in heck! You had your chance and now it time to cut everyone that management has wanted to get rid of for years. It's 1000 out the door by June of 2008. The longer we wait the greater that number gets. The people that are within 5- 8 years of drawing social security are not just going to walk out to save some younger persons job. That's not going to happen now or never. They may walk out if LLNS gave them one years pay for every year of service up to 23 years. That way they could put this in their 401k and draw 1% interest to live off of for the rest of their lives. Then and only then could they make it. So don't be hoping that the old people are just going to walk without big bucks in their pocket after taxes. Oh and I did not say one weeks pay for every year up to 23 years, I said one years pay for every year of service up to 23 years deposited in their 401k tax free. Now that's an incentive !
IMHO it's time to say goodbye to LLNL as we once knew it. She'll never be the same. I can't think of a more appropriate song than your Day is Done
I can't wait to see how they justify letting FTE's go before the rest of the Flex & SL labor at the Lab and it will be based on seniority??? Who's running this Lab?
March 24, 2008 9:42 AM
There were a lot of people who thought hard about taking the VSSOP but eventually declined. Had LLNS offered the same deal as LANS, there clearly would have been more takers.
March 24, 2008 7:35 PM
They will do whatever it takes to meet thier needs. NNSA should be giving the GO signal rather quickly to get those next 1000 out the gate ASAP. They need this done and over with before June or July of 2008. At that time they'll be looking at 2009's budget at which time they want to concentrate on how many to get rid of in FY-09. The begining of a new era.
"I would now be willing to give up my position with Facilities and Infacstructure Directorate and leave LLNL"
what directorate is that?
As fas as I know, the directorates are:
Environment, Safety, Health and Quality
Global Security
NIF and Photon Science
Operations and Business
Science and Technology
Security Organization
Weapons and Complex Integration
I can't wait to see how they justify letting FTE's go before the rest of the Flex & SL labor at the Lab and it will be based on seniority??? Who's running this Lab?
I think it would be really easy - there are a lot of really good Flex & SL employees (I am a former Flex myself who got fed up and left) and a lot of really incompetent FTEs. Don't see why it's so hard to justify...
8:32 PM,
Where have you been hiding at the Lab?
GS, NOF, O&B, S&T, and WCI are Principal Directorates - each with Directorates within them. Facilities and Infrastructure Directorate, along with Strategic Human Capital Management, Business, and Nuclear Operations are the Directorates of Operations and Business.
ESH&Q and Security Organization are technically not Directorates nor Principal Directorates, but organizations that are headed by a Director who reports to the Director.
LANS got 400 + voluntary takers in Jan. 2008 and has been hiring like crazy ever since- just read their many job ads. LANS is busy replacing old LANL employees with 'new' long time Bechtel employees as fast as they can manage. Job ads are project management, purchasing, and DOE oversight types. Ask yourselves if this a true LLNL budget crisis or an invasion of the body snatchers...
The term "Directorate" is now more confused. There are five PADs (S&T, O&B, WCI, GS, NIF/PS). Security, ESH&Q, PAO, etc... are all subsumed in the Directors Office under the Deputy Director.
Some PADs have subordinated ADs (S&T in particular).
i keep reading posts that claim George wants 1,000 more to go. I have read his email to all employees and the statement from the PR people and have yet to find any mention of 1,000 more workers need to go. I have read that the goal of 750± was no achieved with the VSSOP and that additional cuts will be necessary. So where does the 1,000 number come from?
Please post anon:
If there is any way possible please post this document for all to read. It should in fact be required reading in these times. It's dated March 17th, 2008 but I understand there's a new revision coming out in April or May of 2008. I'm sure they'll change it in a manner that'll be to their advantage. The document can be found at this location .
March 25, 2008 7:57 AM
You really should start asking around and see what you can dig up. You'll be surprised to know that in some divisions they are starting to define the people that are to "be next". List are being compiled and it would not surpirse me to see it be as big as 1000 people. If you think about it, that's not all that many people especially if you know you have a goal of a 20% reduction this years and more to come next year, since the budget is going to be 10% less with LLNL already being in the hole $69M for FY-09. Come one. Think outside the box and put yourself in LLNS place. How many would you get rid of? That number would be 2,500 this year and maybe 1000 next year without hiring new people by LLNS, but that's not what they are doing.
March 25, 2008 7:26 AM
The new terminology to sort out the Directorates is maxi-PADs and mini-PADs.
March 25, 2008 7:23 PM
The names are already written down. More will likely be added, but the blood letting is about to begin.
There are a lot of people doing unnecessary functions that make unnecessary work for the real programs. Hopefully these bureaucrats are on the list.
One more mystery...why are support people who have been working on and bringing in more than a $2-3 million a year on WFO projects no longer allowed to work on them? Even when the sponsor asks for us specifically. I think we are about to lose $6 million plus from an agency because they want specific people (environmental) and our management tells us no. Support (also known as compliance who are scientists with funding) is already down by half. Another mystery...the WFO clients don't want EBAs, they want 'busy' people who know how to work and provide deliverables. ULM says WFO is the way of the future (and in the new contract), but they won't deliver to the clients. It is time to look elsewhere.
Thank you 5:55 for explaining that we have PADs and ADs.
Ask yourself this!!! We have already heard more than once from Uncle Miller, we are family by the way, that NNSA has already approved the 750 awhile back. Now last week he makes a comment that they have returned to NNSA for approval. Think about it...... they went back to raise the numbers....duhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! The media has been saying this all along...wake up..sharpen your resume!!
Neither LLNL nor LANL is a place in which to plan on having a long term career.
It's over for the NNSA research labs. All NNSA really wants at this point in time is some limited production facilities and a few scientists who look like they are doing something vital for weapons work. NNSA doesn't need many people to serve their new vision.
The lucky ones will be the ones who are laid off early in this RIF'ing process and begin looking for a more stable institution at which to do their life's work. The unlucky ones will try to desperately hang on until the bitter end and waste valuable time re-starting their careers.
March 25, 2008 7:16 PM
It is not a joke March 25, 2008 7:16 PM The Separations Plan section K of the PPPM, which includes layoff language is being revised and will be done by the end of July of this year (2008).
Any revisions to the layoff language would be on the web at that time. Current policy language can be found at https://pppm-int.llnl.gov/, as well as copies of the archieved blue sheets which is what directed us to do this.
Having read the PPP-K I can see plenty of room for making lay-offs of FTE's much, much easier and without recourse. Get a copy now and remember what it use to be like. Those days are going bye-bye my friends. This may be worthy of a top post if people are concerned.
Post a Comment