Contributed anonymously:
Does anyone know what percentage of managers (group leaders and up) are exempt from the layoffs? Because as things stand, it appears to me that we're cutting all worker bees and retaining exactly the same Super-Sized management. If the goal of these layoffs is to reduce our overhead expenses to become competitive, why aren't we scaling back the number of managers to match the new size of the workforce? And if many of these managers are being retained but will be pushed back down to technical work, yet their salaries do not go down, again I ask how will this lower our overhead expenses?
Are these observations just completely wrong? I confess that it isn't public who is exempt from the layoffs and who isn't, so maybe a lot of managers are at risk and I just don't know it. But if my observations are correct, the lab will still have the same problems with price-to-market as they already do, except they'll be in a worse position because they've lost a lot of less-expensive workers who could build that better future.
Does anyone know what percentage of managers (group leaders and up) are exempt from the layoffs? Because as things stand, it appears to me that we're cutting all worker bees and retaining exactly the same Super-Sized management. If the goal of these layoffs is to reduce our overhead expenses to become competitive, why aren't we scaling back the number of managers to match the new size of the workforce? And if many of these managers are being retained but will be pushed back down to technical work, yet their salaries do not go down, again I ask how will this lower our overhead expenses?
Are these observations just completely wrong? I confess that it isn't public who is exempt from the layoffs and who isn't, so maybe a lot of managers are at risk and I just don't know it. But if my observations are correct, the lab will still have the same problems with price-to-market as they already do, except they'll be in a worse position because they've lost a lot of less-expensive workers who could build that better future.
Comments
1) the practice of creating deputy-xxx and assistant-yyy positions because the division/dept managers wanted to offload the grunt work to someone else.
2) the common practice of making someone a team leader or a manager as a way to keep them. It was the only way to get a decent raise.
The problem is: many such team leads/managers have no management/leadership skills!
Shouldnt that be a requirement?
LLNL is still in the early stages of the LLC transition. At LANL, many GLs used to spend only part of their time at management tasks. Now, however, LANS has seen to it that being a GL means working full-time at being a manager. If you aren't doing this then they conclude you somehow aren't being an effective Group Leader.
Just wait, LLNL. You have much to learn about the new LLC way of doing business. And, yes, the LLC method with its many levels of new managers will result in huge levels of overhead to help drive your labor rates even higher. The result will be a need for even more layoffs at some future date.
We just recently ( January ) had another layoff of contract and flex term workers. From what I have heard, only one supervisor ( this employee was a flex term ) was released. I know of no managers that were released.
I am real curious if any supervision and / or management type will be targeted for layoff the week of May 19th.
What published numbers and where are they?
And what you may ask will these GL's be doing with all their time? Managing projects, personnel issues and coordination. To do that right takes time. not doing that right is one of the reason's we're so expensive.
And yes, managers currently spend a lot of time talking. The lab is all about building consensus. Nobody is willing to make a decision unless every single person agrees. This too will change. Discuss, make a decision, move on. We don't have the time or money to operate otherwise.
If you don't like what I've outlined above, maybe it's time to move on.