Anonymously asked:
On Wed. (6/18) the departing Engineering AD held an all-hands meeting to explain how the layoff was good for the Lab and will enable us to have a bright future. Attendance was not that great. Anyone believe what he said?
On Wed. (6/18) the departing Engineering AD held an all-hands meeting to explain how the layoff was good for the Lab and will enable us to have a bright future. Attendance was not that great. Anyone believe what he said?
Comments
If we are going to compete, we need to cut another 1500 or so, including unneeded managers, deputies, assistants, etc. Then we need to get rid of the 100 LSO bureaucrats who add only negative value to our work.
It is much more likely he was on unpaid leave of absence for at least the majority of this period. That is not so unusual. Schools are typically happy to see someone from their faculty go out for awhile and hold a position of national visibility."
However, as a "key personnel" identified in the current contract, he had to sign a two year commitment to remain in the LLNL position - apparently he didn't take that commitment seriously. The commitment carries the potential for penalties if not met, both for him personally and for he laboratory. Seems a number of the key personnel that signed such commitments didn't take them seriously.
However, there is reason to believe that in this case LLNS had a motive. By using him in the proposal, LLNS was able to claim someone with experience in key Lab programs. (Remember, he had been a Lab employee before.) Now he can leave, and be replaced by a Rechtel engineer.