Skip to main content

Does anyone believe the Engineering AD?

Image
By scooby
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?

Comments

Neko said…
Actually he left because he has a contract with the University of North Carolina. He was only supposed to be on sabbatical from there for three years. He was able to double and tripple dip for over five years. Basicaly UNC said return to work (at UNC) or loose his funding - hence, he decided to return.
6/20/2008 8:55 AM
Anonymous said…
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.
6/20/2008 8:57 PM
Anonymous said…
The basic theme of his talk was that the layoffs reduced the number of overhead people to feed and that our rates would drop to the level that they were in 2007 prior to the new contract. Anyone with any experience in competitive business knows that even those rates were absurd.

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.
6/20/2008 10:07 PM
Anonymous said…
June 20, 2008 8:57 PM " anonymous said...
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.
6/21/2008 10:19 AM
Anonymous said…
He is the 6th key personnel in the LLNS contract proposal to bolt. His replacement's salary will not be an allowable cost until Oct. 09.

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.
6/23/2008 10:58 PM
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