This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Does anyone believe the Engineering AD?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5 comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment