Skip to main content

LAPIS disabled temporarily.

Image
By scooby
Anonymously asked:

In today's News Online, "LAPIS view paycheck temporarily disabled" Does this mean that additional people will be recieving their final paycheck on short notice?

Comments

Anonymous said…
yes ULM plans to wack 100 flex term June 26. plus additional 100 ftes they missed in may
6/17/2008 8:23 PM
Anonymous said…
What do you mean by "another 100 ftes they missed in may"? I thought the 440 released plus the ~100 flex were supposed to be the "end" of the ISP.
6/17/2008 8:54 PM
Neko said…
I'm willing to bet that LLNS is not done with "ftes", but I don't think it's going to happen this month - just some people like to stir things up.
6/18/2008 4:21 PM
Anonymous said…
Oops! I commented before reading this blog. Sorry Mr. Blogger for posting in wrong place...peace :)
6/18/2008 8:17 PM
Anonymous said…
The 440 left open a way to let 95 more go end of June.
(440+95+535 FTE's)

I smell a rat
6/18/2008 8:20 PM
Anonymous said…
There are no 100 additional FTEs. The 100 Flex Term number is dropping daily. Expect only ~1/3 that many to get whacked on 6/26.

Remember, however, that Flex Terms can be whacked at anytime, as long as the running quota does not exceed the trip point for a WARN Act letter.
6/19/2008 9:22 PM
Neko said…
LLNS can actually whack every FLEX when their term expires with no warning what so ever.
6/20/2008 8:58 AM
Anonymous said…
The primary reason that the number of Flex Terms to be whacked next week is less than GM's magic 100 is that many employees (al types) are bailing out on their own.

Remmeber, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
6/20/2008 10:11 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