Skip to main content

How much do you get paid?

Image
By scooby
Anonymously contributed:

LAB SALARIES ITEMS APPROVED AT JUNE 2006 REGENTS

MICHAEL R. ANASTASIO, LANS PRESIDENT AND LANL DIRECTOR

During his five-year appointment as LANS President/LANL Director, will receive an
annual non-base building supplement in the amount of $100,000 in addition to his
base salary of $367,000 ($350,000 paid by LANS and $17,700 by the University).
----------------------------------------------

Given this info, plus a possible 20% bonus, it looks like Mike could be making
the following:

$367 K + $100 K = $467 K

$467 K + 20% Bonus = $467 K +$93 K ===> $560 K

From a Congressional memo requesting this info back in '06 you'll find the
following:

energycommerce.house.gov/
Investigations/
LANL.QFR.resptoAnastasio.QFR.ltr.pdf

-----------------------------------------------
Anastasio, Michael - Laboratory Director:

$357,000 (base), $451,605 (base + UC fringe)
-----------------------------------------------

Again, adding in a 20% bonus would give:

$451 K + 20% Bonus = $451 K + $ 90 K ===> $541 K

This is far more than a recent "anonymous" poster stated, who would have you
believe that Mike only makes about $350 K.

I find it very interesting that Mike apparently seems to want to have the staff
believe that his salary isn't all that high.

It seems that Mike easily makes over half a million dollars per year. He also
gets a pension payout guarantee and a $743 monthly auto allowance to lease a nice
looking luxury sports car.

Of course, if Mike really wanted to come clean about his Director's salary, he
wouldn't be hiding it behind the flimsy excuse of LANS proprietary information. I
find it curious that LANL's Director appears to have a need to be disingenuous
about his salary.

Why all the phony posturing, Mike? Just throw the figures out to the public for
everyone to see along with the salaries of all the PADs and ADs.

It's time the workers get 20% after taxes to make up for what they're losing due
to higher fuel cost which affects eveything. It's ULM that should get a zero % '
payraise.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A half mil may seem like a lot to you and me, but the head of a $2billion in sales corporation would normally get several mil in annual income. Like the rest of us, Mike is also "sacrificing" to serve national security.
7/01/2008 9:45 AM
Anonymous said…
The point is not that he makes 1/2M. Many CEOs make much more than that. The point is that what is being disclosed is not true. LANS tries to minimize his salary. why?
7/01/2008 8:09 PM
Anonymous said…
Why? Well, I guess it's because they're no better than any other politician in this country and they can get away with it. So where's GM and FR income posted.
7/02/2008 6:08 AM
Anonymous said…
"Like the rest of us, Mike is also "sacrificing" to serve national security." - July 1, 2008 9:45 AM

Oh, cut the c....! Mike could never make it as the leader of a big, successful corporation. He's Bechtel's "house boy" who does whatever the master wants him to do. Miller is in the same boat. And, in case you didn't notice, there is a huge difference between a company that competes for actual sales of over $2 billion per year and a government owned entity that is mostly on auto-pilot for their incoming funds. Geeze, the shills for the lab LLCs must think the employees at these labs are complete idiots!
7/07/2008 6:34 AM
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

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

By scooby
From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...
96 comments
Read more