Skip to main content

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!

Image
By
Well, it was 1-year effective October 1st. I think the new account numbering systems sucks and every one of my account numbers transferred over. I know several people who have zero hours since the first of the year due to the new accounting system. Yet another savings method for our new "owners". Go figure! What do you think of our status after one year?

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have recently been loaned out to NIF. I have never in my life seen so many kiss asses assembled in one area. Thank God they are no longer exempt from future layoff's!
10/02/2008 9:15 PM
Anonymous said…
I has gotten worse. People are going through the moves like robots. There is no sense of belonging. LLNL is history!
10/03/2008 7:23 AM
Anonymous said…
No one in upper management can look me in the eye and say they are trying to keep talent and attract talent. That is a lie. We just had a very talented, one in a million person, leave. That person got tired of waiting for years to be converted.
No manager fights for his/her people anymore! It is everyone for himself!
10/03/2008 7:27 AM
Anonymous said…
Dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead.....

Even in today's economy I just don't buy the excuse of needing to stay there anymore. No one is riding over the hill to rescue the employees or the programs. You're better off just taking the hit and moving on.

Ask any financial advsisor. Ask your doctor. Ask your spouse if you have one. Your friends. I doubt they'd recommend you stay.
10/03/2008 12:52 PM
Frank Young said…
On a more cheerful note, happy birthday!
10/03/2008 1:59 PM
Anonymous said…
A division leader just got promoted within S&T in the classic fail upwards mechanism of lab after two-thirds of her division left or was laid off in the last 2 years.

Speaking to a group leader about the future she said "I won't let anything happen to my division."

These people have completely lost it!!!
10/03/2008 9:07 PM
Anonymous said…
Let me warn you that the second year of LLC life is when things typically start to get really interesting.

And I don't mean "interesting" in a good way!
10/04/2008 5:15 PM
Anonymous said…
Happy Anniversary! LLNL went from being the crown jewel to a tarnish crown thanks to the boys from RECHTEL. Less people and more work now that is cost cutting.

10-beam
10/04/2008 7:14 PM
Anonymous said…
Are you sure the BBTD DL has been promoted or rather demoted. There were intense rumors she was going to be relocated. Do you know what is her new position?
10/04/2008 7:55 PM
Anonymous said…
BBTD DL is now Chief-of-Staff for the Physical and Life Sciences PAD- sounds like a promotion, not a demotion. Strange that "life sciences" is even part of the name of this organization, when nearly all funding and good scientists and leadership in this area have left over the past couple of years. No prospects for bringing back any presence in "life sciences" with our overhead rates and marginal staff, so why fake it? Why not just call it "Sciences" PAD, like "Engineering" PAD? Or was the name an intentional slight against the chemists?
10/05/2008 2:50 PM
Anonymous said…
Hi October 4, 2008 5:15 PM,

Can you expand on your comment that "the second year of LLC life is when things typically start to get really interesting."

What might we be in for?
10/05/2008 5:12 PM
Anonymous said…
Her position is "Chief of staff". I don't know what that means. I figured that since she did such a good job getting rid of 200 people from the division in the last 2 years, that they promoted into a higher position where they'd use her to help get rid of the rest of the directorate.
10/05/2008 5:53 PM
Anonymous said…
I've heard the new S&T directorate referenced as "Physics and lessor sciences". The possibility of using the new Chief-of-Staff should be effective at cutting the remaining scientific staff.
10/05/2008 10:01 PM
Anonymous said…
"What might we be in for?" - 5:12 PM

During the second year you'll begin to see serious efforts to decrease salaries at LLNL. LLNS will begin creating brand new job categories with new salary limits that can't be waived. These limits mean that many employees won't be able to receive future raises.
10/06/2008 11:32 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