Skip to main content

Attrition poll

Image
By scooby
Percentages of people leaving:

19 < 6 months
9 > 6 < 1y
17 > 1y < 2 y
11 > 2y < 5y
20 > 5y < 10y
22 > 10y

Assuming, this is anywhere near accurate, 45% of people will leave in 2 years or less. Can someone in LLNS tell us how they plan to replace them? or is that what the bureaucrats call "managed attrition"?

Comments

Anonymous said…
With Jacobs employees. There will be NON MORE labbies. It's time for you dudes to hit the road, FOREVER. Have a great Christmas. You are th alst of a dying breed.
11/30/2008 12:16 PM
Anonymous said…
numbers are too small to really say anything! Would need a much bigger sampling of current employees.
11/30/2008 3:19 PM
Anonymous said…
LLNS doesn't want to replace them... they want a lab of around 3,000 to 4,000. It will run NIF as a science user facility and WCI to provided limited peer review of LANL weapon designs. If, and this is a big if, the Dept of Homeland Security sponsors more work at LLNL, GS might be saved and the workforce might stay around 5,000. But remember in 5 years or less, Superblock and Site 300 are gone. Also, LLNL is losing its edge in Supercomputing - look at the latest Top500 list, we use to dominate this list... no more, thanks to NNSA and Sen Pete D pumping funding into saving LANL over LLNL.

If LLNL is going to live off of weapons work alone, look for a workforce of 1,500 to 2,000 tops.

With $2 to $7 Trillion going to bailout the economy, there is no money or vision for LLNL being other than the home for NIF! Everything at LLNL rest with NIF. If NIF fails, LLNL is closed, just like the major military based in the bay area. Ask yourself how many $100 millions were spent in the late 1980s and early 1990s upgrading facilities at Alameda NAS, the Presidio, Treasure Island, Fort Ord, Concord NWS, before they were closed. If given a stark choice between keeping LANL or LLNL, which do you think NNSA will pick?faninsd
11/30/2008 6:17 PM
Anonymous said…
November 30, 2008 12:16 PM

At least there's one person who understands the future of LLNL. Simple answer and to the point. I wonder when the rest of the fools are going to get the big picture?
12/02/2008 6:44 PM
Anonymous said…
If given a stark choice between keeping LANL or LLNL, which do you think NNSA will pick?faninsd

November 30, 2008 6:17 PM

LANL wins. It's out in the middle of nowhere, contaminated and suited for a nuclear dump site. It's as close to an NTS as one can get without setting off the detonators.

The LLNL people have been told a million times their weapons work is going to go to NTS and NIF is all they have. Once again you are correct. No NIF, No LLNL. Those people better hope for the best. I wonder what the clean up cost will be after the first fullup shot.
12/02/2008 6:51 PM
Anonymous said…
If given a stark choice...

Yes, it will be LANL and it will happen within the next year or two. What is left of critical weapons work at LLNL will be transferred out to LANL as NNSA begins implementing desperate measures at cost savings to save what remains of their lab nuclear weapons infrastructure.

LLNL will become much smaller and consist of the NIF facility. It will be transferred from NNSA over to DOE. You have been warned.
12/06/2008 1:07 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