We have an enormous management burden at the lab. 2600 or so non-management employees and contractors were laid off, but the numbers show very few managers were laid off. The management size relative to workers has increased dramatically. The costs and budget shortfalls at this point are NOT a function of us bringing in less money. We can solve the shortfalls, even probably have a surplus, by eliminating this huge costly management burden. Given the size of the RIF, management should have been reduced about 40-50%. Instead, we have a relative 40% increase. The budget gimmicks of shifting costs around avoid this fundamental problem. We are all sinking because of the apparent willingness to fire the people who work on projects, but managers are protected no matter the cost. Well, those costs are now here to roost. One manager laid off, given their gross overpayment, saves 2-3 people working on projects. If managers are pushed out of management into the working ranks, their pay must be reduced accordingly. I am hearing of some managers being pushed into non-management positions but they are keeping their high pay. Worse, the efforts to recruit key people to work on technical projects is not working. People inside and out of the lab can see these problems, yet our management is either clueless, or ineffective in dealing with these problems. Myself and others working on projects are looking to leave the lab (as many others have done) because it has become clear that the management is most concerned with protecting management, protecting their pay, their positions, even if it means firing and humiliating scores of people working on projects. Why are you not generating the overhead to pay the management? Duh, lay off the people that do the work and produce the overhead, while expanding the size of management. The people working on projects almost universally have noted you will not get rid of managers, even if incompetent. Hopefully you won't sink the entire lab just so that you can pad your pockets for a little while longer. And please, don't lay off a competent person working on a project so you can replace them with an incompetent, technically inferior manager, just so you can preserve one of your own. It is time to cut these folks.
March 28, 2009 2:18 PM
March 28, 2009 2:18 PM
Comments
Also, most group "leaders" are another layer that lower management created to deal with the day to day operations of their division. Most of them are ill-trained and have no business wearing a "leader" hat. Most of them (and I have been in many directorates) would have been better off as a foreman on an assembly line. Leaders?
Although Plant Engineering had many Senior Supervisors, Superintendents, Division Leaders, etc., none were laid off. Seems to me that LLNL has many more managers now than they have ever had. I don't like to see anyone lose their job and I hope there are no more lay offs, but why did LLNS lay off so many of the people that were getting the work done ?
Then last year a new manager took over my area, he was totally incompetent. Came in late, left early, didn't do anything productive during the day yet was more then willing to take credit for others work. And his bosses thought he walked on water...because there was very little accountability.
And all the promises about lowering costs? I did the financials for our project every month (because the new manager couldn't be bothered) so I saw what the costs were...and they hardly dropped at all, even after all the layoffs.
You really could gut more then half of management and I bet no one would even notice.
A number of the extra managers brought in with the new contract are leaving. Most should not be replaced.
Oh no, wait... I can reduce cost ... maybe I can apply for their job ... I know how to cut cost: reduce staff and then reduce service hours. And I'll add in a re-org to make things more efficient. I'll do this for half their salary. (no extra charge in renaming new org that include 'strategic' or 'advance')
So - how many in total are left at the lab? What was the percentage of personel at group leader or above 12 months ago and what is it now? (the original poster seems like they had actual numbers - unless they just made it up).