Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it. Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
Comments
Actually, if we got 3% the after tax distribution would probably be no more than 2%. The post at the LANL blog was about LLNL not LANL.
On another note, the entire "ranking system", aka - give the best raises to those who kiss butt must go!
He has no leadership skills and needs training badly.
He is surrounded by people who slave
and get 0.25 to 1% raises.
2007 was the last year salary info was public. I bet it is worse now
There was a good reason why LLNS top management decide to make lab salaries proprietary information. They didn't want employees to know about the vast increases in upper management compensation once the for-profit LLC took over the lab.
In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprise to find out that they have decide to raise executive salaries by large margins to offset any of the upcoming increases on income tax for those making over $250K. Of course, you'll never hear about it if they do.
As UC employees LLNL salaries were public information. This is no longer the case. No other DOE contractor - other than UC at LBNL - that I'm aware of releases employee salary information.
Even though there are already rumors and misinformation on this subject out on the blogs and elsewhere and employees are asking questions, I do not want to run the risk of sending out information prematurely, only to have to retract or correct it later. It is important that we communicate what we know and what we don't know, avoid speculation and accurately reflect this situation in our communications:
We are aware that DOE is considering a variety of options for this year's CIP but there is no official decision at this moment. Senior management has discussed how we might respond, including how we could ensure that the annual Performance Appraisal process is properly timed with respect to the CIP. Final decisions on the Laboratory's part must await official guidance from DOE. As soon as there is an official decision from DOE, we will communicate that decision immediately.
I realize that we are in an awkward situation with respect to the timing of the annual Performance Appraisal process, but any action is premature. I request your help in accurately conveying the situation and avoiding creating the impression that we've decided to delay the annual Performance Appraisals.
Regards, George
If that really is you George you will note that, even though this blog isn't as mature nor does it attract the sort of wordsmiths you will find at the LANL blog, there is a very serious morale problem and it is getting worse.