This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
A post on the LANL blog
Anonymous said...
A post on the LANL blog says that there will be 3% salary package this year with non-retroactive raises coming in January.
May 4, 2009 5:08 PM
12 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Which means nothing to Livermore. We could get 4% or, more likely, 1.5%.
May 9, 2009 12:11 PM 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.
It doesn't matter what the package is for most of us with the same "performance" evaluation methodology. Most of us will get little raises while management gets the majority of the allocation.
There will be no raises at LLNL this year. To be kind they'd have to give all of us 20% after taxes to make up for the years they've screwed us since the LLNS take over. However, you can bet the fat cats at the top are going to get their raises and bonus checks too.
Yes. Sadly for non-managers. I know a group leader whose salary jumped 18% in 3 years (from 2005-2007). 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
2007 was the last year salary info was public. I bet it is worse now - 9:45 PM
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.
Although we discussed some pre-decisional information from DOE on the level and timing of the Compensation Increase Program (CIP), and made preliminary decisions on how potential delays in the CIP would affect the Performance Appraisal process at a recent PAD meeting, the Laboratory has not yet received guidance, clarification or confirmation from DOE regarding the CIP or its timing. In fact, much of what we heard earlier is changing. It is likely to change again. We have asked that DOE expedite decisions on at least some aspects of the options they are considering because of its impact on our annual Performance Appraisal process.
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.
May 18, 2009 8:46 AM 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.
I have always felt the bring-in should be distributed to the supervisors who would then have the task of distributing that chunk of money to their subordinates. The main advantage is that the employee would know who to see re: raises. Additionally, supervisors would then have to make sure they understood what each employee was doing during the year since the supervisor evaluation would be heavily weighted with regard to how well they perform this task. Poor performers would be removed from management.
12 comments:
Which means nothing to Livermore. We could get 4% or, more likely, 1.5%.
May 9, 2009 12:11 PM
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.
zero point zero. Since I have had a year of significant contributions, I expect zero point zero. The 1.5 percent will be a nice surprise.
On another note, the entire "ranking system", aka - give the best raises to those who kiss butt must go!
It doesn't matter what the package is for most of us with the same "performance" evaluation methodology. Most of us will get little raises while management gets the majority of the allocation.
There will be no raises at LLNL this year. To be kind they'd have to give all of us 20% after taxes to make up for the years they've screwed us since the LLNS take over. However, you can bet the fat cats at the top are going to get their raises and bonus checks too.
Yes. Sadly for non-managers. I know a group leader whose salary jumped 18% in 3 years (from 2005-2007).
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
2007 was the last year salary info was public. I bet it is worse now - 9:45 PM
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.
May 13, 2009 9:59 PM
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.
Although we discussed some pre-decisional information from DOE on the level and timing of the Compensation Increase Program (CIP), and made preliminary decisions on how potential delays in the CIP would affect the Performance Appraisal process at a recent PAD meeting, the Laboratory has not yet received guidance, clarification or confirmation from DOE regarding the CIP or its timing. In fact, much of what we heard earlier is changing. It is likely to change again. We have asked that DOE expedite decisions on at least some aspects of the options they are considering because of its impact on our annual Performance Appraisal process.
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
What goes on behind closed doors is secret for a reason, they want to keep you in the dark.
May 18, 2009 8:46 AM
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.
I have always felt the bring-in should be distributed to the supervisors who would then have the task of distributing that chunk of money to their subordinates. The main advantage is that the employee would know who to see re: raises. Additionally, supervisors would then have to make sure they understood what each employee was doing during the year since the supervisor evaluation would be heavily weighted with regard to how well they perform this task. Poor performers would be removed from management.
Post a Comment