Skip to main content

5% Retroactive Tax

Image
By
So, I hear that the programs are being charged a 5% retroactive (back to October 1, 2008) tax to help pay for a shortage in the "management fee".

My first question is this true?

My second question if true, does NIF have to pay, or do they get off the hook again?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Do you remember how LLNS was going to make things to look as if they were cheaper. Well they did. They simply fudged a few numbers on out hourly cost and are now making it up on the back side where no one can see it. It's a money game just like those in washington play. It's all BS. The bottom line is this. Each person cost so much and there's no way to reduce that cost except get rid of people. Oh and by the way I hear there's a list of names already compiled for the next lay off. They already know who they are going to can and why.
7/02/2009 5:42 PM
Anonymous said…
The tax is to pay for all the indirect costs (i.e., non-programmatic costs), such as F&I, ESH&Q, etc.

The ISP got rid of many indirect employees. Unfortunately many of these were gardners, crafts, and others that did real work. That's why it takes so long to change a light bulb. The ISP did not get rid of the expensive white collar staff that doesn't make any positive contribution to your life. That's why there are still so many committees that just create more useless work for the rest of us.

LLNS is a total failure.

PS: I am a manager, but one who does not charge indirect accounts.
7/02/2009 10:51 PM
Anonymous said…
You could axe 60 per cent of ESH&Q with zero reduction in service - actually, you might improve service. But only if you kept the best. The problem is, the people who would survive the RIF would be the oldest, best politically connected, and most worthless of the bunch.
7/03/2009 9:06 AM
Anonymous said…
I think its more than just the indirects, its the bloated staffs that ULM have built around themselves. It should be considered criminal that these managers don't trim their staff in order to stay on budget and get to tax the WFO. Also, many of the scientific management positions provide no benefit to the scientist they supposedly manage.

If I was a sponsor of science at LLNL I would just no more cash. That would might force ULM to wake up and provide real leadership!.
7/03/2009 4:09 PM
Anonymous said…
It is an elaborate scheme.
If LLNS is smart they should get rid of anyone who has the word 'deputy' in their title and that will prevent anymore layoffs.
7/03/2009 6:13 PM
Anonymous said…
Hey folks, the majority of my 26 yrs.at LLNL, was in the WFO arena. NAI,Z,Q,M,no matter what the acronym is, has been slowly disintegrating years before the transition. With only one exception in head shed management, a lot of a particular projects direction wasn't entirely governed by the principal investigator. Project management did that for them. This management virus slowly morphed into infecting the business link ((regardless of access level(to some extent))between the sponsor and the researcher. Management slowly took over, until those that can, left. Those that have left, have taken their sponsor's with them, as well as some outstanding, technical, and imaginative talent. Check out the second floor of 132S, lots of echos.....A 5% retro tax does little but bury the knife a little deeper
7/05/2009 7:51 AM
Anonymous said…
How about an audit to see how much of the indirect funding was spent on NIF and how much NIF paid in indirect taxes.
7/05/2009 8:05 PM
Anonymous said…
No the cost issues are simple. ULM laid off some indirects, but they did useful work. Few managers were laid off, and that is where your high costs are coming from. ULM apparently is too cowardly to lay off the excessively paid managers that contribute no useful function to the lab. If the bloated management is serving a useful function, please point it out to me, as far as I can see, the only thing that has occured in the past two years has been decimation of talent, but not ULM. And please REMEMBER, some ULM make 2 or 3 times higher pay, in some cases more than the folks doing work. Laying off one of them saves 3 people actually doing useful things. Instead, we can't get our trash emptied because they laid off the 3 workers, and kept the ULM.
7/06/2009 10:10 PM
Anonymous said…
I am just curious, this shuffling of money (essentially lying about costs using accounting gimmicks in my opinion), is this legal? I understand the government does these sorts of things, but private companies ARE NOT the government and often cannot do such things. Just curious if anyone had any insights into this.
7/06/2009 10:14 PM
Anonymous said…
Instead, we can't get our trash emptied because they laid off the 3 workers, and kept the ULM.

July 6, 2009 10:10 PM

You fail to understand... LLNS is a largely a "money machine" to enrich the protected ULM class at LLNL. It's not about getting work done or having critical operations addressed. It's only about perks and pay at the top from this point on out. The term "for-profit" management means their profits, not yours!
7/11/2009 12:20 PM
Anonymous said…
The 5% tax is being used to cover the cost of NIF Dedication and Family Day. A ridiculous amount of money was spent on these activities. Trees, roads, bark, paint, shrubs, more bark, a water conservation project (complete with amphitheater), grass, irrigation, signs, pavement, and oh, was there a spot that didn't get bark? Hopefully someone will shine the light of truth on the games that are being played with our tax dollars. How do you think all of this work was paid for?? What Science? We have become an arboretum. It does look nice, no?
7/22/2009 11:25 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