Skip to main content

Compensation versus bonus

Image
By scooby
Anonymous wants to know:

So what do you think about bonuses instead of compensation?

Comments

Anonymous said…
The same people will get the big bonuses and the big raises. Managers bonuses won't be discussed, but will dwarf the worker bee bonuses and a big deal will be made about the small bonuses.
8/20/2009 5:35 AM
Anonymous said…
bad idea.
8/20/2009 6:35 AM
Anonymous said…
Bonuses would be used to by-pass the current appraisal and salary system. Making a bad situation even worse.

The lab should either

1. Go back to having all salary and compensation information open and freely available.

2. Let the workers negotiate for their compensation, i.e. union contracts.
8/21/2009 6:45 AM
Anonymous said…
You all need to leave dreamland and get back to the real world ... LLNL will never be the same, better get used to it. I left early this year, never had one moment of regret.
8/22/2009 1:44 PM
Anonymous said…
They'll do anything to assure your retirement pay is reduced when it comes time to calculate your entitlement $$ for life. This new for profit organization running LLNL sucks a big ones to the max.
8/23/2009 9:26 AM
Anonymous said…
Just to be clear: Bonuses will not increase your salary. Bonuses almost certainly will be paid for by reducing salary increases. Net result: lower salaries.

Now think about what depends on your salary: many benefits, including your TCP2 pension.

My conclusion: among other things, this program is a way to cheat long-term employees out of their hard-earned pension dollars.

Thanks, DOE and LLNS
8/27/2009 1:23 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