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.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Layoffs?
This post has been anonymously sent and is not intended to start a rumor:
I have heard through inside information that possible layoffs of FTEs is coming this January does anyone have any info about this?
19 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I have heard through good sources the same thing. The LIFE program didn't come through, reduction of the budget, and of course higher costs. Word is Plant Engineering, 800 series and more 200's are going to be on the chopping block, upto 500 FTE's once again. Are you really surprised?
RIFs are now a constant danger to anyone working at the NNSA science labs. Expect them to pop up at any moment. In most cases, however, the new for-profit managers prefer to simply fire employees so that they don't have to pay out any severance.
There is no job security left in working for the NNSA labs. Look elsewhere to create a solid, healthy and long lasting science career.
Don't know about layoffs. But there is a lot of chatter going on in the S&T PD. Look for some major changes/reorg. The Comp/CAR Dept head left for NIF. Possible organizational changes at the AD/Dept/Division levels.
"Where is there a healthy, long lasting science career these days? China?"
This is true. Chinese university faculty are abundantly funded for their research and have generous government benefits, including housing subsidies for life.
If you're thinking about retiring, you might want to hang in there. The indirect budget is in deep trouble. Although LLNS major cuts in those folks in 2008, they unfortunately wacked many who did real work (e.g., replaced your light bulbs so you can see to work). They kept many excess managers and make-work staffers, whose salaries are larger. Unless the overall Lab budget can grow, the overhead expenses cannot be afforded by the existing programs.
There's a lot of rumors going around. One of the facts is that the proposed budget for next year is smaller. Less money equals less __________ (fill in the blank)
We would sure get along a lot better if support organizations had more workers and less managers. We need maintenance workers, secretaries, buyers, TRRs and working IT staff, not namagers. It we let go two entire level of burden management -first line management and senior level management (Business Operations AD level), we could afford 10% larger working staffs. First line supevison would lead the worker and department or section level management could report to Programs directly.
More workers, more responsive, cheaper, more effective, less managers covering their behinds.
The lab is in a death spiral. More layoffs only means that the cost of operation per capita increases, which means higher cost to the sponsor, which means less money coming in, which means more layoffs....
"The lab is in a death spiral. More layoffs only means that the cost of operation per capita increases, which means higher cost to the sponsor, which means less money coming in, which means more layoffs...." (4:38 AM)
I hear there will be a new Work-For-Others tax to cover security costs. That should make my sponsor happy, especially since we have little classified work.
"Don't know about layoffs, but increased overheads are heading your way very soon." - 7:52 pm
When does it ever stop? At what point does LLNL finally become too expensive for doing any scientific work? This constant jacking up of the overhead rates is crazy.
"I hear there will be a new Work-For-Others tax to cover security costs. That should make my sponsor happy, especially since we have little classified work."
September 17, 2009 8:45 PM
It's clear that NNSA, LLNS and LANS don't want to see WFO projects at the weapons labs. They may say otherwise in public, but look at their actions and not their words. They are doing their very best to slowly kill it off.
Since LLNS took over on Oct 1, 2007, over 2000 (employees and SLOs) have been laid off from LLNL... what to guess how many NNSA employee in the site office have been let go?... Zero. In fact they've added NNSA employees.
We're doing less work at the Lab with less workers, but federal oversight keeps growing.
Dear, "I hear there will be a new Work-For-Others tax to cover security costs. That should make my sponsor happy, especially since we have little classified work.
September 17, 2009 8:45 PM"
The "new" WFO Security burden is similar to the burden you paid in prior years that was finally taken off back in July. This goes to pay the WFO portion of the guards/gates/fences type security. In the old/old days, it was all part of the G&A. Then DOE got into the act because there were a few "publisized" security events and they thought there would be more control if it was funded directly and not subject to "indirect budget reductions". Since WFO are direct funded projects, they needed a way to contribute their share. So since 2000 when DOE started funding security directly - you guessed it, there have been budget cuts. For FY10, the guidance has been unclear about whether we should return to charging WFO for security or not and if so, how much. If you ask me, DOE doesn't know what it wants and they are on track for sending the guidance late - just like for FY09. That means that if they follow the same schedule, you will not have your WFO projects burdened until late in the year when you may have already completed your project - then WHAM! surprise bill. Hopefully the burden rate will be lower than it was in prior years, however, no guarantees. Having security funded partially by DOE as direct funding and partially as a burden on WFO projects is confusing and inefficient. However, any change that comes will probably come with budget cuts and you'll see one less gate open. My only hope is that we might hear a few less announcements about training drills and blank ammunition.
19 comments:
I have heard through good sources the same thing. The LIFE program didn't come through, reduction of the budget, and of course higher costs. Word is Plant Engineering, 800 series and more 200's are going to be on the chopping block, upto 500 FTE's once again. Are you really surprised?
RIFs are now a constant danger to anyone working at the NNSA science labs. Expect them to pop up at any moment. In most cases, however, the new for-profit managers prefer to simply fire employees so that they don't have to pay out any severance.
There is no job security left in working for the NNSA labs. Look elsewhere to create a solid, healthy and long lasting science career.
I heard the same thing
Where is there a healthy, long lasting science career these days? China?
Don't know about layoffs. But there is a lot of chatter going on in the S&T PD. Look for some major changes/reorg. The Comp/CAR Dept head left for NIF. Possible organizational changes at the AD/Dept/Division levels.
"Where is there a healthy, long lasting science career these days? China?"
This is true. Chinese university faculty are abundantly funded for their research and have generous government benefits, including housing subsidies for life.
If you're thinking about retiring, you might want to hang in there. The indirect budget is in deep trouble. Although LLNS major cuts in those folks in 2008, they unfortunately wacked many who did real work (e.g., replaced your light bulbs so you can see to work). They kept many excess managers and make-work staffers, whose salaries are larger. Unless the overall Lab budget can grow, the overhead expenses cannot be afforded by the existing programs.
Possible organizational changes at the AD/Dept/Division levels.
September 10, 2009 10:22 PM
When the Titantic is sinking, the most effective thing to do is to re-arrange all the chairs on deck. Right?
There's a lot of rumors going around. One of the facts is that the proposed budget for next year is smaller. Less money equals less __________ (fill in the blank)
We would sure get along a lot better if support organizations had more workers and less managers. We need maintenance workers, secretaries, buyers, TRRs and working IT staff, not namagers. It we let go two entire level of burden management -first line management and senior level management (Business Operations AD level), we could afford 10% larger working staffs. First line supevison would lead the worker and department or section level management could report to Programs directly.
More workers, more responsive, cheaper, more effective, less managers covering their behinds.
The lab is in a death spiral. More layoffs only means that the cost of operation per capita increases, which means higher cost to the sponsor, which means less money coming in, which means more layoffs....
Don't know about layoffs, but increased overheads are heading your way very soon. The boss needs complete cost recovery to cover that management fee!
Life is great at LLNS, sit back and collect the check.
"The lab is in a death spiral. More layoffs only means that the cost of operation per capita increases, which means higher cost to the sponsor, which means less money coming in, which means more layoffs...." (4:38 AM)
EUREKA! I think he's got it!!!
I hear there will be a new Work-For-Others tax to cover security costs. That should make my sponsor happy, especially since we have little classified work.
"Don't know about layoffs, but increased overheads are heading your way very soon." - 7:52 pm
When does it ever stop? At what point does LLNL finally become too expensive for doing any scientific work? This constant jacking up of the overhead rates is crazy.
"I hear there will be a new Work-For-Others tax to cover security costs. That should make my sponsor happy, especially since we have little classified work."
September 17, 2009 8:45 PM
It's clear that NNSA, LLNS and LANS don't want to see WFO projects at the weapons labs. They may say otherwise in public, but look at their actions and not their words. They are doing their very best to slowly kill it off.
Why should NNSA care about WFO.
Since LLNS took over on Oct 1, 2007, over 2000 (employees and SLOs) have been laid off from LLNL... what to guess how many NNSA employee in the site office have been let go?... Zero. In fact they've added NNSA employees.
We're doing less work at the Lab with less workers, but federal oversight keeps growing.
Dear, "I hear there will be a new Work-For-Others tax to cover security costs. That should make my sponsor happy, especially since we have little classified work.
September 17, 2009 8:45 PM"
The "new" WFO Security burden is similar to the burden you paid in prior years that was finally taken off back in July. This goes to pay the WFO portion of the guards/gates/fences type security. In the old/old days, it was all part of the G&A. Then DOE got into the act because there were a few "publisized" security events and they thought there would be more control if it was funded directly and not subject to "indirect budget reductions". Since WFO are direct funded projects, they needed a way to contribute their share. So since 2000 when DOE started funding security directly - you guessed it, there have been budget cuts. For FY10, the guidance has been unclear about whether we should return to charging WFO for security or not and if so, how much. If you ask me, DOE doesn't know what it wants and they are on track for sending the guidance late - just like for FY09. That means that if they follow the same schedule, you will not have your WFO projects burdened until late in the year when you may have already completed your project - then WHAM! surprise bill. Hopefully the burden rate will be lower than it was in prior years, however, no guarantees. Having security funded partially by DOE as direct funding and partially as a burden on WFO projects is confusing and inefficient. However, any change that comes will probably come with budget cuts and you'll see one less gate open. My only hope is that we might hear a few less announcements about training drills and blank ammunition.
"more 200's are going to be on the chopping block"
um, there are 20+ openings in the jobs page for 285s. I would think they would move Q cleared 285saround, rather than retraining/reclearing people.
Post a Comment