Anonymously contributed:
According to planned overhead taxes in FY13, my program costs go down significantly. The CFO people tell me that the rate change is caused by the fact that NIF will finally have to pay its fair share in taxes. Has anyone else noticed this change and received the same answer? Do you think it will really happen?
According to planned overhead taxes in FY13, my program costs go down significantly. The CFO people tell me that the rate change is caused by the fact that NIF will finally have to pay its fair share in taxes. Has anyone else noticed this change and received the same answer? Do you think it will really happen?
Comments
They'll see the reduction in NIF taxes as their window of opportunity to take even more for their bloated coffers of managerial bureaucracy. Haven't you people learned anything by now?
Uh, sorry, but I think that's the whole idea.
Neither NNSA nor the "for profit" partners likes dealing with WFOs, which they see as "messy". They prefer the easier path of weapons funding for refurbishment and big construction projects. When you think of the NNSA labs of the future, think Pantex.
Yeah, Sandia has really hated growing WFO to be half their budget pie. Having another $80M a year for LDRD must be killing them. All that messiness.
June 21, 2011 9:50 PM
Sandia has managers who don't see themselves as mere appendages of NNSA. And, they aren't managed by a construction company. If you like doing WFO, LANL and LLNL are not the places for you.
Sandia started down the WFO growth path years ago. Because of that decision, it depends much less on the "sugar daddy" money coming from NNSA. Sandia is a far better institution for doing this type of work and their lab culture strongly supports it, unlike the managers at both LANL and LLNL.
It appears that NNSA and Bechtel want LANL to be "Pantex-ized" over time. It's not clear to me were, exactly, LLNL fits into NNSA plans for the future.
You need to get your facts straight. Show one example that you can document where WFO does not pay its fair share of operating costs. If your point is that NNSA makes it so difficult for WFO to build infrastructure at NNSA locations -- you are spot on.
I agree. Their fair share is zero when they can just "leverage" capabilities maintained by major programs.
June 25, 2011 2:53 PM"
I really don't see how people keep hoping that there will be a buyout. Wake up, the re-write of the contract after the 2007 layoffs made it cheaper to do it for the 200 series. Does LLNS (or LANS) want to shift people from their payroll onto their TCP1 plans? Would UC give permission to give age/service credits to those who chose TCP2 and incur the burden on their retirement plan? Face it, it is easier and cheaper just to kick us out the door. Those retirement incentives are from an era that is long gone and will never return. But if by some magic an incentive should occur, don't get between me and the door, I'll run over or though you.
Easy! These are the people who go around talking about the possibility of a "buyout" anytime the lab has budget problems. As 10:53 says, those days are long over and will never return. It's easy for the new LLCs to just go ahead and fire you for cause, the "cause" being that you have no funding!