Weapons Complex Monitor
February 28, 2013
Livermore Poised To Roll Out Salary Reduction/Closure Day Plan
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is poised to roll out a "salary reduction and closure day" plan to deal with the impact of across-the-board budget cuts that are set to go into effect Friday, lab Director Parney Albright told employees at an all-hands meeting yesterday. With the lab facing a potential $120 million shortfall, Albright detailed the potential plan in a recent memo to employees, outlining a plan that would temporarily reduce salaries for employees by 10 percent and bi-weekly closure days for full-time employees in which the lab would operate every other Friday similar to how it runs on a weekend. The plan could go into effect as soon as the week of March 10, but Albright said the lab might wait until after a Congress decides how it will fund the government after a Continuing Resolution expires March 27. “I realize any program involving a salary reduction is difficult for employees, but this plan would have less impact on employee benefits than a traditional furlough program,” Albright said. “This plan also mitigates concerns about the ability to maintain continuous business operations and, especially, safe operations in an environment of unpredictable staffing, while still reflecting the fact that work scope must change when the Lab's funding has been reduced.”
Alternate work schedules also would be temporarily suspended under the plan, and Parney said the lab is proposing to suspend the planned increase (from 5 percent to 7 percent) in employee contributions to the lab’s TCP1 pension plan. Benefits like 401(k) contributions, life insurance, vacation and sick leave payout would also be subject to the 10 percent reduction, Albright said. He said the lab is also considering restrictions on travel, reducing or canceling a Variable Compensation [aka salary bonus] Program, and reducing procurements, overtime and on-call pay. Albright emphasized that the program was not a typical furlough plan. “While sequestration may require us to temporarily reduce salaries and working hours, I felt it was important to look for ways to minimize impact to employees' benefits, such as vacation and sick leave, to the greatest extent possible,” he said.
February 28, 2013
Livermore Poised To Roll Out Salary Reduction/Closure Day Plan
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is poised to roll out a "salary reduction and closure day" plan to deal with the impact of across-the-board budget cuts that are set to go into effect Friday, lab Director Parney Albright told employees at an all-hands meeting yesterday. With the lab facing a potential $120 million shortfall, Albright detailed the potential plan in a recent memo to employees, outlining a plan that would temporarily reduce salaries for employees by 10 percent and bi-weekly closure days for full-time employees in which the lab would operate every other Friday similar to how it runs on a weekend. The plan could go into effect as soon as the week of March 10, but Albright said the lab might wait until after a Congress decides how it will fund the government after a Continuing Resolution expires March 27. “I realize any program involving a salary reduction is difficult for employees, but this plan would have less impact on employee benefits than a traditional furlough program,” Albright said. “This plan also mitigates concerns about the ability to maintain continuous business operations and, especially, safe operations in an environment of unpredictable staffing, while still reflecting the fact that work scope must change when the Lab's funding has been reduced.”
Alternate work schedules also would be temporarily suspended under the plan, and Parney said the lab is proposing to suspend the planned increase (from 5 percent to 7 percent) in employee contributions to the lab’s TCP1 pension plan. Benefits like 401(k) contributions, life insurance, vacation and sick leave payout would also be subject to the 10 percent reduction, Albright said. He said the lab is also considering restrictions on travel, reducing or canceling a Variable Compensation [aka salary bonus] Program, and reducing procurements, overtime and on-call pay. Albright emphasized that the program was not a typical furlough plan. “While sequestration may require us to temporarily reduce salaries and working hours, I felt it was important to look for ways to minimize impact to employees' benefits, such as vacation and sick leave, to the greatest extent possible,” he said.
Comments
LLNL less prepared: yes
True Reason:
SNL already did away with its pension.
Using sequestration/CR as an excuse, LLNS is pretending to do a furlough, while actually not doing a furlough at all. What LLNS is doing, is in effect freezing the LLNL pension.
The day this goes into effect, all LLNL TCP1ers will be frozen at their HAPC of 36 months ago. If they do something similar every 35 months going forward (for even one day), LLNL employee HAPC will never rise.
Agree completely! NIF, Terascale and a few other projects/buildings can remain as standalones. Devoted increasingly scarce resources to LANL or whatever they have planned in Nevada. I can't imagine that operating in California has any upside at all these days?!
Let's say from 2008 until now a staff scientist made $100k, $110k, $117, $120, $140 (big jump), $145 (145-14.5=130.5)
36 months ago the hapc was 327/3= $109k. Last three is 390.5/3=$130.x k
now, even with 10% reduction (for a year--unlikely to happen) it is higher, right? Or, use 2010-2012?
March 1, 2013 at 5:50 AM
You need to brush up on your history. Teller founded Livermore to build the "super" and to be free of Los Alamos control. It had nothing to do with a desire for competition.
March 1, 2013 at 9:24 AM
So in other words, LLNL is even more useless that I had previously supposed....OK thanks for brushing up my history.
Parney is OK by me. He hasn't been co-opted by all the usual constituencies. He talks to us more openly than any director I've heard before. I'm glad he's communicating with Washington on our behalf.
Parney is not perfect, but no director is. Where he excels is in understanding how Washington operates, and applying that background to position the lab. Since most times it is a zero sum proposition for the redundant design labs, he has been cleaning Charlie's clock for the past year at every turn.
He has to make business decisions for the Lab and it seems to me he is trying to do it in a way that avoids lay-offs.
He is a good man............
Ouch!!!!! This is beginning to rapidly reduce the stagnant salaries of the non-management staff. Of course, management made out like bandits after the for-profit LLCs rolled in and so they'll feel little of this financial pain.
You still belief this lie about "substantially equivalent" to UC? It was only a verbal promise, easily forgotten. You're delusional.
March 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Wrong. Specific contract wording in both LANS and LLNS contracts.
I believe "substantially equivalent" was for Day-1 (Oct. 1, 2007) only. No where in the contract is written: "substantially equivalent to be maintain after Oct. 1, 2007".
March 2, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Wrong again. You really should do your homework. The "substantially equivalent" requirements are specifically and directly stated (for LANS) in contract section H-36, (d)(1)(i)(I) and H-36 (i)(1). This is the current (conformed) contract from the NNSA Los Alamos Site Office web pages.
March 2, 2013 at 8:29 PM
Of course it can, but with the many (at least two dozen) contract modifications since 2007, it hasn't. What other protection would you prefer? A divine writ? Obama's promise? (Or do you think they're the same?)
The Contractor shall provide a total compensation package for
Transferring Employees that is substantially equivalent to that
provided by the predecessor contractor as of June 1, 2006
(NOTE: Sub. Eq. "as of June 1, 2006" only)
(e) Pension Plans
(3) (i) Pension Plan One. The Contractor shall consider amending Pension Plan
One to be consistent with any changes made by the Board of Regents of
the University of California to the UCRP during the term of this Contract
(NOTE: key wording "shall consider", not "shall amend"
...because it's a back door way of freezing the pension.
March 3, 2013 at 12:45 AM
So you'd prefer that if UC makes some really bad decisions, perhaps based on the fiscal situation in California, that LLNS and LANS be forced to follow them?
March 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Not within the rules of the sequester legislation. Across-the-board programmatic cut. No leeway, no choice. Internal adjustments to address waste, etc. don't count.
How about turning TCP-1 over to PBGC and save the tax payers a ton of money. This would assure that those in TCP-1 get what they deserve and are worth.
Yeah there are....like the f'ing VSIP that could clear the personnel issue for more than one year! Most people will hang on through furloughs....screwing off on the internet, taking long lunches, leaving early...give them an incentive to go and you probably lose 10%!
If you're lucky you'll only get 20% less productive labor from them during the furlough period.
Voila budget/personnel issues solved without crippling morale. They might as well do it now when they still have a semi-motivated workforce instead of waiting until no one gives a crap!
March 3, 2013 at 7:06 PM
Good idea, but too late!
March 3, 2013 at 11:29 PM
You obviously don't understand the sequestration law. Under sequestration, The cuts are not fungible. Your money is being cut because it is required to be. Kerry's is not because it is not required to be.
Let's say from 2008 until now a staff scientist made $100k, $110k, $117, $120, $140 (big jump), $145 (145-14.5=130.5)
36 months ago the hapc was 327/3= $109k. Last three is 390.5/3=$130.x k
now, even with 10% reduction (for a year--unlikely to happen) it is higher, right? Or, use 2010-2012?
///////////
In your example, you would have to use 2010-2012 and the raises you got in 2011 and 2012 would never fully bake in.
Also, we all know that the dedicated scientist often work on weekends, so they will continue to put in 50-60 hour work weeks no matter what they're paid.
Parney answered this at the all-hands: Bechtel and friends are going to contribute ABSOLUTELY ZERO to meeting the $120m shortfall.
March 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM
Neither would I if I were them. No reason a managing contractor should lose fee if the contracting entity cuts programs. It's not their fault. The same level of management is still required. Otherwise you are asking the M&O contractor to shoot itself in the foot. Get real.
Aghm, I thought we all weren't going to be working 2 days a month, so Bechtel won't need to "managing" us those 2 days either.
March 4, 2013 at 8:10 PM
Again, programmatic funds are being cut. Management fees aren't. Sequester cuts are not fungible.
They are like that image of the corrupt people at Goldman Sachs described by Matt Taibbi in his famous Rolling Stones article of July 2009:
-- The Great American Bubble Machine --
"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
Yep, that's Bechtel. Two birds from the same nest.
Two years ago, with 33 years on the job around age 60, my take home changed little when I elected to become a pensioner. Leave rather than suffer the insult of 2 years of wage freezes.
If you subtract a 7% salary reduction for pension contributions on top of a 10% sequester salary reduction, I'll bet the breakeven point, the point where you work for free, it now back at 25 years of service at age 60 or perhaps 30 years at age 57. Look it over. Remember social security is no longer collected either.
Pension is nice. No Grief.
Furthermore:
The 7% pension contribution is post-tax at LLNL (unlike at UC where it's pre-tax, so much for substantially equivalent), so it's actually more like 14% + 10% = 24%.
Add in no social security 6.2% and you're talking about a 30% differential.
Really something to think about.
March 6, 2013 at 8:48 AM
Anyone at either LANL or LLNL over the age of 50 who hasn't already done this calculation in great detail is doing him/herself a great disservice and needs to wake up ASAP.
Wrong! TCP2ers will take a 10% hit to their 401k matching due to this furlough.
March 6, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Better to focus on whether they will have a job. This is no time for a head-in-the-sand approach. "Getting your job done" is irrelevant if you won't have a job. You must wake up and take control of your future, unless you want others to do that for you and your family. Man up!
SNL has a hybrid pension (combo 401k + smaller pension) for their older employees. However, two years ago they changed from the standard "highest 3 year avg earnings" calculation to using just the last 3 years of earnings.
With salary reductions, this method quickly gets to older staff running out the door to keep what they have in terms of their future pension payments.