Skip to main content

Savin money at DOE labs: any suggestions?

Image
By scooby
Suggestions on Saving Money at DOE Labs Might be a good thread before summer budget difficulties arise.

Comments

Anonymous said…


Get rid of some scientists? Less money to be paid, less chance of safety and security incidents, less bitching and "I am so smart attitude". What would be the down side? The only thing might be some deliverables will not be meet but way this against all the savings and I think we would still come out ahead. The way the contract is written this is actually a series proposal.
4/14/2013 9:43 PM
Anonymous said…
I'm hearing LLNL will be get $80M less for FY-14 in FY-13. If NIF still owes $40M in taxes after robbing everyone else of $138M and now having to face an additional $80M cut next years how's this dilemma to be resolved? Can anyone point to the text showing this $80M cut in funding for NIF in FY-14? Please sight URL or post .pdf for al to read.
4/15/2013 5:29 AM
Anonymous said…
Save Money ? I thought the name of the game was to spend more money, so as to increase next years funding?

The "Game" continues, we will never balance our budget, Never!
4/15/2013 9:37 AM
Anonymous said…
I second the first post. By eliminating all technical staff and scientists, a huge cost savings could be realized, in addition to a dramatic decrease in safety and security incidents. It is the executive management's view that the mission can be fulfilled without the hinderance of technical people.
4/15/2013 10:27 AM
Anonymous said…
April 15, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Get-R-Done , come on VSIP !
4/15/2013 11:46 AM
Anonymous said…
Well it's a pipe dream but how about UC running them again by itself for the cheap prices they were charging before the change over. Get the employees back under the larger group insurance plan of the total UC population which provided a cheaper medical plan. Well, it is a pipe dream.

Putting DOE/NNSA and saving money in the same sentence is just not a good idea.
4/15/2013 1:34 PM
Anonymous said…
Get-R-Done , come on VSIP !

April 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Who are you talking to?? You are delusional.
4/15/2013 1:47 PM
Anonymous said…
certainly going back to UC would immediately save somewhere around 120 M$ at LANL alone.
But I agree it is a pipe dream. Another way to save money is to reduce the number of managers and their huge office staff. But another pipe dream
4/15/2013 7:11 PM
Anonymous said…
If the lab (whichever one) RIF's April 15, 2013 at 1:47 PM, they'll easily save at least $20k...
4/15/2013 7:45 PM
Anonymous said…
Correction, 11:46 AM
4/15/2013 7:46 PM
Anonymous said…
Correction, 11:46 AM

April 15, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Thank you fir the correction.
4/15/2013 8:33 PM
Anonymous said…
How about terminating the gross, expensive, bonus-laden, politically connected, corrupt LLC contracts to run the Labs?

Nah! That wouldn't buy any votes.
4/16/2013 5:46 PM
Anonymous said…
Nah! That wouldn't buy any votes.

April 16, 2013 at 5:46 PM

It might, if Congress were interested in saving money.
4/16/2013 7:14 PM
Anonymous said…
April 15, 2013 at 1:47 PM

I think it's just someone with a brian who knows what it will take to get rid of 50% of the lab in the first week and resolve a problme that will benifit all. I will assure you 2 weeks pay for every year of service would get it done in a micro-second. I'd be first in line.
4/17/2013 7:14 AM
Anonymous said…
You must have a really good brian
4/17/2013 8:32 AM
Anonymous said…
On the subject of Brian, I liked Monty Pyton's biography of him. On saving money, give everyone a 10% pay cut. Oh, wait, Parney already thought of that.
4/17/2013 6:57 PM
Anonymous said…
To save money they should cut the LIFE program, eliminate B Division, consolidate useful parts of PLS into NIF and get rid of all else holding NIF back. Not everyone is entitled to a seat on Noah's Ark.
4/18/2013 3:54 AM
Anonymous said…
"Scientists, scientist we don't need no stinking scientists!" The smart ones are already leaving. Please oh please don't lay off those folks who really make the lab go, e.g., the office for strategic outcomes. Is failure a strategic outcome?
4/18/2013 4:02 PM
Anonymous said…
The problem of success is that it sets high expectations with the customer/sponsor for future work. We can't have any of that going on.
4/19/2013 3:31 AM
Anonymous said…
What is the rationale for eliminating B division? It is Livermore's strongest organization.
4/19/2013 6:53 PM
Anonymous said…
To save money they should cut the LIFE program, eliminate B Division, consolidate useful parts of PLS into NIF and get rid of all else holding NIF back. Not everyone is entitled to a seat on Noah's Ark.

April 18, 2013 at 3:54 AM

Yeah, let's get rid of B-Division. That gives no "driver" for A-Division. Hell, let's get rid of the entire nuclear weapons program, Bechtel's goal.
4/19/2013 6:59 PM
Anonymous said…
How many people work in B-Division? About half. Oh wait, that's the answer to the joke question. The actual answer is 25%. Ivory tower types who play the game of posturing and one-upsmanship between a bunch of people none of whom have never seen or helped design an underground test. Are they good at what they do? Sure. Do they do anything that is actually important to the stockpile? no. Are they marketable based on the ability to add value in the private sector? No. B-division is the epitome of white collar social welfare. Having a MIT, Princeton and cal tech PhDs must mean that they are at the top of the pecking order and don't have to produce, since it is self evident from the degrees that they are smart. The abulity to get something done "in theory" is all that is needed. No need to actually get it done.
4/22/2013 8:11 AM
Anonymous said…
LANL can cover for all primaries and secondaries work. A-Division can be broken up so that the plasma guys and the code jockeys can just work for NIF full time for the rest of their god forsaken mortal lives. The rest can be sloughed off and encouraged to leave the lab and get a job as a taco stand operator or a taxi cab driver. The cost savings will be significant, and secondary effects of increased street food commerce and improved local taxi transportation capacity will benefit the community.
4/23/2013 9:48 AM
Anonymous said…
The idea is not to scrap B-Division (and A-division), but rather to just integrate useful parts into NIF, which is the single lab platform for supporting NNSA work. If B-Division is matrix to NIF (a sad reality), then you might as well get efficiency gains by eliminating the matrix and integrating personnel within the NIF program. So much of A- and B-Division is supporting NIF already.
4/23/2013 10:18 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

By scooby
From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...
96 comments
Read more