Skip to main content

Privatizing National Lab Management Misguided

Image
By scooby
Thanks very much for your continued upkeep of the blog. I'm not one to post there myself but I thought our OpEd "Privatizing National Lab Management Misguided" might be of interest. http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Privatizing-national-lab-management-misguided-4843513.php

Comments

Anonymous said…
Absolutely correct.
9/26/2013 6:27 PM
Anonymous said…
They got the headline right: "Privatizing National Lab Management Misguided"

But then failed to support it with any of the relevant points/analysis.

The fee is a small issue, compared with everything else that has happened...
9/27/2013 5:14 PM
Anonymous said…
The U.S. debt is pushing $17 trillion. Can LLNS employees make a compelling performance and or cost benefit argument to NNSA for a return to UC management of LLNL or UC plus other non-profit Universities (Texas Tech, etc.)?
9/28/2013 12:53 PM
Anonymous said…
Nice subliminal message using the word "tenured".
9/28/2013 11:32 PM
Anonymous said…
The real cost argument would be "opportunity cost" of mission work foregone due to increased management fee. Would anyone of consequence find this compelling?
9/28/2013 11:49 PM
Anonymous said…
Perhaps the DOE IG might find "opportunity cost" and or performance arguments compelling. The IG has made cost savings recommendations on the labs before.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/energy-department-ig-pushes-cost-savng-moves-national-labs/


9/29/2013 10:29 AM
Anonymous said…
The LLNS annual fee to run LLNL, plus its "for profit" tax status is a ~10% budget burden. A non-profit (UC, other) institution running the lab would produce a savings comparable to a lab wide furlough event that nobody wants to see occur.
9/29/2013 11:44 AM
Anonymous said…
Anonymous said...
The LLNS annual fee to run LLNL, plus its "for profit" tax status is a ~10% budget burden. A non-profit (UC, other) institution running the lab would produce a savings comparable to a lab wide furlough event that nobody wants to see occur.

September 29, 2013 at 11:44 AM

It's all about making money for the big corporations just like Obamacare. The people aren't going to benefit, well at least not the working ones, but big business medicine, supplies and hospitals are all while the working cannot afford the monthly premium and then get taxed at the end of the year for not having medical insurance.
9/30/2013 6:01 AM
Anonymous said…
At least one LLNL scientist has the guts to tell it as it is. Why do so many of us huddle in the corner waiting for the ax to fall. Speak up! Act up! I know you have a mortgage to pay, two kids in college, but how can you allow this to happen to you and your colleagues. If we really are working in the national interest then how can we allow ourselves to be part of an organization that is most certainly not working in the national interest?
10/01/2013 2:06 PM
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

Rumor corner

By scooby
LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
92 comments
Read more