CIP:
DOE says yes, LLNS says not so fast.
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...
Comments
LLNS is a management company.
Don't confuse Federal job pay and benefits with State, County or City jobs (fire, police, teachers, administrators).
I think it comes down to the source & calculation components (entire benefits package).
Because to do so would undermine their highly paid existence, shrink inflated egos, and would contrast their command and control management styles. Management self-importance has swollen significantly since LLNS took over.
One must annually refresh the "I'm in charge of the worker bees" mentality to justify those disproportionately high salaries. Its a showmanship over substance game.
(Cost of Total Man-Hours for Ranking)/($ bring in) x 100 = ____ %?
December 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Of course you do. You reward the people you want to keep and say sayonara to the rest. Not getting a raise is your signal to pack up your stuff.
The pension benefits at the lab are very nice but are going to be very costly for those who have many years to go before retirement. Giving the constant threat of layoffs, many of these people will never make it to the "Promised Land" of 30 years of service and an age of 60, which is where the lab pension payout becomes esp. generous.
The contribution that federal GS employees must pay into their pension is much, much smaller than that of lab employees on TCP1. Most federal employees pay only 0.8 % of their salary into the federal pension, over and order of magnitude less than lab TCP1 employees!
Hired 2012 and before: 0.8% pay-in
Hired 2013: 3.1% pay-in
Hired 2014: 4.4% pay-in
I suspect that the US Treasury is also putting far more of the government's money into the GS pension system than their federal employees. LLNS and LANS have made it very clear that none of their annual profit fees will ever be used to help support the employee pensions. There is nothing to stop the mandated employee salary contributions to TCP1 rising to 15%, 20%, 25%.... who knows how high it could eventually go?
Brash, cocky, mellifluous, well-protected incompetents. 2nd and 3rd teamers faking it at taxpayer expense.
Well paid, poor workers. And they are the best of the GS motormouth pool.
Be sure to let us know if you ever have a new thought.
January 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM:"
What's your point?
January 2, 2014 at 7:18 PM
That you seem to make the same inane comment repetitively.
"That you seem to make the same inane comment repetitively.
January 3, 2014 at 12:21 PM"
The point raised was not inane. Variants of this point may have been made before but not this explicit point. Besides some points bare repeating your point however is not one of them.
inane: adjective
1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas
The repetitive use of the comment "endemic corruption" without further elaboration of how, where, or who seems to fit the definition quite well.
No one on this thread has yet to explain what's going on.
DOE approved the LLNL CIP and now LLNS is refusing to distribute it???
Last year was a fiscal perfect storm due to sequestration and the government shutdown. LLNS is just trying to get a handle on the disbursement breakdown for the rest of this year to see where it stands.
Budgets are what is negotiated with sponsors. This determines the actual amount of income to the lab.
When a CIP comes along it does NOTHING except increase the cost of labor. CIP is the act of DOE allowing us to cost more. It does not add any money to anybody's pot.
So it's pretty easy to imagine a lab director, biesieged by limited budgets, possible sequestration, etc., thinking very carefully about whether he really wants to increase his labor costs, even if DOE allows him to.
That's what's going on here.
The director is aware of the downside of not implementing the CIP: employee upset, higher attrition, loss of talent, etc.
It's up to him to choose wisely.
Good explanation. Thanks.
I thought sequestration was eliminated for 2014???
What latitude does the director have to selectively pass along raises to address probable attrition in needed job classes, while electing to eliminate raises for job classes
in less demand independent of salary surveys and ranking? No more salary lists folks and LLNS is not big on such disclosures.