Skip to main content

Any insight?

Image
By scooby
Does any one have any insight into:

-The impacts of Davis Bacon on the Lab. I have heard some crafts people are earning over $60 dollars an hour. If this is true, how is this impacting the budget?

-What is the latest on negotiations with the Lab and the Union? Has there been any progress?

Comments

Anonymous said…
You ave heard wrong. Get a hearing aid.
9/20/2014 12:33 AM
Anonymous said…
I don't think $60 is unrealistic. I make $58.xx on Davis Bacon projects. The Davis Bacon rate is different for each person. It varies by what type of insurance, how many dependents, TCP1 or TCP2 and how much vacation or sick leave you have taken recently. I am married with dependents and on TCP1. It not that unrealistic that a person with out dependents and on TCP2 could earn more then I even if we are earn the same wage when not on Davis Bacon projects.

I would also like to know how this extra cost in wadges is affecting the Labs bottom line.
9/22/2014 12:51 PM
Anonymous said…
Here are glaring examples of how unions are killing America. Why should a worker's personal family situation affect his/her wage or salary? Why are not capability, performance, and productivity the only measures? Why should I, as a taxpayer, put up with this nonsense? Why isn't it a competition for the best workers? If you can't make it on your own personal merits, you should be out!
9/23/2014 9:07 PM
Anonymous said…
In the army (when it was mostly draftees) the married guys were paid more, and also could receive a housing allowance.
Each according to their need.

Then there's the guy who when told he'd be paid what he was worth, got mad, and exclaimed: "Why, I would not work for that little!"
10/01/2014 2:01 PM
Anonymous said…
Each according to their need.

October 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx. Any more truth needed that unions are communist?
10/01/2014 7:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more