First- A publicity video for the lab was running in a loop at the
beginning - it was really awkward - says our "mission is discovery".
More like, our mission is "practical solutions for National Security" -
we are a weapons lab not a science lab. It shows a bicycle ride around
the lab on "mission discovery" - whoever authorized that video is so
out of touch it is truly embarrassing.
Next, All Hands Presentation - Unbelievably he presented almost the same highlights as at the last All Hands meeting - High Foot, 191 NIF shots, additive manufacturing, bio assay, wind power. Several slides on safety. They really need to consider going back to the slideshow featuring closer to 100 highlights at the end of All Hands presentations. I can't believe I'm nostalgic for George's All Hands meetings - but he and Parney were much more inclusive and got a lot closer to covering the whole lab instead of the same few select favorites each time. Apparently there was a great question from an audience member at the end, but I stopped watching - maybe someone else can fill us in.
Next, All Hands Presentation - Unbelievably he presented almost the same highlights as at the last All Hands meeting - High Foot, 191 NIF shots, additive manufacturing, bio assay, wind power. Several slides on safety. They really need to consider going back to the slideshow featuring closer to 100 highlights at the end of All Hands presentations. I can't believe I'm nostalgic for George's All Hands meetings - but he and Parney were much more inclusive and got a lot closer to covering the whole lab instead of the same few select favorites each time. Apparently there was a great question from an audience member at the end, but I stopped watching - maybe someone else can fill us in.
Comments
Cricket, cricket...
It was crazy what was said but you have to see it for yourself it really cannot be said in words on the blog. It is mind-blowing, I will tell you that.
It was awkward as hell.
I'm new to the lab, but the obvious answer is to go work somewhere else. The end.
Provide a first-class workplace environment to our employees...."
Where employees are defined as "at will", replaceable, and unappreciated commodities, and we strive to attract and retain the best of them willing to be defined as such.
No no. You have George mischaracterized. In his "All Hands" meetings, George said we were part of his "extended family".
Blah, blah, blah. Has any director ever said the opposite? It's a meaningless motherhood statement.
And everyone knows the statement is not true. The workforce environment has disintegrated over the last 5-10 years. This is seen in many ways: funding stresses, increasing bureaucracy, inability to perform work, absurd overhead, at will employment, an increasing corporate management style, decreasing benefits, ridiculous rules, dishonest management, reduced employee services, non-existent morale, etc. Granted, some of these are outside the control of Lab management but others are within their control.
The HVAC system in my building is non-functional. My office temperature has ranged from 58 (in the middle of the summer) to 92 degrees. It's been like this for 2-3 years. How in the bleeping heck is anyone supposed to do their job in this type of "first class work environment?"
Seriously. How has the work environment improved over the last 10 years? How is it "first class?"
Bottled water in the big jugs is now an unallowable cost. While this may be trivial, it represents the absurdity of our work environment. I think there is a Dilbert cartoon about this.
Like many TCP1 employees, I am simply biding my time. I cannot imagine the amount of turnover when their are no more incentives to keep employees at the Lab.
Does this mean that everyone is invited to George's house for Thanksgiving dinner? Count me in.
We will dip well below "unacceptable" employee morale and retention levels before the NNSA LFO gets a clue outside of what LLNS is feeding them.
"Probably more than 10%. Bill said there was a net loss all year, and I'll bet the brain drain was worse earlier in the FY.
November 2, 2014 at 6:23 PM"
Since safety and security are the biggest factor in the contract less people can be seen as a bonus.
As a relatively new hire and someone on TCP2, it's getting really old hearing the same damned TCP1 questions asked over and over again, ad nauseum, at each DAH presentation. I feel like all Q&As should allow one TCP1 contribution gripe, one lab governance gripe, and then allow the rest of us to ask questions that haven't been answered a million times by lab management.
You're employed at will. If you hate the environment so much, please leave. No one is making you work here against your will. Go grace someplace else with your presence. Oh wait … all you've done is work at LLNL for 40 years? You have nothing aside from the laurels of missions competed 30 years ago to fall back on? You've spent the last 20 years hoping we'd return to nuclear testing in order to provide some purpose to your now meaningless position? You've spent the last 10 years hating the fact that the piper must be paid when missions, managers, etc. change? Wow … and now you wake up today, longing for the good old days, when in reality they weren't THAT good, and you're just bitter that no one is going to hold your hand, scratch your back, or give you that sense of entitlement that you've grown so accustomed to after a career of having your ass kissed and your ego stoked. GTFO and let the rest of us get the job done.
November 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM
So what "job" are you getting done. Wiping NNSAs ass?
Decent working conditions are not an entitlement.
You don't think it is a problem when the temperature in my office and throughout my building ranges from 58 to 92, and the Laboratory has done nothing even after repeated requests/complaints over the last two years? The only reason I bring this up is because it is symptomatic of across-the-board Laboratory problems.
But I agree with you. People who don't like it can leave. Just like a battered wife or a battered husband can leave a violent relationship (you're the one making this analogy), Laboratory employees don't need to remain at a dysfunctional organization.
I've been headhunted by other organizations - commercial and academic - but I don't leave due to high compensation and a rapidly increasing pension. Do I care when the outside temperature is over 100 degrees and every office in my building has a space heater set to maximum? No. Do I care that I perform next to no productive work yet cost the taxpayer over $500K/yr? No. Do I care that the Laboratory is a dying entity with no significant useful mission. No. The Laboratory does nothing to inspire an enthusiastic work environment so I give the same in return. Biding my time.
I didn't watch the Director's talk last week because every director regurgitates the same material. "We need to provide a first-class workplace environment." Yeah, right. I've never heard that before. I guess they've just been practicing up until now but this time they really mean it.
However, I just watched a web rebroadcast of the talk because I wanted to hear the person's comment at the end. I didn't think he sounded nervous or awkward. I thought he came across as sincere and made good comments. Good for him.
True, but it is reasonable to expect that effort is rewarded... behavior scientists call this expectancy theory.
If it is not abided, future effort is jeopardized.
This post sums up the situation excellently. If you have problem with the lab than please leave, there are so many people out there that would love to have such a high paying job and anyone one of us could be replaced ten times over and probably by people willing to work for less. If you keep up the complaining this may just come to pass. I feel lucky to have this job and so should you. I might not have come from an Ivy level school and was not at the top of my class but I know a good job when I see it. We are at will and are most certainly not entitled to decent working conditions. I for one could imagine much worse working conditions. This is a job just like most other jobs in the United States and you people need to realize that. Why should we be special? You work here for a few years and if you see something better than you leave like everyone else in the workforce. Someone else wants your job and will do it far cheaper. Keep that in mind next time think you have it so rough.
Perhaps a bit of prespective would help. Your long-term coworkers are angry and unhappy that their total compensation has fallen.
Picture yourself in three years, when the lab halves your 401k match and reduces your salary 7%.
Angry and unhappy and ready to leave at a convenient time?
For defined contribution participants who took their UC pension and kept working that time is never, they are double dipping well and will probably die of old age in their offices.
As a three-year retiree, I can say that most of it is good. I sometimes miss the work, and often miss coworkers, but I do not miss the bullshit one bit.
Not poor management, not the reduction of total compensation, nor the insulting layoffs, nor the Congressional detractors, the NNSA human resource liars and their LLNL-synchophants, nor the enviromental and safety NAZIs.
I appreciate the fact that a few people were interested in what I said so here is what I said for those who want to read it:
GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR,
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT. I DO NOT WISH FOR ANYONE TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AS A MEASURE OF DISRESPECT TOWARDS YOU, I AM DOING THIS OUT OF A SENSE OF PURE DESPERATION.
AS WE REFLECT UPON THE WONDERFUL ACHIEVEMENTS OF LLNL, IT MAKES ONE WONDER WHY OUR OVERSEERS HAVE SUCH A STRANGE WAY OF EXPRESSING THEIR GRATITUDE.
A YEAR DOES NOT PASS WITHOUT EXTRA DRAMA BEING ADDED TO THE WAGE REVIEW AND INCREASE PROCESS. ONE WONDERS IF THE PEOPLE MAKING THESE DECISIONS TREAT THEIR WIVES THE SAME WAY ON THEIR WEDDING ANNIVERSARY. DO THEY TELL THEIR LOVED ONE THAT THEIR SPECIAL DAY WILL BE DELAYED 3 MONTHS? PERHAPS EVERY YEAR? THAT THE GIFT MIGHT BE RETROACTIVE? THESE ACTIONS GIVE THE APPEARANCE THAT THE HUSBAND DOES NOT PLACE MUCH IMPORTANCE TOWARDS THE APPRECIATION OF HIS WIFE AND ONLY DOES SO BEGRUDGINGLY. WHY WOULD WE FEEL ANY DIFFERENT?
IN THE LAST 10 YEARS SALARIES IN MY CLASSIFICATION GROUP HAVE LAGGED 36 PERCENT BEHIND THE INFLATION RATE IN THE AREA WHERE WE LIVE, EVEN WITH PROMOTIONS AND RANK INCREASES. THE AMERICAN ETHIC WAS ALWAYS THAT YOU COULD MAKE A BETTER LIFE FOR YOURSELF BY BECOMING A BETTER EMPLOYEE. THAT CLEARLY IS NOT THE CASE FOR DOE/NNSA WORKERS.
WE UNFORTUNATELY WORK FOR A VERY TOXIC COMBINATION OF BIG GOVERNMENT AND BIG BUSINESS. WHEN EITHER ONE OF THOSE UNCOVERS A NEW REVENUE STREAM, THEY ARE VERY RELUCTANT TO GIVE IT UP. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT REVENUE STREAM IS OUR PAYCHECKS. IF THE VALUE OF MY PAYCHECK GOING DOWN 36% WASN'T BAD ENOUGH, LAB MANAGEMENT HAS DECIDED THAT TCP1 WORKERS SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE RETIREMENT PLAN WHICH WAS SOLD TO US AS A PERK. THEY EVEN DID THEIR BEST TO MAKE IT HURT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY HAVING THE ANNOUNCED 7% REDUCTION IN ACTUALITY BE AN 11% LOWERING OF MY PAY. I WAS A FOOL TO TRUST YOU PEOPLE.
I FORMALLY CHALLENGE WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS TO APPEAR DIRECTLY ON THIS STAGE AND PRESENT A CLEAR EXIT STRATEGY FOR EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RETIREMENT PLAN, UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T BELIEVE THOSE PEOPLE HAVE THE COURTESY OR COURAGE TO DO SO.
THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO VENT. THAT MAKES YOU A REAL AMERICAN IN MY BOOK AS REAL AMERICANS GIVE OTHER AMERICANS THE CHANCE TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES. MAY GOD BLESS OUR LAB.
The Director stated that the contributions to the pension program were consistent with what other institutions are doing, that he did not expect them to end but would let us know if anything were to change.
I wish that the two newer folks who seemed offended by my actions would understand that the reason why the TCP1 issue keeps coming up is that we have been misled for years regarding the stability of the plan and the conditions and duration to which employees would have to contribute. Of course you have not been at the lab long enough to understand that.
I would also wish that you would appreciate the fact as you are newer hires, that you have not yet had the opportunity to experience the deceptive practices of LLNS/DOE first hand. Perhaps you would then be more knowledgeable and considerate in your rebuttals.
Finally, telling one to STFO is certainly counterproductive when you are expressing your opinion. I certainly won't and all you are doing is demonstrating that you have a fundamental uncaring for all people other than yourself and that you are not as happy as you have the potential to be.
Thanks for reading. May God's Grace and the Golden Rule prevail.
Kevin C. Johnson
Kevin, I understand why you are upset, but the DIrector told you the truth. We are doing what every other corporate institution is doing. LLNLs cannot act differently from other corporations it will not be able to compete or the corporation will be intersted in running LLNLs . This is the way of the world my friend. Before you judge the younger folks too harshly you may want to consider that they may just be more realistic about the situation. You claim that you where made promises in a different era however that era is over and is never coming back. Perhaps you should just consider yourself lucky for the job you have. I agree that saying STFO is just mean and adds nothing to the conversation. With that said one still has to make choices. If you are unhappy than perhaps you should find a job elsewhere which will pay you what you feel you are worth. Perhaps you will find that the LLNLs is not that different most other corporations. I think the analogy of a husband to a wife is simply wrong. The contract between a husband and a wife is very different from that of a corporation to its employees. A husband has a responsibility his wife while a corporation has a responsibility to it's share holders. If a corporation can benefit the share holders at the expense of the employees than that is what they are obliged to do. Of course if the corporation does actions that are adverse that they no longer have employees than that will also hurt the share holders, so they must strike a balance in order to maximize profit and profit is the sole purpose of a corporation. I do applaud your honesty and courage to say what you think.
November 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM
I think you misunderstand, there are no shareholders in LLNS and it is not a corporation. Neither is LLNL. LLNS is a limited liability company composed of members, similar to a partnership, and LLNL is owned by the federal government. LLNS gets money from the federal government to manage the lab, and if it does that well it takes in more money than it spends, providing a profit for the member companies. There are no products, sales, or any of the other features of a big corporation like Boeing or Intel, and in fact there isn't a lot of money to be made by anyone, all of it in the form of management fees and bonuses. UC used to manage the lab, now it is managed by LLNS, but that does not mean the lab ever was a university campus, and it does not mean it is now a corporation.
I do not disagree with you however we hear over and over again from management that we are a corporation and must use corporate metrics for how we treat our employees and that we need to pay or managers by corporate standards, pay our Director like a CEO, leaner, meaner, cut corners, bonuses, corporate secrecy and so on.
He made no such claim. Your own comments and projections demonstrate the type of person you are.
Exactly. That's what I tell my wife every day ...
"Honey, if you have a problem with our relationship then please leave. There are plenty of other women out there who would love to be married to me. You can be replaced ten times over. You should feel lucky to be married to me. You aren't entitled to be treated well just because you're my wife. You need to realize that you're no more special than any other wife out there. If you see something better then just move on. There are worse men out there. Keep that in mind next time you think you have it so rough. Just GTFO if you don't like our relationship."
That's sarcasm, of course. Spouses treat each other well in successful marriages. Likewise, employers/employees treat each other well in successful businesses. The "GTFO if you don't like it" attitude doesn't foster success.
November 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM"
Dear Mr./Ms.November 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM;
You knucklehead! Have you been on Mars for the past decade? Do you not yet understand that "other corporate institutions" do NOT design nuclear weapons, and do NOT require Q clearances to come to work every day? If you have not yet figured it out by yourself, let me give you a clue free of charge -- these people are responsible for the security of this country. That they are treated like the chattel of "other corporate institutions" like Walmart, Target, and Enron is a testament to the depths that our so-called government has sunk to. That ingrates like yourself castigate them for their efforts to request a decent living wage from their disinterested bosses is a testament to the callousness that has become the norm in this land. I hope that you are doing well in your studies of Mandarin -- you will need it, once these labs decay into dust, and this nation no longer has a nuclear deterrent.
".. It is amusing that we want to attract and retain "the best and brightest", yet we always point to mediocre or typical competitor workplace benefits and practices (?). I think we have a discontinuity in our workforce expectation graph folks. The X axis just happens to be in years not months, and beyond LANSLLNS report card window of concern..."
Reducing rewards reduces the effort attaining the rewards.
It is likely those of you who see little reward for your effort are not giving much extra effort.
Not a statement about personal habits, a statement about organizational behavior.
November 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM"
Dear Mr./Ms.November 3, 2014 at 10:04 PM;
You knucklehead!
November 4, 2014 at 8:52 PM
Is that you Sir Charles Barkely? Terrible, terrible, terrible...
How many times do so called educated idiots have to be hit in the head before you realize it doesn't feel good? Move on, move on.
POS
You are absolutely correct, but don't expect the troglodytes on this blog to accept the truth. BTW, if you had proofread your post, the unfortunate "now" in your last line could have corrected to "no" as intended. In failing to do so, you probably created some unintended agreement from those with whom you disagree.
To 11/4 7:12. Good description except fopr one statement. If LLNL takes in more money than it spends, that does not translate in to profit. It becomes carryover. LLNS makes money just on fee. The only "for profit" characteristic of llns is the for profit nature of the underlying llc partners. The arrangement is no different than the old UC arrangement, in the sense that UC also just operated for a fee. The for profit members take their fee and pocket it, while UC (now and in the past) turns it back to the Lab, but the basic arrangement is the same. There is now way that llns makes more profit if they cut expenses, as an example.
November 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM"
What you say is true, however corporations are very clever in how to leverage there position to maximize profits in other ways. They can transition people through the labs and transitions bonuses that way. They also add people to the lab who are in a holding pattern before there next project. These people are not paid by the profits but by the labs. They combine trips to other places which include a lab trip as well and write off the costs. These people are masters at this and will get every single dime. I heard one estimate is that they can leverage double or more their profit.
As to cost cutting, if that helps them meet contract metrics, then it does allow them to capture more of the yearly award fee.