Does anyone have the current TCP1 and TCP2 employee retention data considering population, classification, and age?
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
If we do have or project to have a LLNS workforce exodus, being forthright about it is a fundamental early step to get in front of and address the problem.
Another compelling reason why "for profit" short term focused contractors running the labs was a big mistake.
No long term skin in the game, just an annual dollar harvest "while the getting is good".
October 21, 2014 at 1:52 PM
Over 8 years now. I'd say that is "long term."
Sounds like an opportunity for LLNS to be forthright and proactive in this workforce challenge.
Nothing wrong with that. It's a good thing that we have strong minded business managers from the LLCs who will help this vision be achieved. They've been doing a excellent job of managing the NNSA labs.
They have done an excellent job of managing the LANSLLNS exit doors for our departing lab talent, are linked to environmental accidents and milestone failures, all while successfully floating a "we cost more and we accomplish less" business model.
Huh? The are the sh**ts.
The modernization of weapons designs and the complex is at a stand still, with no vision on how to proceed. The labs are not replacing essential skills being lost to downsizing and retirement. Employee purchasing power is down significantly. Budgets are stagnant. Non weapons programs are floundering, lacking sponsor commitment. Talented leaders cannot be recruited to staff senior positions. Accomplishments are minimal. The labs are no longer newsworthy, Only failures and foolishness are noteworthy. None of the organizational excellence that was earned while managed by UC exists. Yet they are doing exactly what the operating contact allow and NNSA managers want.
The labs are insignificant; this is the legacy of privatization. The strangulation by NNSA Contract 44 provisions renders lab leadership unable to actively work its way out of the malaise.
A path forward exists, but these guys and gals miss it. Mediocre.
November 4, 2014 at 5:29 PM
UC still provides a significant backdrop to the LANS and LLNS Boards. If they agreed with you, they would already be out.
POS
this type of name calling is usually done by skinny liberals.