Hearing some news that they will be going to a non-profit model for the next contract call at LANL.
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
The Lab will become a "Bomb Factory" with it's new mission to build more pits, and will continue to lose the scientific edge that we once had. Anyone remember "Rocky Flats" ...how did that work out?
Who wants to move out to Los Alamos New Mexico to make bombs, the mission of the lab and the future funding will now be dependent on the almighty "Pit Production.. Sounds like a bright future, what could possibly go wrong with this.....
I retire soon I am moving as far away as possible from LANL.
Battelle is already involved in managing several DOE sites: Brookhaven, INL, LLNL, NREL, ORNL and PNNL.
http://www.battelle.org/our-work/laboratory-management
Lockheed Martin has Sandia and part of the LLC running Pantex/Y-12.
And of course UC has LBNL and LLNL.
Thank you for your detailed explanation of the obvious.
February 11, 2016 at 9:19 AM"
I guess you would like Walp and Montano you run the lab? You maybe be dumb but you are consistent.
February 11, 2016 at 7:15 PM
Thank you for your detailed explanation of the obvious.
February 11, 2016 at 8:51 PM
Thank you for your detailed explanation of the obvious.
They should plan alternative employment now and should seek to employ all sick leave prior to the contact expiration. It will not transfer between new services subcontractors.
Disagree. It is a terribly easy G-JOB. Follow the rules. Place less talented complaisant rule followers in positions and always report success cooperatively. Easy money. Lots Of C students grateful to fill those non competitive positions.
No way to excel at weapons science and out think an evil energetic enemy, but that is a NNSA contract design problem.
Administering it is easy, zombie-like. Just drink the kool-aid.
I realize now, 5 years into retirement that I put way too much energy into work. The other, good parts of my life with others were diminished by my focus. This was a mistake.
If you must, show off occassionally, but then relax and rest. Take care for the others who need your attention and energy. J
February 12, 2016 at 6:51 AM
Collective bargaining is for tradespeople, not professionals. Highly-skilled professionals have no need for collective bargaining; they would simply get dragged down to the mediocre middle.
Having some type of professional union to negotiate against these outcomes would help but the employees at the labs are too disorganized and too short-sighted to figure that out. It's every man for himself.
Understanding the value of workforce attraction and retention at the labs can be a difficult concept for the inexperienced in "today's world".
February 13, 2016 at 12:36 PM
Not going to happen. The Republicans would never move to increase the size of the federal workforce in this country.
The argument/fear in congress would be if you are going to "federalize" one DOE national lab like LANL then why not all of them. Why bother with keeping the GOCO FFRDC model at all. Heck go ahead and federalize JPL and Lincoln Lab too.
A bad idea that's not going to happen.
February 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM
Yeah, because the DoD is so competent and efficient at managing weapon research and development. And they have loads of people who understand nuclear weapons. Plus, there are never any scandals or screwups.
DoE is worse.
Pick the best option, not a perfect one.
February 15, 2016 at 5:29 PM
Or, dance with the one that brung ya.
Please, do some research before suggesting things that can actually bring down the labs for good.
The only sensible suggestion is to go back to what ACTUALLY worked - putting the lab under a University. Time has proven that to be the best answer.
February 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM"
The other sensible suggestion is not to actually do science at the labs. Move it to DOD and than anytime there is a big science discovery lie about how the lab was part of it. This way you do not need to manage science but claim you do science at the same time!
February 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM
No, the best answer was AEC, and still is. Get some government administrators and managers who actually understand the mission AND the science.