This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Rumor has it....
Hearing some news that they will be going to a non-profit model for the next contract call at LANL.
40 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The County of Los Alamos will suffer with a non-profit operator that is for sure, compound that with the loss of approx 5% of the workforce during the transition and the lab will be around 7000 FTE's.
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.....
Lets see if someone even bids if they all cannot get rich. How true regarding the "Bomb Factory". When I retire soon I am moving as far away as possible from LANL.
It is delusional to even consider that a university would bid on the LANL contract. The risk is several orders of magnitude higher than the largest possible gain. This would make about as much sense as University of Texas bidding to manufacture the F-35.
I really like the idea of a "not-for-profit" LLC for managing LANL owned jointly by Lockheed Martin-Battelle-UC.
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.
No upside for a GOCO operator. NNSA always in your shorts. NNSA at LANL is clueless. the old GOCO agreement was based on the government staying the hell out of the way. No chance in that coming back Without a huge intervention from someone intelligent in government. Any bets on that?
Here is my bet. Political pressure from the state and lack of interest keeps it for profit. Benefits get cut to reduce the governments long term liability. The workforce is reduced by 10%. Look across the complex at the last five or six contracts and tell me why I am wrong. The Cadillac deal at Los Alamos is dying or dead.
LANL professional employees should consider collective bargaining as a hedge against the kind of policy blunders that were implemented after the last NNSA contract blunders in 2007.
Also, your contract emploees are at greatest risk.
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.
Yep. Good job to retire into, before retirement. Like watching yhe grass grow at Site 300.
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.
LANL professional employees should consider collective bargaining...
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.
Professionals are possessed of many options, based on their skills and value to the organization. If those aren't there, then we aren't talking about professionals.
Stating "professionals" have value does not address institution wide eroding benefits or job satisfaction at LANL or LLNL, and does not present a lucid or sustainable strategic mission for either lab.
Count on things remaining pretty much the same, i.e. staff salaries will remain stagnant, executive salaries will continue to rise, worker morale will continue to fall, the lab bureaucracy will continue to grow and any remaining benefits you have are sure to be cut back further.
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.
Unions are for losers. Winners either get a better deal or leave for somewhere they can get a better deal. If you consider yourself locked in and subject to management's whims, you are not a professional. In today's world, mobility is the name of the game. If you can't play it, you are a loser. If your skills only fit one employer, you made a really bad career choice.
12:36 has no answer at all, just a scream into the ether that enlightens no one, and gives no detail or justification, or consequences. It was not directed at anyone, and thus will not be accepted by anyone. Screaming on this blog is entirely inconsequential.
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.
Move the weapons labs to DoD where they have belonged for years.
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.
Don't kid yourselves - DOE is NOT worse than DoD. DoD is not necessarily a bad organization, but it does NOT have the capability to support science. DoD does NOT do basic science anymore, and doesn't have the infrastructure or know-how to support it. If you think things are a mess now, try putting a research lab under military control and see what happens. You don't like corporate types in charge? Try boots-on-the-ground types with rifles and side arms.
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.
"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!
Quit trying to compete with real scientific research institutions; stick to the real mission (Nuclear weapons); federalize, and get the job done for a change.
40 comments:
The County of Los Alamos will suffer with a non-profit operator that is for sure, compound that with the loss of approx 5% of the workforce during the transition and the lab will be around 7000 FTE's.
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.....
Lets see if someone even bids if they all cannot get rich. How true regarding the "Bomb Factory". When
I retire soon I am moving as far away as possible from LANL.
It is delusional to even consider that a university would bid on the LANL contract. The risk is several orders of magnitude higher than the largest possible gain. This would make about as much sense as University of Texas bidding to manufacture the F-35.
I really like the idea of a "not-for-profit" LLC for managing LANL owned jointly by Lockheed Martin-Battelle-UC.
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.
February 11, 2016 at 8:29 AM
Thank you for your detailed explanation of the obvious.
"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.
Nope, just would like someone to express something here that is new, thoughtful, and actually grammatically correct.
Nope, just would like someone to express something here that is new, thoughtful, and actually grammatically correct.
February 11, 2016 at 7:15 PM
Thank you for your detailed explanation of the obvious.
Not obvious to some posters apparently.
Not obvious to some posters apparently.
February 11, 2016 at 8:51 PM
Thank you for your detailed explanation of the obvious.
Great - the repetitive troll. Is the light of the real world blinding you yet? Is that obvious?
No upside for a GOCO operator. NNSA always in your shorts. NNSA at LANL is clueless. the old GOCO agreement was based on the government staying the hell out of the way. No chance in that coming back Without a huge intervention from someone intelligent in government. Any bets on that?
Here is my bet. Political pressure from the state and lack of interest keeps it for profit. Benefits get cut to reduce the governments long term liability. The workforce is reduced by 10%. Look across the complex at the last five or six contracts and tell me why I am wrong. The Cadillac deal at Los Alamos is dying or dead.
LANL professional employees should consider collective bargaining as a hedge against the kind of policy blunders that were implemented after the last NNSA contract blunders in 2007.
Also, your contract emploees are at greatest risk.
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.
"No upside for a GOCO operator..."
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.
Yep. Good job to retire into, before retirement. Like watching yhe grass grow at Site 300.
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.
So do a fair job for a fair wage. There are no rewards adequate for the personal costs of expending energy to maintain long term excellence.
If you must, show off occassionally, but then relax and rest. Take care for the others who need your attention and energy. J
LANL professional employees should consider collective bargaining...
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.
"Professionals" are not vulnerable to eroding employment benefits and expensive layers of bloated management?
Professionals are possessed of many options, based on their skills and value to the organization. If those aren't there, then we aren't talking about professionals.
Stating "professionals" have value does not address institution wide eroding benefits or job satisfaction at LANL or LLNL, and does not present a lucid or sustainable strategic mission for either lab.
Count on things remaining pretty much the same, i.e. staff salaries will remain stagnant, executive salaries will continue to rise, worker morale will continue to fall, the lab bureaucracy will continue to grow and any remaining benefits you have are sure to be cut back further.
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.
Unions are for losers. Winners either get a better deal or leave for somewhere they can get a better deal. If you consider yourself locked in and subject to management's whims, you are not a professional. In today's world, mobility is the name of the game. If you can't play it, you are a loser. If your skills only fit one employer, you made a really bad career choice.
"...Mobility is the name of the game..."
Understanding the value of workforce attraction and retention at the labs can be a difficult concept for the inexperienced in "today's world".
Federalize the labs!
12:36 PM has the correct answer, but time will tell if it is accepted or not.
12:36 has no answer at all, just a scream into the ether that enlightens no one, and gives no detail or justification, or consequences. It was not directed at anyone, and thus will not be accepted by anyone. Screaming on this blog is entirely inconsequential.
Federalize the labs!
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.
Move the weapons labs to DoD where they have belonged for years.
Move the weapons labs to DoD where they have belonged for years.
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.
DoD is not perfect, but compared to DoE, they look like choir boys.
DoD is bad.
DoE is worse.
Pick the best option, not a perfect one.
Pick the best option, not a perfect one.
February 15, 2016 at 5:29 PM
Or, dance with the one that brung ya.
Don't kid yourselves - DOE is NOT worse than DoD. DoD is not necessarily a bad organization, but it does NOT have the capability to support science. DoD does NOT do basic science anymore, and doesn't have the infrastructure or know-how to support it. If you think things are a mess now, try putting a research lab under military control and see what happens. You don't like corporate types in charge? Try boots-on-the-ground types with rifles and side arms.
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.
"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!
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
No, the best answer was AEC, and still is. Get some government administrators and managers who actually understand the mission AND the science.
8:45PM has a lot of fear mongering, and displays no real understanding of how the DoD is structured.
Quit trying to compete with real scientific research institutions; stick to the real mission (Nuclear weapons); federalize, and get the job done for a change.
They won't federalize because they would have to cut all of your pay by 30% to fit in their scales. How would you like that?
Post a Comment