I have a serious question, and hope that it will spark some actual discussion on its merits.
Should LANL (LANS) employees consider creating a 100% wholly "employee owned" LLC to bid on the LANL contract.
A model for this could be Parsons Engineering - with 15,000 employees it is an engineering, construction, technical, and management services firm with revenues of $3.2 billion in 2015 and is 100% owned by its employees through an Employee Stock Ownership Trust.
Let's say our new company is called "Oppenheimer Engineering LLC" and is 100% LANL employee owned through an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).
Oppenheimer Engineering would then "team" with academic partners (e.g., Purdue, Univ of Chicago, UNM, etc.) and "subcontract" specific work to industrial firms (e.g., Lockheed-Martin, Grumman, Parson, etc) in the bid on the LANL M&O contract. The annual contract management and award fees would serve as the basis for funding the ESOP. The non-profit partners would get a share of the fee, while the industrial for-profit subcontractor would be paid for the specific services they provided. LANL operations and employee salary cost would continue to be paid/reimbursed through the M&O contract.
There's some good information on the National Center for Employee Ownership website at www.nceo.org
http://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
Should LANL (LANS) employees consider creating a 100% wholly "employee owned" LLC to bid on the LANL contract.
A model for this could be Parsons Engineering - with 15,000 employees it is an engineering, construction, technical, and management services firm with revenues of $3.2 billion in 2015 and is 100% owned by its employees through an Employee Stock Ownership Trust.
Let's say our new company is called "Oppenheimer Engineering LLC" and is 100% LANL employee owned through an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).
Oppenheimer Engineering would then "team" with academic partners (e.g., Purdue, Univ of Chicago, UNM, etc.) and "subcontract" specific work to industrial firms (e.g., Lockheed-Martin, Grumman, Parson, etc) in the bid on the LANL M&O contract. The annual contract management and award fees would serve as the basis for funding the ESOP. The non-profit partners would get a share of the fee, while the industrial for-profit subcontractor would be paid for the specific services they provided. LANL operations and employee salary cost would continue to be paid/reimbursed through the M&O contract.
There's some good information on the National Center for Employee Ownership website at www.nceo.org
http://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
Comments
My God, that is just insane.
My God, that is just insane.
April 5, 2016 at 8:12 PM
Wouldn't be the first time that inmates plotted to take over the asylum.
Not sure that anyone with knowledge would attempt to defend the current structure; however, there are worse options. If the choice was to continue with the present contract or go with Dr. Wallace as Director, suspect that most employees would prefer to remain with the devil that they know.
April 8, 2016 at 10:59 AM
Some obviously considered Anastasio to be a "viable candidate," but he certainly wasn't a "viable" Director. He was unseen, uninvolved, and uninterested, simply padding his retirement income.
This was kept from the public but if you go to Washington, DC they are very well informed about this subject!
What BS. I still see Mike and Ann in SF quite often. I've known both of them for many years. Go bark up another tree.
I really like your passion and creativity but what I cant get my head around is that the risk is just to great and there is no upside and is for that reason I'm out. Good luck.