Skip to main content

LLNL among America's best employers

Forbes: LLNL among America's best employers
LLNL Newsline 4/29/16

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was named to the 2016 Forbes list of America’s Best Large Employers, ranking No. 102 out of 500 employers that made the cut and the only national laboratory on the list. This ranking places LLNL among the top 10 employers in the San Francisco Bay Area and among the top 12 in government services nationwide.

The list, published in the April 19 issue of Forbes, was compiled based on the results of an online survey of 30,000 employees who were contacted without the involvement of their employers.

Top 10 Bay Area employers on the list
-Google (No. 2)
-Facebook (No. 11)
-Intuit (No. 35)
-Roche (No. 41)
-Stanford University (No. 44)
-University of California, San Francisco (No. 64)
-Genetec (No. 65)
-Kaiser (No. 96)
-Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (No. 102)
-LinkedIn (No. 148)

Top ‘Government Services’ employers on the list
-City of Austin (No. 22)
-NASA (No. 28)
-New York City Fire Department (No. 38)
-Los Angeles County (No. 39)
-Miami-Dade County (No. 48)
-Federal Reserve System (No. 50)
-Suffolk County (No.52)
-Department of State (No. 59)
-State of Oregon (No.67)
-State of Connecticut (No. 76)
-City of Los Angeles (No. 93)
-Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (No. 102)

While 500 companies made the list, around 1,900 employers qualified for consideration by getting at least 100 recommendations in response to one of two questions: “On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend your employer to a friend or family member?” and “Are there employers besides your own that you would recommend a friend or family member to work for?”

Approximately two-thirds of the 30,000 respondents were employees of large American organizations (headcount of 5,000 or more), and they comprised a representative sample of the U.S. workforce based on gender, age, region, education and ethnicity, according to Statista Inc., the third-party company Forbes partnered with to conduct the survey and compile its results.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This only shows how poor the options really are out there. Good luck folks
Anonymous said…
Sigh.....and it was just the other day..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-doroshow/nuclear-workers-deserve-b_b_6902776.html
Anonymous said…
You guys really need to start your own LANL blog.
Anonymous said…
Why? We've already taken over yours.
Anonymous said…
No. 102.
Anonymous said…
May 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM

Good point. I'll start a LANL blog just for you guys then sabotage it with pointless LLNL posts.
Anonymous said…
No one will read it, regardless.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

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...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

Rumor corner

LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.