Skip to main content

Loyalty??

Image
By
The new Sandia operator is requiring employees to sign what some are calling a "loyalty oath". Anybody got a copy? I hear some would rather leave than sign, others are simply not signing, and others are contacting their lawyers to figure out what parts of it may be illegal.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"The new Sandia operator is requiring employees to sign what some are calling a "loyalty oath". Anybody got a copy? I hear some would rather leave than sign, others are simply not signing, and others are contacting their lawyers to figure out what parts of it may be illegal."

Why not just give Sandia managers undisclosed raises and undisclosed bonuses like LANSLLNS does to buy loyalty? No signatures required for allegiance with that method. If LANL goes non-profit in 2018, lab salaries might be in the public domain once again.
8/31/2017 8:10 AM
Anonymous said…
This is just a way to sniff out the subversives. Got to give them credit.
8/31/2017 5:35 PM
Anonymous said…
Classic Steve
8/31/2017 6:18 PM
Anonymous said…
This is just a way to sniff out the subversives. Got to give them credit.

August 31, 2017 at 5:35 PM

The problem is that Steve may be a subversive.
8/31/2017 7:40 PM
Anonymous said…
Sound like Steve Girrens is up to his old games he played at LANL. He doesn't want your loyalty, he wants your adoration of him. Girrens is French for God. Problem is, you have all these egos running Sandia that not only want your commitment but your soul. Sounds like a religion (Youngerism) is being implemented at Sandia.
8/31/2017 8:31 PM
Anonymous said…
Sandians will all be going to church on Sunday (whether you like it on not!) with Younger as the preceding Cardinal. Guess who will be sitting in the front row?
9/01/2017 4:41 AM
Anonymous said…
Have you idiots even confirmed that such an oath exists? Could be a nondisclosure, could be a policy on public statements. Hell, could even be a social media policy (irony). How about somebody test the hypothesis first?
9/01/2017 11:31 AM
Anonymous said…
Sign it and lie. It's just another job.
9/03/2017 1:27 AM
Anonymous said…
Check out Steve Younger in this video, he looks and acts like a humorless zombie even while all the rest of the talking heads appear to be normal humans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQBLpJFi6f0
9/05/2017 7:54 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more