UC leaders make case to keep managing Los Alamos lab The New Mexican Nov 29, 2017 "Top leaders of the University of California were in New Mexico this week making the case that despite safety and operational lapses over the past several years at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the university system alone has the experience and expertise to manage the nuclear weapons lab — a role the university essentially has had since the lab’s inception. “Through all of this time, the last 12 years, the laboratory has consistently been rated for their excellence in science and in support of their missions,” said Kim Budil, a physicist and the vice president for national laboratories at UC, responsible for both the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Los Alamos."
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/uc-leaders-make-case-to-keep-managing-los-alamos-lab/article_9cd86668-b81e-57fb-88c7-c45bfe5ae966.html
35 comments:
The first thing UC needs to do is go back to having Lab employees be UC employees instead of employees of the fake shell company (LANS) that they created. There's nothing in the new RFP, unlike the 2006 RFP Clause H-23, that required a "separate corporate entity" to run the Lab. It is now only an option (Clause G-4) for the bidder to be "organized as a separate legal entity from its parent organization(s)."
If UC (or any bidder) wants to take credit for the positive work at the Lab, then it should be done by "their" employees.
That assumes UC is going to win. They aren't. DOE isn't going to be fooled by UC again.
"That assumes UC is going to win. They aren't. DOE isn't going to be fooled by UC again.
November 30, 2017 at 5:26 PM"
This assumes that DOE thinks UC was in charge but more a general consensuses is that Bechtel has
been in charge and the key issues was with them not UC. NNSA and DOE are well aware of this.
I know you hate UC but I am guessing you have not been in the lab in a very long long time and have no idea what DOE/NNSA are really thinking.
November 30, 2017 at 5:26 PM
Actually I'm suggesting that this be in the UC bid proposal. Get rid of the fake LLCs and have UC establish a UC LLC or corporation to run LANL.
No. 9:15 PM, Bechtel was NOT in charge of LANS. By the contract, UC is in charge. One only needs to be able to count to know that's true. UC has the DIRECTOR position, by contract. UC had 4 of 5 PADS. UC had 10 of 11 ADs. Bechtel had almost ZERO control.
Explain how UC controlled nearly ALL of the management positions yet Bechtel was somehow in charge.
No. 9:15 PM, Bechtel was NOT in charge of LANS. By the contract, UC is in charge. One only needs to be able to count to know that's true. UC has the DIRECTOR position, by contract. UC had 4 of 5 PADS. UC had 10 of 11 ADs. Bechtel had almost ZERO control.
Explain how UC controlled nearly ALL of the management positions yet Bechtel was somehow in charge.
December 1, 2017 at 8:37 AM
You have made this argument before, however if had been at LANL then you would know how much the culture had changed. The rumors are UC was told at the start of the contract that Bechtel is in charge you do exactly what they say. Most people at LANL believe this. The issue with your argument is that if UC was in charge before the contract and after the contract change than why did LANL change so drastically after the contract change? It just does not make sense, however if you believe that Bechtel was really in charge after the contract change it makes more sense. None of this is proof but is the general belief amongst the people at LANL.
12:28, so somehow, outnumbered 11 to 1 in ADs and 4 to 1 in PADs, and without the Director position and without the board chair position, Bechtel ran things. If they are as incompetent as most people on this blog say they are, you give them way too much credit.
They had some influence, more in some areas, less in most, but were definitely not in charge. In numbers or in actual power.
I worked at LANL and it was popular to blame Bechtel. But at one time it was also popular to say the Earth is flat.
"They had some influence, more in some areas, less in most, but were definitely not in charge. In numbers or in actual power."
I understand what you are saying but the rumors are that Bechtel was in fact told they where in control after the contract change. Again I have no idea if it is true or not but if you worked at LANL as you claim than you would know how much the lab changed after the contract change. The new element that was brought in was Bechtel so it is natural to think that they are the ones that brought in the change. Also one thing that Bechtel claimed as that it would save all this money by brining in business practices, however not only did that not happen but the lab become way more expensive and I have heard that this has been considered a major reason that DOE is disappointed with Bechtel. Also I have heard that people in NNSA consider privatization of the labs and bringing in Bechtel to have been a major mistake. Again all of this could be wrong but it is what people have been saying and again you are left with the fact that something major changed at the contract change and Bechtel was the new element. So the questions is what happened, did UC suddenly change? Maybe all the people that work at the lab are clueless but again the sense it that Bechtel brought a very bad culture that has infected everything that it has touched.
I have heard that Bechtel has no chance with the next round however UC has a good chance. If there is any truth to these rumors it indicates that NNSA also feels that issues at LANL have more to do with Bechtel.
Cancer starts with a single replication error that has nothing to do with higher cognitive functions. So it was with Bechtel at LANL.
I don't know one single person at LANL who believes that Bechtel was ever in charge and I know well over 100 people. It's simply not true that LANL workers believe Bechtel is in chsrge despite every single bit of evidence proving otherwise.
Budil is a 2nd team asset. Shows real lack of interest of UC.
BUT if Tarter, Mara, Anastasio, Miller, Drell, Claire Max held the position, the argument is the same, but better made.
UC is the most successful nuclear weapons physics institution in the history of the world. THE ONLY ONE IN THE USA.
A few foulups pale in comparison to 5000 UG shots, the designs the codes, the understanding, the safety, the vital leadership given as duty, without fee.
The current crop of NNSA functionaies, like Pryzbylek, Domenici, DAgostino, Bodner, OLeary and Dingle before them, are unfit to the task of source selection.
The snitty terms of Contract 44 vs. Contract 48 is the reason for performance decline. NNSA masterminds designed it this way. They are not fit for duty.
Bechtel was never in control or ever interested. Few if any first rate Bechtel leaders took LLNS positions. No admin processes, their specialty, ever were implemented. George Schultz visited....once. We got Russo and Leidle and boner3 hires like Soderstrom.
Bechtel is the bad apple in the bunch. That is for certain.
If UC wins, prepare yourselves for another onslaught of California Carpetbaggers.
If Bechtel is gone in the next round things can only get better.
10:30 PM
Your "current crop of NNSA 'functionaies' (sic)" includes some names who are not currently associated with the NNSA, some who were never an NNSA functionary, some misspelled names, and a person who is currently dead.
The rest of your post is a spelling and grammatical nightmare.
Jeez, if this post is representative of the level of people that UC has hired at LANL, UC needs to be shown the door and kicked in the butt on the way out.
December 3, 2017 at 6:39 PM
You have nothing but hate for UC, it is pretty clear that you feel that they did something to you. Perhaps you are more to blame for that than UC, who knows, but you are not adding much to the discussion.
10:48:
UC has done something to me and they're continuing to DO something to me. They're mismanaging LANL. In fact, UC has been HORRIBLY mismanaging LANL ever since Sig Hecker retired.
You, with your gibberish and mindless defense of everything UC bungles, are a net negative. I don't mean that in a good way.
Just something to think about.
"UC has done something to me and they're continuing to DO something to me. They're mismanaging LANL. In fact, UC has been HORRIBLY mismanaging LANL ever since Sig Hecker retired."
You just answered you own question, what happened after Hecker retried is that LANL become under increasing pressure from outside forces after money. UC started lost control of the lab not long after WHL due to political pressures which saw the opportunity to get hold of LANL and make a profit. Make no mistake Bechtel has been in charge since 2006 and everyone and I do mean EVERYONE knows this including NNSA and DOE. It is very telling that you do not know this. Ask yourself the questions how is that UC ran the lab well for all these years and then it suddenly goes bad? It has to do with the loss of control by UC. One remedy is to go back to the non-profit model with UC or some other University in charge as that model seemed to work so well in the past. The idea of blaming UC for whole mess just does not stand up to the history or the facts. In any case there are a few rapid anti-UC types but in almost every case it is due
to some personal slight or issue and usually it has more to due with their personal failings than UC. We all know these cast of rather bitter characters and they have little credibility. Also come clean it is not just UC that you have a problem with but LANL itself, am I right?
Your argument has zero merit for two reasons:
1) UC's bad management started well BEFORE Bechtel came into the picture. Both Browne and Nanos were UC before Bechtel arrived. Both were forced to resign. Nanos is universally considered to be the worst LANL director EVER. WHL had nothing to do with either resignation, claim that and you're lying.
2) Bechtel has never been in charge of LANL. By the contract, Bechtel has a minor role. Everyone at LANL knows this. Bechtel actually has only a very small management presence at LANL. Claim otherwise and you're lying.
"1) UC's bad management started well BEFORE Bechtel came into the picture. Both Browne and Nanos were UC before Bechtel arrived. Both were forced to resign. Nanos is universally considered to be the worst LANL director EVER. WHL had nothing to do with either resignation, claim that and you're lying."
First of all I claimed that things where going bad with LANL when external forces started attacking the LANL and reduced the input from UC. This started with WHL and every time more power or control was taken from UC things got worse. This is consistent with the history.
Browne was actually pretty good, he was forced resign because of the WHL. Again this was political pressure that wanted to
hurt Richardson and privatize the lab for money. Browne was pretty good overall and he did a good job with whole "culture of theft" which was proven to be complete nonsense as we all know that there was never stolen Mustang. Browne also had deal with some completely villainous characters some who are still making noise to this day in order make a buck which has been absolutely disgusting to family members of certain manager who committed suicide. All one has to do is look any of these people up on the internet to get all the facts you need to come to proper conclusion and I strongly encourage you and anyone else to do so. So we can conclude Browne was a good Director. As for Nanos you know full well he was not a UC pick but forced on UC and and in the end UC removed him.
Point 2. Actually everyone knows Bechtel is in charge. If as you claim everyone at LANL knows Bechtel is not in charge than how come there is never a single person to post on the blog to agree with you? I would guess you have been out of LANL for some time and simply don't know anyone because I have yet to meet someone at LANL who does not think Bechtel is in charge...not one. I agree someone is lying. If as you claim that everyone at LANL knows Bechtel is not in charge than surly one or two will chime in on the blog to agree with you. Finley you never address the obvious issue, if UC has always been so bad and in charge as claim than why did LANL change so much after the contract change? Again the simple answer would be Bechtel came in. Perhaps there is alternative explanation but you have not provided one. Finley it is the widespread view of people at LANL that Bechtel and it culture have been the driving force of problems at LANL, perhaps we are all completely wrong but that is the perception.
Browne was NOT forced to resign over WHL. That is a bald-faced lie.
Browne resigned two years AFTER all but one of the charges against WHL were dropped, all except one charge of simple mishandling of classified material. The Judge apologized to WHL, released WHL, and WHL had been out on the street for two years BEFORE Browne was forced to resign. WHL was shopping in Furrs and writing his book when Browne resigned.
UC has gone on record saying the reason Browne was forced to resign was because of the DOE Inspector General's audit findings of fiscal mismanagement at LANL. Browne himself has publically said that it was the perception of fiscal mismanagement that caused him to resign. Unfortunately for Browne and UC, they never saw fiscal mismanagement as a problem until after the official audit. After the audit was released there was no choice but to ask Browne to resign. It was this very issue that STARTED the ball rolling on recompeting the contract.
There certainly was pressure to bring in a new Director that could straighten out the mess that Browne had left. That's how Nanos' name got tossed into the hat. However, UC got the final say on who UC would hire and UC WILLINGLY hired Nanos. The fact that Nanos was completely incompetent was immediately obvious to EVERYONE - well, everyone except the stooges in UC. UC gets zero credit for helping to remove him; after all, UC didn't act until almost two years after EVERYONE else could see that Nanos was unfit. Nanos was a simple case of bad judgment on the part of UC, exactly like McMillan. Many people think McMillan was the second worst LANL Director ever - McMillan was also an unfit Director that UC hired (and took WAAAAY to long to remove).
You are still thinking that I'm the only person who corrects your nonsense about Bechtel being in charge? Unbelievable. Listen up, I'm not the only one. At least one other has corrected your nonsense, probably many more. How do I know? DUH. I didn't write all of those posts. So why is it that the ONLY person who wrote in to defend your nonsense was YOU. How could we tell? The person who wrote in exhibited the same horrible spelling, bad grammar, and logical inconsistencies that you do - all hallmarks of your pathetic writing skills.
Listen up, the way sane people tell who is in charge is to read the contract and determine where the managers come from. In the case of LANL, the LANS contract expressly puts UC in charge. It's right there in black and white. Again, for the nth time, almost all of the LANS managers come from UC. The DIRECTOR is a permanent UC position. At the level below the Director, 4 of the 5 top managers are UC. At the level below that 10 of the 11 are UC. There is no way that Bechtel is in charge when they have almost no management presence. NO WAY. If you believe Bechtel is in charge despite ALL of the evidence pointing otherwise, you're simply not sane.
LANL did change after the contract. LANS was actually a substantial IMPROVEMENT over UC with Nanos. By your own defective logic, it must have been Bechtel who was responsible for the improvement.
So, can you now see why it's fallacious to blame LANL's problems on Bechtel? Things got worse BEFORE Bechtel came on board and Bechtel is NOT in charge of LANL and never has been. Can you recognize the obvious or are you insane?
By the way, who are you calling "Finley"?
" Unfortunately for Browne and UC, they never saw fiscal mismanagement as a problem until after the official audit."
The problem was that there never was any fiscal mismanagement. It was all made up to privatize the labs for money. What is particularly ironic is now under the for profit model we lose huge amounts of money to a profit model, along with taxes, and we have a huge bloated management that adds little of value, now that is fiscal mismanagement. The give away that all these so called issues with LANL back in 1999-2003 was just bs to push for privatization is that if the goal was to "fix" LANL than they would have just privatized LANL but what happened is that they also privatized LLNL. It was all about money.
"It was this very issue that STARTED the ball rolling on recompeting the contract."
False there had already been plenty of talk about privatizing that labs during the WHL times,
they kept pushing for everything they could after. The audit had nothing to do with it, if there had been no audit it would have been something else. During this time everything was about privatizing things for profit.
"There certainly was pressure to bring in a new Director that could straighten out the mess that Browne had left.:
There was no mess in the first place.
"UC got the final say on who UC would hire and UC WILLINGLY hired Nanos. The fact that Nanos was completely incompetent was immediately obvious to EVERYONE - well, everyone except the stooges in UC. UC gets zero credit for helping to remove him; after all, UC didn't act until almost two years after EVERYONE else could see that Nanos was unfit. Nanos was a simple case of bad judgment on the part of UC, "
I have never heard this interpretation before. From what was said at the time was that DOE
pushed to have Nanos and UC wanted to no part of it but there had been threats just to throw
UC out on the spot unless they did this. After the disk stuff went down the rumor again was UC
was the one that pushed to get rid of him. Again if you look a the history of the lab from 1999 to now it it clear every time UC loses some control things get worse.
There is no way that Bechtel is in charge when they have almost no management presence."
I concede your point on this however but what do not know is what could be or could have happened behind the scenes. The rumor has always been that after the contract change NNSA told Bechtel that they are in charge, UC may officially pick the people but they are told who to pick. Again these are just rumors but I heard that UC did not want any of the last four Directors but wanted to bring in external high level scientists, there was even a few names but NNSA said no way this is not your decision to make. This is just speculation however some evidence for this is that before 2000 the lab directors where very strong scientists, if DOE/NNSA started to reduce UCs role in the lab after 2000 it fits with the sudden change in the quality of Directors and managers since than. You have to admit there is something odd about
UC suddenly going bad all of sudden in 2000. The change is just to sudden and most people at LANL believe that UC was simply pushed out of the way. Could be true could be wrong.
"You are still thinking that I'm the only person who corrects your nonsense about Bechtel being in charge? "
There is only one, your writing and hated for UC and LANL is unmistakable. You have an issue with UC that dates but to 1994 but you will not come clean with it. How is it that I happen to know hundreds of LANL people that all insist on Bechtel being in charge yet you claim to know hundreds that do not. Something does not add up however it is clear your issues with UC are personal so I doubt you are being honest.
"LANL did change after the contract. LANS "
OMG, that is funny but sorry that kills your credibility on the spot, no one who works at LANL would say this, not even the high level managers. These same managers will admit that things are worse but claim it is all due to issues outside of LANS power and that the world has changed. In any case that is one of craziest statement I have ever heard you make and you have made some really crazy ones before.
So, can you now see why it's fallacious to blame LANL's problems on Bechtel? "
I don't not think all of LANLs problems can be put on Bechtel, you also have NNSA, DOE,
and the people at LANL who jumped on the money wagon. As for Bechtel they do what they always do which is to maximize profit and get out, they even say that they are about making money not things. Now the perception of the vast majority of people at LANL is that Bechtel is to blame for the current state of the lab, they may be right or may be wrong but that is the perception.
Another thing that you have not considered is that Bechtel may not need pick the managers in order to control them. Consider this that management at the lab gets a bonus, who pays the bonus? It is not UC they never take any profit because the simply put the money back in, however Bechtel takes a profit and gives some of that to the managers and this is how they effectively buy them off. It is essentially a corporate bribe.
UC is not the reason for the problems at the lab nor is the reason you got fired or whatever the hell happened to you. Your hatred for UC has just blinded you. In any case suppose UTexas get it instead of UC, you will find that you are still will not be happy nor will you be vindicated. If UC had never been in charge in the first place you still would be bitter because the issues lie within you not with UC, not with LANL, not with the world, but you and you alone.
It's a classic false dichotomy. Both UC and their pathetic partner Bechtel have been an ongoing disaster for LANL. Why argue who was in charge of the Titanic?
"but what do not know", "you are still will not be happy", "lab directors where very strong scientists", "that dates but to 1994", "suppose UTexas get it", Seriously? Dude, TAKE SOME REMEDIAL WRITING LESSIONS. Your writing makes you appear to be a fool. Well, that plus the content of what you write.
1) NNSA did NOT tell Bechtel they are in charge. Didn't happen. DID NOT HAPPEN. How do we know? NNSA signed the contract with LANS that puts UC in charge. NNSA put UC in charge in writing - in a legal document. Like some whispered rumor (a whisper that never happened) would take precedence over a written contract. GET REAL.
2) Nobody at LANL believes that UC was simply pushed out of the way. Why? All the UC managers were left in place. You can't push them out yet leave them in charge. That's simply idiotic. The LANL staff is WAY too intelligent to believe that nonsense. I suspect that YOU don't even believe that.
3) NNSA does have the option to veto unacceptable candidates for Director. That should tell you a lot; NNSA didn't veto four (now 5) of the worst candidates for Director ever. If NNSA did veto a "high-level" external scientist it had to have been because the stooges at UC proposed a real whacko, a person well worse than the last 4 unfit candidates (now 5). UC must have proposed a "high-level" scientist like Bill Nye, the Science Guy.
4) You are still lying about "everyone thinks Bechtel is in charge". Nobody thinks Bechtel is in charge. Why? Because Bechtel is not in charge.
5) What's this nonsense about 1994? You think you know something BUT YOU DON'T. You would have NO way to know if something did or didn't happen in 1994 (or any other year). NO WAY TO KNOW. Only crazy people think they know things they would have no way to know. Listen up, nothing happened to me in 1994 OR ANY OTHER YEAR. Perhaps you need to go back to your psychiatrist and tell her that you stopped taking your meds.
"1) NNSA did NOT tell Bechtel they are in charge. Didn't happen. DID NOT HAPPEN. "
You have no idea if this happened or not. This has been a pretty persistent rumor and even some Bechtel people have said this in private. To be fair there is no proof either way, however you
have to take into account just how much LANL changed after the contract change, and despite what you say everyone agrees on this point about how much the lab changed. If UC was in charge before and after as you claim why did it change so much? One explanation is that Bechtel was put in charge. Perhaps there is another explanation, maybe UC suddenly decided to run things completely different and change the culture? The Bechtel in charge is one that most people believe at LANL.
Not saying it is true but again this is the gernal feeling of most people at the lab.
"2) Nobody at LANL believes that UC was simply pushed out of the way. Why? All the UC managers were left in place. You can't push them out yet leave them in charge. That's simply idiotic. The LANL staff is WAY too intelligent to believe that nonsense."
This just shows that you have been out of the lab for a long...long, long time, maybe since 1994. In any case I have heard over and over from people at LANL that they feel UC was pushed out of the way. This may or may not be true but it is in fact the perception of most people at LANL. Your comments or just so off that it seems like you have little or no interaction with any one at LANL and have not for a long time. You keep saying "everyone" at LANL agrees with your
point of view however I have never meet one and no one seems to be coming to your defense. Just come clean and admit that you do not work at LANL have have not for some time, you simply have no idea whatsoever of what is going on or what people at LANL think.
"3) NNSA does have the option to veto unacceptable candidates for Director."
I am just saying that the rumor was UC had some other candidates in mind and they even had some names. I cannot confirm if that was true but seems likely that NNSA could influence the outcome.
It also seems odd that the nature of of the Directors changed after Browne, why would UC suddenly change the kind of Directors unless there was outside influence?
"4) You are still lying about "everyone thinks Bechtel is in charge". Nobody thinks Bechtel is in charge."
Bechtel may or may not be in charge but the fact is most people at LANL beleive Bechtel is in charge. They have reasons to believe this. So far we only have one bigger blogger who insists otherwise.
"5) What's this nonsense about 1994? You think you know something BUT YOU DON'T. You would have NO way to know if something did or didn't happen in 1994 (or any other year). NO WAY TO KNOW. "
Your reaction, not to mention the all caps kinda gives it away, the lady doth protest too much methinks. Also look on the net and you will see some other anti-UC, anti LANL, anti-police people who use the all CAP rants and the 1994 thing will be pretty obvious. Your bitterness and hatred toward UC and LANL is an issue with you and it will not change if UC stays or goes. Let it go and move on with your life.
Another issue in UC's favor is that they fired Walp and Dorn helping stop the whole culture of theft nonsense that never existed and was only being pushed to help push for privatization of the labs or to bolster the power of a few people. Anyone who had to deal with them knows that UC did the morally correct and just thing. It also helped with the rest of the DOE complex to show that you cannot simply go around and make outrageous claims for your own personal benefit without some kind of consequence. Hats off to UC for that.
Sorry, dude, UC NEVER fired anybody named "Dorn". They did fire Walp and DORAN. UC lost the lawsuit the two filed, had to pay Walp almost a million dollars and were forced to rehire Doran and put him in charge of Security at ALL UC campuses (including LANL at the time) where he is still in charge. UC publically apologized for their wrongdoing. And you APPLAUD UC? Wow, that speaks reams about what kind of person you are.
There WAS a culture of financial mismanagement at LANL. The DOE Inspector General confirmed over $1.5 million was missing or unaccounted for. The IG also determined that the UC upper management tried to suppress this information by intimidating the lower level managers. Claim otherwise and you're lying.
"And you APPLAUD UC? Wow, that speaks reams about what kind of person you are."
Oh, hell ya, first of all do you know anyone who had to deal with these guys at LANL? No good, not good at all. (2) Did you see the Fox news show with Bill O Reily with Doran and Walp, it could still be on the internet, it is utterly shocking and dishonest what they are saying. (3) As recent as a year or two ago both of these guys where holding press conferences trying to drum hoopla over the old Richard Burik case. For those of you who do not know this person committed suicide after he found out he had terminal cancer and that is what is family has said and what the police said. Dorn, Walp and Montoano want you to believe that LANL or UC or God knows who had him killed. Why would they push something is crazy and cruel to the family, well it makes for a better book and both Walp and Montano have books in attempt to profit of anything the can. This is beyond disgusting and despicable. Look it up both these guys have books in which they go on about Burik, so it is beyond obvious what the motivation is which is cash. So yes UC is should be applauded and praised for what they did. The fact that you defend any of these people speaks reams about what kind of person you are.
"There WAS a culture of financial mismanagement at LANL. " Bullshit, this was shown to be pure BS, there was never a Mustang and followup studies completely disproved and in fact shows LANL had far less "financial mismanagement" than comparable organization or industry. The whole thing was a lie and you know it so the only one who is lying is you, but perhaps you sold your soul a long time ago to make money.
If this ranter where a real LANL employee, than I would worry.
If this ranter where a real LANL employee, than I would worry.
December 11, 2017 at 6:10 PM
You mean the " I hate all things LANL and UC troll", they are not a LANL employee, they used to be many years ago but not anymore and that is why they are so...so bitter. In case you did not pay attention 10:20PM gave away exactly who they are and yes it is an unhinged ex-LANL employee who is very bitter and feels they they are owed money. Now keep this in mind next time you read one of those I hate UC/LANL posts on this blog or the comment sections in the Santa Fe papers.
UC's legacy: The mass layouts that were a pretext to racial and age discrimination (most everyone was reinstated to their former jobs); salary disparity ($50M for settlement and legal fees, paid by NNSA); a culture of elitism (employees from out of state colleges with higher hire on salaries vice employees from NM colleges and universities with lower hire on salaries); financial mismanagement - yes, Bussollini and Alexander enriched themselves, individuals who had materials and supplies sent directly to their homes instead of the warehouse, all the LANL laptops missing from various colleges and universities across the country, etc. etc. much improper personal enrichment with government resources; the many complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination that the EEOC would not even accept, such is the power of UC; a chromium plume threatening our water; WIPP, billions paid by NNSA; a worker who was electrocuted and remained in a comma until his death due to poor work planning; consistent lack of adequate lockout tag out; nuclear material sent via a plane; Wen Ho Lee; a senior manager having sex with a subordinate in his office; missing tapes; and in today's paper, another near miss out of multiple recent near misses.
For myself, I am a member of the LANL Me Too: Sexual harassment, Discrimination, Salary Disparity, Reprisal, Bullying, by men whose names you would readily recognize. While UC is based in "blue" California, it might as well be in Alabama or with the current White House occupant, such is the UC culture at LANL.
For those who desire UC leadership at LANL, may your daughters and granddaughters fare better as LANL employees. My experiences made my parents weep.
Post a Comment