Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Pension or 401k
Has anyone heard whether LANL's TRIAD will offer a traditional pension (rather than 401k matching) to stop the constant early career brain drain?? A pension was explicitly allowed in the newest RFP. Since DOE encourages benefits to trend together, both LANL and LLNL would be affected eventually. California has lots of Representatives to amend the LLNL operating contract fairly quickly....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
You mean California Representatives like Diane Feinstein and her Chinese staff?
HA HA HA HA HA HA.....keep smoking that bong pal....
Nope, they said everything remains the same.
Everything is the same, with exception of the two lost federal holidays. Now, how long things remain this way once TRIAD takes over is anybody’s guess...
DOE will be hiring staff, training them how to build nuclear weapons, then doing nothing to try to retain them. With the portable retirement benefits (401K)that LANS/UC offered newer staff and now Triad doing the same, there will be a revolving door for young, nuclear-trained staff. Congress needs to step in and fix this lunacy.
As the RFP required, if you bothered to read it.
5:40 PM
The RFP does not require the LANL management contractor to offer a non-portable retirement benefit in order to retain nuclear-trained staff. You seem to be confused.
No one mentioned non-portable benefits, which would be a disaster for hiring, not a boon for retention. Nuclear-trained staff usually start as non-nuclear-trained staff. Benefit requirements are at RFP Part III, Section J, Appendix C, 6.0.
One rumor as to why Bechtel lost is that they planned to gut the pension and benefit system. Apparently they thought that by getting rid of lots of LANL people it would bring a change to the culture. I assume they guessed wrong about what NNSA really wanted. Everybody talked about LANL culture but no one could define it. Management said it was the scientists but perhaps NNSA thought it was the management. In any case we can all agree that keeping UC and dumping Bechtel was a good choice. In fact most would agree that the lab should have never been put up for bid in the first place.
5:49 PM is extremely confused. A defined benefit pension is highly desirable and is a primary factor in retention. Anyone can figure out that TCP1 is far, far more lucrative than any 401K plan provided you work your whole career at the lab.
The WHOLE POINT is that newly hired staff come in to the weapon labs knowing nothing about nuclear weapons. They then get trained on how to design/fabricate nuclear weapons. Because their benefits go with them when they leave, as soon as they get a better offer outside the Labs off they go; portable benefits do nothing to retain the staff. This revolving door proliferates nuclear weapon design knowledge. This is highly undesirable. Jesus.
Because their benefits go with them when they leave, as soon as they get a better offer outside the Labs off they go; portable benefits do nothing to retain the staff. This revolving door proliferates nuclear weapon design knowledge. This is highly undesirable. Jesus.
September 30, 2018 at 6:52 AM
Not confused here at all, just have a loyalty different than yours. You wish to penalize workers for leaving to better their circumstances (otherwise why leave?). My response is, why not make it more attractive to stay than leave, whatever that takes? Making benefits "non-portable" is a turn-off to any employees who might consider entering the Weapons Program (where I worked for over 20 years). Why advertise that "if you choose to join, we will make it really hard for you to leave." Is that a recruiting tool? You are clearly not Lab management material. Maybe somewhere in prison security?
"DOE will be hiring staff, training them how to build nuclear weapons, then doing nothing to try to retain them."
--September 28, 2018 at 9:41 AM
Industry average pay. Industry average portable benefits.
Itinerant nuclear weapon designers for the new gig economy.
What could go wrong there?
I left the labs for private industry. I would argue that it would be very difficult for people to leave after several years.
I found that my work at the lab counted against me in job interviews with private firms. It’s seen (wrongly) as a no work government job. I often was lectured in interviews how private industry was much more demanding and I might not be able to make it. One interview descended into personal attacks and I had to hang up. Another time I was given an offer with a disclaimer of “we’ll see if you can hack it here”. Once I had some private industry employment on my resume and the lab stuff pushed further down, I no longer had this problem. Interviews are normal and I get offers. In summary, it’s not that easy to leave the labs.
Industry average pay. Industry average portable benefits.
Itinerant nuclear weapon designers for the new gig economy.
What could go wrong there?
September 30, 2018 at 10:41 PM
Nothing if NNSA and LANL recognize that (competent) weapon designers are worth their weight in gold, and adjust compensation plans to match that idea. It's not such a hard thing to understand.
5:47 PM is HIGHLY confused. Providing a lucrative, defined-benefit pension like TCP1 in no way penalizes workers for leaving, it rewards them for staying. There's a big difference. Making that benefit non-portable does not turn anyone off, they can choose the less lucrative TCP2. It makes zero sense to run the revolving door for weapon designers that you advocate for.
It always comes down to loyalties, and trust.
With nukes, we need a lobster trap aka social contract they can trust.
Otherwise your workforce is barely better than migratory.
"I left the labs for private industry. I would argue that it would be very difficult for people to leave after several years.
I found that my work at the lab counted against me in job interviews with private firms. It’s seen (wrongly) as a no work government job. I often was lectured in interviews how private industry was much more demanding and I might not be able to make it. One interview descended into personal attacks and I had to hang up. Another time I was given an offer with a disclaimer of “we’ll see if you can hack it here”. Once I had some private industry employment on my resume and the lab stuff pushed further down, I no longer had this problem. Interviews are normal and I get offers. In summary, it’s not that easy to leave the labs.
October 1, 2018 at 9:30 AM"
Sorry not buying your story. Over the years in my division at least 25 percent have left for over jobs in industry, academics, and other labs. Serval have left for Google, Microsoft, Startups, and Wall Street. In fact I never meet a person who intended to leave who did not get a job. I myself have had at least three job offers but in the end decided to stay. Your story also seems very odd, since why would people outside of the lab have some kind of negative opinion of it? I have never heard anyone say their experience at the labs worked against them or have been told this at a job interview. It seems strange that you would be the only one. Since technology jobs are in such demand lab people can easily get jobs in technical fields. In fact the turn over rate at the labs is very high which sort of goes against your narrative right on the spot. You may be a troll of some sort since over the years some poster said the same thing yet when names of people who have left was provided they had no response.
If your are genuine than I think you are being hasty in assuming that your situation is the norm, because clearly it is not. Perhaps there is some other reason on your resume or something with your personally that gets this reaction that you might want to look at. You are free to your opinion but it seems to be very at odds with other peoples experience.
Grammar errors in just the last paragraph of 6:35 AM's post;
If your are (you are)
than (then)
with your personally (personality)
other peoples (other people's)
Perhaps some people outside the lab might have a negative opinion of LANL because LANL has hired people who can't write above the third grade level?
October 2, 2018 at 9:17 AM
Do you actually have a response to points raised? 9:30AM says it is difficult for people to get a job outside of the lab. This does not seem to square with most peoples experience, so the person could be lying or they think their personal experience extends to everyone. Would you care to respond to that?
October 2, 2018 at 9:17 AM
Mr. Grammar Police: Although I have been guilty of same in the past (and don't necessarily regret it), these are clearly typos. Loosen up a little. Ever type faster than your eyes can follow?
OK 3:59. Depending on your job at LANL and the outside job you desire, it CAN sometimes be difficult for a LANL employee to get that job. Often, LANL employees who work in classified areas have weak unclassified publication records. That can negatively influence outside employers, especially colleges and universities. In addition, outside employers may not understand how a background in weapons translates to skills useful to the employer.
In addition, outside employers may not understand how a background in weapons translates to skills useful to the employer.
October 3, 2018 at 10:30 AM
Only if the prospective employee fails to understand enough about the job he is applying for to educate the prospective employer about his transferable skills. If you want the job, it is your responsibility to sell yourself.
Wow, LANL will never change. Sniping over grammar. Arguing over who can and cannot hack it...
What a great group of people.
Post a Comment