Hilarious Glassdoor review on Sandia National Laboratories
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Sandia-National-Laboratories-RVW30450680.htm
"Be Aware of Major Drawbacks"
Former Employee - Senior Member of Technical Staff in Albuquerque, NM
Doesn't Recommend
Neutral Outlook
No opinion of CEO
I worked at Sandia National Laboratories full-time for more than 5 years
Pros
9/80 schedule, health benefits, the freedom to move around to other projects or groups within the labs and job security.
Cons
Where to start? The politics, back-stabbing and dog-eat-dog competition is extreme to the point of being counterproductive, stressful and exhausting. Funding changes constantly, making it very difficult to develop and maintain core competency. Lot's of pressure to fit square pegs into round holes for the sake of capitalizing on a prior technology investment. The Good Old Boys network and nepotism are alive and well. The best way to get ahead is to go to the right church and have a degree from UNM. Old fashioned, corporate "management is God" culture. Career advancement in the science/engineering ladder is extremely slow, even compared to other national labs. To advance, you have to go into management. Much more emphasis on bringing in grant/program dollars, no matter the quality, than doing good technical work. Performance reviews emphasize nebulous "leadership" and "behavior" metrics that serve only to make promotion dependent on things other than job performance (like nepotism, friendships or religious affiliation). Lot's of crusty old guys, retired in place, like to keep the new generation down and systematically trash ideas from any fresh faces, in order to squash the competition. Overhead rates on your time/salary are so high, especially as you get more senior, that you will eventually price yourself out of doing any work. This also makes it impractical to compete with more efficient R&D institutions. Loss of mission and focus since outside of the ~30% of nuclear weapons work, the lab doesn't have a compelling advantage over more efficient private companies (e.g. Lockheed, Raytheon, HRL, SAIC, etc.), and Sandia is far too expensive and bureaucratic to compete with universities. Nevertheless, they spend much of their effort trying to compete with both.
Advice to Management
There really is nothing to say. In the 70 year history of Sandia, management has gone from AT&T Bell Labs for $1/year, to Lockheed for millions/year and now to the Honeywell conglomerate, which is widely considered to be one of the worst large employers in the US. Folks in Sandia have a very high opinion of themselves, but it is not shared by the outside world or the DOE / NNSA. They are viewed as an engineering shop, like Honeywell or Bechtel, and the government apparently manages them as such.
35 comments:
" but it is not shared by the outside world or the DOE / NNSA. They are viewed as an engineering shop, like Honeywell or Bechtel, and the government apparently manages them as such."
There is no outside world, in places like Sandia or LANL there is only the internal world. This is way they have their own culture and it is so hard to hire senior people from the outside. They work like no other technical workforce in the United States. They have internalized their own set of rules and culture that are complex, bizarre and strange.
A lot of the points in the review could just as well apply to LLNL. It will take a Sputnik-type breakthrough event from a Chinese or Russian lab for DOE to wake up and realize how things should be prioritized.
-Doug
I thought that was pretty accurate, although I haven’t witnessed the religious stuff.
Knew a bunch of Ph.D’s that left. They were hemorrhaging good people when I was there.
SNL people are regarded poorly in the scientific community, although they do, like the reviewer said, have high opinions of themselves. One of the problems is former SNL people who are now feds and promise them big $$$ contracts. Saw this a lot. Had SNL managers tell me $50 million programs were coming in (because of a connection at the NNSA) that never materialized. Review committees like the Sandians because they kiss ass a lot.
The original post makes a good point about overhead. Sandia cannot compete with universities or the private sector. I’m working on a project in the private sector, funded by the DOE. It is being done for 1/10 the price of what it would cost at Sandia, even though the subject area is in Sandia’s purview. Also, many of the techs and engineers at Sandia are incompetent and passive aggressive. Many contractors I work with tell me stories of Sandia screwing up their equipment and then blaming it on the private contractor. Sandia also expects special pricing from suppliers and puts silly stipulations on their work. At conferences a lot of the Sandians are braggarts: “we can do that! No problem!” When they have no clue about the technology, cost, or schedule.
Sandra likes to suck up. Los Alamos and Livermore lead. If you want government bureaucrats setting the pace and direction of US science, Sandra is your Lab. If not, accept them as the 2nd rate technicians they have always been.
Speaking of Sputnik moments, we’ve had once recently with Russia and China’s introduction of hypersonics. This has been dismissed by the arms control community. Hypersonic missiles give Russian incredible flexibility in delivering conventional and nuclear warheads.
1/12/2020 10:23 AM
Well, I don't believe it's not being worried about. I do believe it's not being worked on. That takes Congress to do its job, instead of whatever nonsense it has been doing recently.
The best comment from the original post was
“Lot's of crusty old guys, retired in place, like to keep the new generation down and systematically trash ideas from any fresh faces, in order to squash the competition.”
I saw this firsthand at SNL. I was told to shut up about a new idea because it would adversely affect my career. I was told I was “calling into question” the intelligence of some 70-year old manager who only wanted to do things his way. I ended up keeping my mouth shut and biding my time before I left.
A lot of the older managers only like to work with their own generation. Some of them try to hire their friends who are well into their 60’s.
Ageism at its best.
Young people have to be careful of baby boomer managers at the labs. They have to remember that many of these people were hired in the boom days of the Cold War (early 1980’s) when standards were lowered to get as many people into the system. Also, all of them got degrees when there was almost no foreign competition at universities, Today’s graduate students compete with people from around the world. Again, the standards today are much higher, As the cognitive ability of the baby boomers decline, I believe they become much more entitled and petty. I’ve had elder-managers complain that they couldn’t just retire and come back to the lab (double dipping). They complain a lot about the cost of their kids education. None of these guys want to be mentors and ride off into the sunset like the generation before them. They’re here to stay until death, like a Supreme Court appointment.
In reading the Glassdoor reviews, it seems Sandia is having a retention problem with new hires. One reviewer even mentions problems with reimbursing the the lab for the relocation fee, which means they quit not long after being hired and had to pay the penalty.
"Again, the standards today are much higher, As the cognitive ability of the baby boomers decline, I believe they become much more entitled and petty“
Standards were much higher back then. Talk to recent graduate at random and see what comes out. Baby boomers should not be insulted. Their cognitive abilities do not decline. You have brilliant engineers, journalists, musicians researchers etc...
You must not be happy with your job but don't take it out on baby boomers!
Again, the standards today are much higher, As the cognitive ability of the baby boomers decline, I believe they become much more entitled and petty“
Boomers have always been petty and entitled. Why is it that the boomers have so much more wealth than Millennials? They have embraced capitalism that has destroyed the environment, use the toys made by millennials, do not embrace equity and and are unwilling to change. The boomers by which I mean people over the age of 35 have an unearned privilege which I will call "boomer privilege." Perhaps they are willing to check their privilege a bit the world will be a better place.
"Standards were much higher back then."
I think this has to do with LLNL, LANL, bubble. If you visit other universities or labs like LBL you will see that there are many people of the younger generation that are as smart, hard working, creative and in some cases brilliant as anyone in the past. The issue is that these people no longer go to work at the labs. One of the easiest things to confirm this is to look at the schools that the new staff and postdocs come from. 25 yeas ago about 35% of the postdocs came from the top 10 schools like Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Princeton and so on, today it is less than 5%. The labs are not seen as places to do creative, cutting edge, or exciting work. They also have a reputation for being anti-science. LANL got a really bad reputation with the outside world after the Nanos fiasco and this also tainted LLNL. Sorry LLNL but what happens at LANL happens at LLNL. Of course there are a few exceptions to this case but it is pretty clear where the trend is going. There is also some data showing the drop in both LLNL and LANL in terms of publications compared to other intuitions where LANL when from the top 25 place in the world just 20 years ago to 150 and LLNL is down to 300 or so. Nature magazine has these statistics. No one at the NNSA cares because science is not the labs mission. Safety, security, and some programatic work is the mission, and much of this programatic work is not science nor exactly cutting edge anymore. Many boomers sound the alarm but you do so at your own risk. The labs are now giant government bureaucracies that dissipate money. This is not a secret most people at the labs know this is the case.
The point is that is makes little sense to compare boomers at the NNSA labs to millennials. You have to compare across a much wider range of institutions and you will find that there are plenty of smart people out there.
There’s a misconception that standards were higher back in the “good old days”. Simply not true. Acceptance rates to good universities have gone way down. As a US citizen it is extremely hard to get into graduate school because of the foreign competition, mainly from China. When I went to grad school (I’m gen X) I had to compete with students from Eastern Europe. Many were 30 years old and already had Ph.D’s. It was not uncommon to only see a couple of US students pass their prelim exams. I think the competition is even more intense today. Also, a scientist today has to be a numerical expert. This was not the case in decades past. There was a lot of hand waving and intuition arguments.
"There’s a misconception that standards were higher back in the “good old days”. Simply not true. Acceptance rates to good universities have gone way down. As a US citizen it is extremely hard to get into graduate school because of the foreign competition, mainly from China. "
This is correct, if you look at the scores, grades and what you need to get into a top 10 graduate school it is much harder than
it was 30 or 40 years ago. So I agree the quality of people from the top places is as good and probably better now than before. Now with that said LLNL and LANL no longer get many people from the top ten places. Heck even the numbers from the top 20 places are down. In the past the labs wanted and needed the best and brightest, we have to take a hard look at the labs today and ask do we really need top people for the current goals of the labs?
Back in the day in academia it was said "don't worry, if you don't get tenure, you can always get a job at a national lab."
And then it was discovered that National Laboratory jobs paid about twice as much as Associate Professor jobs.
"And then it was discovered that National Laboratory jobs paid about twice as much as Associate Professor jobs.
1/18/2020 5:01 PM"
Not even close today, an associate professor in physics or engineering at a top 50 university makes about 135k, add summer salary and you are close to 145-175k. Full professors at a top 50 easily make 150-200k. This not to mention that large amount of consulting and side jobs professors are encouraged to take. At the labs get they will freak out if have consulting job on the side. Only managers are allowed to multiple positions.
Yes back in the day the labs did get some people from some top places that did not get tenure. Today nothing
Who wants to go through the tenure process just to have a stable job by the time they are 45? And your reward is being the only American in a room full of Chinese and Indian professors at faculty meetings. I actually enjoy working with other Americans, instead of being the only American in the room. You can't even find that anymore outside the labs. Even Google is all fresh off the boat.
Moreover, most of academic science is just a big rat race where profs puff up their research, publish the same paper in ten different conferences and journals, then apply for 15 grants just to get one. Who wants that? The top Americans these days say "no thanks" and bypass the whole scam. You'll find them in medicine, law or on Wall Street raking in the bucks.
I prefer working at the labs, but the assertion by all of the wannabe profs that universities are anything more than adjunct farms and sweatshops these days is absurd. The whole grant system is screwed up. I hope you like getting fired after tenure for triggering a student by not incorporating ethno-relativistic-non-binary viewpoints into your math or physics lecture. Yes, that actually is a thing now.
1/19/2020 1:46 AM
But you make it sound so fun!
>I prefer working at the labs, but the assertion by all of the wannabe profs that universities are anything more than adjunct farms and >sweatshops these days is absurd. The whole grant system is screwed up. I hope you like getting fired after tenure for triggering a >student by not incorporating ethno-relativistic-non-binary viewpoints into your math or physics lecture."
There is some truth to what you are saying about academics general but to deny the labs have completely declined in terms of
science and talent is just absurd.
>The top Americans these days say "no thanks" and bypass the whole scam. You'll find them in medicine, law or on Wall Street raking >in the bucks.
Again this is partially true however there are still many Americans going into science and they in general know to stay away from the NNSA labs. The DOE labs such as ORNL, ANL and LBL are still very strong.
You keep saying bright Americans are out there and are not going to the labs because they have other options, but tell me this suppose you are a very bright young American scientist who ends up at a NNSA lab, what is there for you do, you have no creative input, you have little freedom, little excitement, in short there is no place for such person at the modern NNSA lab. It is no longer the place for the best or brightest. Why would even the Chinese want to work in such a place, there is better pay, better opportunities, better job satisfaction to be found elsewhere.
I wil tell you this it is only a matter of time before they get rid of the postdoc programs at LANL and LLNL it makes no sense to have such a thing at the labs. None of the work they do is relevant to programs, the better postdocs all leave for academic jobs and then just badmouth the labs, and they do not even start the proper paper work until they convert. Why not just hire grads directly in to the programs who have no ambition of ever doing science in the first place. It will save lots of money, not to mention that a number of divisions have already started this approach and it is working out just fine at least in terms of checking boxes. The labs even have these fancy titled prestigious postdocs, which sounds great until you realize that 10% of these people stay at the labs, as the rest leave for such top places like Iowa, Tufts, New Mexico Tech and Oregon State, which are apparently way more scientifically vibrant than a NNSA lab.
If you a reasonably technically competent person but not really a go getter or the creative type, and you are not that
Interested in doing cutting edge work than the NNSA labs are just fine. It is fairly low stress, 9-5 or less work, no real crunch time, and nothing really challenging. The pay is very good for what it is. If you work at Google or some other high tech place it is cutthroat, long hours, lots of pressure and a very competitive environment. The same is true of academic positions. Now in the old days the labs where like this but not anymore and if you know this going in you will be fine. There are few exceptions to this case like people who need outside funding like WFO, or the small number of people who live off office of science and LDRD money, but there are few of these and in many cases these are non-US citizens or people getting citizenship which can take some time. These are the hardest jobs in terms of hours, crunch time, and uncertainty
Also if you are going into a pit working conditions then again this could all be a different story, but those workers are in a different category than the traditional lab people, so you would have to compare more to working at places like Hanford, or Pantex so someone who knows better about this comparison should speak up how the labs would compare to these places.
All the same person posting here. Just down on NNSA labs for his own reasons, as he has been for years. He can't get over what he thinks they did to him so will continue posting here as if he actually knows anything except his hatred of NNSA and the labs. He is a very sad, broken person.
"NNSA and the labs. He is a very sad, broken person."
Ok even if that is true could you still try and respond to the points that have been raised? I notice that no one ever provides an argument against these posts other than saying the poster is sad. Point out what is is wrong about the following points.
(1) The lab have been declining in terms of science and state of the art engineering (True or False).
(2) The labs no longer need or want the best and brightest for scientific/technical workforce (True of False)
(3) If you are a bright hard working young person than the labs are not a place for you (True or False).
(4) If you do WFO, Office of Science work, or more basic research the labs are much harder place to be than there 20 years ago.
(True or False).
I will leave at that but because one could make some credible arguments against some of these points, particularly for certain niche cases. I could add more like do you really believe our programatic work is on the same level of excellence it once was? Or is the quality the new staff on the same level as mid career and older staff and so on.
1/20/2020 9:13 PM
Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You need serious help. You have no current knowledge of the labs and are just reiterating your old grievances. It has been years. Are you feeling better? No? Get help.
I find that what 5:14 posted to be very offensive, I’m not the person who you are referring to, by the way. You seem to be criticizing the poster for having a mental illness. You don’t know that and accusing someone of having mental issues to win an argument is low. I hope the moderator cuts this off. Mental Inness is a serious issue and throwing it out there to harm others just increases the stigma of having a mental illness. We need to stop doing this in society.
1/21/2020 7:36 PM
Sure it is offensive but also it does not actually address any of the points raised. If the accused poster really has " no current knowledge of the labs" it should be rather easy to refute the points. The silence is deafening.
That’s right, there doesn’t seem to be any response about from the poster who basically was saying “you’re mentally ill and need help so your statements can be ignored”.
So people agree to ignore them, right? It's not like he's said anything new in 5 or 6 years.
1/21/2020 7:36 PM
No, I think 1/21/2020 5:14 PM was encouraging the disturbed poster to get help, and indicating concern about his/her continued rants against the labs.
I find that what 5:14 posted to be very offensive, I’m not the person who you are referring to, by the way.
1/21/2020 7:36 PM
Well, I suspect you spend a large portion of your life being offended. So sorry for you.
"No, I think 1/21/2020 5:14 PM was encouraging the disturbed poster to get help, and indicating concern about his/her continued rants against the labs."
So somebody points out that the sky is blue and you say that they are mentally ill? So some poster points out some possible issues with the lab and you just say that they are mentally ill?
I think the poster who called the other poster mentally ill is just a troll. I remember a while ago I posted about lab people having trouble getting job offers from industry, as lab work is seen as a cushy non-work government job by many. I think the same guy posted that I had issues and almost his entire division at LANL went to work at google, Facebook, etc. I think that was all fake (I’m still looking for LANL people in Atherton, though). He doesn’t provide any lab info or jargon, so he probably is just some rando dude, not a current or former lab employee.
I came to Sandia in 1986 after having spent about 8 years in industry. At that time Sandia was like heaven for me. Every engineer/scientist was a Member of Technical Staff (MTS); you hired in as an MTS and you retired as an MTS. ATT managed us in the Bell Labs model and there was even some flow between SNL and Bell labs. So many processes were better than those in industry. SNL hired VERY selectively: very carefully when times were good and not at all when times were bad. Team work there was far better than anywhere I had seen in industry and there was a huge sense of mission. There has always been a problem of people who "used to be very good" being given deference, but it was not a huge problem.
DOE was not happy with SNL, LLNL, or LANL management. UC essentially worked for free and ATT was paid a dollar a year, so they did not have a hard time saying NO to bad ideas coming from DOE. (By the way the technical level of DOE was far below that of the AEC.) When DOE forced out ATT and Martin Marietta (later Lockheed-Martin) took over things started their down hill trajectory and it has only gotten worse. Where SNL had had processes very suitable to the organization and its mission, those processes depended on having an extremely capable management team. All those processes were eventually replaced by "best business practice", meaning that they could be done by very mediocre managers. The MTS system was replaced by one with many levels and it took a tremendous amount of concerted advocacy to get a promotion. This caused a lot of envy, toadying, backstabbing, and short term thinking. Eventually, no one wanted to take on a risky multi-year project and risk non-stellar performance reviews in the years before the project was to bear fruit. Team work became much less of the culture. I retired as a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff, so the system did not treat me badly; my bitterness stems from seeing an organization crucial to national defense and that I loved become something merely ordinary.
There are still some pockets of excellence at Sandia and I wish them well. Many of the people in those projects stay because they love the technology, the work, the team, and the mission. But this is not enough for a National Laboratory. A National Laboratory is distinguished from an industrial lab or even a small government laboratory in that it has invested in enough of the right people and managed to keep them together to have a robust community of high expertise in every topic at core to the mission. It should happen that among the most prominent people nationally in those topics will be some who have spent their lives at SNL, LLNL, or LANL. The loss of such high level of expertise is the biggest threat to our national defense posed by practices of the for-profit management teams.
Post a Comment