From a young persons prospective employee's perspective, what are the material differences if any, between the former non-profit UC/LLNL management, and the current for-profit LLNS management in terms of career growth, engineering valuation, communication openness, etc.?
Comments
-Doug
I am one of those UC/LLNL old timers. If one is just a prospective employee, arguably they can select a different employer upfront correct?
Or once hired, can leave for greener pastures with their portable 401k, where under the UC pension, this may not have been as appealing.
I would say the UC management system was categorically better for employees working at LLNL, but that is history now.
Besides pensions UC has many other benefits, lots of great science, more connections to the universities, a more intellectual environment, and service to the nation. In the old days LLNL was not just a job but a mission with a higher calling. Now it is just another job, it now has a more business mindset but not a business like Google or Microsoft but more like Walmart.
In any case it is LLC now so this is sort of a pointless discussion.
11/14/2021 12:56 PM
We can thank Pete Domenici for caving to the "security failure" nincompoops, taking their side over his own constituents in voting for corporate takeover of the UC labs.
In any case it is LLC now so this is sort of a pointless discussion"
I'm not sure this is a pointless discussion. LLNS is on an NNSA time table for contract renewal. Maybe the next contract bid to manage LLNL should be awarded to a non-profit. A non-profit could have tax-exempt status that would free up more funds to meet mission objectives, be awarded a smaller annual fee presumably, and perhaps attract an LLC that wants to provide a national service, rather than to capitalize on chum in the water ($$$). It won't be UC/LLNL again, but a positive step in that direction.
I have no leanings either way and I do have a DOE pension.
from 5-15-14
“Nuclear Weapons Complex Reform Could Mean Pay Cut For Contractors”
https://www.govexec.com/management/2014/05/nuclear-weapons-complex-reform-could-mean-pay-cut-contractors/84475/
That’s an interesting bit of information that I wasn’t aware of, but even if UC has maintained formal majority control what good is that if practically speaking virtually all the signs of the old UC management system are gone? The working environment is completely different. The emphasis on high-quality science is gone and is now completely different. The UC retirement system is gone and has been replaced by something completely different. It is hardly still “UC all the same” now. Regardless of who has formal majority control, it is nothing like the old UC system.
-Doug
When the new model came in, UC's portion of the management fee jumped considerably from what it had been before the change. Good luck on trying to get UC to go back to that small fee.
The prestige and perfume of UC managing the labs has vaporized. The employees are no longer part of the UC system in retirement or benefit plans. One should remember that there was a considerable contingent of UC campuses that protested against those nasty labs being run by UC.
Would UC consider a bid for a non-profit model? If the money is good enough, maybe yes. It's the punchline for the old joke "We know what you are, we are now haggling over the price." But a return to the pittance they got before the change, probably not.
Would it be a return to the good old days? No, that ship sailed into an iceberg in 2007.