While debating which companies should or should not manage LLNL for the next contract, shouldn’t current LLNS employees and LLNS and UC/LLNL retirees unite to form a functioning working group to frame out workplace and retirement benefit criteria for our elected officials to review and consider with the NNSA? Or, just let whatever happens happen again?
Friday, April 29, 2022
The next Contractor to manage LLNL
While debating which companies should or should not manage LLNL for the next contract, shouldn’t current LLNS employees and LLNS and UC/LLNL retirees unite to form a functioning working group to frame out workplace and retirement benefit criteria for our elected officials to review and consider with the NNSA? Or, just let whatever happens happen again?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Unfortunately, most LLNS employees would be reluctant to participate in such an endeavor for justifiable fear of negative career blowback.
The LLNS for-profit LLC needs to go. Hopefully, the NNSA will objectively review the LLNS contract as they did the LANS contract in terms of value added for the additional expense, and come to the same very obvious conclusion.
The absence of multiple LLNS employee comments here is very telling...most unfortunate.
The contractor appreciation spectrum goes from all is great, to the Stockholm syndrome. Look outside the box.
Its just a job, nothing changes for the low lever worker bees when the contract changes. Nothing can change, it cold be Bechtel, could be Musk. Who cares, besides very few people are going to ever be working at LLNL long enough to care about retirement benefits. You come for 2-3 years and move on the next job.
"Its just a job, nothing changes for the low lever worker bees when the contract changes. Nothing can change, it cold be Bechtel, could be Musk. Who cares, besides very few people are going to ever be working at LLNL long enough to care about retirement benefits. You come for 2-3 years and move on the next job."
You make some good points, although the pre-2007 UC/LLNL Retirees likely have a different opinion since their collective monthly medical benefits became much more expensive after the transition to LLNS. The ~130 laid off lab employees months after the 2007 transition to LLNS may also have another viewpoint. I guess the question is could something happen of equal magnitude during the next contract to manage LLNL? Is "What’s Past is Prologue" applicable here and worth considering?
I don't know what percentage of lab employees stay "2-3 years and move on", but with eroding benefits and portable 401ks, I assume there has been some increase in revolving door short term lab employees to the detriment of long term NNSA missions.
5/07/2022 6:57 PM
Use to be, national lab employees had a commitment to national security.
“Use to be, national lab employees had a commitment to national security.”
Very true, but that “used to be” “commitment” was previously fortified with long term strategic planning and stable lab employee work benefits, that generally encouraged lab employees to stick around, while short term contractor profits, were deemed counterproductive to national missions.
Use to be, national lab employees had a commitment to national security.
Use to be, national labs had a commitment to national security. Now it seems they are primarily interested in grift and pronouns.
“Use to be, national labs had a commitment to national security. Now it seems they are primarily interested in grift and pronouns.”
I know, let’s continue to keep our lab salaries, and bonuses undisclosed, that should keep employees focused on national security objectives instead of just a focus on lining ones pockets through secret contractor kickbacks. Not.
The absence of multiple LLNS employee comments here is very telling...most unfortunate.
5/06/2022 1:34 PM
That's because no one from LLNS reads this blog anymore?
I think about 20 or 30 people read this blog regularly, and about half that bother to comment, most of whom have no recent experience at either LLNL or LANL, just long-term grievances. Scooby should get a real job.
1. “Russian troops exposed to radiation, Chernobyl experts say | USA TODAY
Three-week old news”
2. “I think about 20 or 30 people read this blog regularly, and about half that bother to comment, most of whom have no recent experience at either LLNL or LANL, just long-term grievances. Scooby should get a real job.”
Scooby, if someone submits a rather neutral link about radiation exposure, it’s untimely. If someone has any critical opinions of LLNS, it can only be old grievances. So, you must be doing something right Scooby, because the LLNS pro-party line street sweepers are out in force. Good job!
Post a Comment