This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. “
Scooby, I think your blog purpose statement is valuable. When there are topics relating to Ukraine, ballon’s from foreign countries drifting over the USA, etc., there is interest and usually, reasonably polite comments exchanged. However, it seems as soon as a topic focuses on your actual impact of privatization blog purpose statement above, the discussion quickly becomes polarized, where some commenters would like to table value added Lab changes, while others think the subject is out of our collective lane.
The 2014 article below suggests a “public interest model” for NNSA Labs. It doesn’t explicitly state the for-profit management model is on the way out, but as we know, LANL has been managed by a non-profit contractor since 2018.
https://www.govexec.com/management/2014/05/nuclear-weapons-complex-reform-could-mean-pay-cut-contractors/84475/
Comments
These topics are often discussed on the blog. Many arguments and examples have been given why the for profit model has been very bad for LANL and LLNL. We could go over this again if you like. At least at LANL most/all people feel that things at the labs improved after TRIAD came in. It was no where nearly as good as before LANS but it has improved.
There has been a general decline in the labs but it too simple minded to say it was only the privatization of the labs that did that although it certainly contributed. Other factors (1) rise of high tech jobs that allows for people to have more opportunities. (2) many universities have had high investments in STEM that have allowed for state art labs and very high paying jobs and over the last 22 years number of staff have left for these jobs as they simply cannot be matched by the labs. Before 2000 only a few schools could do this, now you have a lot more universities that can do this. This is on top of places like Google, Microsoft, Facebook where again many staff members have left the lab for. (3) The labs have also fallen behind many of the current science trends where before 2000, the labs where the leading place in the world for a number of areas. (4) from 1999 to 2012 the labs went through a rough patch with WHL, Nanos bad press, and the idea that NW where a thing of the past. This created a bad picture of the place to the outside world and I know for a fact university graduates where told to either stay clear these places and do not plan to stay. This has subsided a bit but it left lasting damage. (5) The pay has not kept up to peer institutes. (6) this is related to all these factors but more and more of the workforce sees this as just a job and quality or work, mission, excellence, and intellectual values are seen as not relevant or even a threat. In other words the labs seem to have lost a lot of intellectual vibrancy. The for-profit model of the lab certainly plays a role in either not recognizing these issues, not caring, or thinking that profit is the only motive, and non of these issues are related to profit.
I was kind of confused on this, but now I get it.
The current LLNS prime contract, could be used as a template to make suggested changes if and where needed.
Why?
To offer organically constructed suggestions to DOE/NNSA when producing the terms of the next LLNL prime contract before they consider new LLNL contractor applicants.
Who:
Current or former UC/LLNL retirees, LLNS employees, SPSE members, while communicating with local representatives, oversight committees, etc.
WHEN? ASAP
Note: Random lab complaints and despair may or may not be warranted, but they certainly do not equate to a plan.
2/27/2023 7:33 PM
That could be said of your comment as well.
For those that may not have been employed at LLNL prior to October 1, 2007, and to those that may not be onboard with employee concerns over mission objectives or workplace benefits going forward, SPSE took steps to maintain “substantially equivalent”
(to UC/LLNL) defined benefits detailed in the link below.
“We want a voice in our future at LLNL!”
http://www.upte.org/spse/Newsletters/Sent200704.pdf
2/27/2023 10:38 AM
Woo Hoo!! No nasty chemicals or fertilizers in those suggestions! Of course, organic always costs more...I go for regular most of the time since the organic always seem wilted and old.
Does SPSE plan to be involved or provide input for the next contract to manage LLNL? Not that this import task should land on their shoulders alone.