Skip to main content

Where are LANS managers?

Image
By

 LANS Managers after the Transition to Triad?


It has been years now since the LANS for-profit contractor was removed from LANL. What happened to all the LANS managers popular and not so popular, after Triad took over LANL management? Did they stay more or less in their respective positions, given the boot, blend into the woodwork, or did they become born again Triad managers? 


Comments

Anonymous said…
This might offer some insight as to what may happen to LLNS managers at LLNL when the for-profit LLNS is replaced with a non-profit contractor from the coming LLNL contract change.
6/17/2023 5:30 PM
Anonymous said…

Some LANS managers left and some stayed after Triad came in. A couple of trends, more of the unpopular managers left and more of the popular managers stayed. The other trend is that even of the unpopular who stayed they seemed to change their attitude for the better. This biggest thing that most people noticed is that the approach of the place changed. My guess is that of the managers that left most where part of the Bechtel bidding team, they liked the Bechtel mode the most and their mindsets did the best with Bechtel.

The same could be play out in LLNL but it is hard to say. At LANL it seemed like some managers just got really into the whole "we are for profit Wolf of Wallstreet" attitude. They are essentially say this to the people, in that if something is wrong, well "that is because we for profit now" if something was inefficient " that was because are we are private company", if did not get my bonus it was because of the workers, managers should paid 10 times more than workers because that is how it is in private business. The workers are all replaceable and should be rotated out for cheaper less skilled workforce like a factor because we are for profit now and so on.
6/17/2023 9:57 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more