Skip to main content

Question For Former LANS Employees

Image
By scooby

 Question For Former LANS Employees as LLNS Approaches a Possible LLNL Contractor Change in 2026


In the last year or two before LANS was replaced with Triad, were there any above baseline, or questionable promotions, pay raises, bonuses, or shuffling of “key” LANS employees? If yes, what did NNSA HQ or the NNSA Los Alamos Field Office do or not do about it?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hey buddy, calm down. LLNL is nukes for profit. They can shuffle and promote all they want. That's called capitalism, my friend. Don't be a commie!
7/20/2024 10:13 PM
Anonymous said…
Hey buddy, calm down. LLNL is nukes for profit. They can shuffle and promote all they want. That's called capitalism, my friend. Don't be a commie!

That’s a good one, equating LLNS with a true competitive free market capitalist system at work, with a ~20 year + no contract competition contract :). Ha ha. The National Labs role is one of national mission based directives, not of one federal contractor’s financial gain. Workers count.
7/21/2024 3:36 PM
Anonymous said…
“Don't be a commie!”

Is this comment not a blog violation Scooby? Why did you allow this to be posted, or was it just a simple miss? Thanks.
7/22/2024 7:28 PM
Scooby said…
This borders on being "name-calling" but its tone is not derogatory. If this is to leads to a dispute, I will shut the comments off on this post.
7/23/2024 7:17 AM
Anonymous said…
3:36 -- in some ways don't the communist countries of China and Vietnam have more "true competitive free market capitalism" than we do at this point?
7/23/2024 4:18 PM
Anonymous said…
to 7/23/2024 4:18 PM

As the original poster, I am interested in replies specific to questions raised in the original post, which may benefit both LLNL missions after the LLNS contract end in 2026, and current employees still working at LLNL under a new contractor after 2026. Thanks.
7/24/2024 4:05 AM
Anonymous said…
What is this question about? The Bible tells us not to covet in the 10 commandments. But did unqualified people in particular receive promotions that involved greater responsibility in mission critical areas, or were people moved into areas where they had less to contribute, and why was this done?

Or is the question related to something else that might have happened?
7/26/2024 6:57 PM
Anonymous said…
To the OP, yes, many. Of course most of the old boys were already onboarded by LANS. Some jumped ship, some stayed. Replacements were selected without regard to experience or qualifications. Many of both categories still remain. What did you expect from such a contractor?
7/28/2024 2:49 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