Skip to main content

Taxpayers pay for LLNS legal fees!

Image
By scooby


While seeking out Federally funded waste, will DOGE audit DOE/NNSA past and present history of bankrolling contractor legal fees so they can defend against at the taxpayer expense, whistleblowers and other self-serving contractor expenses (2008 “Gray March”)?

Still a relevant concern in 2025:

“You’ve probably heard of the government’s, “War on Whistleblowers… But what you probably didn’t know is that these vendettas against truth-tellers are routinely funded with your tax dollars… the government managed to turn four dollars worth of unauthorized phone calls into a ten million dollar bill for taxpayers.”

“Legal Swindle”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D6JDZvPvV4g&pp=ygUXbGVnYWwgc3dpbmRsZSBsaXZlcm1vcmU%3D

Publish
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
©2025 Blogger - Privacy Policy

Comments

Anonymous said…
Financially rescuing and enabling federal contractors for their unjust decisions at the taxpayers expense? Yes, DOGE should have a serious investigation to include the perspective of those employees impacted.
3/14/2025 8:58 AM
Anonymous said…
Going after the witnesses of harassment over a $4.00 surely shows management’s position. This is a prime example why many hourly employees are represented by a union to stand up to management. This is exactly why the admins need this protection.
3/14/2025 3:54 PM
Anonymous said…
“Going after the witnesses of harassment over a $4.00 surely shows management’s position. This is a prime example why many hourly employees are represented by a union to stand up to management. This is exactly why the admins need this protection.”

I don’t disagree with your points. LLNS is a for-profit LLC. The root cause of its indifference to lab employees in unions or not, hourly or salary, is they know the NNSA will reimburse them for virtually all of their legal expenses. Therefore LLNS has no financial consequence (no downside) for making bad decisions that are self-serving. In practice, despite DOE guidelines to the contrary, the legal expense reimbursements occur with little or no objective review criteria. Unless these very low threshold for NNSA legal expense reimbursements end, expect more of the same unions or not.
3/15/2025 7:32 PM
Anonymous said…
“ I don’t disagree with your points. LLNS is a for-profit LLC”

Actually this occurred under UC a non-profit.

3/16/2025 9:37 AM
Anonymous said…
Neither are perfect, but indifference to employees working at LLNL became significantly worse when we switched from UC/LLNL to LLNS management.
3/16/2025 10:02 AM
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

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more