Anonymously contributed:
Since Tyler the Liar uttered publicly his profane "...substantially equivalent in the aggregate..." and it echoed, un-denounced by those who knew better, the brazen public lie is emerging as an acceptable business practice at LLNL.
Do you now think is an acceptable business practice to deceive to achieve your ends?
Do you think that LLNL leaders deliberately deceive to achieve its ends?
If the people being deceived know they are being deceived, is it acceptable?
Do you believe either the proposed bonus program or the new 200-series classification step structure will be implemented without a direct reduction in compensation --- and --- that compensation and senior management know this and are lying about it?
Do you trust reformed LLNL management?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Global security newswire
Anonymously contributed:
The link: http://llnlthetruth.blogspot.com/
Has a link to this article:
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090824_8927.php
The main thrust of the article is the study of whether the nuclear weapons
complex should be removed from NNSA. But there are two interesting quotes in
the article:
"It is a testament to our weapon designs in the 1970s and '80s that the weapons
are NNSA-proof," said Jeffrey Lewis, who directs the New America Foundation's
Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative. "Given the failures that run
from the management [of] NNSA down to the labs, it's remarkable that our bombs
work at all."
And
Lewis said he does not expect the Nuclear Posture Review to significantly
improve on what he sees as the commission's "anodyne" recommendation. Rather, he
anticipates the nuclear agency and national laboratories would likely remain in
"a death spiral of sorts," hampered by "incompetent" management and "shrinking
budgets."
The link: http://llnlthetruth.blogspot.com/
Has a link to this article:
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090824_8927.php
The main thrust of the article is the study of whether the nuclear weapons
complex should be removed from NNSA. But there are two interesting quotes in
the article:
"It is a testament to our weapon designs in the 1970s and '80s that the weapons
are NNSA-proof," said Jeffrey Lewis, who directs the New America Foundation's
Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative. "Given the failures that run
from the management [of] NNSA down to the labs, it's remarkable that our bombs
work at all."
And
Lewis said he does not expect the Nuclear Posture Review to significantly
improve on what he sees as the commission's "anodyne" recommendation. Rather, he
anticipates the nuclear agency and national laboratories would likely remain in
"a death spiral of sorts," hampered by "incompetent" management and "shrinking
budgets."
Another loss of benefit for TCP2
ANonymously contributed:
For those of you who chose TCP2, are you aware of a change in policy for 2009 in which 401k contributions under the over-50 "catch up" provision are no longer matched up to 6% of your income by LLNS? Depending on you income, this will cost you as much as $5500.
For those of you who chose TCP2, are you aware of a change in policy for 2009 in which 401k contributions under the over-50 "catch up" provision are no longer matched up to 6% of your income by LLNS? Depending on you income, this will cost you as much as $5500.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Return Lump Sum cashout option to TCP-1!
Anonymously contributed:
It is time for Glenn Mara, now head of LLNS/LANS to begin cleaning house.
An open letter to Glenn.
Dear Glenn,
During the transition, one of the silliest reprisals that jealous Congressional staff took at LANL and LLNL was to remove the option of Lump-sum cashout from TCP-1.
There is no reason to continue this and we request that you get this changed.
Having a lump-sum cash-out option is a no-cost benefit to TCP-1 members. It costs NNSA/LLNS nothing, since it is actuarially equivalent to an annuity payout. ERISAs assumptions are very consevative, so no losses would occur. The faster TCP-1 benefits are paid off, the faster the porcine Congress can waste the left-overs stoking their unsatiable egos.
Why lump-sum? Because I would like complete separation from LLNS. While I trust Mara, I trust no one else running LLNS. I want my money outta there before some Bush-era MBA bu*********r figures out how to screw me, through adjusting factors, misinterpretting law or "Madoffing" us with glee.
Please write me a check before you retire and the incompetence resumes.
It is time for Glenn Mara, now head of LLNS/LANS to begin cleaning house.
An open letter to Glenn.
Dear Glenn,
During the transition, one of the silliest reprisals that jealous Congressional staff took at LANL and LLNL was to remove the option of Lump-sum cashout from TCP-1.
There is no reason to continue this and we request that you get this changed.
Having a lump-sum cash-out option is a no-cost benefit to TCP-1 members. It costs NNSA/LLNS nothing, since it is actuarially equivalent to an annuity payout. ERISAs assumptions are very consevative, so no losses would occur. The faster TCP-1 benefits are paid off, the faster the porcine Congress can waste the left-overs stoking their unsatiable egos.
Why lump-sum? Because I would like complete separation from LLNS. While I trust Mara, I trust no one else running LLNS. I want my money outta there before some Bush-era MBA bu*********r figures out how to screw me, through adjusting factors, misinterpretting law or "Madoffing" us with glee.
Please write me a check before you retire and the incompetence resumes.
Are TCP-1 folks being cheated?
Anonymously contributed:
Has anyone else compared their current retirement estimate under LLNS with the retirement benefit calculator at the UC benefits website for exactly the same conditions?
It seems the closer I get to retirement the more these two figures change, with the LLNS going down (for 50% spousal continuance).
Can LLNS change this with time, for instance as ERISA factors change?
Has anyone else compared their current retirement estimate under LLNS with the retirement benefit calculator at the UC benefits website for exactly the same conditions?
It seems the closer I get to retirement the more these two figures change, with the LLNS going down (for 50% spousal continuance).
Can LLNS change this with time, for instance as ERISA factors change?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Inside Obama Administration, a Tug of War Over Nuclear Warheads
Anonymosuly contributed:
"Inside Obama Administration, a Tug of War Over Nuclear Warheads," Tuesday, August 18, 2009, at http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090818_1478.php
"Inside Obama Administration, a Tug of War Over Nuclear Warheads," Tuesday, August 18, 2009, at http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090818_1478.php
Compensation versus bonus
Anonymous wants to know:
So what do you think about bonuses instead of compensation?
So what do you think about bonuses instead of compensation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)