Sick-out poll results

If the poll is any reflection of the Lab population, then about half the people think LLNS/NNSA are doing a super job managing the lab!

% of people who would participate in a 1-day sickout as a way to express their dissatisfaction with LLNS: 52
% of those who would not: 42

Clearly, some folks have given up!

A Quick Observation

Post brought to the top

I only just found this blog and I’ve just spent the last few hours reading it all! I think there’s too much emphasis on the role that the transition directly played in the current problems. The problems were created by years of allowing costs to spiral out of control –that is not pushing back on DOE directives on safety and security. You could argue that this was an indirect result of the transition since there was so many years leading up to it where LLNL/UC was unwilling to put a foot wrong lest it lose the contract.

It could be argued that a government funded lab that is as complicated to run and secure as LLNL just shouldn’t be in California – it’s too expensive here. It would seem somewhat reasonable then to conclude that the current contractor’s job, one that is 7 years in length, is to shut the lab down. The government has decided that regardless of how cheap LLNL is compared to futile efforts like the Iraq war, it can’t afford us anymore. In the end this comes down to a general reduction in the value of science and its long term benefits versus the potential for obvious and short term results. The whole of America is feeling this squeeze from corporations due to spiraling costs and we are certainly not alone. Sometimes it’s hard to separate irritation with what is happening at LLNL with what is happening in the US as a whole.

For many support positions at the lab, their salary is way above that which they would obtain for an equivalent position in the private sector. Why would these people have ever taken the VVSOP? This growth of overpaid support over the last 20 years is really what has caused costs to spiral.

We are now at a point of diminishing returns. We (scientists who write proposals for funding) are finding it next to impossible to obtain funds because of our high cost. No-one will pay what we cost. Therefore funds continue to reduce and costs continue to rise.

Added to this, the incredible waste of management. Everytime you hear the word “reorg”, millions of dollars just got wasted doing something that adds no value! This vicious cost versus fund cycle is a death spiral for the lab. Biosecurity has about 12 months to extinction at LLNL. Chemistry and basic physics, maybe 2 years. DNT and comp can survive longer but NIF failure will close the lab.

In the process, every decision the lab management makes lowers the standard of the workforce and makes the above scenario even more likely. “Substantially equivalent in the aggregate!” It’s very sad. In the end this is not about persecution as I think everyone has a responsibility for their own career and relative job security. In the end, the reason that talented scientists won’t come to the lab is nothing to do with job security, it’s because of the observable loss of quality science and wasteful management occurring around them. This is about the loss of values, integrity, and scientific discovery that is occurring as LLNL (and in the nation as a whole) as it is slowly taken down.

April 6, 2008 5:35 PM

Misinformation, a strategic tactic to influence an outcome

In this case the game was played very well. Whats this say about the information you were given before you made your choice during the transition? Please pass this URL and ask all 7000+ employees to vote. You have 24 days left.

What groups would you target?

Anonymously contributed:


Try to be positive. Firing the right people might actually be good for the Lab. If you could lay off whomever you wanted to, what groups would you target? OK, ULM is a given. Who is next?

Finally, Something Good For The Nation

LLNL teams with Quantum Fuel Systems to accelerate high-pressure storage technologies for hydrogen vehicles Vern Switzer and Tim Ross check the pressure on the inner vessel that holds hydrogen of any temperature.

The Laboratory is working with Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies on a next-generation manufacturing technique for hydrogen storage vessels.As part of a $5.6 million three-year contract with the U.S. Department of Energy, Livermore researchers will demonstrate a unique high-speed composite processing technique.

LLNL participates in DOEs National Hydrogen Storage Project, which focuses on developing material-based options that can operate at more practical temperatures and pressures and meet the stringent targets required for the commercialization of hydrogen vehicles across all platforms.

Hydrogen pressure vessels are typically made by winding carbon fiber wetted in adhesive around a liner made of either plastic or metal. This wet winding technique is slow because the winding speed is limited by diffusion processes that control the adhesion of subsequent layers of fiber. Slow winding increases the cost of the pressure vessels because it requires continuous operation of a dedicated, expensive machine. Oven curing of the finished vessel is often required.

LLNL has developed a dry tape winding process that considerably reduces the time required for pressure vessel winding (15 minutes vs. three hours for wet winding), and does not require oven curing. This minimizes the cost of pressure vessel manufacturing, said Salvador Aceves, leader of LLNLs Energy Conversion and Storage Group.

This technique can be applied to any kind of pressure vessel, including those used in the aircraft industry, said Andrew Weisberg, a composite materials engineer at LLNL.

Quantum, which specializes in hydrogen storage systems, also has partnered with the Boeing Company to leverage advances in precision composite material processing technologies in the aerospace sector.

The project will develop and demonstrate an innovative hybrid process, which integrates the most optimal features of high precision aerospace and high speed commercial manufacturing techniques.

UC transfers UCRP assets to LLNS pension plan

In NewsOnline today:

On Tuesday (April 1), the University of California transferred assets valued at more than $1.6 billion (valued as of Sept. 30, 2007) from the University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) to the LLNS Defined Benefit Pension Plan. The transferred assets cover just more than $1 billion of associated liabilities. These are the pension assets and liabilities for the benefits of LLNL employees who chose TCP1.

With this transfer, the LLNS plan will be the best funded pension plan in the DOE Complex with a funded ratio of 166 percent. “We do not expect to need to make plan contributions for a number of years, and with reasonable investment returns, contributions may not be required for decades,” said Paul Rosenketter, chairman of the LLNS Benefit & Investment Committee. “The LLNS Benefits and Investment Committee has selected a number of highly regarded managers to invest these assets in a diverse set of equity and fixed income investment vehicles to cover future pension benefit payments.”

The UCRP pension assets and liabilities for retirees and for LLNL employees who chose TCP2 remain with UCRP. Those pension benefit payments will be paid directly by UCRP.

The DOE/NNSA contract required that the LLNL segment assets remaining with UCRP be sufficient to cover 100 percent of the associated liabilities for the retained benefits (as of Sept. 30, 2007). In addition, DOE/NNSA is required to reimburse UC for contributions made on behalf of the LLNL segment of UCRP when then segment liabilities exceed assets.

Because of the negative performance of the various financial markets since the start of the LLNS contract, UC and DOE/NNSA recognized that contributions for the LLNL segment of UCRP will be required next year. As a result of the anticipated contributions, DOE/NNSA determined UC should hold back additional assets of $140 million as a “Contribution Reserve Amount” to pay the anticipated UCRP contributions. This amount would be sufficient to cover payments for approximately three years. If the $140 million were not held back, DOE/NNSA would have required LLNS to make the UCRP contributions from the Laboratory’s operating funds, which would have severely impacted Lab programs and required even deeper reductions in Lab staffing.

Regardless of whether pension benefits will be paid by the LLNS plan or UCRP, Frank Russo, principal associate director of Operations and Business, reminded employees that both plans are “safe, secure and well funded.” DOE/NNSA is contractually obligated to make contributions to UCRP for any future funding shortfalls in the LLNL segment and, by federal law and contract, must continue to ensure the financial integrity of the LLNS plan.

Ed Moses Speech Delayed

Please post anon:

It looks like the stress of having to do those dirty deeds may in fact be getting to our leader. His presentation was delayed until tomorrow. If anyone gets the facts from this enlightening talk please be sure to post the FACTS here, soon after the presentation.

Now we wait for George Miller to step up to the plate with FACTS and see how things are viewed from the top down. Just maybe they'll give us _real numbers / body count_, which_classifications_are these unlucky ones coming from, and the exact_departure dates_for those selected individuals. At least tell us what month of what year this will be over. If we're going to do this again next year, FY-09, than at least tell us now so we can prepared ourselves accordingly. We need _cold hard honest facts_ with no ability to read between the lines, but it must be the truth.