Predictably, we are seeing two distinct camps form up around this latest incident.
The Pogo folks see it as yet more evidence that LANL's management team is not up to the job of running the lab:
The Washington, D.C.-based Project on Government Oversight has criticized the lab’s security record for years.
“LANL has been fined, lab officials have been fired, and the lab was even closed for a number of months so that it could get its act together,” the project’s senior investigator, Peter Stockton, said in a news release. “It’s clear that it just can’t.”
“LANL has been fined, lab officials have been fired, and the lab was even closed for a number of months so that it could get its act together,” the project’s senior investigator, Peter Stockton, said in a news release. “It’s clear that it just can’t.”
LANL, of course, is trying to downplay the event:
Lab spokesman Kevin Roark said POGO’s characterization of the event was misleading at best.
“We did have a lab employee who made a mistake and inadvertently allowed sensitive information to get on our yellow network, which is password protected,” Roark said. “It’s for lab employees only. It is not accessible to the outside world. However, sensitive information should not reside on the yellow network.”
Here on the blog we are seeing both factions represented. Apologists for the fact that the event occurred have pointed out that“We did have a lab employee who made a mistake and inadvertently allowed sensitive information to get on our yellow network, which is password protected,” Roark said. “It’s for lab employees only. It is not accessible to the outside world. However, sensitive information should not reside on the yellow network.”
- Other DOE sites do it too (and Livermore does it 'more'),
- LANL's security regulations are so byzantine that nobody can follow them, and
- LANL's secure computing infrastructure is a shambles.
Not to worry. Uncle Boddy will label *this* incident "human error" just like he did for LANS' little oopsie just a month or so ago. Then Mikey and his boys will sweep it all under the table again. And then we will resume our trip down the path to becoming the nation's new plutonium pit production facility.
which refers of course to the other most recent classified email security incident, performed by a consultant to the LANS board.
The latest rumors that this latest classified email oopsie was either an expose of the W76, or contained a critique of LLNL's Tantalum-bearing RRW design are interesting, but unsubstantiated.
Myself, I suspect that a version of the 'Uncle Boddy Pardon' will be the sole outcome of this event, just as it was with the previous one. I am admittedly cynical to the core when it comes to DOE, NNSA, Bechtel, UC, and LANS, and what I am convinced is their collective intent to turn LANL into a production pit fab facility at the expense of all else.
--Gussie
78 comments:
If Lab Public Affairs were commissioned to spin the crucifiction this is how it would have been done:
Press Release:
Today there was a hammering incident. It was a signficant event, but under no circumstances should the public be alarmed. All nails have been accounted for, and the risk to the general public of accidentally stepping on one is minimal. Ceasar's spokesperson, Kevin Roark, said "the Emperor regrets the loss of nails in the past and takes very seriously his responibility ensure the safety of all who inhabiting his domain. It is now required that nails be under dual control and fully accounted for both before and after each and every event."
end of press release
This news story points out that LANS tried (unsuccessfully) to downgrade the incident:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Nuke_weapons_lab_reports_another_major_0807.html
However, POGO also noted that the lab had attempted to change the classification of the security breach in order to minimize it.
"In an attempt to minimize the problem, the breach was downgraded to a less severe category of IMI-4," the group stated. "After another review, however, it was elevated back to IMI-1."
A so-called 'IMI-1,' or Impact Measurement Index-1 incident can include loss or theft of a nuclear device, components or weapon data; intrusions, hackings, or break-ins into Energy Department computer systems containing secret information; or acts or attempts of terrorist actions.
In spite of the high rating of the breach, a LANL spokesman who talked to the Santa Fe New Mexican attempted to further downplay the incident.
“We did have a lab employee who made a mistake and inadvertently allowed sensitive information to get on our yellow network, which is password protected,” Kevin Roark told the paper's Andy Lenderman. "It’s for lab employees only. It is not accessible to the outside world. However, sensitive information should not reside on the yellow network."
Gus, as I recall the prior email incident was caused by a consultant to the LANS Board, and not an actual Board member(?)
I stand corrected, 3:53, as does my post.
Thanks,
--Gussie
Gussie, you clever devil. You used the terms LANL, W76, LLNL, Tantalum, and RRW all in the same document. Do you suppose that makes your post classified?
I don't know, 4:36. I'll get an ADC on it right away. In the meantime, could somebody please notify the NNSA and Pogo? Oh, and Kevin. Somebody needs to give Kevin Roark a heads up so that he can start his downplay campaign.
Thanks,
--Gussie
We hear rumor at LLNL that DOE and NNSA are sick of these security infractions and for that reason are going to close down LANL or at least severly downsize the complex and people are going to be fired at all levels. Any truth to this?
6:26pm:
Nah, we hear that Bodman & D'Agostino were totally reassured by Roark's whitewash of the purported event, and that bonuses will be handed out all around the table at the next meeting of the LANS Board of Directors.
That's right, 6:40. I mean, here we all were sitting around at HQ, thinking like "Dude! LANL like, did it again. Whoa, gotta shut the place like, you know, down."
Then Kev gave us this awesome rap about how we should just, like, you know, chill, dude. So then I was like, you know, thinking "Dude, way cool! Awesome! Shutdowns are, like, you know, such a total bummer."
LANL Dudes, Yo. Kev said it was, like, all this big misunderstanding, so chill, dudes.
Sam Bodman,
Secy
I dub this blog dead...The Real Story you are not.
7:55 said: "I dub this blog dead...The Real Story you are not."
No, it's not The Real Story, but it's not bad, either. It certainly doesn't seem to be showing any signs of imminent death.
The present corporate environment of LANL is worlds apart from the UC-run LANL (using that "run" word in the loosest of terms) that existed when LTRS was started. All in all, I think Pinky and his sidekick aren't doing too shabby a job running The Rest Of The Story.
--Doug Roberts
LANL, Retired
'Sides, it's not meant to be the 'Real' story. Doug Robert's already had claim on that. It's the 'rest' of the story. You know, the part that the spinmeisters and talking heads aren't talking about.
Are we being threatened, Brain?
Pinky
Thanks Doug and 8:17!
Not to surprise, or even wake up, all you LANL bashers, but POGO doesn't know everything. Incidents initially reported (conservatively) as IMI-1 are often downgraded to IMI-4 depending on the circumstances later discovered, for example the expent of the "contamination." Under DOE rules, this can occur if the extent is isolated within the LANL computer firewall and computers "sanitized" within 8 hours. If that were indicated after some investigation, and then later a contaminated computer outside the firewall were found, I can easily see how the changes in reporting occurred.
It is understandable how the DC (and Santa Fe) crowd want to blow this up, but it is sad to see apparently knowledgeable (or should be) actual LANL people buy into the hysteria.
8:32 Dude:
I've got a wake up call for you, too. Some of us "LANL Bashers" have put in 20 or 30 years at the lab. We turned against LANL, at about the same time, or perhaps shortly before the corporatization process began. Starting with Nanos, to be precise.
Every change that hat has occurred at LANL from the Nanos era on has had nothing but negative impact. Awarding the contract to LANS was the beginning of the end for LANL, and the beginning of enlightenment for many of the rest of us regarding the true nature and intent of our new corporate masters.
You bet I'm a LANL basher. I despise what the place has become.
"You bet I'm a LANL basher. I despise what the place has become."
I'm glad we are clear on that. Perhaps, for your own health, you should move on.....
Perhaps for the country's health, you should not compromise classified information...
Oh don't you worry about me or my health, 9:09. I did move on: voted with my feet. That doesn't mean that I like or support what the new corporate contractor is doing to LANL, with DOE's full support, we observe.
Unfortunately for you, an apparent blind supporter of LANS (which naturally means that you are a supporter of Bechtel, UC, BWXT, and the Washington Group) my colleagues and I will continue to voice our informed dissent about the unhealthy changes that we see your corporate master imposing upon LANL.
I never was a big fan of corruption and incompetence, and since LANS took over, there has been a whole lot more to hate about LANL.
This does not seem to be an unusually important failure of security. In the context, however, of everyone concentrating on security and safety
with, as a consequence, so little productivity it seems like a death knell. Good luck on getting anything done that is associated with classified.
I'm entertained by the frequent references to Nanos as if he was the cause of the problem. His acts, we now see, were the consequences of the problem.
8:45 pm:
"You bet I'm a LANL basher. I despise what the place has become."
Yeah, I totally agree with 9:09 pm, you should reconsider your situation. After "20 or 30 years" at a place, you find that you "despise" it, but you stick around?? Are you taking it out nightly on your family (a time honored Los Alamos tradition)? Or are you just not particularly good at your job, and can't find one elsewhere? I absolutely cannot imagine how anyone could get up and go to work every day to a place he/she "despised." I pity you. Please get help, before you go "postal." The first step is to recognize that the job won't change, but you can change your job. I got out, you can too.
We disagree, 9:26. Most people with whom I discuss this topic believe that Nanos was brought in as the initial part of DOE's plan to put the LANL contract up for bid for a corporate contractor to win.
You have obviously forgotten about, or were never aware of the Naval Admiral connection: NNSA Admiral Brooks --> UC Admiral Foley --> LANL Admiral Nanos.
The scenario goes something like this: DOE was fed up with LANL, the fat pensions of the UC retirement program, the growing WFO component of LANL's budget, and the resultant growing lack of responsiveness of LANL to DOE work requests. So DOE told NNSA to fix the problem. Brooks told Foley to fire Brown and hire Nanos. UC did so, without conducting a national search for a new LANL director.
The rest is history.
Oh don't you worry about me or my health, 9:09. I did move on: voted with my feet. That doesn't mean that I like or support what the new corporate contractor is doing to LANL, with DOE's full support, we observe.
Unfortunately for you, an apparent blind supporter of LANS (which naturally means that you are a supporter of Bechtel, UC, BWXT, and the Washington Group) my colleagues and I will continue to voice our informed dissent about the unhealthy changes that we see your corporate master imposing upon LANL.
I never was a big fan of corruption and incompetence, and since LANS took over, there has been a whole lot more to hate about LANL.
"Good luck on getting anything done that is associated with classified." - 9:26 PM
Classified work? Good luck getting any unclassified work done at LANL in the near future. New cyber-security regulations coming down from DOE are going to be a huge shock to everyone. Some saner minds at the labs tried to stop the nonsense, but no chance. DOE is going to have their way and to hell with the consequences it will have on any productive unclassified work.
I'm curious what POGO's agenda is. This story sounds like a non- issue.
POGO would be interested to know that today a poison gas was released from a radioactively controlled area!! No attempt was made to contain this leak!! The entire state of NM is at risk!! Oh my God, we are all going to die!! Not only was this gas not adequately characterized, it may contain nerve agents, nuclear weapons design information, and plutonium!! LANL did not report this release!! NMED is investigating!!
Or maybe I just farted.
Which would be worse?
Am I the only one who identifies the Mansfield amendment of 1973 as he death of the lab. It limited defense research to direct military application. The consequences to LASL were dramatic - research was linked to development of a defense related product. The lab, unfortunately, was permitted to make the judgment whether the research supported the development program. Since there was lots of cash for development it always happened. It explains the multiple idiocies of molecular laser isotope separation, CO2 laser fusion, the neutral particle beam, MTI and other wasteful affairs
Everyone in RC-1 was begging for a fresh breath of VX.
9:47pm: Care to elaborate on these theoretical new cyber regulations from DOE?
No problem, 9:47, do absolutely nothing and see if anyone notices.
"Other DOE sites do it too (and Livermore does it 'more'),
LANL's security regulations are so byzantine that nobody can follow them, "
why does no one in the media ever list the security & safety breaches at other-than-LANL nat'l labs?
& where can i find that data? - i'd love to post a graph of it.
LANL's rules in general are so much more than byzantine--they are self-contradictory in the extreme. i describe the situation to my real-world friends as such: lanl says, "you are absolutely required to perform function X, and at the same time, you are absolutely forbidden to perform function X." ( so you are f***ed no matter what you do or how much you want to comply.)
it reminds me of a childhood game with rules that stated "yes means no, and no means yes. do you want me to hit you in the face now?"
what do you say? you get hit either way.
ok i am the naive poster in this morass of doomsayers, and i have been lambasted previously for being so, but f*** that: if anyone can come up with a suggestion for action for positive change i will follow up on it.
w
The inability of POGO to get even simple things right, and without great exageration/misrepresentation of the relevant facts, was well demonstrated in their comments on the simple late-night strip-joint parking lot beating a while back. (Conspiracy to intimidate whistleblowers, for those not familiar.)
Have considered spending the time to find out who funds not-for-profit POGO. Do any of you know?
11:01 PM
Probably something simple like having to change all of your passwords (computer and network) every 24 hours, and each new password will have to be 16 letters long with none the same as your previous password, plus 4 special characters ($*&@), 8 numbers in alternating sequences, random upper/low case letters, and it has to begin and end in a vowel...
Also you will have to commit it to memory and can not write it down.
Or they may just put a special program on your PC that generates a random password that you have to guess in order to access you computer each day, and which alerts the FBI if you fail to get it right in three tries.
To w,
Here is the beginning of a suggestion that you might want to act on.
1. Figure out what jobs, minus the contradictory rules, you want to do.
2. Find a few friends or colleagues who want to do related things.
3. Find a source of funding for your work, federal or non federal.
4. Make the funding source portable so that it follows you not your organization.
5. Work on this project.
6. Leave the Lab when appropriate.
7. Stay in Los Alamos or leave as appropriate.
8. Start to enjoy life again.
Some of these steps, e.g. 3 and 4, may be hard. All are possible.
Good luck.
Anyone able to pull up this entire article from Aug 6 in the Abq Journal Online Business and Business Outlook section?
It does not appear on the LANL homepage.
"LANL Reducing Contract Workers
Los Alamos National Laboratory employs 323 fewer contract workers now than a year ago, largely because of belt-tightening, lab director Michael Anastasio says. (Monday, August 6, 2007)"
http://www.abqjournal.com/cgi-bin/decision.pl?attempted=www.abqjournal.com
/biz/584132business08-06-07.htm
OK folks, DOE Order 471.4 says this about classified emails on the yellow:
An IMI-4 (lowest level) is this:
13. Classified information sent by e-mail that is contained within the firewall. All parties involved are cleared to the level of information transmitted, and the affected systems are identified, taken offline, and appropriately stored in approved areas pending sanitization. If more than 8 hours are required to isolate the affected systems, then such incidents will be handled as suspected compromises in accordance with their classification levels and categories.
An IMI-1 (highest level) is this:
2. Confirmed or suspected loss, theft, diversion, or unauthorized disclosure of weapon data.
So an incident involving weapons data could easily flip flop between IMI-1 and IMI-4 based on evolving information about where it went and how long it took to clean up.
And this would be different how?
8:32PM must be Kevin Roark, if not his "altering" ego.
Denial, denial, denial and then, more denial
10:31PM just doesn't get it. KB is curious about POGO's agenda? Go the dictionary and look up the word "accountability." Ever heard of that?
Is 6:51AM suggesting we take out a hit on POGO? Why not give them a call. Tell them you have info on another security breach. Tell them to meet you at a strip joint. You've probably done this before 6:51AM, so you know the routine, don't you? Of course you do. We all know the name of the game around these parts is shoot the messenger. After all, we are the best and brightest now, aren't we? And so we have to do what we have to to. End of story.
I think POGO's credibility is pretty thin by now. They have cried wolf over and over again and nothing happens or it turns out it was nothing. Lets face almost everything they have listed about LANL was a non-event. We have discussed this before at great lengths.
The only reason this is brought up is because the news media is lazy. They will not take the time to really reseach the statistics on LANL or the other DOE labs. POGO is also very lazy in this
regard as well. Are statistics and facts
so hard to find or work on?
Also the LANL bashing posts sound like that loser Mechels.
The 9:17 post is very dishonest and
deceptive. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Outfits like POGO can be very useful to Congressmen with agendas like Dingell and Stupak. It doesn't matter that POGO sometimes get their facts wrong. They are a tool which can be effectively used by certain politicians to cause LANL much grief.
"It doesn't matter that POGO sometimes get their facts wrong."
Well, then: LANL Public Affairs has merely been following the Pogo model of accuracy in reporting.
7:34 AM
Isn't DOE O 471.4 itself an OUO document? I don't believe its content are available to the public...
QUESTION-OF-THE-DAY:
Just curious, but how bad would things have to get at LANL before large segments of the technical staff decided to flee the place? What would it take for those who are left to finally call it quits? I'm not trying to be facetious with this question. I'm just curious.
What event or events would finally make the unhappy residents of LANL take the big step of walking out the front door? Anyone have examples of the necessary "tipping points" that would cause them to make this decision? Would 2% raises over the next 5 years along with 10% contributions to TCP1 and big increases in medical coverage do it?
Would more fear and intimidation through new policy changes do it?
As a staff member at LANL, what is your personal "tipping point"?
11:37 asks, As a staff member at LANL, what is your personal "tipping point"?
Mine turned out to be a 7-month long unnecessary shutdown of the entire laboratory, followed by clear signals from the contractor, UC, that they had absolutely no intentions of fixing the problems which had led up to that inexcusable event.
Doug Roberts
LANL, Retired
To QUESTION-OF-THE-DAY,
Even if the paychecks stopped and the lab shut down that wouldn't be enough for some people. They would keep going to work every day until the gates are locked.
Chill.
Too much bile in this post. Life at home is not perfect, the kids aren't perfect, the dog isn't perfect and the handsome guy that I look at in the mirror each morning before I put on my bifocals isn't perfect.
When it is good, it is a career. When it is bad, it is a job.
Either way, the until the paycheck stops we keep rolling along, trying to do our best, and sometimes failing....
to Question-of-the-Day:
I'm not a TSM, but I've worked here for three years. I used to think working here, especially being a TSM, would be a nice job to land. Now, with the end of my employment term fast approaching, I no longer want to work here. I'm considering one more short (6 month) stint because of the people I'd work with and for a personal reason, but if those weren't overwhelming points, I wouldn't return. The low morale, the overwhelming regulations, and the fact that this is a company town makes it very hard to live and work here.
It's unfortunate that the Lab is driving off any potential new workforce, and destroying its possibilities for recovering any of its former renown of being a first-class scientific institution.
11:37am said: Just curious, but how bad would things have to get at LANL before large segments of the technical staff decided to flee the place? What would it take for those who are left to finally call it quits?
I've wondered this as well. My own tolerance level is pretty low: just about two years ago, I saw the LANS trainwreck coming over the horizon and got out of its way.
But a number of friends and colleagues are still sticking it out, and I think about them as I follow this ongoing imbroglio. I guess the combination of career and family inertia is just difficult to overcome. Courage, all.
"Have considered spending the time to find out who funds not-for-profit POGO. Do any of you know?
8/8/07 6:51 AM"
this is from their website (i called and asked who the individual donors, who fund 25% were, but of course he couldn't say):
"POGO's organizational funding comes primarily from foundation grants and individuals. To protect the organization's credibility, POGO does not accept contributions from the government, labor unions, corporations, or anyone with a financial stake in our investigations.
POGO’s Foundation Contributors Include:
Anonymous - 2
Arca Foundation
Francis Beidler Charitable Trust
Herb Block Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Cavallo Foundation
Colombe Foundation
Compton Foundation
Deer Creek Foundation
Educational Foundation of America
The Fertel Family Foundation
The Ford Foundation
Fund for Constitutional Government
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund
Robert and Ardis James Foundation
Janelia Foundation
Joyce Foundation
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
MTA Fund
New-Land Foundation
New York Community Trust - Everett Internship Program
Omidyar Foundation
Park Foundation
The Ploughshares Fund
Rockefeller Family Fund
Alida Rockefeller Messinger
Rockefeller Family Member
Scherman Foundation
Sunlight Foundation"
ring any conspiracy bells?
personally i don't trust what pogo says and i don't trust what lanl/lans says. it's a lose-lose situation.
w
I suppose that this hostility to POGO is not surprising. LANL is an organization which uses secrecy for its own purposes, being funded by programs that could not stand the light of day. Many of these programs could not stand peer revue.
Who can blame the rest of the world for poking at the lab when it can't handle its own secrecy.
7:39pm
Maybe you should lay off the bottle.
Yeah, but Pogo is so hard up to find a conspiracy theory that farting sideways in a classified area is a momentus event.
They would be respected if they focused on isses.
Yeah, but Pogo is so hard up to find a conspiracy theory that MISHANDLING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION is a momentus (sic) event.
Fixed that for you.
if this thing never left the yellow network....how did POGO find out about it?
My personal tipping point, though I did not realize it at the time, came with the creation of the NNSA. (It is becoming more and more clear that NNSA has no desire to see science at "its" labs.) At some point, it became clear to me what was happening and I headed out as soon as I could. Certainly, the Nanos shutdown has made it clear that I made the right call.
People keep expecting some sort of mass exodus. That's not how it happens. It's a slow process of erosion, starting with people who are literally irreplacable, and working down from there. There's no question that that's happening at LANL. But you have to look at a 7 year trend, not a 7 week trend, and those are hard to spot (and easy to explain away).
It's very sad. Pre-NNSA, LANL was a unique resource, and it is still respected around the world for its contributions to science. It is sad to see the US Gov't destroying an irreplaceable resource. But they've done it before -- think of the Moon program -- and they'll do it again. Science has no constituency in the US.
I still can't believe that Domenici thought the NNSA would improve science at LANL. He should have retired in the 90s.
8/8/07 11:34 AM
The document has no markings.
It may only mean that as long as POGO gets its name in the news now and then, those in the foundations who provide money from rich dead folks' trust funds to possibly worthy causes will continue doing so for POGO. Of course, that doesn't mean that POGO makes much effort to get its facts correct or otherwise does anything useful.
I would venture that, outside of Los Alamos county one would be hard pressed to find someone who would side with LANL over POGO. There are, of course plenty of POGO supporters in Los Alamos but they probably remain anonymous. Sound familiar?
FY 2008 Tipping Point: 1.25% Raise Pot paid out to only the top 10% employees.
"FY 2008 Tipping Point: 1.25% Raise Pot paid out to only the top 10% employees"
Done! (Mikey)
Seriously, does anyone know what the raise pool is going to be this year?
Negative raises are a real possibility. Remember, with a potential $400M FY'08 budget shortfall, LANS could be looking to RIF as many as 1,400 people.
With the private hedge funds all imploding and billions being lost in the last few days, doesn't it make you wonder how much, if any, of TCP1's assets were handed over to these guys. How about UCRP assets? Did Gerald Parsky dole out control of any pension assets to his hedge fund buddies? Today's news is reporting that the California State Teachers' Retirement System, one of the largest pension funds in the nation, gave Blackstone a whopping $1 billion to invest. Whoops!
Poster 8:48 PM,
We'll probably end up RIF'ing around 1,000 employees sometime during the late Spring. I wouldn't be worrying about an itty-bitty raise this year. You've got much bigger things to worry about. Things like losing your job and then having your expensive new home foreclosed upon by the bank. Little things like that.
My tipping point? Any reduction in the TCP1 future payouts or scrapping of retiree medical coverage. These are probably two of the main reasons that a majority of the employees are sticking around this dismal place. That, and the good salaries, of course, but the salaries are quickly heading downward due to our minuscule raises and rampant inflation. Taking 15% out of my paycheck for TCP1 also might make me consider bailing out.
Hmmm, I wonder what Mikey's personal tipping point might be? No 20% salary bonus? A reduction in his luxury car allowance? Or perhaps being forced to ride in coach on air flights?
You want to hear some crazy shit? I heard Terry Wallace is saying 4% was requested.
In case ex-UC employees at LANL missed this UCOP press release yesterday;
UC investments show strong gains last year, re-start of pension contributions postponed
The University of California Office of the Treasurer announced preliminary figures today (Aug. 7) that indicate UC's investments were up 19.1% during the past fiscal year, outperforming its benchmark by over 1%. Factors contributing to the good relative and absolute performance of the $48 billion fund were the changes over the past several years in the diversification and allocation of its assets and performance of the non-U.S. equity and alternative asset classes. UC officials also confirmed that pension contributions, which have not been required of employees for 17 years but were originally slated to resume last month, have been postponed for at least the rest of the 2007-08 fiscal year.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2007/aug07.html
Hmmm? "..non-U.S. equity and alternative asset classes".
Sounds like UCRP handed large sums of cash over to those private hedge funds and then stuck the rest into Indonesian high-risk bonds. What goes up...
Yup, 11:51, sounds like high risk, high risk, and high risk, except for Parsky's buddies.
"UC spokesman Trey Davis attributed the recent strong fund performance to improved oversight and management as well as greater diversification, especially in high-return investments in foreign equity funds, domestic real estate and Internet-related funds."
With the current market meltdown, perhaps we'll need to be adding far more than just 16% from our salaries to support the pension.
Does anyone know whether UC ever finalized the transfer of assets over to TCP1? If so, does anyone know what TCP1 assets are invested in? LANS has done a very poor job of informing LANL workers about the state of their pension.
Anonymous at 8/11/07 9:54 PM mentions time clocks. I think that would be great. When I think of all of the 60-hour weeks that I put in pre-LANS, it would be nice to have a formal record for use in the event that I would have to file a wrongful-dismissle lawsuit.
6x10 weeks? 5x12 weeks? Many people claim 60 hours. In my 15 years at LANL across many sites, I have not seen it.
Maybe you mean the 60 hour weeks you put in 16-25 years ago. I don't believe that you did so, but I would not have first hand reasons to call you a liar for that claim.
A time clock would be nice, to get people like you to shut your pie-holes.
PS - If you were a DX explosives technician, and you are talking about times with a heavy schedule, then I apologize - you might have worked 60 hour weeks.
If you were in any other role, then I'll match your 60 hour weeks with my 169 hour weeks.
Don't be so quick to assume long weeks is fiction. In the computing divisions, it was definitely not unheard of for people to spend evenings and weekends working. Before Pete shut the lab down, it was a running joke on my team on Fridays for us to say "Is today my day off? I forgot." -- we all worked our A or B fridays -- the people who actually stayed home were the "slackers" even though they were technically just putting in their required hours. That all stopped after the shutdown -- that 'over and beyond' attitude died then. I still check my email at night to see if my colleagues are on working, but now all I get is those stupid spam bots mailing me their latest prey. Sad sad sad.
Some of you guys need to get out more. When I worked in the defense industry years ago in the 70s and 80s, filling out a timecard daily was mandatory. To forget to fill your timecard out daily was an infraction. To use a charge code that had not been approved by your manager, in writing, was an infraction. Auditors checked frequently and randomly. Multiple infractions = loss of job. No dicking around with these guys.
Needless to say, I couldn't believe people filled out their time only once a month when I first got here. Everybody, on one time sheet, tacked to the board. That's when I knew DOE was not DoD.
IMO, it is highly unlikely that if you were an exempt employee that you would be allowed to enter more than a given amount of time in a day/week. While you must work your minimum, recording any more time than a certain amount would likely not be allowed.
At the company I was at, you could enter up to 47 hrs/wk if you were exempt, but there really was no point to do so (other than as described below). While the company billed the customer for 47 hrs, burning into the funding, you only got paid for 40. You could get only get paid for extra hours >=48 if approved for an extended workweek. The company didn't care if you put in more hours of course, they just would not allow any record of more than 47 unless approved.
Their other favorite was a computer run of uncompensated overtime vs sick leave. If you weren't within some amount of the difference, then putting in some uncompensated overtime would be suggested.
to 8/13/07 3:01 PM:
at my last company, and every other company i worked for, no one was ever required to fill out a time card, EVER. everyone was on salary ("exempt"), but everyone worked way more than the 40 hrs/wk that they were paid for, because they were treated with respect- as professionals instead of as juvenile deliquents. their science was respected and so they all went the extra mile! i always went in on weekends as a matter of course--not for credit, but to evsure the high quality of the research results.
Post a Comment