Sep 6, 2007

LLNL's Version of the RIF Situation

P&tB,

Please post "Anonymously" as you see fit ...
Below is how the latest "Budget Concerns" was worded to us here in Livermore ... Dr. Miller had his All Hands and we did NOT learn anything over and above what is outlined in the e-mail ...

- Anonymous

_____________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:41:04 -0700
To: E-Line <e-line@lists.llnl.gov>
From: Public Affairs Office <pao@llnl.gov>
Subject: FY 2008 budget concerns
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nsplists.llnl.gov
Sender: listmaster@llnl.gov

E-line: Miller outlines NNSA administrator's concerns about FY 2008 budget

As you know, the process for developing and initializing the Laboratory's budget is long and complicated, involving many steps in the Executive and Congressional branches of government. There are multiple committees in both the House and Senate that must come to agreement and the President must sign the bill before the process is finished. This process naturally leads to uncertainties as the appropriations cycle unfolds.

Last night I received a note from NNSA Administrator Tom D'Agostino expressing his concerns about the uncertainties associated with the fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget and the potential for a Continuing Resolution (CR) scenario in FY08.

Tom's note, which went to all sites, said:

This means that for every budget account, we have to plan for an operation that may be the lower of the House and Senate marks in each area, as prior continuing resolutions have imposed a similar requirement to operate in this fashion pending enactment of a budget.

Since we have no ability to estimate how long we may have to operate under these conditions, we have to anticipate that it will be for an extended period of time. This situation unfortunately will cause some significant impacts to our sites' operating budgets and could affect our workforce. In addition, at a few of our sites, even if the impacts of a continuing resolution are avoided, changes to missions and work for other programs will likely cause workforce impacts in FY 2008.

The specific "worst case" budget guidance for LLNL from NNSA Defense Programs reflects an approximately $150M reduction relative to the President's FY 2008 budget request. This reduction coupled with potential declines in other NNSA, DOE and WFO programs and increased costs due to the new contract could potentially result in more than a 20 percent impact on the Laboratory - well outside the Laboratory's normal flexibility for dealing with budget uncertainties.

In addition to informing you of Administrator D'Agostino's concerns, we have been directed, along with other NNSA contractors, to actively collect information and prepare documents necessary to meet the legal requirements associated with 'workforce restructuring' (workforce restructuring is governed by 50 U.S.C. § 2704, often referred to as Section 3161 of Public Law 102-484, the WARN Act, collective bargaining agreements, and contracts). This action is being taken as a planning contingency due to the budget uncertainties.

Over the last five years we have had several occasions when we have had Continuing Resolutions. It will likely occur again this year. CRs can last a couple of weeks, a couple of months, or as in FY 2007, all year. None of the previous ones have resulted in impacts this large. We will continue to assess the potential workforce impacts of an extended FY 2008 Continuing Resolution and update those assessments as more information becomes available.

Be assured that Laboratory senior management is working diligently with the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, members of Congress to resolve these issues and uncertainties.

I realize that this news comes at a time when we all have important decisions to make with respect to the new operating contract for the Laboratory. While the final information for FY 2008 may not be known for some time, I will keep you informed with the most accurate information available as quickly as possible.

There will be an all-hands meeting this afternoon at 2:30 p.m. in the Bldg. 123 auditorium to discuss this issue further.

George H. Miller, Director

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

First: No news here. "The situation is dire, and we the management, are looking out for your best interests, and working together, we will all weather this storm." All stock phrases, and somehwere there must be a web site listing them all, so senior management's "expendable" administrative help doesn't have to keep retyping them.

Second: As a seasoned veteran at writing Executive Summaries to appeal to the sensibilities of "overtasked" Executives (terse and to the point! He/She doesn't have time to read your literary prose!), I'm am constantly amazed at how that same verbiage emerges refreshed, decompressed, and full of FRESH bullshit when it emerges from their, what can I say, bullshit factory, therafter.

Regardless of whatever else was said in this official "communique," I found myself having to decipher needless bullshit. Hence, return to sender for edit.

Anonymous said...

"It is, what it is" , says George Miller during his talk at LLNL today. I guess his family is about to suffer a divorce.

Got word today at 10:00 AM that all of those who retired from LLNL and came back to work are getting pink slip. We got rid of some today and it has been going on for about a week, more to come. This was the start of the 10% cut that LLNS said we weren't going to have. There you go, caught in their first lie before Oct 1st, and I am sure there are many more to come.

As of 2:00 PM this afternoon George Miller announced a down size of 20% across all directorates or what every a cut in budget of $150M - $320M dollar brings. To me that equated to 1800 people minimum.

I wonder if going TCP-2 and double dipping qualifies you as a retiree who is coming back for employment. If so I'd say you'll have a set of cross hairs on your back or should it be a laser site for some directorates.

I sure as hell would not go TCP-1 for any reason now. If you didn't notice the time frame for anouncing the lay-offs is exactly 120days after Oct 1st, the same deadline for retirement from UCRP and still be able to use your sick leave as years of service. Gee !!!

Anonymous said...

The term "workforce restructuring" is code for getting rid of people. This is precisely the term that LANL used in 1995 to justify that disasterous layoff exercise. So yes LLNL friends...you damn well bertter be concerned.

Anonymous said...

the SSM support staff will take the biggest hit

Anonymous said...

Phrases to be retired:

"It is what it is."

Heard it at least a dozen times here at LANL today. I've heard it more times than I can count in the popular media already, and it doesn't wear any better coming from "educated" people either.

"It is what it is" is meaningless diatribe at best, moronic gibberish at worst.

Further, it implies (indeed, STATES) resignation. Wanna be resigned to anything? I don't!

Anonymous said...

And so it goes...

Anonymous said...

Does this mean I can hire you all for my yard mowing service?

Anonymous said...

9/6/07 6:58 PM You already are because "It Is What It Is" and what ever happens you will have no control over. You will go down with the ship regardless of how you feel or what you think may be right or wrong. It Is What It Is, simply means, Oh well! The party is over, hold on to your shorts because something is going to give, and you won't like what's about to happen. Just relax, become resolved and accept your fate.

Anonymous said...

6:25, LANL Director said the same 120 days applies to LANL. Legal requirement. October 1 coincidental for LLNL.

Anonymous said...

7:07

I know what the phrase means, and appreciate the post, sincerely.

I also appreciate the sociological/cultural implications(some cultures are faster, some are slower).

Rest assured, my biological clock ticks somewhere between 2 and 3 times for everyone of yours. Let me know, I'll give you references.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the downsizing of the NNSA complex under the "for-profit" LLCs has now begun. Should be no surprises here, as it is what NNSA has been telling us would eventually happen. Downsizing of the workforce is in their planning documents. Too bad many of the NNSA labs haven't prepared for it. The DOE labs don't seem to be going through any of this pain. In fact, many of them will see increases in funding for next year.

Anonymous said...

"...This reduction coupled with potential declines in other NNSA, DOE and WFO programs..."

Uh-oh, no mention of this in the LANL email we received from our Director.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if this is just an NNSA issue or did the DOE Office of Science Labs (LBNL, ANL, BNL, SLAC, etc) also get this hit of a potential 20% cut?

Anonymous said...

I thought it was eerie how Mikey talked about being confident about the future of LANL. Yeah, I guess it's easy to be optimistic when you know you have a job AND a golden parachute back to LLNL.

Anonymous said...

I work at LLNL and you should see the panic at this place. The rumor mill has turned white hot.I was just called by a fellow employee and told we have nothing to fear because the contract states that before a rif can occur a voluntary separation plan must be offered first.This is true...under the current contract... which ceases to exist Oct. 1. After that, we are all at will employees subject to the whims of management. I directed my disillusioned and ill informed friend to the LLNS web site Q and A where it is written

"Q: In the LLNS offer letter there is mention of "reasonable cause" for termination that cannot be for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons. Does termination for "reasonable cause" include lack of programmatic funding? In other words, if I am an employee in good standing and my program runs out of funding, can I be terminated?
A: Yes, employees could be terminated for reasonable cause if significant funding cuts occur and no other reasonable funding sources or job reassignments can be identified."

Slap some Apiezon where the sun don't shine friends. It'll help ease the entry pain.

Anonymous said...

George Miller is corpulent turd...there, I said it.

Anonymous said...

9/6/07 8:29 PM

Now I understand why they are waiting until Oct 1st to give the word and maybe 120 day past that. They want to see who is going to retire within tat 120 day. Again a perfect and well thoughtout plan and execution. I vote for a 3 and 3 in the next six days and all would be resolved at both facilities.

Anonymous said...

Mike specifically told the crowd today at LANL not to expect any type of inducements to get people to leave as there is simply no money for it in the thread-bare LANL operating budget. Back under UC in '94, UC had the luxury of offering the LANL staff accelerated retirement benefits to get staff to leave before the '94 RIF lists were generated. This resulted in the '94 RIF being about half the size it might have been. No such luck this time around under the LLC. It's going to be a mighty ugly event. Much worse, in fact, than the the small RIF of '94.

Anonymous said...

Things were really quiet at LANL this afternoon.

Anonymous said...

9/6/07 8:49 PM

Geroge Miller is just the delivery guy, he doesn't make the rules nor can he change them. No, I am not management, just know what the chain of command is and that crap rolls down-hill whereby even George is at the bottom of the pile on this one. Give him a break , he's looking old already. Pretty soon he'll be known as Ewok II.

Anonymous said...

Someone in the crowd at today's LANL meeting asked Mikey if the layoffs would include any managers. Mike gave a hesitant "Uhhh, sure" answer to the question. I had to laugh at that one. Maybe some unfortunate team leader will be laid off, but nothing higher than that.

On the bright side, with the Los Alamos real estate market official dead as of 2pm today, LANL managers should be able to pick up some really swell deals on heavily discounted McMansions on the Hill.

Anonymous said...

Hey,9/6/07 8:49, you believe George had no idea this was coming? If so, he is crappier manager than I thought. And no, George isn't "on the bottom".George sits at the top of the dung heap, the rest of us dwell "at the bottom".I have no sympathy for George Miller.What are you? His secretary?You sound like one.

Anonymous said...

George Miller has no control over congressional funding bills.

Anonymous said...

9/6/07 9:39
For shits sake i am a neophyte and i saw this coming. Ever watch CNN or FOX news? It is no mystery that there was and is going to be continuing resolution. It has been flooding the airwaves for weeks. And what about this crap about "additional management costs". That just pop up today? Everyone knew including my dog and cat but somehow George was caught unawares? And please explain this crap about "no plans for a reduction in force" fertilizer we have been fed for months now. That's crap right out of the box. Middle and upper level managers are always putting together "what if scenarios" so it is a false claim that there were "no plans for a reduction in force". There is always a plan for a reduction in force. You need to find a new brand of rubber band to smoke.

Anonymous said...

Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, etc. etc. So the gov't is bankrupt, and we NNSA labs are the first sacrificial lambs. If you still vote republican, shame on you.

Anonymous said...

Poster 9:54 PM from LLNL has it right, but I suspect that there are as many people at LLNL in denial about the on-coming layoffs as there seem to be at LANL. I still occasionaly run into workers who tell me "St. Pete will save us, just like he always does". These workers seem clueless to the fact that St. Pete didn't retain his powerful position as the Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.

It's amazing how badly informed some supposedly smart people really are at both LANL and LLNL. Do these people ever read the news?

Anonymous said...

"If you still vote republican, shame on you." - 9/6/07 10:10 PM

Well, I still vote Republican and I don't feel a bit of shame. Didn't vote for Dubya, though. Even I know a bad political player when I see one. They're in all camps, both Democratic and Republican. And for a real sleaze ball, how about that Senator Larry Craig. Now there's a real piece of work. Can't even go into an airport restroom without worrying about Larry trying to hit on you! He even beats out the Dems Congressmen Larry Studds or Barney Frank in the sleaze department.

Anonymous said...

"3+3", "3+3" where are you?

I'll bet you can induce 500 -800 people out of LLNL who otherwise will stick around to top out on the age factor if you just offer a "3+3".

For the investment of $300 -$500 M over a year or two, the entire LLNL problem can be solved once and for all without involuntary layoffs.

Each one of those induced to retire is paid 50 -100% more than a new hire. So for every retiree, 1.5 - 2 jobs are saved,and those will stay around for a long time.

Sweet investment.

Comparable to the waste that is generated by this transition abortion but with some tangible impact.

St Pete, Ellen, George, McInerney are you listening? Somebody wake up the fearful zombie D'ag(ostino) and explain what a bargain tis this.

Cost reduction, staff aging solved,all stakeholders happy...

"3+3 for me"

Anonymous said...

Anyone smell a rat here? Congress doesn't actually want to cut our budgets, but we are planning for involuntary layoffs and perhaps separation incentives because they are "dallying".

Anonymous said...

I understand LANS just got authority from NNSA to offer an incentive plan to help reduce the size of the upcoming layoffs. If you voluntarily leave next week, LANS will allow you to avoid the new policy requiring daily anal probes to look for hidden USB pen drives up staff asses. This is a limited time offer, so be sure to act quickly.

p.s.: The anal probes will be conducted by the recently resigned Senator Larry Craig.

p.s.s: Tom D'Agostino swears that doing this will create better character within the LANL staff.

p.s.s.s: This new security program will be managed by Adm. Nanos, who is coming back to LANL from DTRA to serve as head of LANL OPSEC.

p.s.s.s.s: Refusal to submit to these daily inspections will result in assumed guilt and immediate termination, followed by legal prosecution and forfeiting of the last 5 years pay.

Anonymous said...

"Anyone smell a rat here? Congress doesn't actually want to cut our budgets" - 11:18 PM

OMG! What planet did you come from? Congress doesn't want to cut our budgets? Really? I've heard of clueless lab staffers, but this guy takes the cake.

Department of Entropy said...

LLNL perspective here. Sure wish those doom-and-gloomers were wrong when they hypothesized that taking the U.C. out of the equation was the first step to killing the labs.

It's pretty eerie to see the parallels to "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room," with Linton Brooks/George Miller starring as Ken Lay. We've had pep talks from Linton Brooks (nice guy, now fired) and George Miller (nice guy, still giving it a go), that feel like the pep talks Ken Lay gave the Enron staff as the structure behind facade was crumbling. I'm not accusing these people of criminal behavior (and I have no belief that this is the case), just pointing out that our structure may be crumbling, and from this side of the facade, the signals look the same.

I'm also really creeped out by the new(?) policy of applauding every speaker in every meeting. It started with the intense softball-chick LLNS lady in one of the early town halls, and it seems to have become the norm. I may be wrong, but I thought I remembered that for events like the DDLS, the director would say hello, ask us how we were (to which the crowd would mumble something like "fine"), then we would applaud the speaker before their talk, after the talk, and after taking questions. No special applause for the MC, I thought. Now, I'm in some Orwellian bizarro LLNL, where bright people become so enraptured with the atmosphere that they applaud as they are given bad news.

You are overpaid: Huzzah!
We cannot justify your continued employment: Hooray!
Nobody is irreplaceable: Here, here!
We promise you nothing: Yipee!
Our hands are tied; we must let you go: Woohoo!

I feel sad. Maybe if I was in New Mexico I'd be classed a cowboy or butthead for saying that. I am depressed to see so many bright and otherwise capable people reduced to battered person syndrome, believing that maybe if they were just a little bit better or had a better attitude, that they could change the outcome. The folks at Enron made the same mistakes. Whining doesn't help, beyond letting each other know that we are not alone. I'm going to write my congressional and senatorial representatives, and try to explain to them some compelling technical reasons to avoid this course of action. I don't mind restructuring, even if it's my job--really, I am young and quite employable--but I think our country is making a big mistake to allow deep staffing cuts as the default result of temporary political paralysis.

Anonymous said...

Nothing to worry about. There are plenty of jobs in Iraq! Remember the wonderful war for oil...I mean on terror we all supported? Remember our support for the "bring it on" president the US Supreme court appointed for us. So this was the bed we all made for ourselves. So now deal with it morons!

Anonymous said...

Right. And it's the Republican House that's responsible for our proposed $400M budget cut?

OH WAIT! The Democrats are in charge of Congress now!

Anonymous said...

Some Republicans don't like spending on nuclear weapons research, but ALL Democrats seem to hate it. With the change in Congress, the Democrats have become "enabled" along with those nuke hating Republicans and Thursday was the result.

Anonymous said...

Assuming passage, wouldn't the Senate version that restores much of the $ to LANL and LLNL have been passed by a Democrat controlled Senate?

Anonymous said...

"Assuming passage, wouldn't the Senate version that restores much of the $ to LANL and LLNL have been passed by a Democrat controlled Senate?

9/7/07 11:52 AM "

True, however how it really works is that they will haggle it out. So the best would be 1/3 to 1/2 of 350m or 800 to 1200 people. However, it could still end up the full 350m if Senate cares more about something else. The senate version will not pass as is there
will have to be some compromise. Than 09 will come around and more cuts and so on.

Anonymous said...

Anastasio is saying the exact same thing Hecker was saying on the eve of the 1995 layoff. How ironic since Hecker's favorite saying was "same monkeys, different trees.". In this case Anastasio is the same monkey Hecker was and the different tree is LANS. But rest assured that this goaround, like in 1995, minorities and women will take the biggest hit while the perenial good ol boy deadwood will stay. As Hecker's favorite saying suggests, some things just never. change.

Anonymous said...

8:54PM talks about the Lab having the "luxury" of offering an incentive to leave package in 1994 so that the number of RIFs required could be reduced. BULLSHIT! The Lab was FORCED to do it...by Citizens for LANL Rights (CLER). So don't try to rewrite history. It was CLER that saved thousands of jobs back then, and it was Chuck Montano who lead the charge as its president. Bet you all wished you had that kind of leadership on the horizon now? Of course, most of you are just too clueless to know who your friends really are. Well it's too late now. The ax is coming down and your private parts are on the chopping block. So suck it in and take it like a man you girly boys you.

Anonymous said...

9:22AM just doesn't get it. Read my lips (that might get this idiot's attention)...we are in hock up to ou ears as a nation because of the moronic policies of the past seven years! And guess what...it was a bunch of Republican ASSHOLES like YOU who made that possible. So don't try wiping your ASS with a Democratic Congress that's been in place barely a year. OK. So do you get it now, moron! Probably not.

Anonymous said...

SEC. 3161. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES
WORK FORCE RESTRUCTURING PLAN

(a) In General.--Upon determination that a change in the work force at a defense nuclear facility is necessary, the Secretary of Energy (hereinafter in this subtitle referred to as the "Secretary") shall develop a plan for restructuring the work force for the defense nuclear facility that takes into account--

(1) the reconfiguration of the defense nuclear facility; and

(2) the plan for the nuclear weapons stockpile that is the most recently prepared plan at the time of the development of the plan referred to in this subsection.

(b) Consultation.--(1) In developing a plan referred to in subsection (a) and any updates of the plan under subsection (e), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Labor, appropriate representatives of local and national collective-bargaining units of individuals employed at Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities, appropriate representatives of departments and agencies of State and local governments, appropriate representatives of State and local institutions of higher education, and appropriate representatives of community groups in communities affected by the restructuring plan.

(2) The Secretary shall determine appropriate representatives of the units, governments, institutions, and groups referred to in paragraph (1).

(c) Objectives.--In preparing the plan required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall be guided by the following objectives:

(1) Changes in the work force at a Department of Energy defense nuclear facility--

(A) should be accomplished so as to minimize social and economic impacts;

(B) should be made only after the provision of notice of such changes not later than 120 days before the commencement of such changes to such employees and the communities in which such facilities are located; and

(C) should be accomplished, when possible, through the use of retraining, early retirement, attrition, and other options that minimize layoffs.

(2) Employees whose employment in positions at such facilities is terminated shall, to the extent practicable, receive preference in any hiring of the Department of Energy (consistent with applicable employment seniority plans or practices of the Department of Energy and with section 3152 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189; 103 Stat. 1682)).

(3) Employees shall, to the extent practicable, be retrained for work in environmental restoration and waste management activities at such facilities or other facilities of the Department of Energy.

(4) The Department of Energy should provide relocation assistance to employees who are transferred to other Department of Energy facilities as a result of the plan.

(5) The Department of Energy should assist terminated employees in obtaining appropriate retraining, education, and reemployment assistance (including employment placement assistance).

(6) The Department of Energy should provide local impact assistance to communities that are affected by the restructuring plan and coordinate the provision of such assistance with--

(A) programs carried out by the Department of Labor pursuant to the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);

(B) programs carried out pursuant to the Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, and Stabilization Act of 1990 (Part D of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2391 note); and

(C) programs carried out by the Department of Commerce pursuant to title IX of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3241 et seq.).

(d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall, subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose, work on an ongoing basis with representatives of the Department of Labor, work force bargaining units, and States and local communities in carrying out a plan required under subsection (a).

(e) Plan Updates.--Not later than one year after issuing a plan referred to in subsection (a) and on an annual basis thereafter, the Secretary shall issue an update of the plan. Each updated plan under this subsection shall--

(1) be guided by the objectives referred to in subsection (c), taking into account any changes in the function or mission of the Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities and any other changes in circumstances that the Secretary determines to be relevant;

(2) contain an evaluation by the Secretary of the implementation of the plan during the year preceding the report; and

(3) contain such other information and provide for such other matters as the Secretary determines to be relevant.

(f) Submittal To Congress.--(1) The Secretary shall submit to Congress a plan referred to in subsection (a) with respect to a defense nuclear facility within 90 days after the date on which a notice of changes described in subsection (c)(1)(B) is provided to employees of the facility, or 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later.

(2) The Secretary shall submit to Congress any updates of the plan under subsection (e) immediately upon completion of any such update.

SEC. 3163. DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this subtitle:

(1) The term "Department of Energy defense nuclear facility" means--

(A) a production facility or utilization facility (as those terms are defined in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014)) that is under the control or jurisdiction of the Secretary and that is operated for national security purposes (including the tritium loading facility at Savannah River, South Carolina, the 236 H facility at Savannah River, South Carolina; and the Mound Laboratory, Ohio), but the term does not include any facility that does not conduct atomic energy defense activities and does not include any facility or activity covered by Executive Order Number 12344, dated February 1, 1982, pertaining to the naval nuclear propulsion program;

(B) a nuclear waste storage or disposal facility that is under the control or jurisdiction of the Secretary;

(c) a testing and assembly facility that is under the control or jurisdiction of the Secretary and that is operated for national security purposes (including the Nevada Test Site, Nevada, the Pinellas Plant, Florida; and the Pantex facility, Texas);

(D) an atomic weapons research facility that is under the control or jurisdiction of the Secretary (including the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories); or

(E) any facility described in paragraphs (1) through (4) that--

(i) is no longer in operation;

(ii) was under the control or jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, or the Energy Research and Development Administration; and

(iii) was operated for national security purposes.

(2) The term "Department of Energy employee" means any employee of the Department of Energy defense nuclear facility, including any employee of a contractor or subcontractor of the Department of Energy employed at such a facility.

Anonymous said...

5:21 -- repeat after me -- it's only a coincidence that the Democratic Congress is against anything that even sounds like the word "nuclear". Also, they feel that it's their turn to create new pet pork projects.

Anonymous said...

Sunday afternoon ruminations

The 1992 retirement incentive at LLNL broke free about 450-500 senior folks, saving a layoff that might have affected 600-800 younger folks.

This was more successful than the 1995-1996 LLNL SIP which attacted a few hundred from those not in "critical skills" categories.

The methods employed will depend in part on whether each organization has a large or small budget problem after final budgets are given for 2008.

First you reduce retiree returns and cut supplemental labor and labor contracts.

Need 3-5%, Freeze hires and reduce expeditures, defer capital projects (Defered costs,Savings Expenditures $40M year, Personnel salaries $30M year. )

Need another 1% add a $ incentive to break free those thinking of leaving or retiring the next year. ( Cost $30k per person * 100-200 people, savings $15 M year)

Need another 3% add a Retirement incentive (Cost, about 0.5-1.5 years salary per person, 300-500 people, Savings $60 -$100M per year)

If the retirement incentive is too costly, layoffs will hit the younger workers harder. The cost will be about $25k per person and will save perhaps $125k-$150k per person per year. To save the same $60 -$100M, approximately 400-700 folks must be terminated. An involuntary RIF of this size will damage how the remaining employees view the organization. The LLNL RIF in the early 80's initiated the drive to form SPSE. Remaining employees will be planning for when their time comes, good if you want turnover to stimulate the organization, bad if you want long-term commitment.

Let the arrows fly.

Anonymous said...

9/9/07 3:41 PM

So why can't George and Tom give all people who are 50 years old + a 3 and 3 within the next 8 days and get rid of more than 20% of LLNL employees. I would bet that if they did a 3 & 3 on Monday morning of this coming week HR don't have enough people to process the retirement papers. They could color me and a lot more gone if they'd just use their heads, leaving all of the young people their jobs for decades to come.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, 7:19 PM, you didn't attend Mike's meeting, or if you did, you didn't listen carefully. Mike said any incentives to get people to leave early like "3+3" would hit the operating budget and there is simply no money for it. Thus, RIFs it will be, whether we like it or not. Got that?

Pinky and The Brain said...

Mike had a meeting at Livermore too? That guy gets around!

Anonymous said...

As a newer FTE with 5 years working at LLNL, I just wish to say that I have never in my 23 years work history worked with such a high caliber of people as I have here.

Anonymous said...

It is a good place. LANL is too.
The challenge for George and Mike is to figure out how to avoid the minefields NNSA laid when they concieved this abortion.

Both places will weather it. But will they have the same "esprit de corps" and mission orientation is an open question....

Anonymous said...

8:50 -- yes, I would fully agree.

If the Lab could only fully take advantage of these people it would be alot stronger right now.
One thing that would help is for different parts of the Lab to learn to work together and leverage their strengths instead of the petty turfism (mainly at the upper management level) that has become far too common.

imabarnacle said...

I heard that Miller approved virtually all of my division's retiree packages yesterday