There have been bits of information regarding LANL management's RIF preparations sprinkled throughout the comments on previous posts. Given that LANS does not appear willing to share their plans on this, we are leaving this post where readers are welcome to leave comments with any updates on the RIF situation that they might want to share. We'll leave the post up at the top for easy access as Oct. 1 approaches.
--Gussie & Pinky
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
LANL's Future
Los Alamos National Laboratory: You know The Real Story. You know The Corporate Story. Now you'll know The Rest of the Story.
Plutonium
LANL's Future
Contact Us
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(693)
-
▼
October
(79)
- A bet
- Science in the Nuclear Weapons Complex Transformation
- You don't want to miss this one
- Getting an eyeful
- Lab-contractor laxity
- Bush Plan May Cut Nuke Jobs
- Wednesday Edition
- Comment of the Week, Tuesday Edition
- This one summarizes the KSL business nicely
- Energy Dept. Audit Finds Overcharges On Contracts
- The Decline and Fall of a Nuclear Weapons Laboratory?
- Newsflash! KSL overcharges for work done at LANL!
- Welcome to the club, PNNL
- Cooked Books?
- In the absence of any news
- U.S. Energy Department lags in meeting deadlines f...
- At the heart of new nuclear weapons Pantex looks ...
- Man who designed tail fins for Nagasaki atom bomb ...
- LANL answers call for help from CA ASPECT plane d...
- Richardson's disinterest leaves bad taste behind ...
- Legendary Soviet spymaster Feklisov dies By Guy F...
- Comment of the Week, Saturday Edition
- At a conference this week
- Terry Wallace's talk this morning, with editorial ...
- Livermore Blog du Jour
- Senators vow action on aid program for nuke worker...
- Safety board makes safety complaints formal MONIT...
- Decision Reached to Decide Later
- Comment of the Week, Wednesday Edition
- Board finds lab safety deficient By Wendy Brown |...
- A Black Belt in What!?!
- Tinfoil-hat-wearing crazy
- DOE Releases Draft General Workforce Restructuring...
- Senate HELP Committee Hearing Committee: Senate C...
- Dolin discusses Domenici, labs, political climate ...
- By Request: Friday Edition of Comment of the Week
- Workforce Restructuring-Comments or Concerns
- Shortfall May Slow Cleanup By Raam WongJournal St...
- Comment of the Week (Thursday Edition)
- Reliable Russian Warhead
- As old news I would normally not have posted this ...
- Word from Washington
- Gov. ignores lab questions
- Heard in the Hallways Today
- Comment of the Week (2)
- Vision of the Future Nuclear Complex
- LANL Workforce Terryfied
- Laboratory holds Canned Air Disposal day Thanks t...
- The Latest
- Comment of the Week (and it's only Monday...)
- Build Diplomacy, Not Bombs Scientific American PE...
- Nuclear Weapons in a New World Scientific America...
- Help wanted: LANL seeks nuclear detectives ROGER ...
- News this week?
- The New LLNL Blog
- Senator: Pressure Building On Labs
- Dwindling Scientific Expertise Threatens U.S. Nucl...
- US Can't Quickly ID Nuclear Material By EILEEN SU...
- Rumor
- LANL halts some plutonium work Projects slowed for...
- Appeal to lab deal dropped LOS ALAMOS — A Los Ala...
- Agencies Release LANL Layoff Plan
- Comment of the Week (early, this time)
- Prestigious air-freshener
- Comment of the Week
- The Workforce Restructuring Plan has been released
- George Hackbarth and the Bomb
- Officials: N.M. Sen. Domenici to RetireBy ANDREW T...
- U.S. reports 'astounding' reduction in its nuclear...
- Report reviews warhead design ROGER SNODGRASS Mon...
- Los Alamos Lab resumes waste shipments to WIPP By...
- A blast from the past
- Angel Fire News
- Detecting Liquid Explosives On A Plane
- Insiders say billions spent on 'defeat the device'...
- Comment of the Week
- NNSA dismantles more nukes than planned Published...
- Nuclear Warhead Design Hits Snag By Walter Pincus...
- RIF News
-
▼
October
(79)
Links
- Alsos Digital Library
- AntiPolygraph.org
- Atomic City Underground
- Bradbury Science Museum
- Buckman Direct Diversion Project
- Cold War Patriots
- Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
- CSIS PONI Debates the Issues
- Energy Communities Alliance
- FAS Project on Government Secrecy
- FCNL Nuclear Calendar
- Fleck at the Journal
- LANL Daily News Bulletin
- LANS's LANL Home Page
- LLNL: The True Story
- Los Alamos Site Office
- Lucky 13
- National Museum of Nuclear Science and History
- New Mexico Science
- Ongoing Polygraph Discussion
- The Former LTCS
- The Original LTRS
- The Tin Star Saloon (Santa Fe) Music Blog
371 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 371 of 3719:37pm correctly points out that Eric is indeed correct, but then proceeds in the same set of sentences to spew forth a set of people that he will never trust. Sad. Add to that list everyone else's personal list and, in the end, the set of people that will trust one another at the lab is the empty set. Just as postulated by Eric.
9:59 PM - the website is actually rather disturbing; promoting the EAP and featuring many of the recent newspaper articles regarding the RIF. It is like LANS is pretending to care, which we know they don't. This blog is the first place I go to find out info in the morning regarding the RIF and not the Lab's RIF page. Thanks P&TB and Guss! At least here we get the truth ...
10:26 PM ... hi, Terry!
"9:59pm, it is inside the LANL intranet as you put it for a reason."
How would you know that there is a reason? If there is a reason why would you trust it? Why should we trust you?
9/24/07 10:30 PM,
Thank you for the kind words. We aren't perfect but we try! It means a lot to hear that we're appreciated.
Pinky
From the new LANL Workforce Restructering FAQ (some critical parts):
6. Where could I find the Workforce Restructuring Plan?
A. Once established, the draft Workforce Restructuring Plan will be posted on the LASO web site for a comment period that is scheduled to last seven days. The plan and any relevant associated documents will also be posted on this site
int.lanl.gov/
projects/workforceplan/
documents.shtml
7. What would be the difference between any potential Laboratory's workforce restructuring efforts and the Workforce Mobility Program?
A. As part of any potential workforce restructuring efforts, the Laboratory would be required to develop a Workforce Restructuring Plan. A Workforce Restructuring Plan for the Laboratory during times of budget concerns and uncertainties addresses how the Laboratory will assess and realign, where necessary, those skills essential to successfully complete its current and future mission and, as a corallary, those job categories where the Laboratory has surplus employees. A restructuring plan, in general, would include a description of all of the programs, tools, and resources that would be made available to the workforce and to management to make decisions that would ultimately align the Laboratory workforce with mission requirements.
The Laboratory's Workforce Mobility program has been in place since January 2007, and is not currently a part of the workforce restructuring planning efforts. The Workforce Mobility program is a tool designed to facilitate the movement of employees from organizations experiencing funding concerns to those organizations that are experiencing growth and need additional staff to meet their deliverables. The program, as designed, is focused on providing a mobility service to a very narrow population of the workforce. If LANL were to proceed with the implementation of a Workforce Restructuring Plan, the Laboratory might look to expand the workforce mobility concept to include a broader segment of the workforce.
-X0X0X0X0X0X-
9. I have heard that the Laboratory's management team has started identifying positions for separation. Is this true?
A. No. In order to plan for and develop a Specific Workforce Restructuring Plan, a number of scenarios need to be thought through and data needs to be gathered. As part of this process, LANL's senior management has been asked to participate in the first of likely many data gathering exercises. This first exercise was to identify job functions by organization that cannot be realigned because of critical mission delivery requirements. Every planning or data gathering exercise requires a target and, similar to a budget planning exercise, this workforce planning exercise was based on a target of 7 percent reduction. Again, the purpose of this initial planning exercise is to gather data so that the Laboratory can have a better understanding of the impacts of a potential workforce restructuring.
Even if the budgets are flat for next year, it seems that LANS has decided to hedge against future budget problems by having some layoffs.
I would guess that while Mike is in Washington DC, he may have made the rounds to the NM Congressional offices to explain his reasoning for implementing a "restructuring" plan and informed our local Congressmen that layoffs would be coming to LANL regardless of the FY08 budget situation. The only question now is one of quantity.
From the looks of it, they appear to be settling on an initial RIF figure of about 7%. This is probably going to be the minimum layoff damage we can expect to see. Of course, if the budget comes out really bad, we could make it to the full 20% cuts (2500+) that Mike mentioned in the All-Hands meeting.
The fact that they have now put up a RIF web site tells you that they are dead set on doing these cuts irrespective of what occurs in FY08. The question I have is... how long have they been entertaining this idea? Was a primitive form of this idea making the rounds at the executive levels when Mike was out making his famous "No RIF and no plans for a RIF statement"? I find it hard to believe that this "restructuring" idea just suddenly popped up near the very end of FY07.
On the new LANL Restructuring web page, down at the lower right is a link under the "Resource" heading to the following site:
** DOE Office of Legacy Management **
Spooky, huh? Are they trying to tell us all something?
My question remains, however. Why do you want to know what is behind the firewall on this? If you don't work here, these plans are none of your business. They don't affect you. So I guess it will just have to bother you not to know. It just proves that you are just looking to cause trouble.
Actually, 7:11, you're full of shit. Some of us spent a large chunk of our lives at LANL. What goes on there and how it effects the community is of interest to us.
--Gussie
7:11 AM
Yo might want to consult a physician about your problem ( a cranium deeply inserted in a rectum can be a serious health issue) - That was my first thought. Then I realized you are a LANS manager and a complete utter moron.
People have grown up with the lab, others have spent their careers there, others have just given a good chunk of their lives and efforts because they are dedicated to LANL. Because they retire, or quit, does not mean they still do not care. Many continue to live in Los Alamos, or have family and friends still employed there.
I think you owe everyone an apology.
You won't get an apology, 8:36. Whether or not 7:11 is actually a LANS Bechtel manager, his comment was typical of the Bechtel corporate view of LANL staff, and in fact typical of their view of any Bechtel-controlled employee. 'Bechtellian' is the term that his type is usually referred as. Get used to the "Eat shit and like it!" management approach, because there's more where that came from.
"My question remains, however. Why do you want to know what is behind the firewall on this? If you don't work here, these plans are none of your business. They don't affect you. So I guess it will just have to bother you not to know. It just proves that you are just looking to cause trouble."
What are you trying to hide?
Anonymous at 7:11 AM is typical of the new culture at LANL.
Pre-Nanos, the Director was a scientist and understood the attitudes and concerns of the staff. LANL was an open organization, both to employees and other "stakeholders" such as LANL retirees residing in Los Alamos. The Directors understood the motivation of TSMs who were self-motivated and peer-motivated to work 60 hours per week to do good science and turned down promotional opportunities.
Nanos started the us (management) verses them (the workers) style of management. Your importance to Nanos was based strictly on your rank, just like the Navy.
When Bechtel arrived, things got worse. Much more cronyism and secrecy. Now, when we have a budgetary crisis, the Bechtel mafia is cirling the wagons.
Timing
My last comment was about trust. This one is about timing.
That comment said that trusting one another is crucial to creating cohesive action and that we need cohesive action.
How much time is left in which individual employees can learn this trust and start to defend themselves against the apparently not so good future.
I hypothesize that this learning time is now less than a month and that many will not learn as quickly as they need to.
Just a thought.
Many others have rightly chastised 7:11, but I'll add my 2 cents.
The town and region developed to support LANL, ranging from restaurants to schools to building contractors. This RIF affects everyone here, not just you.
7:11AM: I'm the guy who asked to know what was on the intranet site. I have many friends who still work at the laboratory, and I care quite a bit about what happens to them. So, in addition to talking to them frequently about the situation, I try to follow the story myself - primarily by reading this blog.
So, how is that causing trouble?
Dr. Strangelove said: It would be very satisfying if LANL employees showed any sign of mutually supportive, concerted action to save their careers and their Laboratory. As a recent retiree, I am very disappointed in the lack of cohesiveness. Where is the centralized LANL employee voice to fight the coming catastrophe?
Oh you mean like Citizens for LANL Employee Rights--CLER? You won't see that again. That was a one time phenomena. This time the slaughter masters will have free reign.
I even hear DLs using the terms "LANS", "LANS Mgt" and "they" vs "we" and "us" in conversation. They're not part of the inner circle, and most know it.
Info on what our reps are doing for us.
"Copyright 2007 Environment and Energy Publishing, LLC
Environment and Energy Daily
September 21, 2007 Friday
ON THE HILL Vol. 10 No. 9
334 words
APPROPRIATIONS: N.M. senators press Reid on nuclear lab funding in CR
Ben Geman, E&E Daily senior reporter
New Mexico's Senate delegation wants Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to spare the U.S. nuclear weapons complex from spending cuts in the upcoming continuing resolution.
Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D) and Pete Domenici (R) say they are worried about layoffs at the Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories in New Mexico if the stopgap funding bill adopts cuts contained in the House-passed fiscal 2008 Energy Department spending bill.
The Senate has not yet approved its DOE spending bill for fiscal 2008. The lawmakers, in a letter to Reid, ask that the CR maintain fiscal 2007 funding for the weapons complex while lawmakers work to complete the fiscal 2008 spending process.
In a joint press release last night, the senators -- the chair and ranking member on the Senate Energy Committee -- said DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration has initiated a "workforce restructuring process" based on the prospect of complying with the House cuts as part of a CR.
"NNSA has required the planning to consider a scenario that has these functions funded at the lower level of the House, less another 10 percent," the letter states. "These assumptions would project a cut of more than $600 million throughout our nuclear weapons complex, which would require draconian staff cuts and dramatically reduce the ability of both New Mexico laboratories and the entire NNSA complex to fulfill their responsibilities in maintaining our existing nuclear weapons stockpile."
The letter adds that maintaining fiscal 2007 levels in the CR would provide "stability" while the spending process is completed. The two are also urging leadership and appropriators in both chambers to accept the Senate-proposed funding when the Energy and Water spending measure is eventually finalized, the letter adds.
The Senate has yet to pass the bulk of its annual spending bills, and lawmakers are crafting a multi-week CR to ensure continued funding once the new federal fiscal year begins next month.
September 21, 2007
Here's a Laboratory Newbulletin article on CLER (mentioned by 11:03AM). I wasn't with the Lab then, but it does sound like we could use a similar movement now.
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/073098.html
7% of ~8600 LANL Staff (excl PDs and students) is about 600 FTEs.
So, about 600 people that don't want to leave better hope their coworkers start stepping up to the plate and volunteering to be riffed IF there's an incentive offered to them.
Interesting article, 11:21AM. But it doesn't seem like we've learned much since then.
I'm catching up on these comments and want to add this- my wife, who does not work at the lab, went to see Dr. Locke and his associate a couple of times and they disclosed some personal confidential info regarding her health. My wife really lit into them and threatened to sue them. I am sure that's in my record, and somehow reflects badly on me. DON'T TRUST EAP!!!
Yes, 2:19 PM, EAP is frquenetly used as "fly-paper" by LANL management to try and locate workers who they think might be trouble-makers.
Beware, because whatever you tell them can go directly to lab Legal. They do not always have your best interests at heart. If you can't get a iron-clad non-disclosure form agreed up, then be extremely careful what you tell them.
Anything EAP determines, by criteria they won't divulge, that bears in any way (in their opinion) on the question of the issuance of a clearance gets reported to Lab Legal and to DOE.
That's nice. So, anyone with a problem is driven into the closet so the problem can fester and get worse. Instead of averting security or safety issues down the road, they're just reinforcing and encouraging them. Way to go guys. And this helps the lab how? (Other than culling the herd of people too naive to realize the likely effect of their going to talk to them).
With EAP, isn't there some kind of doctor-patient confidentiality?
Apparently not.
SO, stay the hell away from EAP!
I had a very painful experience with EAP regarding a sexual harassment issue. EAP's version of my version was presented during the "investigation" for the benefit of the Lab's liability regarding the individual (habitual harasser with multiple complaints)total sicko masturbater, not removed, just reassigned. So don't go to EAP! Get an attorney, get a medical professional, call Oprah, anyone but EAP.
Anonymous 9/25/07 2:40 PM said...
"Beware, because whatever you tell them [EAP] can go directly to lab Legal. They do not always have your best interests at heart. If you can't get a iron-clad non-disclosure form agreed up, then be extremely careful what you tell them."
You know, the one time I called for help on an issue (over a decade ago), I called the lab operator and asked how to find the ombudsman or assistance programs and the nice lady on the other end said, "Oh, that's the Risk Management Group in HR."
RISK MANAGEMENT. Get it? The whole mission is to manage their RISKS - as in people with problems.
Also, call me once-naive, but I happen to enjoy a party with free food so I signed up for the Fall Festival. However, I'm convinced that it'll be a bust and anyone who does show up is going to be labeled as a kiss-ass.
Excepttt... They have my name and how many people I was going to bring from my family. If I don't show up then I wonder if they will determine that any no-shows are a protest (not so naively now, it's a rhetorical question). And if they feel a need to thin the herd or teach a lesson, I'm guessing that right or wrong, work related or not, they could potentially hand out pink slips to those who stand them up for the part-ay.
One thing I've noticed from the throng of oblivions at LANL is that even the handful of people that know a RIF is coming, none of them think it could possibly be them. I guess its true, ignorance is bliss. They mostly talk about it during the 2 hour morning coffee chat, then surf the net for an hour then go to lunch and run errends, surf the net some more and then go home. If they do actually get some work they pass it off to someone who "can find his ass with both hands" beacuse they just can't figure out how to do much of anything....
Gussie wrote: "Actually, 7:11, you're full of shit"
Thanks.
You never answered my question, though. None of you did. Those that work here need this information directly. Those that do not, don't. It is simple. Loved ones and friends of those that work here will certainly get the full story. But posting here for all to see is nothing but providing additional ammo for YOU, Gussie, to pile on the lab. You left a long time ago and can't let things go. That is what this blog is about.
"7:11AM: I'm the guy who asked to know what was on the intranet site. I have many friends who still work at the laboratory, and I care quite a bit about what happens to them."
Great. So get information from them directly. Or have them provide it to you directly.
None of you idiots have explained why you want it all posted in a public forum like this. Not a single one. Just personal attacks. Amusing. Keep them coming. They make me laugh. I really like the speculation about me being a LANS manager. LOL funny!
9/25/07 7:32 PM (and 7:37 PM if you aren't the same person),
1. Gussie didn't post the FAQ, I did.
2. The blog is about LANL. The FAQ is LANL related.
3. Van Prooyen said in his Workforce Planning Update memo, "it is our intention to maintain open and effective communication with you and stakeholders of the Laboratory."
Not every stakeholder can access the internal website. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
"They make me laugh. I really like the speculation about me being a LANS manager. LOL funny!" - 9/25/07 7:37 PM
No, you're obviously too kissy-ass to even make it as a LANS manager. Most likely a recent low-life Bechtel transplant droid would be my guess. A manager wanna-be.
If you don't like what you see here, then don't bother to visit the blog. We post mostly what we want, when we want. Got that?
And here is the beautiful part, the part I really love... there is NOTHING you can do to stop it, you little twit.
6:41 pm:
"They have my name and how many people I was going to bring from my family. If I don't show up then I wonder if they will determine that any no-shows are a protest"
Don't be so paranoid. The organizers of this fiasco are just as clueless as everyone else. They will have no way of knowing even who you are (if they are allowing employees to bring 5 "guests" obviously they aren't going to be checking badges). My advice - go, eat the free food, greet your friends, leave when you want, ignore the speakers, and DON'T wear your badge.
I'm reminded of a few lines from an 80's song by REM...
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
This last thread has me worried about the future of this blog. Pinky and the Brain (PatB) have been excellent moderators (it is two of them, right?). Gussie has been a wash because it is becoming clear he (or she) is bitter about something that happened to them at the lab and this is how they are going to “pay the man” back through their thinly veiled attacks in the blog. Dropping an F-Bomb on someone you disagree with is the lowest form of intelligence in homo-sapiens and Gussie has demonstrated this more than once. I fail to see how this kind of moderation of the blog could possibly provide “the rest of the story”.
PatB, I implore you to please take Gussie’s rights away on this blog. They are obviously not very objective about a subject that affects a great many people. I know maintaining a blog such as this is a lot of work, but if you need help with it, please find someone else. Gussie’s tone and agenda are making this blog less relevant every day they choose to opine.
(Here’s hoping that PatB gets this before Gussie does!)
I can't RIF Gussie, he's a really good friend of The Brain. Besides, he's related to The Brain's wife's cousin-in-law (or something).
Oh, and there's the part about him doing a good job too.
Seriously, Gussie is even more reasonable than he is outspoken (and that's saying a lot). Try raising your concerns with him.
Pinky
PS Thanks for the kind words about me!
I thought that not capitalizing the genus was the lowest form of intelligence in Homo sapiens.
I guess the "f-bomb" is lower. Thanks - the more you know (tm)
Hmm, you might want to study your taxonomy a bit more. Isn’t Homo the genus?
But what do I know? I only spent the night in a Holiday inn.
Next time stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
"Not every stakeholder can access the internal website. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding."
So define "stakeholder." POGO?
"If you don't like what you see here, then don't bother to visit the blog. We post mostly what we want, when we want. Got that?"
Oh, I got it all right. Unfortunately so does everyone else that works here. That's my point, which you are obviously too stupid to comprehend.
"And here is the beautiful part, the part I really love... there is NOTHING you can do to stop it, you little twit."
Ooo..that was a good one!
Actually, Pinky, I was not hammering you for posting anything. I was merely pointing out the obvious that those clamoring for internal stuff to be posted obviously have no business reading it. I don't care what gets posted. I just think it is absurd to expect the laboratory to put sensitive stuff out on a public blog like this that is patently unprofessional. It was that expectation I was speaking to, not what you posted.
BTW, whomever it was that posted you are a bit more even handed about things is right. Gussie is obviously grinding an axe.
7:xx :: fine. we all know that you don't like the idea of anyone outside LANL hearing about what is going on inside of it. We get it. Now, why? If over 1k people may be let go, this will have a ripple that will be sorely felt by some of the local communities. Why is it not their business, given that some of the people in surrounding communities (maybe a handful, maybe more) will be essentially RIF'd second hand by this? How does this not affect them? How is this NOT a valid reason for information to be available to the general public? I hate to invoke Nanos here, but even he said during the shutdown that his dentist asked him about what the impact might be of that disaster (I may not be remembering the anectdote properly -- I've tried to squeeze that time of my life out of my memory...). You can't ignore the fact that a whole community is impacted by this.
"Gussie has been a wash because it is becoming clear he (or she) is bitter about something that happened to them at the lab and this is how they are going to “pay the man” back through their thinly veiled attacks in the blog."
Must be the agua regia TSM, a bitter low-life who has no supporters left at the lab.
Gone are the days when people can disagree but use their brains to have a normal discussion about so many things that really are important in this society. With anonymity, people will now use insults instead of logic or answers. Blogs bloat egos of the feeble-minded.
I wonder how many people outside of the lab are simply thinking “What a bunch of big crybabies!” as they browse these pages.
Dusk befalls this lab if the drunk and fat-fingered undo the great accomplishments of others. Too many gape and grin over the snide comments buffoons continue to write instead of trying to actually find ways of improving their own situations. To those who don’t know the lab, sanity does exist here.
"7:xx :: fine. we all know that you don't like the idea of anyone outside LANL hearing about what is going on inside of it. We get it."
No, you don't get it. It is not about "hiding" something. It is more about what difference does it make to someone with only a community interest in LANL to understand any of the details about how a RIF might be prosecuted? If you or your loved one does not work here, how precisely do these details affect you? You cannot change them. So what are your motivations for desiring this information?
"If over 1k people may be let go, this will have a ripple that will be sorely felt by some of the local communities. "
Of course. Not trying to say it won't. But how will making this information entirely public help? Will it increase the budget? Or will it make it more difficult to get rid of some of the people that most people seem to think should be fired, judging from this blog (people not pulling their own weight)? Everyone's motivations are not pure as the driven snow.
"You can't ignore the fact that a whole community is impacted by this."
Of course not. This will be quite traumatic for all of us.
On the other hand, the outcry to have all of this information be publicly available strikes me the same way as those that rubberneck a traffic accident.
9:45 pm:
Yeah, Gussie needs to go. Just a little semblance of impartiality in a blog moderator would be a little more seemly. Kind of detracts from the credibility.
On the other subject (i.e., the internal LANL web postings), who exactly gets to determine they are "sensitive" and therefore not to be made available to the public? Answer: anybody who so chooses. If anyone in the public were to request any of these "internal" postings under the FOIA, he/she would certainly receive them, but only many months later. So, it is a way for LANL to take advantage of the government bureacracy to delay release of completely non-sensitive stuff and avoid any legal hassles for doing so. Good neighbor behavior, right? Especially for a taxpayer-funded facility. Yeah.
Stakeholder - An individual or group with an interest in the success of an organization in delivering intended results and maintaining the viability of the organization's products and services. Stakeholders influence programs, products, and services. Examples include congressional members and staff of relevant appropriations, authorizing, and oversight committees; representatives of central management and oversight entities such as OMB and GAO; and representatives of key interest groups, including those groups that represent the organization's customers and interested members of the public. [GAO]
That was the first hit on Google for a definition of stakeholder. I think POGO would fall under that definition.
Gussie isn't going anywhere. If you don't like him then hold me accountable. It's a concept that could be applied in a lot of situations. Hint, hint...
here's hoping that Nanos's dentist neglected to use novocaine on him.
i like the idea of resurrecting a LANL-worker force for what's right. i thought of this while reading about the UAW strike today, wherein GM is trying to cut benefits and salary to its workers while the top brass nets millions of dollars in bonuses.
i posit this scenario to all you LANL bloggers: why not meet and vent / share info in person? it could be at an "undisclosed location" until the day it happens...we could all wear nametags that say "HI! I'm ANONYMOUS"! but seriously, any takers?
oh yeah pinky, i was wondering, is 233 comments on one post your current record?
Probably so. And Gussie did this post.
10:15 - Pretty funny hidden message, but not all browsers will show it the way you intended.
The '2007 No Plans for a RIF' RIF:
1.LANS is going through with this- no question.
2.7% employees cut across the board, maybe more.
3. Voluntary separation will be briefly offered. (labor law) Don't expect many takers.
4.Separation rules spelled out in AM114- all money comes from LANL budget.
5. ALL divisions equally subject to 7%; Direct, Indirect, regardless of 2008 funding levels.
6. ORC scores count, as does job function.
7. Legal is heavily involved- may juggle final list by gender, weight, age, ethnicity, function, etc.
8. Timing- targeted-employee notices by Dec. You or your friends and neighbors gone in 60 days.
"Blogs bloat egos of the feeble-minded."
yes,(& great quote, btw) but what other venues do the many disenfranchised LANLers have, other than this blog, to counter the LANL home-page/newsletter/PR bullshit? it's sad, & we know it.
"7. Legal is heavily involved- may juggle final list by gender, weight, age, ethnicity, function, etc."
But no managers will be on the RIF lists. You can be sure of that. Also, no lawyers.
I'm getting the distinct feeling that the RIF is going to become all too real right after the LANS Fall Festival is over.
Anonymous at 9/25/07 11:04 PM writes:
"5. ALL divisions equally subject to 7%; Direct, Indirect, regardless of 2008 funding levels."
I sure hope that this is incorrect. That will fix absolutely nothing. If LANL wants to diversify its business, then there must be a change in how business is conducted in order to get the overhead rates to a level that we can actually compete for WFO.
This will do nothing to reduce the fixed costs and our overhead rate will increase.
Three years ago, in response to the Welch study, we had this computer program that calculated which women and minorities would get catch up raises. There was no input from GLs and nothing was done to check if the results made sense. And the results in many cases DID NOT MAKE SENSE at all. Now, it would appear that this same kind of foolishness will be applied to selecting the RIFfees.
This is particularly scarey. Consider a division that is fully-funded on WFO. If they take a 7% reducution, then they will have to bring in others to do the funded work that the RIFfees would have done. Unless, of course, thie higher overhead rate that will exist after the RIF will siphon off sufficient money that there will be no funds for the work.
WAIT! I think that I have come upon the solution. Just make the overhead rate sufficiently high that there are no funds left to do the work. Then there can never be any issues of cost overruns, late deliveries, or un-met requirements. We will then be was Nanos wanted: "a work-free safe and secure place."
11:04 PM:
5. ALL divisions equally subject to 7%; Direct, Indirect, regardless of 2008 funding levels.
Just this month, my GL said our group was in good shape because we actually have more funding than last year. (Mainly WFO.) Are we going to RIF anyway?? Why?? Just because the legal department wants to minimize lawsuits?
Isn't legal's metric how low they keep legal costs? How well your group fares is irrelevant.
A little off the subject, but is anyone else having trouble with the new Hewitt pension calculator?
I was able to change passwords, but every time I try to enter some data or use the little pull-downs, the browser crashes. I have tried MANY times. Maybe the system is overloaded with people trying to use it or maybe it has some programming glitches that need to be worked out.
I'd be interested to hear of other people's attempts at using it.
10:40, because your group is part of LANS. I would guess things would be rolled up at the Division level at a minimum.
"This will do nothing to reduce the fixed costs and our overhead rate will increase." - 5:28 AM
LANS cares nothing about overhead costs. That should be clear to you by now. They also care very little about diversifying science or WFOs.
The plan is to rally around the declining weapons budget, downsize as necessary with it, and use the future pit production facility to fill in the budgetary gaps.
It's not a very forward looking vision, but it is the easy one, and that is what LANS managers like.
'Easy' and 'lazy' are key words which best describe our LANS management. And for this, they get huge executive salaries!
I am afraid that anonymous at 9/26/07 12:51 PM is very, unforetunately, correct.
"LANS cares nothing about overhead costs. That should be clear to you by now. They also care very little about diversifying science or WFOs."
And, I belive that 9/26/07 10:40 AM is also correct:
"Just because the legal department wants to minimize lawsuits."
Science is ending at LANL. It died along with common sense!
I just wanted to thank all the folks at LANL for putting all of us (DOE labs) on our governments bad radar - keep f'en up and we'll all be out of jobs. Maybe God will work in a mysterious way the only have the RIF take out those responsible for this mess. Remember the days before LANL kept making the headlines with safety and securtiy issues??
4:52
Oh, we're so sorry to be the only blemish on an otherwise perfect DOE record. We'll all put in our resignations tomorrow.
9/26/07 1:13 PM
I am extremely disappointed to have to say the following, but.....:
1) Management does care very much about managing the overhead costs. There are certain costs one must incur to manage the facility and there is no direct funding
Diversifying science or WFO. WFO projects are not long term projects. From the perspective of managing the institution as a whole it is better it bring in science projects with a long term funding picture instead of little 2-5 year projects.
2) If we didn't have these yahoo's out there that are looking for any possible cause to sue the government (i.e. free money) then it would not be a concern. Take it from the Congressman who is suing GOD - he does have a point and we need to deal with this as a society
3) Science is ending at LANL. It is not 100% of management. It is a burden that needs to be shared by all, especially those that were directly or indirectly involved in the occurences that plunged the lab into scandal.
Managers also need their employee's to exercise common sense.
With all of that said LANL management has done a horrific job of managing the laboratory, and LANS is attempting to one up them.
This afternoon, the "7% solution" changed. Now the target RIF fraction is by Directorate, based on the ratio of NNSA Defense Programs funding (NW) to other funding (WFO). Therefore, if they really follow the latest guidance, groups/divisions/directorates with high WFO fractions should be targeted for small RIF fractions. On the other hand, divisions like X (Applied Physics, where they do NW design) are essentially 100% NW funded. Their cut may be significantly higher than the 7%. The overall number seems to still be 7% labwide.
4:52 PM: "Maybe God will work in a mysterious way the only have the RIF take out those responsible for this mess."
Yeah, one can only hope that they finally get rid of the aqua regia TSM.
9/26/07 10:46 AM said:
"Isn't legal's metric how low they keep legal costs? How well your group fares is irrelevant."
If so, then by all means RIF the female and minority component of the workforce. Groups like that tend to be conditioned to endure abuse and because of it, are far less likely to react forcefully when subjected to inequity. I'm not saying this to be mean, but a friend of mine in the legal field told me this a long time ago, and rest assured Lab Legal knows this as well.
9/26/07 8:23 PM, are you the same mental defective who's been trying to scare Doc Aq's postdocs into changing mentors?
If so, please get some counseling as you are a danger to society. And keep your eye on JACS, as Doc Aq is about to knock another one out of the park.
Quit trying to sabotage Doc Aq's career, and focus on improving your own, you f'ing loser.
"Maybe God will work in a mysterious way the only have the RIF take out those responsible for this mess."
yeah. and maybe god will only RIF those of us who cannot correctly form a sentence. that might be a good idea.
Dear LANL Cowboys - you've all earned your money - let's see if you can kill someone and spill SRD to the North Koreans. Should be pretty easy with your track record. Let me see - the saying is "LANL gets the cancer, and LLNL gets the Cemotherapy". Sounds about right. F all of you - I hope NNSA decides to take the entire 20% of the reduction from Los Alamos. Justice would be served. OK, there are a few who would be caught up in "the aggregate". but WTF - it's better than me.
4:52 pm:
Very few at LANL know the true stories behind the "safety and security issues" you cite, back to the incident before Wen Ho Lee that caused "dual mode" computing to end. Even fewer outside LANL know these details. Don't believe everything you read in the papers (or on POGO). Our society has decided that no issue can be more complicated than is able to be covered in a two-minute news story. So be it. Today's decision makers are largely ignorant about the issues they decide. It is partly a desire by those who know to control access to the information, partly a desire to use the information to forward specific agendas, partly just plain ignorance,stupidity, and laziness on the part of the press and others whose job it is to find out and act on the truth, and partly the short lifetime of the "truth" as other events and agendas evolve. Lots of "truth" is forgotten as people retire, move on to other jobs, or just realize it is in their interests to "forget" what really happened.
Not paranoid, just realistic and been around a long time. I can personally guarantee you that for the instances I believe you have in mind, what you think you know is usually very far from what really happened. And no, to the coming screamers of foul, I will not elaborate. I would hope you will get the reason.
"Maybe God will work in a mysterious way the only have the RIF take out those responsible for this mess."
yea and maybe god will only RIF those of us who cannot correctly form a sentence. that might be a good idea.
9/26/07 9:21 PM
Yes, but it's more fun to F with the larger majority of LANL folks that only use pictures. It took me a long time to work on that sentence - at least one person figured out the mistakes. Do you think that I think that the large majority of LANL folks are hicks?? Ye HA, those rules don't apply to me - F, I gotta a Ph.D.
It's becoming tough to get any real work done at LANL these days. All everyone seems to want to do is come by and talk about the approaching RIF. Perhaps it's time for LANL to start handing out "Do Not Disturb" signs to the staff for hanging on their doors.
This afternoon, the "7% solution" changed. Now the target RIF fraction is by Directorate, based on the ratio of NNSA Defense Programs funding (NW) to other funding (WFO)." - 8:13 PM
Are you serious about this, 8:13 PM, or is this some type of joke? My take is that LANS will circle the wagons to protect the weapons side of the house above all else. More details, please.
10:34 pm: Why would you want to get any "real work" done for an employer who is about to terminate your career? All that sand up your nose must be distracting too. Even if you survive the RIF, whose work will you be doing in addition to that you are doing now? If you don't care about your at-risk coworkers or their families, you must be a manager.
Dr. Aq has a career?
9/26/07 11:01 PM, "Why would you want to get any "real work" done for an employer who is about to terminate your career?"
Maybe because it helps to ensure that it's just termination of my job, not my entire career.
9/26/07 10:56 PM, Yes, ADTR is now planning to a smaller (but still non-zero) target that the PADWP orgs.
Anonymous 9/27/07 6:06 AM said...
"9/26/07 10:56 PM, Yes, ADTR is now planning to a smaller (but still non-zero) target that the PADWP orgs."
OK, that is some improvement over an across-the-board reduction. But, we must address the overhead rate if we are ever to diversify our mission. That, of course, means major cuts in the overhead areas.
The number of ADs and DDs has tripled since June 2006. Each has deputies, Admins, etc and all are highly-compensated. With a significantly reduced workforce, we must streamline this part of the organization.
9/26/07 9:34 PM
Hey dingleberry - it will be those that "can't" that will be kept to reduce the legal costs. Typical those that "can't" whine & cry the loudest, and are the first to sue.
Is anyone willing to take a bet that the LANL ADs get bonuses at the end of the FY for "having carried out an excellent RIF?"
Sorry to interrupt the general frivolity here but the Nevada Test Site 3161 plan draft is on the web, go to
http://www.nv.doe.gov
then accept the Notice to get to the Site Office homepage. Link to the 3161 plan is on the right side of the screen.
Or just click here to download it directly.
Keep me out of this debate ...please! I don't want to be associated with Los Alamos. Too many bad memories ...nuff said
--God
No surprise that NTS has been added to the 3161 plans. D'Agostino has obviously decided to make a run at downsizing the whole NNSA complex and not just the NNSA labs.
We've been warned for some time that this was coming. Well, guess what, people? It's here. And you can bet that NNSA has no interest whatsoever of trying to diversify the labs to help ease the pain. In fact, this will be NNSA's chance to finally kill off just about all the pesky WFO work that allows the labs to have divided loyalty.
Who's your daddy?
"Who's your daddy?"
I actually have two of them: that bald-headed prick, D'Agostino, and "Daddy Warbucks" Bodman.
Re: Nevada Test Site 3161
Note that Page 13 references "Pantex" so this document was "borrowed" from Pantex.
Also note that the voluntary separation benefits are almost identical to the involuntary, without any rehire preference. So, does anyone see a benefit/distinction of voluntary versus taking our chances with involuntary?
People who are getting ready to leave anyway, don't need to wait to be riffed.
Anyone notice that FY07 is referenced in the NTS document? I don't get that. The document was dated 9/27/07. Typo? Just because it was posted and approved in the last few days of FY07?
It is never to late to enter the "Fray".
To those who want Gussie off the blog, Pinky & the Brain has been pretty clear that isn't going to happen.
At the same time, the Good Doctor can't help but weigh in. I agree that Gussie shows his axe and his grindstone now and again, but he's pretty up front about it.
Pinky and the Brain is very objective despite having their own axe to grind. We applaud both of them for keeping this blog going continously. The Good Doctor has proven himself unable to maintain this kind of grueling schedule and definitely not this level of objectivity.
Those who don't like Gussie's axe-grinding surely wouldn't want the likes of us helping out. So shut up and read past Gussie's axe-grinding.
Gentlemen, keep up the good work!
-Doc
Shut up and tolerate it? Yep, just as soon as you shut up and tolerate LANL management's statements. Can you say "double standard"? Oh wait - I forgot, you are the good guys. Sorry.
Thanks Doc. Don't be such a stranger! We miss ya over here.
To: 9/27/07 1:16 PM
"Re: Nevada Test Site 3161
Note that Page 13 references "Pantex" so this document was "borrowed" from Pantex.
Also note that the voluntary separation benefits are almost identical to the involuntary, without any rehire preference. So, does anyone see a benefit/distinction of voluntary versus taking our chances with involuntary?"
Clearly a COORDINATED DOE/NNSA effort - wonder if that is legal, perhaps class action material ...
Thanks, Doc.
Personally, I can't imagine anyone who spent any time at LANL having an axe to grind, can you? It's always been such a well run place.
Seriously now, you got me reminiscing. I make plenty of mistakes during the course of any given day, but I have never yet made a $357M mistake. Three years later, the magnitude of Nanos' screw up in having shut down LANL down for 7 months over "missing" CREM that never existed still boggles my little mind.
The only thing I continue to find even more fascinating is how DOE and NNSA rewarded that quality of UC management by making a gift of the new contract as they did to LANS. The magnitude of the corruption and incompetence within the system is difficult to contemplate.
Speaking of which, and bringing us back to the subject matter of this post: I am curious about what effect, if any, the 6-week Congressional temporary spending bill will have on the RIF situation at the lab. As quoted in a New Mexican article on Wednesday,
"There will be no layoffs in the next six weeks, but that was the case anyway, a lab spokesman said."
Having lived through the '95 RIF, I have a sense of what kind of stress the uncertainty in the funding situation brings. Good luck to you all who still work there.
--Gussie
The big difference with the '95 RIF was that the ~800 final RIF selections were given many months (was it six?) that they would be out of here on October 1. The majority of them used that time to secure funding elsewhere in the lab. On Oct 1, I believe the final number was ~260 out the door, and as we know, many of them came back.
Can somebody vet these numbers?
Anyhow, we are looking at a much faster fuse in FY08. If the 3161 comes out Monday Oct 1, we could be looking at pink slips Dec 1 and out the door Feb 1. That gives very little time to find very little funding to get off the RIF list, if they will even allow that this time.
What's da matter 10:54PM? Does your Bechtel booby hoit? Here...kiss it!
"Re: Nevada Test Site 3161"
Beside the Pantex reference on page 13, note on page 14 that to be eligible for the program you must have been employed before Sept. 27, 1991. Obviously, a lot of hard work was put in by the boys at NTS to produce this guideline. Like Radar on MASH, on the requisition cross out machine gun and put in pizza oven.
9/28/07 7:44 AM said:
"The big difference with the '95 RIF was that the ~800 final RIF selections were given many months (was it six?)"
No, the big difference is that in 1995 employees got organized, and they forced the Lab to offer a voluntary separation, which ended up saving at least 250 involuntary terminations. The Lab got over 500 “volunteers,” but only accepted about 250. The Lab then proceeded to lay off another 250 involuntarily (perhaps to make a point). These employees then lobbied the New Mexico congressional delegation for extended medical benefits they were due under ACT 3161 but had been denied (by Lab management). There too the Lab was forced to comply. These employees then proceeded to challenge the inequity of the layoff itself; obtaining a court injunction and, in the process, delaying the layoff from taking effect. The delays related from the Lab being forced (at the 11th hour) to offer a voluntary separation package, coupled with the court-sanctioned injunction, resulted in the layoff process taking the six months or so that is referenced by 7:44AM. But the story doesn’t end there. The 1995 RIFees continued to lobby for reinstatement to their former jobs, given the inequity of how the layoff had been conducted and the fact that there never had been a budget crunch that justified what occurred (unlike now perhaps). In the process those few brave souls dared to stand up and be counted, and because of it they ended up saving the jobs of many others by forcing the Lab to back away from two more rounds of layoffs it had already announced would be occurring in 1996 and 1997. And so what was accomplished back then by this handful of committed people was nothing less than amazing. They took on the immense power and influence of the DOE, the University of California and the Lab combined, and prevailed. They made a conscious decision NOT to sit on their hands as the so-called slaughter house masters approached with their knives unsheathed. They chose instead to accomplish the impossible, deciding instead that the inevitable was simply unacceptable for them.
Good luck to you (and your families) in your appeals for mercy from those in control at the Lab. You’re going to need it.
--Ghost of CLER
Thank you for a lucid explanation of the RIF of 1995.
The historical lesson is a big help.
--Ghost of CLER
9/28/07 9:11 AM
I want to mention that THEN our New Mexico Legislative Leadership along with California Leadership was instrumental in reinstatement to their former jobs given the inequity of how the layoff had been conducted. Also,is why Sig Hecker and Jim Jackson were removed from their positions.
The story regarding the 1995 posted at 9/28/07 9:11 AM, no doubt by a CLER/UPTE person, is not precisely as I recall it. I was a GL at the time and participated in making up a ranked list of the people in our Group. Foretunately, we were almost entirely funded by WFO and fully funded so we did not RIF any of the members of our group.
First, the objective of the RIF was to reduce our out-of-control overhead costs. Of course, what we considered to be out-of-control overhead rates in 1995 would seem quite reasonable these days.
So, the majority of the personnel being RIFfed were in overhead areas and thus women and minorities were representated disproportionately to their demographics within the overall laboratory population.
When HR and Legal saw this, we were instructed to RIF some TSMs in order to get more Anglos onto the RIF list. They didn't exactly say that, be we got the message.
During or shortly after the RIF, CLER was formed. They decided to take the matter to court. They put up five plaintiffs: two Hispanics, two women, and one ~55 year-old Anglo PhD Physicist. There was some kind of agreement among the CLER members (about 1/2 of the RIFfees) to let these individuals be the formally-identified plaintiffs but that all CLER RIFfees would share in the settlement.
The Santa Fe and Espanola newspapers had a number of articles that were sufficiently hostile to LANL that there was a change in venue to Albuqueque. The jury trial was presided over by Judge Hall. In the end, the jury found that there had been age discrimination in the case of the Anglo Physicist but decided against the other four plaintiffs.
That would have been the end of it except that CLER got to some people in the DOE, EEOC, etc. and LANL was forced to hire back some fraction of the RIFfees.
Beyond that, it is important to note that there is a DOE regulation that RIFfees from DOE laboratories are supposed to get a hiring preference. So, LANL should have been looking at the RIFfees first as jobs were advertised.
In fact, many of the RIFfees were excellent employees who just got caught up in the financial issue.
11:43 am:
"it is important to note that there is a DOE regulation that RIFfees from DOE laboratories are supposed to get a hiring preference"
In fact this is the same "section 3161" that also requires a restructuring plan be issued and approved before any future RIFs can occur. Actually Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 1993 (42 USC 7474), a federal law that is implemented by DOE regulation.
"In fact, many of the RIFfees were excellent employees who just got caught up in the financial issue."
A few, perhaps, but not "many". Having been involved in this, I can assure you that "many" RIFees from that time were underperforming "deadwood" and managers took advantage of the opportunity to accomplish something that would otherwise have been impossible under UC rules.
"In fact, many of the RIFfees were excellent employees who just got caught up in the financial issue."
- 9/28/07 11:43 AM
That's one of the scariest parts of a RIF. It's not always fair. All it takes to get RIFed is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with little funding in your pocket.
You may have a stellar background, but that matters little if you are in an exposed position when the RIF list is drawn up.
RIFs are somewhat like doing wood sculpturing with a big chain saw. It gets the job done, but the results are very rough around the edges.
If management had learnt anything from the 1995 RIFs, they would've made sure to hire more white males and fewer women and minorites for the overhead functions, so that when the next RIF comes there will be no "discrimination" in layoffs.
Isn't it funny how the Lab can hire women and minorities in disproportionate numbers to their advantage, but when it comes time to reduce the workforce, suddenly the Lab is being discriminatory if those same workers get laid off, even if in proportion to the employee demographic for the affected positions?
Yes, that's a real thigh-slapper, 1:26.
LANL better not RIF a disproportionate number of Anglos from support positions. They might find themselves getting sued from the other side for once.
They should be sued for trying to use gender or ethnicity in any way to evaluate RIFs. Same goes for hiring.
Anonymous at 9/28/07 12:13 PM writes:
"I can assure you that "many" RIFees from that time were underperforming "deadwood" and managers took advantage of the opportunity to accomplish something that would otherwise have been impossible under UC rules."
Yes, s/he is correct. But most of the deadwood RIFfees got hired back into overhead organizations such as FM, PM, etc. They fit right in.
Off the Subject:
Has anyone heard anything about the Chemist at LANL who received the EO Lawrence Award and the MacArthur Foundation grant?
4:47pm,
Yes, we will be posting that story soon.
Pinky, here's one link to that story if you want to post it. I have to run now, but if you haven't gotten to it by the time I get back I'll post it later.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i40/8540notw9.html
--Gussie
You folks are a trip. There is no way LANS can RIF people based on a valid basis. One support organization requires the team leaders to submit an ORC score, then the "managers" move those scores around to meet some "average." It does not take a rocket scientist to realize a law suit waiting to happen.
Yes the ORC score are a crock. But, the DOE wanted them and HR loves them!
The problem is that there is no sense in comparing ORC scores outside of a team. And, we have always been under a lot of pressure to force the average score to be ~7. This is often applied at the division level.
SO, what you have is some BS-level C-student in FM getting an ORC score of 8 with the same score going to a real hotshot PhD-level physicist in T division.
HR, Legal, and the DOE would like the RIF list to be made up from some computer program that has strong emphasis on the ORC scores. No human judgement is wanted as that can lead to complaints and litigation.
But, somebody has to make some judgements here or we are really doomed.
Sooner or later we either cut the overhead or totally forget about diversifying the mission. Our overhead rates are already totally out of line with what WFO sponsors will pay. And then there is the hidden cost of doing business at LANL which include direct labor charges for training on how to drive.
I really think that all is lost!
9/28/07 7:28 PM said "HR, Legal, and the DOE would like the RIF list to be made up from some computer program that has strong emphasis on the ORC scores. No human judgement is wanted as that can lead to complaints and litigation."
Well, then the C-IIAC group leader should be punished since he does nothing but promote his friends (the ADCLES and her husband) and his own programs (ie hydrogen storage). So much for the new staff members or those who who work on programmatic efforts.
"HR, Legal, and the DOE would like the RIF list to be made up from some computer program that has strong emphasis on the ORC scores."
I hope they aren't using MS Excel 2007 for this program.
Let's review the basics about ORC scores, and see why they absolutely cannot be used lab-wide as a kind of "value to the lab" score.
ORC = overall relative contribution, but...
ORC = "performance" (against one's own metrics, not in comparison to anyone else) score 1 - 5; PLUS "job content" (a measure of the difficulty of your job, BUT only within your "PEER GROUP" which can be as small as a team or smaller) score 1 - 5. Total, 2 - 10 score for ORC.
One can see that to compare ORCs, even within the same group, is a joke, and was never intended, even by HRs policies as stated on their web pages. It is unfortunately true that an employee in one division (say) with a ORC of 9 could be vastly less important in terms of contribution to the Lab as a whole than another employee in another division with an ORC of 7. If LANS bases their RIF on these scores, legal action will be a slam-dunk.
HR should be the first "support" organization at LANS/LANL to be fired and RIF'd. They suck, provide no value added, and do nothing except cause trouble for management.
10:05 pm:
"HR should be the first "support" organization at LANS/LANL to be fired and RIF'd. They suck, provide no value added, and do nothing except cause trouble for management."
Well, not quite. It is true that HR mainly presents obstacles to manangement in cases of hiring, firing, and disciplinary actions. However, who does management turn to to cover its ass whenever management gets into trouble? That's right, HR. If HR did not exist to provide this cover, then many really seriously needed actions would not happen. If you think all mangement actions adverse to employees are wrong, then you probably want HR gone. Until, that is, HR can help you counter such an action when taken wrongly. I've seen it both ways, and in my view, HR, especially if the rep is one of the good ones, is a net plus.
Bashing HR is good sport. Indeed, HR really has some problems. But, there are some good people in HR, at least at the worker level.
I suspect that many of our problems with HR are due to their just following orders. Of course, that defense did not work at Nuremburg.
The wide ranging, disconnected way that individual organizations within the labs implement policies will again leave the labs open to "unfair" lawsuits, because policies are not consistently implemented. In fact, it benefits the employee if Human Resources fails in its mission.
Discovery will reveal that poorly informed lower level supervisors implemented policies differently in different organizations. ("what is a critical skill? how were diversity candidates protected? why were some junior employees retained over senior employees? what actually was said during the selection meetings?") Since honest answers given in deposition will reveal inconsistency and inequity that is unsupportable when presented to our friends and neighbors in the jury, suits will be settled.
Millions wasted in legal fees, depositions and class-action settlements can be saved if, instead, voluntary separations are adequately incentived.
I no longer care either way because I am only a substantially equivalent shell of the mission oriented achiever that I once was.
Count me in on the class-action Winterfest.
Roach
Uncertainty over plutonium manufacturing at Los Alamos has lingered
unresolved for 15 years, since the Rocky Flats bomb plant in Colorado was
shut down.
During the Cold War, Los Alamos made only a small number of pits for
research and testing. But with Rocky Flats closed, Los Alamos has been the
only place in the country capable of making pits.
In the years since, the federal agencies in charge of Los Alamos have
repeatedly tried and failed to build a Rocky Flats replacement.
Ha ha ha ha the arrogance of the LANL scientist - the best of the best
I don't know how this statement was meant to be interpreted but at the latest presentation given by Ed Moses Friday I hear that he had a wonderful slide that showed all the facilities across the nation that had to submit a 3161. It was said, " just because we see one facility starting to take action doesn't mean that they're going to do it here". The interpretation of this statement, even though it may be entirely wrong was, Los Alamos being the biggest facility, with the most people and least to do; was going to suffer the biggest hit in manpower of all the others. This of course didn't imply that LLNL was safe, just that we wouldn't be dumping as many people as LANL. Maybe the percentages will work out to be equal.
I was always under the impression this RIF would be fair with a 20% cut across the board from all directorates at all facilities at the same time, but evidently I'm wrong. This makes me wonder what goes on behind closed doors with these murkity mucks. I guess that's why they pay hatchet men and women big bucks.
Substantially equivalent lesson number 1. The more poorly the RIFs are executed, more likely settlements will be large. Time for the incompetent to do their thing
I'm going to bet that this was said to the people so they'd believe they had nothing to worry about. By doing this the employees will relax and give the 110% they've always given towards finishing NIF in the two years they have left. When push comes to shove DOE and NNSA are going to do what they damn well please. It won't matter how good you are or how much effort you put into getting the job done. All that DOE has to do to get rid of people from now on is very simple. DOE can consider the job done. The project is finished and now you no funding. Once your funding is gone and there are no new large scale jobs to go to, you'll find yourself unemployed. Once the manpower levels gets down to where DOE and NNSA want them to be, miraculously a new project will developed for those who are left. They will not be hiring anyone new. This is how Sandia Livermore has been operating for a long time. It's all a game from now on and you'll never know when you've been had until its to late. Enjoy the uneasiness and discomfort. I guess stress and heart attacks will also tale care of the manpower issue. The more, the better it will be for NNSA/DOE and LLNS.
Hey Livermites, get your own blog.
12:13PM claims a contrived RIF is necessary to clean out deadwood. I would argue that a RIF should be used to get rid of incompetent managers that fail to utilize the annual performance evaluation cycle as a way to DEVELOP their employees so that they do NOT have to use a contrived RIF to clean up the mess they created through their own incompetence.
3:32 pm:
"I would argue that a RIF should be used to get rid of incompetent managers that fail to utilize the annual performance evaluation cycle as a way to DEVELOP their employees so that they do NOT have to use a contrived RIF"
If an employee can be "developed" then the performance evaluation process is not necessary, and is far too inefficient and slow, for doing so. Most low-performing employees aren't failing because a manager hasn't "developed" them, unfortunately. There is a reason most top companies have moved away from annual performnce evaluation, period. It is a no-value-added activity that saps management time, and hurts employee morale. I've never heard anyone say they like the process, except maybe someone who just got a big raise.
The 1995 RIF occurred precisely as stated by "Ghost of CLER" (9:11AM). There was never a budget issue, and the layoff was grossly racist, not mention clearly biased as well against older workers. All this was proven in court, and by an investigation that was done by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance, and then widely reported in the media back then. Of course the Los Alamos mindset would prefer to ignore THOSE facts. The GL post following the Ghost is classic Los Alamos mindset. As far for 11:23AM’s claim that politicians deserve credit, the fact is politicians are the reason we're in the messes we're in today (everywhere, not just Los Alamos). They only listen when the damage has been done and the cameras are glaring in their faces. They only get involved when people have the guts to force the issue, as CLER did. In other words, it didn't just happen--moron! I too recall events of that time, and yes I was one of those “unfortunate souls” caught in that disgraceful web of deceit. As for the bigots that want believe minorities and women somehow deserved to be terminated at a disproportionate rate given their "over" representation in the LANL workforce, maybe it’s time to take your head out for some fresh air. In the 1995 layoff Hispanics were in fact terminated at twice their rate of representation in the LANL workforce. The Lab itself did a statistical analysis that showed the odds of such a disproportionate termination rate occurring, free of racial bias. The odds were $3 million to one. The lottery has better odds than that! The Lab tried to hide this of course, but was forced to divulge it during the litigation discovery process. Of course the bigots could care less about this bit of evidence. Older workers too were terminated at a disproportionate rate, though not to the same degree. So for the benefit of the rest of the world out there…THIS is the reality that is Los Alamos National Laboratory! This, and the unbounded arrogance that surfaces in this blog with respect to virtually every topic.
PS Thank you Ghost, for setting the record straight (or at least trying). In this post-WMD-lie-era that lead us into a senseless war we never should have instigated to begin with, there are still some care about truth. In other words, don't judge the rest of humanity based on the Los Alamos mindset ramblings that appear hear.
3:32PM--huh? No communications? No mutually agreed goals? To documented efforts or accomplishments? No nothing? Just blond hair and blue eyes I suppose...and you're performing well. Right? Of course. Heil!
9/29/07 1:48 PM
They already have their own blog. I think they just come to LANL to see who is whining about what today. More like entertainment than anything else. Once and a great while there is some good information here. I am sure they visit more than you think.
Anonymous at 9/29/07 3:49 PM opposes performance reviews.
While it is clear that LANL has been making a complete mess of the performance review process for about 20 years, a competently done performance review process can be a very valuable tool.
At some point, perhaps annually, it is important to sit down privately with each employee and summarize for him/her how things are going. If you are seeing each employee regularly (I prefer daily) and are communicating then the performance review should hold no surprised. But, at LANL there are many (too damned many) supervisors that only see their employees very infrequently, often only during the performance review.
The problems that we have with the LANL performance review process have only been made worse by this ORC nonsense. The ORC business is a very simple thing to understand: both the DOE and HR are in favor of it so therefore it is obvious that it is a bad thing. QED!
One more thing, the reason that the Management Walk Around process had to be initiated was that there were far too many managers who never EVER walked their turf or went into laboratories or offices.
3:49PM must work nights because he appears to be dreaming as he suggests performance evaluations aren't necessary for developing personnel. Lab managers are among the worst, and the performance evaluation process is about the only way to hold their feet to the fire. That's not the way this process is typically viewed, I know, but at the Lab that's the way it is. The worker doesn't have any other protection from abusive managers. Even this doesn't constitute much, but it helps.
So, how was the fall festival?
Anonymous at 9/29/07 4:00 PM writes:
"The 1995 RIF occurred precisely as stated by "Ghost of CLER" (9:11AM). There was never a budget issue, and the layoff was grossly racist, not mention clearly biased as well against older workers. All this was proven in court, and by an investigation that was done by the U.S."
WRONG! What was proven in court was that there was NO discrimation against women and Hispanics, only age discrimination against an Anglo physicist.
This person is continueing the lies of CLER and UPTE.
The fact is that UPTE is discredited. After nearly 10 years of organizing, UPTE, has less than one per-cent of eligibile employees signing authorization cards.
4:10 PM - Sounds like a TSM that failed at science and became a manager, group leader or above.
LANs management enjoys reading these comments because it is a good opportunity to watch us eat OUR dead and less fortunate. Many of you should be very proud of your petty selves. Shame on you!
4:10 pm:
"One more thing, the reason that the Management Walk Around process had to be initiated was that there were far too many managers who never EVER walked their turf or went into laboratories or offices."
Maybe you missed it, but the MWA system went away more than a year ago. It seemed that managers were "checking the box" at the required interval but not actually doing anything since the "quality" and "results" of MWAs were never defined or tracked. You get (don't get) what you measure (don't measure).
The statement that the MWS was not tracked is not correct.
As a GL, I used the MWA to force FM to fix things in our laboratories and offices. When you put in an issue, FM was forced to respond to it. This was basically the only way that we could get any response from FM.
9/30/07 7:02 AM
Stop trying to pretend you're a competent manager. You're not any different then the rest! Get out of Dodge you've destroyed this institution.
9/30/07 7:02 AM, LOL! Some things never change.
9/30/07 7:49 AM wrote AGAIN "The KKK is out again! Los Alamos is such a racist community!"
OK 7:49, where in the world do you get that the previous comments were racist? I don't see it. Let me get this straight, so if ANY minority or female (lazy or not) gets fired this is considered discrimination? DOn't you understand that there are incompetent and lazy white males, minorities, and women at LANL? These people span the direct and indirect (including management for that matter) sides of the house. They all deserve to be forced to prove that they are really contributing to the organization and not coming in from 9 am-5pm (counting the commute as part of their hours) and taking a 3h lunch break that includes an hour and a half exercise break. I see this go on every day. Do you think this is right? Nobody dares to question it because they fear the discrimination card will be pulled. I think this type of abuse needs to be challenged and hopefully taken care of. Sheesh.
9/29/07 6:54 PM
The KKK is out again! Los Alamos is such a racist community!
9/30/07 7:49 AM
Yeah, that is because the competent people are rewarded, but when it is not someone from Espanola it is racism.
Tired, old, weak, and wrongfully applied claim.
The lab is very diverse, and if one looks past then end of their nose, there are people from all over the world at LANL.
I've had a manager tell me I have no future at the laboratory because A) I'm not hispanic, and B) I'm not female.
....but guess what - That manager is no longer employed at LANL. So, I guess, some of the trash has already been taken out.
So how many people WERE at the "festival"? Did no one go to report?
Even today's "Monitor" ignored it.
It turns out that the only area where LANL employees are under-represented with respect to their national demographics is in the area of Anglo males over the age of 50.
Yes, there are not very many Hispanic PhD physicists at LANL. BUT, there are very few Hispanic PhD physicists anywhere.
Anonymous at 9/30/07 7:49 AM said
"The KKK is out again! Los Alamos is such a racist community!"
How is the KKK in any way related to the posting of anonymous at 9/29/07 6:54 PM?
What is reported in that posting would appear to be nothing more than the facts of the lawsuit.
9/30/07 10:40 AM
We're sure that the "Friends and Family Plan" will protect you guys! Nothing will ever change in this institution unless we start all over again.
Anonymous said...
If there is a function you don't want performed then you put an idiot in charge of that function. It's a tactic that explains a lot. Take a look at each manager from this perspective and see how often this explanation fits.
9/21/07 5:43 PM
That tactic has worked for the HR function for years.
My theory about the fall festival is that it went smoothly, was well attended, and as such, isn't juicy enough material for posting on here.
I didn't attend and haven't heard anything about it. All reports are welcome, positive or otherwise, but probably belong in one of the posts about the Fall Festival as they aren't RIF news.
Despite the later rainout, the festival appeared to be well-attended. I didn't attend but the high school lots were all full and folks were walking from further away when I went by around 1:15.
If you take a bit closer look, 1:47, you will see that the blog has an entire post on the "Fall Festivities".
Folks, let's get back on track. This week the RIF categories are going to be announced. Fear not, 7.5% average across the board, whether you need it or not. The indirect to direct ratio will not change, just the cost per FTE. The management are afraid of lawsuits. Let's make sure we all give the local businesses (ie bars) lots of business, OK?
The number or at least, the quality, of bars in LA took a dive when the Trinity Beverage Company was forced (as I hear it) to move because of demolition of their existing space, to the little, teenie, bar in the lobby of the Best Western, and the sterile, cavernous, dining room upstairs. What a loss of a great place to meet and eat! Anybody know if they plan better digs?
The LaVista located in the Best Western digs just plain sucks. Really poor service. However, the Quark behind Central Avenue really rocks. Phil the bartender is awesome and offers great drinks.
9:44 pm: OK! Good to hear there is still a good place. All you doomsayers, lets get our priorities straight! RIF be damned! LANS be damned! If that is your entire life, what have you been doing wrong??
Gussie - Doesn't 10:32 pm meet your criteria for removal? If not for advocating violence, maybe for advocating stupidity? Really, this whole blog has gotten so stupid, can't you end it as an act of mercy since it is now (or will be in 45 minutes) Oct. 1?
Really? We, an Anglo family, stood in line near several other families who were Asian. We sat near several Hispanic families as we enjoyed the Latino band and our kids played with other kids of varying appearances such that the thought struck me that it was a nice blend of many backgrounds with only FUN being the foremost thought in their minds. We saw a wide range of economic and educational levels represented, too. Sorry to disappoint you or your attempt to mislead others differently.
10:32 PM doesn't seem to be advocating anything except his/her admittedly stupid opinion. I've seen a KKK rally before. I sincerely doubt the Fall Festival was one.
10:32 is probably just one of the many trolls who lurk around here who have no relation to the lab at all, and simply seek to get people fired up for no good reason. As is often said on the 'net in forums like this -- don't feed the trolls. If you ignore them, they usually get bored and go away. All forums have them - for a while, the new mexican had tons polluting their comment sections with equivalently worthless trash.
Back to the RIF topic.
11:13:
Yes, it met my guidelines for deletion -- it's gone.
--Gussie
There is something weird about (our) Livermore blog, something fishy. Posts and comments just disappear as if there weren't there, I suspect LLNS influence which makes the blog loose all creditability for me, why ever delete postings? This is not about deleting stupid comments, different feel here.
Now would be a really good time to outsource most of the overhead functions: HR, Safety, FM, etc. This would facilitate the needed down-sizing of these activities.
Some of you may remember Jim Jackson who was Hecker's Deputy Director.
Jackson's model for LANL was to keep all of the overhead functions in-house and outsource all of the direct-funded functions. He felt that he could always use contractors to do the science and technology.
What an IDIOT!
I'm all for outsourcing many (or all) of the support functions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when the decisions are almost entirely based on financial info, the bean counters are rarely, if ever, slated to be reduced in number.
If you get beyond the panic of thinking about your employment changing drastically, you might begin to see that there may be possibilities of positive changes as easily as negative change. For example, some of the companies that provide admin, tech, cfo, pm or other functions may provide insurance, savings plans and other benefits that now surpass what LANS may be offering. The other improvement would also be that by not being employed solely by LANL a person might be able to move anywhere in the country if they need to.
Just a thought....
Anonymous at 9/30/07 9:23 PM writes:
"The indirect to direct ratio will not change, just the cost per FTE."
YES! If the indirect to direct ratio is NOT CHANGED, then the cost per FTE will go up because of the fixed costs (PLTA, Managment Fee, Utilities, etc.) plus that we will RIF only the lower-paid indirect people and keep all of the DD, AD, etc. And, to disguise this in part, many more things will be direct-charged. Welcome to pay toilets.
Pinky,
Would you consider reversing the order of the posts on this one so that we can see the latest posts FIRST rather than having to scroll down through nearly 400 entries? Just a thought...or maybe you could start a fresh new string so the viewing would not be so arduous.
I don't disagree that racially charged posts ought to be filtered out and not posted, but not just those directed at Los Alamos. Some of the posters to this blog love to portray Hispanics as less than capable, and Espanola residents in particular as incompetent, abhoring education and being characterized by loose women. So why don't you also filter out garbage like that? Why only filter out comments labeling the community of Los Alamos as racially intolerant? How about more little balance...please!
10/1/07 1:21 PM
Holy cow - someone is finally starting to see the bigger picture. LANL is reducing staff through the RIF. As the number of staff decline the physical size of LANL does not decrease and the costs to keep the doors open do not decrease. Hmmm - so how will this affect programs? The overhead rate is going to have to increase. Then, WFO an Reimburables will look for cheaper alternatives. Bringing new programs in......good luck
Post a Comment