Sep 20, 2007

Workforce Planning Update

To/MS: All Employees
From/MS: Jan A. Van Prooyen, A100
Phone/Fax: 7-5101/5-2679
Symbol: DIR-07-275
Date: September 20, 2007

Subject: Workforce Planning Update

Two weeks have passed since the all employee meeting regarding FY08 Budget uncertainties where the Director announced I would lead a team focused on planning efforts around potential workforce restructuring. As part of that planning process I have led a LANL team in working with DOE/NNSA to meet the requirements of Section 3161 of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.

Section 3161 establishes the planning process for a possible workforce restructuring and requires the creation and submission of a workforce structuring plan. There are two types of plans required by Section 3161. Initially, a high level general plan, establishing the general framework within which any restructuring of the workforce at LANL would be implemented, is submitted to NNSA for their adoption. As has been discussed, this plan does not contain any specificity and is largely for the purpose of providing notice to employees and the community that a specific plan is being developed. Following the general plan, a specific plan is submitted that describes in detail how a workforce restructuring would actually be accomplished.

I submitted a proposed general workforce restructuring plan regarding LANS and its integrated subcontractors reporting to the Los Alamos Site Office and performing work at the Laboratory and our satellite locations (Nevada and Carlsbad) to NNSA yesterday.

The submitted plan is based on guidance our site, along with a number of other sites throughout the NNSA complex, have received. It will now be reviewed by NNSA and once approved posted on the NNSA website. It is my understanding that this posting will begin the official notice process. We will also post the approved plan on our website. Given the high level and general nature of this plan, I anticipate a relatively quick approval.

We will continue to keep you apprised of activities regarding our planning process. In that vein, I anticipate an information website being posted in the near future. Please remember however, that we are still in a planning phase, and you like us, have many questions that don’t yet have answers. Having said that, it is our intention to maintain open and effective communication with you and stakeholders of the Laboratory.


Anonymous said...

"It is my understanding that this posting will begin the official notice process."

So the 120 day clock puts RIF's at January 18, 2008 and notices go out November 19th. Happy Thankgiving all!

Pinky and The Brain said...

"I anticipate an information website being posted in the near future."

Welcome to the club!

Anonymous said...

Maybe Pinky & Gussie can make a space on LTRS for Van Prooyen to post his RIF information. You know, to help LANL cut costs.

Anonymous said...

2007 is shaping up to be a very festive holiday season. Thanks, LANS! Thanks, DOE. And Mikey, a special thanks to you. See you on the 29th at that much-anticipated festival.

Anonymous said...

4:39, when are you starting the clock? I read it to start based on NNSA posting it:

"It will now be reviewed by NNSA and once approved posted on the NNSA website. It is my understanding that this posting will begin the official notice process."

Not that it can't be very soon of course, but I don't think it's yesterday or today.

Anonymous said...

I got this from a friend and take no credit for it (wish I could), but it sums up Van Prooyen's memo perfectly:

If I understand it correctly, there is a PLAN to plan a plan for the planning of a workforce plan which has been or is planned to be submitted and planned to be developed to address restructuring plans that will, it is planned, be posted on the NNSA website to describe the planning process about which there are "many questions that don't yet have answers???????????????????


Anonymous said...

The resounding silence we hear is the sound of reality sinking in. Perhaps for the very first time for a number of staff.

C'est la Vie

Anonymous said...


"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." -Mark Twain

Anonymous said...

is everybody happy? so glad the bush administration handed the lab over to Bechtel so they can screw long-time workers to ensure their profit margins and corporate bonuses. what does UC have to do with the lab any more? Why is it that all the managers they brought in come from Bechtel or Pantex or somesuch? Why has no new manager since transition come from UC? Some partnership.... thanks for the fuck, Congress... was it good for you?

Anonymous said...

Sitting at home drinking alot ! I first want to say WTF, we all new this was on its way. I am standing by in Livermore waiting for our hammer to be dropped. The LLNL sheep walk the halway saying nothing ...afraid there ass will be on the line if they say a single word. TOOOO late xmas is coming sooon with a pink slip. The lists are made and many must go ...
I just wish I had listened to dad and stayed in the military. The last job with security in this country. I read post blaming and flamming Dems and Repubs all elected them. Vote the cold black hearted assholes out of office. Vote middle of the road.. Dont tow the line for the left or right. JUST DO WHAT IS RIGHT. enough said.
(gulp) another glass of Livermore valley wine down ..only one more til the bottle is gone.

Not that it will make anyone feel better in NM we (i) feel your pain.
Thank god I elected tcp-2 and told the LLC FU too !

Hey anyone looking for a middle aged ..white ...english speaking ... red white and blue collar worker ? I will only cost you 450 K a year OH thats right ..
120 K a year in the private sector.

Devils den in wacked out California

? how do I purchase goods with my goverment credit card ...anyone ?

Anonymous said...

9:03 pm:

Interesting that you start by blaming the "Bush administration" and finish by blaming Ccngress. Is there any branch of the government you don't hate? If not, why work for them??

I don't understand how anyone who has been awake over the past two or three years can be surprised that Bechtel and BWXT (i.e., Pantex) have taken over. That is what Congress and the DOE/NNSA desired in response to the (perceived) UC "failures."

You seem to pine for UC involvement. Most of the posters on this blog would dispute that position. I don't necessarily disagree with you but you must be more specific in your complaints.

To answer your question - no, no one is "happy." Any adult who expects "happiness" without having worked and/or fought for it is bound to be disillusioned. I'm quite sure your job description doesn't include it.

Anonymous said...

To 9:03 PM who wrote "what does UC have to do with the lab any more?"

Answer: Terry Wallace with his awesome leadership skills and support for science.

Anonymous said...

Guess what DOE official rubber-stamped the Lab's layoff (aka workforce restructuring initiative) in November 1995. Rich Marquez, that's who! Yep, he was the DOE Albuquerque office contracting official that signed off that fiasco. Now guess what DOE attorney led the charge defending that fiasco in court. Tyler Pchzybelech (whatever the spelling is), that's who. Don't believe it? Do a little homework and you'll see. Talk about rewarding those with no reservations about carrying the dirty deeds that trash people's lives. Why not, they both got rewarded quite well for it in the end, didn't they? So spread those cheeks my dear colleagues, and get ready for another holiday season surprise. They'rrre Baaaack!

Anonymous said...

LANL needs to prepare for flat or reduced budgets in the future. That means that a genuine restructuring (streamlined management, less ADs, less DDs, reduced staffing in overhead areas, closing facilities and sites etc.)is in order. Also, there are a lot of overhead functions that can be outsourced. We need to get to an employment level that will assure that there will not be annual RIFs in the near future and that has some headroom to allow hiring some new people. If we are going to increase our WFO, then we must find a way to not tax such work to the point that we do not get any of it. At the present time, WFO gets the least benefit of the taxes and subsidized the NW work.

Anonymous said...

You are dreaming 10:31 AM. None of what you say will happen. In fact, the opposite will most likely occur.

I don't believe LANS has any plans to really fix the obvious problems at LANL. That's too hard. They'll take the lazy route. That means higher overhead and more devotion to the NNSA and their nuclear weapons work, even if this work is in budgetary decline.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9/21/07 11:13 AM calls me (anonymous at 9/21/07 10:31 AM) a dreamer.

All I stated was what I think SHOULD be done. I made no statement with regard to whether I thougt that anything sensible would be done to get LANL restructured into a proper organization with reasonable overhead rates.


Anonymous said...

OK, 1:28 PM, you have some "issues" ...