ALBUQUERQUE Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the nation's premier nuclear weapons labs, is preparing to lay off hundreds of people because of anticipated federal budget cuts and other factors, lab officials say.
The northern New Mexico lab, where the atomic bomb was born, expects to cut between 500 and 750 positions, said spokesman Kevin Roark. About 12,000 people work at the lab.
The cuts are part of a restructuring plan the lab has submitted to the federal government. If approved, the lab would ask employees to leave voluntarily, with severance packages based on their years of service.
Those who opt for the voluntary buyouts would likely be done working at the lab by January, Roark said. The lab then would reassess whether any employees would be laid off, he said.
Some 700 employees packed an auditorium in Los Alamos on Monday to get an update from lab director Michael Anastasio on the restructuring plan. The rest of the lab's employees watched his address from their offices via closed circuit streaming video.
In a memo to employees, Anastasio said the decision to reduce the work force was a difficult one.
"It directly impacts people's lives, not only those of our employees, but also their families, and the northern New Mexico community. People are the soul of any institution," he said. "You have my personal commitment to make this process as fair as possible." Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said the severance package hopefully would encourage those nearing retirement to take it and preserve jobs for those who still have a long future at the lab. "Nothing about this situation is satisfying," he said. "Faced with ongoing budget uncertainties, LANL's leadership had no choice but to reduce its work force." Congress has not approved the fiscal year 2008 budget, but Roark notes, "budgets have been flat for the past few years" and the lab has been anticipating a cut. That and an unusually low turnover rate, which typically stands at 3 percent, are behind the restructuring plan, Roark said. "The overarching goal is to maintain the long-term viability of the lab," Roark said. "The director is committed to keeping Los Alamos at the forefront of science, keeping Los Alamos as a premier scientific lab in the area of national security. We can't afford to lose that." Charles Mansfield, president of the Laboratory Retiree Group Inc., said the layoffs could have an impact throughout northern New Mexico. "It's not just Los Alamos," said Mansfield, who worked at the lab for 17 years before retiring in 1993. "... The lab is a major economic engine for northern New Mexico." Mansfield described lab workers as "unique," saying any who are displaced would have to travel to Albuquerque for the nearest high-tech jobs. Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group, an Albuquerque-based watchdog group, added: "You have to worry about the vulnerable here in New Mexico. We won't have to worry about scientists that have marketable skills. You have to worry about those who don't ... the technicians and construction workers." Mello contended that layoffs wouldn't be necessary if the lab offered appropriate retirement incentives and reformed what he called "wasteful management practices," including canceling unnecessary construction, reducing subcontractors and cutting back management overhead. "We need pull money out of nuclear weapons, which are an obsolete form of security and put that money into relevant forms of security that are needed in our communities, especially energy security," he said. "If we cling to the labs against the current of history, then were going to be left behind." Los Alamos is not the only national lab preparing to trim its work force. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California announced last week that it plans to cut about 500 jobs because of rising costs stemming from a changeover in management and potential federal budget cuts. Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque released its work force restructuring plan last month, but spokesman Michael Padilla has said the lab hasn't made any decisions regarding layoffs. Los Alamos and Sandia currently are funded at fiscal year 2007 levels under a continuing resolution that expires next month. Meanwhile, lawmakers are trying to reach agreement on an appropriations package that would fund the federal government for the remainder of the 2008 fiscal year.
60 comments:
Isn't it amazing how Mike makes it sound like he cares. All he cares about is his bonus, his beamer, and all the programs he will inherit once he goes back to LLNL after June 1 (the ones he made sure LANL lost or just plain sent to LLNL). Sounds like Mike and his pals at the top have lots to be thankful for over this holiday weekend!
Mike is going back to LLNL June 1st? How do you know?
Mike is going back to LLNL June 1st? How do you know?
11/23/07 11:54 AM
Please keep (it) and his cronies in New Mexico and may all the Pu go to LANL tomorrow. If you do find out he's coming back please post the date. I need a picture of an ewok for my starwars collection.
I find the following comment particulaly insulting
In a memo to employees, Anastasio said the decision to reduce the work force was a difficult one.
"It directly impacts people's lives, not only those of our employees, but also their families, and the northern New Mexico community. People are the soul of any institution," he said. "You have my personal commitment to make this process as fair as possible."
Mikey is spewing pure shit (mouth was open) - he does not care. He has made a series of decisions to reach this point and all of them have been intentional. I think he has paased Nanos hands down and become the "worst" director to ever take the helm of LANL. Nanos only crippled the lab, but Anastasio seems hell bent on destroying it (and getting him and his grubby little cronies rich)
Hey, don't be so glum, everybody. I know, lets petition LANS to burn some more operating budget funds for a LANS Christmas Festival where we can all get free hot dogs and eggnog and shake hands with our friendly LANL executives. That's the ticket!
I thought Mike petitioned to becoe the new director. Where did you come up with the "assigned"?
Anastasio seems hell bent on destroying it (and getting him and his grubby little cronies rich)
You have Mickey and we have Georgee. I am sure these two talk on the phone a lot to plan their next attack but remember none of this is their fault nor is it the fault of the layers of management under them. It's all congress, the senate, NNSA and DOE. They are just puppets on a string being directed to do as they are told and LLNS / LANS are the fall guys who are there simply to assure things go smoothly and without incident for a small fee.
I don't know of a single employee I have talked to that like what is going on nor do they have any respect for LLNS / LANS or anyone in the layers of management that posses the highest aid salaries ever seen at LLNL or LANL. All I've ever heard is contention and condescending remarks that would make the hairs stand up on anyones back. There sure is not team work at my facility. It's more like cut throat to see who can make themselves shine at another employees expense. You know, get rid of your co-worker to assure you have a spot. There more ass kissing going on now then I have seen my entire career and I suspect it will only get worse. I think this is going to all boil down to something one of my co-workers said to me that's made more sense than anything I have ever heard out of management's mouth. What's going to determine how long you stay at LANL or LLNL is, "how much bull shit lies and manipulations of people's emotions and self respect can you take" before you finally say; I've had enough. It's a game Bechtel plays very well along with continual hounding and humiliation bit by bit, day by day and mandatory rule changes and more mandatory rule changes. The motto of these two labs should be. The beatings will continue until moral improves. You must think of yourselves as robot labor and then all will be well. You have no allegiance to the company and the company has no allegiance to you. If you can accept this type of environment you'll do just fine. If you want to have a healthy more lenient work environment as it was with UC you're in the wrong place. Think heart attack city and stress induced labor and learn hope to cope with it. These are the way of the new times.
11/23/07 1:11 PM
Make sure to leave your wallets at home wile attending that event lest they use one hand to shake your hand, and the other to snatch your wallet. I would not put that above them
LANS management wants obedient, fearful workers. They are going to have lots of these until additional RIFs kick in and begin to cull the herd. Watch out for the Judas Goats that LANS has carefully groomed and planted throughout the facility to lead the unwary astray.
With sheep, you don't need a Judas goat, just a half-way alert sheep dog to keep them all headed in the right direction.
"LAWNS management wants obedient, fearful workers."
Funny you should bring this us. The same is happening at LLNL. As a matter a fact at one of the supervisor meetings the first line supervisors were told to watch for people talking to one another and do some ease dropping. If they hear any rumors "their job is to squish them" and take note who is doing it. Hell, the first line supervisors aren't even being told the truth because ULM does not want the workers to know anything until its to late. Sounds like Hitler burning the books to make sure the people know no other word than what the dictator proclaims. You know what they can do with that exercise, don't you. I encourge everyone to talk as much as possible to one another and use every means you know of to distribute the message. If you find a snitch make it known to everyone else.
"I thought Mike petitioned to become the new director. Where did you come up with the "assigned"?
11/23/07 1:32 PM"
Does anyone actually think that Mike wanted this job? You must be kidding. He had little choice...
The sheep comments really are getting old, people. I know some of you think it is clever and funny, but really it is just insulting and demeaning to everyone. The actual sheep are not to crazy about it either. So stop it already.
By the way, what is the "official position title" for Wallace? What does he do for his grossly overinflated salary?
Makes one look at the job his mother does for the county in a new light. I imagine she needs to go also.
Shit is usually not flung far from the latrine.
LANL isn't the only place heading for layoffs. The budgetary Perfect Storm created by Congress and the Whitehouse is also hurting the DOD:
--------------------
Pentagon Warns of Civilian Layoffs If Congress Delays War Funding - Nov. 21, 2007
(Jonathan Weisman and Ann Scott Tyson - Washington Post)
Democrats Are Firm on Link to Troop Withdrawals From Iraq
The Defense Department warned yesterday that as many as 200,000 contractors and civilian employees will begin receiving layoff warnings by Christmas unless Congress acts on President Bush's $196 billion war request, but senior Democrats said no war funds will be approved until Bush accepts a shift in his Iraq policy.
"Is anyone else here freaked out that the Ewoks were going to eat Han Solo, and at the end of Jedi they are playing drums on storm trooper heads? Ewoks EAT PEOPLE! ... those beady black soulless eyes want nothing more than to sink their little Ewok teeth into warm man-flesh. "
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/news/
index.php/news/comments/enjoy_
election_night_with_us/
"200,000 contractors and civilian employees will begin receiving layoff warnings by Christmas"
Nice Christmas present. Government uses the FED to bubble and implode the housing market, then jettisons its staff during the ensuing recession. Brilliant. Who is our leader again? Do we have anyone leading this country?
11/23/07 8:35 PM
Jeanette Wallace also works for the Government Relations Office for LANL. Now they have Nick Salazar and Jeanette Wallace working for them and not the citizens of their district! A complete "Conflict of Interest."
"200,000 contractors and civilian employees will begin receiving layoff warnings by Christmas"
Congress can't make and approve a budget for domestic spending. It's good it also can't do the same for military spending.
Maybe the troops in Iraq can use their credit cards to get flights home for Christmas or whatever holiday they prefer.
It also could mean they won't be further stretched thin by having to go to Iran.
Their are lots of reasons for a patriotic American service person to go AWOL, and, of course, that is apparently just what they are doing.
Happy Thanksgiving weekend, anyway. Glad nobody in our immediate family is presently in Iraq. The letters to congress need to be stepped up for those who are. Pretty soon the re-up rate for junior officers will be so low there won't even be enough military to defend the country even if they weren't in Iraq.
And who cares if the nuclear weapons are aging and if there is anybody left who can tell or test?
Does anyone actually think that Mike wanted this job? You must be kidding. He had little choice...
11/23/07 7:32 PM
Can I have a puff on that crack pipe?
Of course he wanted this job - he is getting rich off of it.
"Jeanette Wallace also works for the Government Relations Office for LANL. "
Well, that certainly explains all the positive press her idiot son gets. Remind me, what has Terry done for science and engineering at LANL as PADSTE? Even in his former incarnation as ADSR, what did he do?
11/24/07 7:53 AM
That explains some about Terry - "it's not my fault, my mother raised me that way!"
Does anyone actually think that Mike wanted this job? You must be kidding. He had little choice...
11/23/07 7:32 PM
This comment had to come from Mike himself. Otherwise, it is just plain stupid.
Mike had little choice to become the new Direcotr of LANL in the LANS bid? Do you realize just how stupid that comment was yet......?
I observed the Nanos apologists during his brief reign, and now the Anastasio apologists are having their say. I have no respect for them, but any organization has their "yes" men and women.
11/23/07 8:35 PM said: "Jeanette Wallace also works for the Government Relations Office for LANL. Now they have Nick Salazar and Jeanette Wallace working for them and not the citizens of their district! A complete "Conflict of Interest."
Nah!...you think?
"Does anyone actually think that Mike wanted this job? You must be kidding."
Hey, for every one person who thinks they have a conscience, there are a thousand who'd do whatever it takes if the money's right. Many, in not virtually all of the most outraged posters to this blog would likely fall in the later category. That unfortunately, is the essence of humanity these days. Greed, self promotion, self service, lack of caring for others and even less for those who we can't relate to.
That's right, 10:55.
"Anything for the money" is why most of us moved here to Los Alamos.
Looks like many of us will be looking for a new money tree soon.
"... Anastasio apologists are having their say. I have no respect for them, but any organization has their "yes" men and women." (10:04 AM)
Many of the posters on this blog seem to have a black and white view. To them, it seems that Mike is fundamentally evil and greedy.
Is it not possible that many of the circumstances presented to Mike are beyond his control? How long do you think he would last if he came out and said, "I hate to tell you this.... I am just passing along the message from those idiots in NNSA and Congress?"
Does the fact that Mike accepted the job, and his employer is a for-profit company, make him a whore? Should he have refused the job on moral grounds? I really don't think many people would do that. And, in this case, it could have been "join us or leave," since the longevity of his tenure at LLNL might have been in question.
That said, I would certainly argue against the privatization in general, the large bonuses, and the flock of ADs. I'd certainly like to see Mike address the LANS management excesses openly at the same time he is addressing the RIF of the "little people". I am disappointed that he hasn't done that.
This is not an Anastasio apology. Wanting to see a little balance does not make me a "yes" man.
"Does the fact that Mike accepted the job, and his employer is a for-profit company, make him a whore?"
Well, not based on just this single fact, 1:29. However, when you couple Anastasio's new employment status with the background of him having actively helped LLNL win the RRW "contest", and all of the enthusiastic assistance he is providing NNSA/DOE and LANS in reducing the rest of LANL's mission to that of the nation's production pit facility, well, all of these combine to make the description of Anastasio as a money-grubbing whore a fairly accurate one.
Anastasio offered a VSP plan to prevent an ISP right? And enough time to make a decision? Sure sounds a lot better than the mortgage industry. One day the office of 40-60 people is there. The next day it is not.
http://ml-implode.com
Here's a recent automotive companies layoff plan: "Pretty much, no notice at all. Just over the course of about 2 weeks, here's a box, collect your stuff, have a nice life."
Thinking Mike left LLNL for the money (and all related greed varients) is the stupid comment. And you think more money was worth the trouble of going to disfunctional LANL and taking routine Congressional poundings?
1:29 and 3:29 PM, stop being an apologist for Mike. He offered the staff *NOTHING* and then tried to make it sound like a wonderful gift! That's what you call chutzpah.
Not that I believe this was Mike's first choice, mind you. I'm sure that Mike wanted a better deal for the staff but the word was that NNSA told LANS that anything better than severance for the voluntary separation would have to come out of the LANS "for-profit" fee (and we can be fairly sure that the LANS corporate partners would never allow this to happen).
Therefore, we saw Mike carefully shine a turd and hand it out to the staff as if it was something really special. Pair this with his constant mantra over the last year ("No RIF and no plans for a RIF"), and you have a fellow with no demonstrated leadership skills who has earned zero respect from the work force -- not that he really cares about this from what I've witnessed.
It really is all about the money with LANS. They engender no loyalty from the work force, nor do they care about the staff. NNSA requires money-grubbing whores sitting atop of the lab and they have have plenty of them now at the top levels of LANS. If Mike was to leave, however, his replacement would be no better.
Job qualifications for LANL's Director and the PAD/AD positions practically require the occupiers of these posts to all be money-grubbing whores so that NNSA can take total control over LANL during it's systematic destruction. It's no accident that these LANL positions saw huge increased in salary after the LLC transfer. It's what NNSA wants. Those dollars now help grease the strings that allow NNSA do as they please, science and the work force be damned!
"Thinking Mike left LLNL for the money (and all related greed varients) is the stupid comment. And you think more money was worth the trouble of going to disfunctional LANL and taking routine Congressional poundings?"
If not for more than doubling his salary and lots of nice perks was not the motivation, please tell us what it was!
"Thinking Mike left LLNL for the money (and all related greed varients) is the stupid comment. And you think more money was worth the trouble of going to dysfunctional LANL and taking routine Congressional bounding?"
For $1.3M and the special deal these clowns got to keep their UCRP, you betcha.
What else would the scum bucket from LLNL and his three cronies come to LANL for. It sure as hell wasn't to help the issues. It's all about money BOY and that's all its about especially now that we are a profit making organization. That clown is laughing at you all the way to the bank. While most of us will be unemployed his little ass will be sipping drinks on the beach with his loyal family and friends talking about old times and how he got his UCRP and every else got f#@ked. Keep that POS down there please. We have five of our own parsites to deal with who are doing the same thing.
"If not for more than doubling his salary and lots of nice perks was not the motivation, please tell us what it was!"
"For $1.3M and the special deal these clowns got to keep their UCRP, you betcha."
Do any of you dim bulbs understand how the president of LANS was selected? Apparently not.....
11/24/07 4:55 PM said: "And you think more money was worth the trouble of going to disfunctional LANL and taking routine Cogressional poundings?"
You're damn right it was worth it!
--Mike A.
1:29 pm: ""Anything for the money" is why most of us moved here to Los Alamos."
Speak for yourself, asshole. I moved here in 1977 to work for my country, carve out a decent career, and to have a chance to take advantage of the best multi-disciplinary scientific establishment in the country. Mission accomplished. If your mission was somewhat less egalitarian, shame on you.
1:29.... bravo.... not everyone is at LANL for "money." Even tho the LANS/Bechtel bunch seems to be bonus happy and ridiculously overpaid.... some of us are there because we want to be and feel we make a difference and have put in YEARS of service.
Funny, but I don't believe I heard Mike say a single word about giving up a penny of his big salary gains to charity at the last All-Hands, like Director Miller over at LLNL.
Likewise, not a peep was heard about holding back the PAD/AD huge salaries boosts, like Director Miller over at LLNL.
And, unlike Miller, Mike didn't get the least bit choked up when he delivered the bad news to the staff at the last All-Hands meeting.
If it's not about the money, then Mike sure has me and a lot of other folks at LANL completely fooled.
But then, maybe.. just maybe.. it is about the money. And maybe the apologists for Mike on this blog are fools (or, more likely, part of Mike's nouveau riche crew at LANL).
Get real. If the lab didn't pay so well and offer good benefits most of us wouldn't have come here. Your patriotic motivations are all well and good, but that doesn't really play so prominently today. I guess it was different back in '77, what with the Soviets and all, but nowadays the only real mission of LANL is virtual stockpile stewardship and minimal pit fab. All of the significant military advances are coming from private industry defense contractors. The days of LANL as a premier scientific institution are over. So, why should one come here if not for the money?
10:31 pm: "And, unlike Miller, Mike didn't get the least bit choked up when he delivered the bad news to the staff at the last All-Hands meeting."
Well, here's a news flash. Despite his title as LANL Director, Mike has no knowledge of the LANL workforce (at his own admission), no loyalty to LANL or its workforce, and no reason to feel any sentiment about LANL or its workforce. He has given ample notice he doesn't consider it a priority. He's a Livermite, born and raised, and will never feel any positive feelings for LANL. Hence his actions, and the very apparent lack of remorse for them.
Never before has a LANL Director decided to live in Santa Fe and never be seen on the hill, mingling and talking with the "little people" after hours and on weekends. I fondly remember running into John Browne in Smiths in White Rock on Saturdays and having a chance to give him my best wishes during the stressful times of the Lee and Hard Drive incidents. What a shame, and what a slap in the face of the past highly-regarded and in some cases beloved LANL Directors. Has Anastasio ever invited new Post-docs to his home for dinner as Bradbury did? Nanos and Anastasio will be remembered in LANL history as the decline and fall of class, loyalty, and integrity in LANL Directors. So sad...
Hey 11:36 PM - I didn't like the guy, but even Nanos lived in Los Alamos and frequented restaurants on a routine basis. So I would not put him in the same class as Mikey and crew...
I now know of at least 6 double dippers who are taking the voluntary incentive who will be sorely missed here. I have yet to see any of the double dippers I know that don't do much for the lab, and wouldn't be able to find work anywhere in the country making anywhere near what they are making here doing what little they do now.
We've invented white collar welfare here at the lab. The people this lab needs to lose will not leave until they are let go. Where else can someone put in less time than they report and spend time on items other than work in the little time they do put in at work and still make the kind of money they do?
Why has it become so hard to just fire an incompetent twit? Too many idiots get promoted into another area just so the group that had the loser before could get rid of them cleanly. Is it a scientist thing?
It is not a scientist thing. Consider Google, Dupont, Archer Daniels Midland, or any good university. There scientists are productive.
It seems to be an incentive thing. If being productive, say in terms of high impact papers, does not get you raises, advancement, or more lab space; you either stop being productive or you leave.
Lack of production, in many places, seems to correlate with the culture of the place.
I know many people who have left LANL because they could not be productive in their group.
How can somebody be productive here? Not even six-sigma will make us more efficient. We will only become efficient if people ACTUALLY do their jobs. I would hope that the people that Mike can get rid of are those who never actually work!
And the numbers of employees at the lab. Does that include the 15 per week that the lab continues to hire?
8:12 AM makes a good point about Pete Nanos. His leadership skills were much in doubt, but he built a large home in the Western Area and could frequently be seen around town. I use to see him shopping for groceries at Smith'a (his wife couldn't shop because she was paralyzed with a bad case of MS).
Most of the people running LANS are nothing but carpet-baggers. They have no loyalty to Los Alamos or to the workers who call this place home. Once they've made their big money they'll be leaving for other parts of the country.
BTW, if you've ever witnessed Mike when he leaves LANL in his fancy LANS-leased black sports car, you know he speeds out of town like he can't wait to get out this place at the end of the day.
Mike has told us that the RIF would also hit LANL management. I wonder which poor Deputy Group Leader (DGL) LANS will target so as to prove to everyone that this RIF was "fair"?
The holiday season is fast approaching. In celebration of this event, I hear that LANS plans a new festival with rum spiced eggnog, heavily laced poppy-seed muffins, all followed by a piss-test for everyone. Enjoy!
Opps, it looks like DOE GNEP funding is now in big trouble for FY08...
www.platts.com/
Nuclear/News/
6609708.xml?src=Nuclearrssheadlines1
Eight senators seek cut in GNEP funding
Washington DC (Platts)--23Nov2007
Eight US senators have called on key appropriators to cut funding for DOE's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program in fiscal 2008.
In a November 20 letter to Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Democratic chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and to the panel's ranking Republican Pete Domenici of New Mexico, the lawmakers said they had "significant concerns" about GNEP, a DOE effort to develop new kinds of reprocessing plants and fast reactors.
The letter, initiated by Wisconsin Democrat Russell Feingold, was signed by five other Democrats, one Republican and one Independent. Senate appropriators earlier this year approved $243 million in GNEP funds for FY-08 while the House-passed funding bill would provide the program with $120 million. The Senate has not yet scheduled a vote on its version of the bill.
In their letter, the eight lawmakers questioned "DOE's plans to initiate commercial reprocessing in the United States." The letter added that such action would set in motion a massive multi-decade government-subsidized nuclear reprocessing program.
Heard the voluntary will be postponed because DOE is questioning why LANS isn't looking at limited term employees before the voluntary.
That wouldn't surprise me a bit. Contrary to the sentiment on here that Mike and friends are the evil oppressors who are trying to screw the lab, it's stuff like this that just proves that DOE is actually the entity that is actively trying to screw us at every possible opportunity.
I'd love to volunteer, but the nation needs me. Please, those of you who aren't as brilliant as I, do the right thing and volunteer! The free world is counting on you to do the right thing.
--One of the Lab's Best & Brightest
Agree with you 5:57; DOE/NNSA (with Congressional help) has both lab directors bent over.
You should see the LSO Contracting Officer stuff at LLNL: no emergency meals as an allowed cost (guess that will help during the next lab disaster). Catering for any visitor is an unallowed cost (so much for making sponsors feel welcome). For awhile, it looked like jury duty was a no-no, but that got fixed. Also, to avoid safety/security concerns when terminating flexible term employess, we could pay 30 days of severence in lieu of notice. Guess what? Had to get a waiver on that one; another unallowable cost.
Non-stop nonsense from the DOE.
Hang on to your butt's, as you all know, this is only the "tip of the iceberg"...just wait a few weeks, when the FY 08 budget comes in...then you may began the real screaming...think 750 FTE's is bad news just wait.....1,800 + might be a good ballpark figure......
Has anyone seen the parking lots on Fridays? Every Friday - empty. I really hope during all the RIF madness that they end the 9/80 work schedule. Nobody works on Fridays anymore and the Lab could save some money by having people actually work 5 days a week...
Agreed, 6:27 PM. The 750 RIF figure is just an opening position in this poker game. The final numbers is likely to be closer to 2000 when all is said and done.
We'll probably see less than 100 people take the voluntary program leaving about 650 staffer to be kicked out the front door in March. This will be followed by perhaps a couple hundred more before the fiscal year ends when our reduced budget finally arrives.
Expect another big RIF sometime in FY09 so that we get closer to achieving NNSA's magic number of about 2000 layoffs. Just don't expect Mike "No RIFs" to tell you about any of the real plans which NNSA has hatched up for LANL.
When this is all over, much of the non-weapons programs at LANL will be dead and the weapons programs that are left will take on a heavy production flavor. In addition to this, salaries will be stagnant, benefits will be eliminated, and the TCP1 pension will be shown to be on very shaky ground.
Here is an earlier post from a different topic, but pertinent since this is all probably part of a larger plan:
Paraphrasing from an earlier post:
The layoff has clearly exposed the blatant lie that LANS would absorb the new costs through efficiencies. Instead, 750 employees are now out the door simply to cover the fee alone. From DOE's perspective, the new costs were a bargain compared to the new control they could gain over their lab.
This whole RIF process has also clearly exposed the other blatant lie that LANS would have more autonomy to run the lab like a true business. Clearly, Anastasio cannot make a single, simple decision, nor even speak to us, without thorough review by all levels of LASO/NNSA/DOE. He is not a Director in any sense, he is simply the new messenger for DOE.
DOE now has full authority with very little responsibility. Recall Bill Richardson's frustration in the Summer of 2000, when, as Secretary of DOE, he tried to order LANL employees fired over the missing disk drive. UC and Browne both balked, saying that they would look into the matter and apply "due process." DOE was nationally embarrassed to have to explain that LANL employees were not in their direct control.
The overfunded UC Pension Plan was also a source of frustration to DOE. In 1996, they released a memo estimating that they believed that $600M of the mega billion UC pension plan should be "returned" to DOE as part of the overfunding. Never mind that the overfunding was saving them $100M a year at LANL alone in pension costs. They were administratively frustrated that there was no way to control the UC pension.
Recall also the fight that DOE only partially won in 1993 in trying to control the voluntary early retirement program offered to all UC employees (the rest of UC was offered 3+5, but DOE won the battle that LANL/LLNL could only be offered 3+3). Again, administrative frustration that they did not have control.
Separately, Congressmen are generally small businessmen who fundamentally believe in competition. That UC had never competed for the contract stuck in their craw. UC's threat was that they would never compete any contract.
Hence began the steady banging of the drum that the culture of LANL was bad and must be changed, by both Congress and DOE.
The conversion today is nearly complete. UC's "never compete" bluff was called. DOE has finally achieved several levels of control it has never had:
* The top managers are highly motivated via employment contracts, high salaries, and bonuses to jump to every command, and they simply will not make a single autonomous decision. Total Management Control.
* Every single employee within the lab can be simply and easily fired due to the "at will" status. Total Employee Control.
* The pension plan is now private with unvested rights to the employees, and therefore its future costs are totally controllable. Total Cost Control.
New contract costs: over $200M.
Employment consequences: thousands RIF'd.
Total Control: Priceless.
11/21/07 2:06 PM
Separately, Congressmen are generally small businessmen who fundamentally believe in competition. That UC had never competed for the contract stuck in their craw. UC's threat was that they would never compete any contract.
11/25/07 9:28 PM
If that is true, why does Haliburton enjoy a $635M annual no bid contract for services in Iraq?
5:29, there are about 400 LT out of about 8100 LANS regulars. In addition, there are about 400 staff aug contractors at LANL.
Heads up for those who are counting on unemployment checks after separating from the lab.
In some states, when a worker gets a severance package, unemployment cannot be collected until after the full length of time for the package has passed by. In other words, if you have 16 weeks of severance pay (whether distributed monthly or handed out at one time), one cannot collect unemployment until after the 16 week time period has elapsed. Another factor to think about: Unemployment payout is sometimes substantially reduced in value due to the generous severance packages that workers can get. Someone ought to look into what will happen in NM. Bottom line, don't count on getting your unemployment check right away and be prepared if the amount is substantially reduced due to the value of your severance package.
Post a Comment