Nov 28, 2007

Self Select Program Target and Exclusion Information

Here is the list of Self Select information: employee counts, targets, exclusions -- all 20 pages of it.

-Gus

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks like the lower paid positions in ADBS and ADOPS (those occupied by people with unpronounceable surnames) are getting hit the hardest.

Or will the targets change after the SSP?

Anonymous said...

and that's a surprise?

do these numbers include contractors and limited terms now that the flexibiles have moved up in the RIF timeline?

Anonymous said...

I count 747 targets which correlates well with the stated number of 500-750 total separations. Looks like the SSP target list will also be the RIF list.

Pinky and The Brain said...

Why are employees counted in increments of 0.01, Gussie?

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

Good question, Pinky. I suggest that parties interested in the answer to that question send mail to The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov

-Gus

Pinky and The Brain said...

The Brain says it's because dollars are counted in increments of 0.01.

-Pinky

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

That makes cents.

-Gus

Pinky and The Brain said...

A penny for your thoughts?

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

Sorry. I'm easy, but I'm not cheap.

-Gus

Anonymous said...

Don't worry about the names its the relations that matter here....I'm sure there are plenty of cuzins, nefews and in laws that will be just fine.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the targets will probably change after the SSP, at least that's the word we got from on high.

Anonymous said...

6:42 PM wrote "Don't worry about the names its the relations that matter here....I'm sure there are plenty of cuzins, nefews and in laws that will be just fine."

Yeah, in ADCLES the ADs research team and her husband's are in excluded categories. However, a radiochemist will be sacrificed despite being a needed capability losing numbers. Conflict of interest ... You think?

Anonymous said...

Somebody needs to say this, again.

They've won! You've lost!

The managers of this operation have led the staff of LANL all the way from the pasture, to the corral, and through the chute. Now, one by one, you're teetering on the edge of the ramp leading up to the abattoir.

Go ahead and complain that your office mate's cousin's girlfriend's brother isn't in the chute behind you if you want, but it won't do you any good.

Victim mentalities are really not that attractive, nor are all those bleating noises.

Anonymous said...

7:51 pm: "Victim mentalities are really not that attractive, nor are all those bleating noises."

Easy to gloat, if you're not the victim. Your turn will come. Remember how you treated those less fortunate. (Didn't your parents teach you this?)

Anonymous said...

7:41 PM, I have no love for Neu either but at least she has been communicating with you regularly. You can't really blame her, she has a position and she is helping those that she can. Trust me, other ADs and PADs are doing the same...

Anonymous said...

"Abattoir"?

Surely you are not an American! We have good, old fashioned slaughter houses here, not "abattoirs".

Anonymous said...

11/28/07 6:42 PM

Ahhhh yes, the token employee's, and for the most part - deadwood

Anonymous said...

Looks like there are going to be a lot fewer weapons physicists and weapons engineers at LANL from a look at the numbers being targeted. The weapons program is taking a hard hit in staffing.

In PADWP (Weapons Program) you've got 42 targets and no exclusions!

In PADOPS (Operations) you've got 54 targets and no exclusions!

In ADEPS (Experimental Physics) you've go 10 out of 52 physicists in "weapons physics" being targeted.

In ADMSM (Stockpile Support) you've got 15 scientists and engineers targeted, but exclusions for the Pu machinists and Pit techs.

In ADWE (Weapons Engineering) you've got 34 targets and only 6 exclusions.

In ADWP (Weapons Physics) you've got 48 targets and only 6 exclusions (with 4 being for cyber assurance!). I count 32 physicists being targeted, with many coming from areas like "Design Agency" (primaries/secondaries?).

Even the DIR (Director) heading shows 25 targets and only 11 exclusions (for lawyers and patent support).


It's very clear from the target list that LANS is going to make significant cuts in the weapons area. This is not too surprising given that NNSA has told us that the weapons funding is quickly headed downward. It's also clear that this list even targets some management positions and support groups. There appears to be some thought behind the numbers. It's not just a broad 10% cut across all areas.

Anonymous said...

Well, I am just glad to see that we are going to keep all of the useful lawyers in Legal. I wonder how that happened. Hot damn!

Anonymous said...

I've been staring at these targets for a while (unlike the rest of the lab population, ha ha) and there's more here than meets the eye. For example - if you look at the weapons directorates, the only place any managers are mentioned is in ADWE (and I'm sure they have more than six). But when you roll all the way back to the PADWP page, you find a horde of managers that - although Glenn Mara's program office is big, it's not THAT big - suggests the headcount rollup is at the PAD level, not the AD level.

OK, now look at PADOPS and its AD level orgs. The Security directorate is only slated to lose about 5% because so many are in excluded job categories. ESH&Q has all of its RCT's excluded. ADNHHO, well, you just wish you worked there... So once they scrubbed all the job functions we "can't possibly live without" onto the exclusion list, all they had left on the table to meet their quota with was the administrative types that were rolled up at the PADOPS level.

At least that's my read on the numbers that are published here. As if I know shit.

Anonymous said...

The numbers for 'targets' and 'exclusions' in these lists make for very interesting perusing.

Anonymous said...

"Well, I am just glad to see that we are going to keep all of the useful lawyers in Legal. I wonder how that happened. Hot damn!"

Lawyers were about half of the problem here. I wonder how many blameless people are going to hit the street and never know why.

Anonymous said...

"Surely you are not an American! We have good, old fashioned slaughter houses here, not "abattoirs".

LLNL person here. I have to say I think the word abattoirs really fits in well with the theme. It is old french, which conjures up thoughts of the French revolution. Right now the peasants are being oppressed. But there will be payback. There always is. Simple physics.

I'm a bit tired, so please excuse my next bit of fun. Replacing wikipedia's "French Revolution" with "LANS" we get:
"the LANS governmental structure, previously an absolute monarchy with feudal privileges for the aristocracy and clergy, underwent radical change to forms based on Enlightenment principles of republic, citizenship, and inalienable rights."

Anonymous said...

"Don't worry about the names its the relations that matter here....I'm sure there are plenty of cuzins, nefews and in laws that will be just fine.--11/28/07 6:42 PM

You got that right! Especially if they're related to legislators on the so-called Lab Oversight Committee: Lujan, Gonzales, Griego, and of course Wallace and Naranjo. With respect to these two cases, anyone who has wiffed one of their farts would be well protected. So start wiffing.

Anonymous said...

Victim mentalities are really not that attractive, nor are all those bleating noises.--11/28/07 7:51 PM

Ok Sir Richard of LANS. Stop gloating. I bow to you now, in total submission and in full acknowledgement of your superiority over us, the lowly peasants of the once great Los Alamos National Laboratory. Baaaa...baaa...baaa

Anonymous said...

11/28/07 9:09 PM
"Ahhhh yes, the token employee's, and for the most part - deadwood"

Up yours, ass hole!

Anonymous said...

Does the "exemption" colunm equate to a "line item veto"?

Anonymous said...

Has anybody seen the actual approved SSP plan? I can't find it on the LANL site nor the LASO site.
Are we just supposed to sign up for it without ever seeing the SSP?
Are LANS lawyers so dumb they think that simply including a clause in the application saying they showed the SSP to us releases them from actually showing it? Boy, they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

2:07PM - answered during one of the SSP information session: the full specific plan will not be revealed because it contains "sensitive" info (whatever that is. It is even protected against FOIA requests. The publicly available info of this specific plan is accessible through the LANL internal SSP website.

Anonymous said...

The low level managers in ADWP were coded as "scientists" rather than "managers." That's why the numbers don't look right.

Anonymous said...

So anybody volunteering for self selection is not allowed "to review the terms and conditions of designating myself" which they swear they did in the Self-Selection Request Form.

LANS has sunk to new low.

Anonymous said...

I keep getting this creepy feeling that LANS must have collectively sold our souls to the devil to win with their proprietary (and still unseen) NNSA RFP contract. What the heck is in that thing that makes LANS feels so strongly they must, at all costs, keep it from prying eyes? And where have they hidden it? Perhaps it is being stored in Mikey's new Super Vault Type Room (SVTR)!