Lab likely to face more layoffs
By Betsy Mason, STAFF WRITERThe Lawrence Livermore lab will likely face more layoffs as it confronts a tighter federal budget, increased expenses and a push to streamline the country's nuclear weapons complex.
Lab director George Miller told employees at an all-hands meeting Thursday morning that he's proposing a workforce reduction plan that could bring as many as 700 more layoffs by the end of the year. The plan, submitted to the National Nuclear Security Administration for approval, would begin with voluntary buyouts, he said.
About 500 workers have already left in a round of layoffs announced in November and executed this month, slimming the total workforce to about 7,300 full-time employees.
"There is approximately another 10 percent we would like to leave the lab," Miller said.
This month's layoffs came from among 2,000 temporary employees and support workers. Future cuts will likely include some of the core scientific and engineering staff.
Though he has requested a voluntary separation program, Miller said more involuntary layoffs would probably be needed.
Lab workers did receive some good news from Miller, who said he had decided to give all employees their annual raises, which had been frozen indefinitely.
He also scored a small victory for employee benefits by getting the NNSA to approve a new list of comparison companies to match benefits with that better represent Bay Area competition. The lab's new contract, which began in October, requires lab benefits to be 105 percent of the going rate among companies.
"I learned a long time ago that even in the midst of budget difficulties and workforce restructuring, it's essential to continue to recruit and retain an exceptional workforce," he said. "That's really hard in the Bay Area. There is a demand for top talent, the cost of living is high, salaries and benefits are very competitive."
The rest of his address focused on how the lab can stay relevant in a changing world and at the same time bring operating costs down
"We are going to be a cost-effective, very efficient lab so that we make the best use of the taxpayers' money," he said.
Miller's plan includes reassessing how the lab handles information technology, though he discredited a rumor that the work would be outsourced. He is also appointing a group of managers to work on increasing efficiency and evaluate nearly 300 suggestions received from employees.
Despite a federal budget that is $100 million less than last year's, Miller said he managed to carve out $10 million to fund work on streamlining the business side of the lab.
Another $10 million will be spent on research he thinks will help position the lab for the future, such as countermeasures for asymmetric warfare, research on climate change and potential mitigation and nuclear energy.
"These are all critical areas of importance to the country, and the state and the globe and to the future of this laboratory," he said.
A big chunk of the federal cuts are coming from a program to design a nuclear warhead to replace aging weapons in the stockpile, a decision Miller called disappointing.
However, the budget includes new money for certifying the old weapons.
Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. Reach her at 925-952-5026 or bmason@bayareanewsgroup.com.
34 comments:
Am I the only one noticing a difference in management style between LLNS and LANS? Maybe it's because I'm not actually at LLNL and have only dealt with LANS, so maybe I'm not seeing the seedy underbelly of LLNS that only the Livermore folks get to see, but I get the impression LLNS is a bit more open and honest with their employees. LANS seems to enjoy pretending all is well and keeps any potential problems secret from the workforce until the very last minute.
"We are going to be a cost-effective, very efficient lab so that we make the best use of the taxpayers' money," he said. (Miller)
That sounds familiar. However, LANS has been operating LANL for over a year and and half now and, so far, we've only seen the costs move higher.
NNSA weapon labs seem incapable of reducing costs in any meaningful fashion. Way too many people who make lab decisions are dependent on overhead funding to cover for their salary. Reducing costs would require modifications to the 1:7 staff-to-management ratio and a reduction in the number of people in lab support functions. That will never happen.
Unfortunately, the title of this article does not reflect the main elements of George Miller's talk.
Anyone want to make a guess at how many layoffs will be needed at LANL during FY09? I'm thinking a figure of around 400 to 500.
LANS probably can't handle the payout of severance for too many people during a single year, so we'll likely see RIFs parceled out over several years unless LANS suddenly finds some new means to grow the direct funded programmatic side of the house.
"This month's layoffs came from among 2,000 temporary employees and support workers. Future cuts will likely include some of the core scientific and engineering staff."
Something like this LLNL RIF directed at the "core scientific staff" may be coming for LANL during FY09.
Not good news but it is nice to see a Lab Director speaking to the staff in an open manner.
Why couldn't we have gotten Miller instead of Mikey?
Perhaps if the California and New Mexico Congressional delegations would join forces, they could call for a GAO review of NNSA's privatization of the National Labs. Privatization directly led to these layoffs at LANL and LLNL.
GAO should quickly determine if privatization has brought the desired improvements to safety, security, and fiscal accounability, or if NNSA has simply transferred hundreds of millions of dollars in Laboratory operating funds that used to pay the salaries of these scientists, engineers, and support staff into the pockets of the new corporate managers. If the GAO determines that NNSA's corporate model for the National Laboratories has failed, it's time for new NNSA management.
I walked away from Geroges's talk understanding this. We should see a 10% reduction in force every year for the next 2.5 years and that the transition is over but change is not.
What I gathered from this was the following. LLNL's man power level is approximately 7,300 people as of today since we've lost about 500 or more people as of yesterday and probably more. They really never tell you the facts. LLNL is asking that 730 more FTE be gone before the end of FY08, just eight months away.
Sounds just like Los Alamos. I suspect soon we will see a list of what classification they want gone. Again just like Los Alamos.
So here's how I see the end results put very simply without scaling the graph that makes it appear as if one classification is being attacked.
7,300-730 = 6,570 ( 2007 ) FY-08
6,570-650 = 5,913 ( 2008 ) FY-09
5,913-591 = 5,322 ( 2009 ) FY-10
5,322-532 = 4,790 ( 2010 ) FY-11
That brings the LLNL work force down to about 4,790 people just like we have heard many times before. I don't know about you but that's close to a 50% reduction in force from where we started just three months ago.
Did I miss something here? Oh I know. "For those of us that remain we'll embrace the new LLNL". You mean for the chosen few be glad you have a job to pay your mortgage? It will have nothing to do with believing in the mission. It's a job and it allow you to pay your bills.
Regardless the final employee numbers seem correct considering the small scale projects that'll be coming to LLNL and the flexible low burden cost employees that's required for quick turn around projects. I anticipate the standard practice at LLNL will be, bring in who you need to get the project completed on time with the correct skill sets and when the projects done so are those who were employed to do that job. If there's no job to go to, you're simply out the gate. Realistically this is nothing more than standard corporate America practice.
It was the lack of this barbaric ideology I chose to come to work for LLNL decades ago. It's a shame to see it totally destroyed.
"He also scored a small victory for employee benefits by getting the NNSA to approve a new list of comparison companies to match benefits with that better represent Bay Area competition. The lab's new contract, which began in October, requires lab benefits to be 105 percent of the going rate among companies."
I don't recall the contract requiring 105 percent; I recall it requiring no more than 105 percent.
So will LLNL have a different list than LANL of comparison companies?
7:58, that sounds like the So Cal defense industry model (at least through the early 90s), culminating with the Peace Dividend.
7:58
"They really never tell you the facts."
I thought the talk presented a lot of good data. Not sure how you conclude your four year manpower projection from what was said yesterday: your numbers are nonsense.
So will LLNL have a different list than LANL of comparison companies?
1/18/08 8:18 AM
I hope so. Silicon Valley is down the road, not to mention all the other Bay Area competition.
1/18/08 8:18 AM
Yes. It is a different list of comparator companies. It's companies who have their headquarters in the bay area. The actual "company"(the real revenue generator)may be anywhere in the country. i.e. Headquartered in S.F., manufacturing facility in Georgia. In other words, LLNL is about to take it right in the (in the words of George)"talent hole".
"Perhaps if the California and New Mexico Congressional delegations would join forces, they could call for a GAO review of NNSA's privatization of the National Labs. Privatization directly led to these layoffs at LANL and LLNL."
So, why is it you think they care? The for-profits now running the labs get to recycle some of the profit as campaign contributions to the Congressional delegation (in some lesser developed countries this is called a "bribe" or "kickback"). These contributions in turn get the lockin for the for-profits, so they keep making profits; gets the money from the for-profits to the Congressional delegation. Sounds like win-win to me.
Except for us, of course, but again ... why do you think anyone cares?
1/18/08 8:18 AM
"The actual "company"(the real revenue generator)may be anywhere in the country. i.e. Headquartered in S.F., manufacturing facility in Georgia. In other words, LLNL is about to take it right in the (in the words of George)"talent hole"."
I suggest waiting for the list before posting such an inane comment.
To expect the states of CA and NM
to motivate the GAO to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the privatization of LANL and LLNL is naive. In the case of the state of NM, privatization resulting in the state getting about $120M of gross receipts tax annually. They don't give a shit about a bunch of LANL people getting laid off. If property taxes in Los Alamos county drop due to reduced valuations, the state of NM doesn't care about that either.
Bottom line: nobody cares!
There was a threat against the NISC bldg. today. A recently fired employee.
It currently takes about 18 months to get an employee Q-cleared. For about $40 K, it can be accelerated to only a few months, but this hits the operating budget. Adding on SCI tickets brings even more delay to the clearance process.
If LLNL and LANL begin laying off staff with high level clearances, it is going to be time consuming and expensive to replace them when needed for any classified projects.
From this perspective, it would seem that the employees most at risk would be those with lower level L-clearances or no clearances at all (various support workers, foreign staff, etc).
1/18/08 9:00 AM
Standby and watch my friend. Just hold on to your shorts. The ride has only begun. I'll bet ~4,500- 4,700 by the time LLNS is finished is correct. Compound that along with the fact that no one in their right mine is going to come to work for them and I'll say they will get exactly what they want, "at no cost to them"
"I suggest waiting for the list before posting such an inane comment."
This right from LLNS.
"The current list of comparator companies includes companies comparable to the Laboratory. Eight of the companies are located or headquartered in California; four are located or headquartered in the Greater Bay Area."
Maybe you don't draw a distinction between "located and "headquartered" but LLNS apparently does and so do I. Your "inane" comment is, well, inane.
"If LLNL and LANL begin laying off staff with high level clearances, it is going to be time consuming and expensive to replace them when needed for any classified projects.
From this perspective, it would seem that the employees most at risk would be those with lower level L-clearances or no clearances at all (various support workers, foreign staff, etc)."
Wait a minute here. When some employees' clearances were downgraded to L, we were promised that it would make no difference to employment opportunities or job security. Does anybody think that they might have been lying to us?
"Maybe you don't draw a distinction between "located and "headquartered" but LLNS apparently does and so do I. Your "inane" comment is, well, inane."
Until the list comes out, this may be a distinction without a difference. We have enough entropy as it is....
1/19/08 9:34 AM
Could be. Some folks like to play word games (know what I mean?). maybe that's what LLNS is doing in this case. Or maybe they are simply telling it the way it is. Either way I think you would agree they already have the list of companies and it isn't going to be released anytime soon (if ever). So you think the comparator companies by and large will be an accurate representation of the economic climate here (LLNL) unlike LANL comparator companies? Astounding.
"So you think the comparator companies by and large will be an accurate representation of the economic climate here (LLNL) unlike LANL comparator companies? Astounding."
My belief is that no one under ULM will see the list and they will pick only companies that will allow them to lower the BENVAL down to 3% may and to away with the 5% entirely. These are cooks you are dealing with not people with any cares about YOU. Remember they are crooks. Where's the mob when you need them. With a recession and possible depression in the near future we may actally see their return.
There was a threat against the NISC bldg. today. A recently fired employee.
1/18/08 12:44 PM
So 12:44 that’s why all the Security patrols all over the area.
I was in at 6:00 and wondered why so many security officers were there. At noon there were jersey bouncers placed around the building.
I guess that it was cheaper to have all the extra security and cement barriers than to open the two closed security guard post, and restrict access to TA 3.
What would we do if it was a real incident?
The story I heard was against a person not against a building.
Anyone one have any more information?
"There was a threat against the NISC bldg. today. A recently fired employee"
I think any sane person who works at LANL is probably afraid that it's only a matter of time before someone cracks under the intense stress at LANL and goes "postal".
I've never seen a place where the workforce morale is so low and the workers all seem so worried and distressed. Yes, the threat of layoffs has been removed for a few months, but many employees seem to believe that the layoffs have only been postponed until early next year. Scary incidents like the one on Friday may become more common given our current environment.
I'm also curious as to why this NISC employee was fired. Could it have had anything to do with failing a piss test? A "false positive", perhaps? Suppose you were an upright TSM with no previous drug use and LANS suddenly accused you of illegal drug usage and followed it up with immediate termination. What would you do? How would you feel?
"So you think the comparator companies by and large will be an accurate representation of the economic climate here (LLNL) unlike LANL comparator companies? Astounding."
I made no such statement. I merely pointed out that statements in the absence of fact or data are not very helpful. The list will come out, as it did the first time around.
"What would we do if it was a real incident?"
Don't expect LANS to communicate anything to you about hazards in your workplace. If you see it happening, it's real. Get away and call for help.
Heard outside the NISC building on a Friday afternoon...
*************************
DISTRAUGHT MAN:
"But you don't understand! I'm a veteran 20 year weapons designer who attends church every Sunday morning. My Division Head and Associated Director know me and my family personally. They know I don't use drugs! I never have. You're badly mistaken! Please don't do this to me, do you hear? You're making a terrible mistaaaaaaaaaaaake!!!"
(At that point, the guards use their batons and beat the poor fellow to a pulp and then carry him out to the front gates of the lab.)
So ends another illustrious career at LANL. Too bad the guy decided to eat an extra large poppy seed muffin for breakfast on Thursday morning. He should have know better. To be safe, you should be eating nothing more than crackers and water. Even then, make sure those crackers have no funny seeds on top of them. There are no second chances when it comes to the LANS piss test.
I suspect we'll eventually see some highly respected staff being accused of using illegal drugs due to the high volume use of random drug testing. It appears that these tests are currently being employed at an extremely high frequency, as some employees have already been called in 2 or 3 times just in the last few months! High frequency testing will serve to further enhance the "false positive" issues of this test. LANS will be shocked when they discover that some of the employees who are targeted as drug users are LANL high achievers that in no way fit the drug user profile (i.e, Lab Fellows, top researchers, high level managers, etc.).
Since the outcome of the tests are non-negotiable and drastic (i.e., immediate termination), LANS management will slowly begin to wonder if the testing has some serious issues with "false positives" readings. These concerns will only emerge after some highly important employees have been terminated. LANS won't want to verbalize these doubts in public, as it would open LANS up to huge legal problems. After all, they've been directly involved in the destruction of the lives of workers who confronted this "false positive" issue. In fact, it was the Director that came up with this testing idea in the first place.
Instead of admitting a mistake, LANS will weasel out of the problem by suddenly announcing that random testing is no longer required. Staff will be tested during the new hire process, with no further testing required unless an employee's behavior indicates that a drug problem may be present. In return for allowing these changes, NNSA will require that every current worker at LANL be tested once during their career. This lower volume of testing will drastically reduce the "false positive" problem. For those whose careers have already been destroy by a "false positive" reading during this current period of high frequency testing, very little can or will be done to rectify the situation. Furthermore, any documents involved with either LANS or NNSA concerns regarding the "false positive" issues will be declared LANS proprietary information and kept far away from public view.
Did the big incident at NISC on Friday involve an employee who was fired due to the drug test? Does anybody have further information on what really happened? Anyone know the guy who got canned?
Does anyone here really believe that the SF New Mexican wouldn't just LOVE to get their hands on a story about a squeaky-clean worker getting fired from the Lab for a false positive drug test?
Not to mention reporters from the Albuquerque Journal, the New York Times, Science, Physics Today, the AP, Reuters, and, yes, the maintainers of this blog.
-Gus
LANS, LLC management style:
Management by fear and intimidation.
Result, stress level:
Close to supercritical.
Post a Comment