Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008
From: Public Affairs Office
Subject: DOE/NNSA APPROVES LLNL'S INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION PROGRAM
Colleagues:
As you know we have been going through a series of transition activities involving workforce restructuring and cost reductions that are designed to make the Lab both more efficient and more competitive in the future. The goal is to enable programmatic growth among our traditional clients and to develop new ones as well. We are motivated to be more efficient because of the increased costs of doing business under the new contract, decreases in our funding, and because we must modernize our management methods for delivery of services.
Workforce restructuring has been an important component of our plan. Last fall, I announced a three-phase workforce-restructuring plan to streamline our staff. The first two phases included our flexible term and supplemental labor personnel, as well as a Voluntary Separation Program for indefinite career employees. Through these efforts and normal attrition, we have decreased the Lab‚s workforce by nearly 900 people. This is a good start, but not enough to meet our goals.
I have been notified that DOE Secretary Sam Bodman and National Nuclear Security Administrator Tom D'Agostino have approved the Lab's 3161 Workforce Restructuring Plan. This plan includes an Involuntary Separation Program (ISP) for up to 535 indefinite career employees. We are now proceeding with the detailed planning, including a timeline for implementation, consistent with this authorization.
As I mentioned to you last month, it is very important for me to share any news like this as soon as possible. I know that the best way to do this would have been to discuss it in an all-hands meeting today. Unfortunately I cannot do so until Thursday because I am in Washington D.C. today for meetings in preparation for my Wednesday testimony before the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. At this testimony I will discuss the country's nuclear weapons stockpile and nonproliferation programs, the Lab's science and technology contributions to the nation's security, and the proposed FY2009 budget. I believe that this testimony is extremely important for the Lab, the department and the nation.
I will hold an all-hands meeting as soon as I return on Thursday, April 17, at 1 p.m. in the Bldg. 123 auditorium to talk to you more about our path forward.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Regards,
George Miller
[LLNL Director/LLNS, LLC President]
So LLNL is having layoffs and LANS is silent. Is the LANL budget really that much better? Or is just that Miller feels some obligation to LLNL and LANS management doesn't care?
ReplyDeleteit means that you have more congressional support. CA congressional delegation could give a flyin' flip about LLNL/LLNS.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it would seem that Miller and company cares less about their employees than Anastasio does. What's really disturbing is that LLNL has a large population of Flex Term (a.k.a. temporary) employees, but it is the career workforce that is being targeted for this layoff. Can you spell class action lawsuit?
ReplyDeleteInstead of bashing, why not be thankful that our attrition and VSP saved us this pain so far. I for one feel for our colleagues and their families at LLNL.
ReplyDeleteWasn't George forthcoming with more information earlier in the last separation go 'round? Perhaps George is our early warning system rather than LANS folks learning something from LANS managers first.
ReplyDelete(Disclaimer: I have not heard of any rumors, local or otherwise, that leads me to believe that LANS is planning a similar action. I'm only trying to recall whether the last round of separation planning was brought to light by LLNL's managers first.)
I too, like to think like that, My hope is that some young couple will be able to raise a family in this great town, replacing me, or adding to it. One of the reasons I took the SSP.
ReplyDeleteWhat's really disturbing is that LLNL has a large population of Flex Term (a.k.a. temporary) employees, but it is the career workforce that is being targeted for this layoff.
ReplyDeleteActually, the flex term population has already been thinned out at LLNL. About 400 give or take have been released already.
CA congressional delegation could give a flyin' flip about LLNL/LLNS.
ReplyDeleteDon't you mean the DOE/NNSA? A republican congress and president created this mess not the California congressional delegation.
Batter up, LANL! It will be your turn to go through layoffs after the next Administration's budget comes out. Only, this next time there won't be a St. Pete around to help soften the budgetary blows.
ReplyDeleteNNSA has made it very clear that they want greater focus on production work at LANL. With no extra funds for these production efforts, it will need to come out of the hide of the LANL science budgets.
The result would be a LANL with far fewer scientists on the payroll, working at lower salaries, and much greater emphasis on construction trades and support positions. This fits nicely with the NNSA/LANS/Bechtel vision for LANL's future.
"Don't you mean the DOE/NNSA? A republican congress and president created this mess not the California congressional delegation."
ReplyDeleteYes, you are correct; they are mainly responsible for the transition etc. The rumor at LLNL is that LANL too had their ISP approved by NNSA/DOE but it was derailed by the NM delegation. If that was the case, it points to differences in the Labs worth with their respective congressional representation. LLNL is a small fish in CA. LANL and Sandia pull alot more weight in NM.
Anyway, I think we all can agree that the weapons labs have no business being a for profit business. It's the same one-size fits all solution of privitazing government orgs in the hope of increasing efficiency and effectivenes. Who knows if there's any data to back those claims up. The main question should be value. What increased value did this transition give the employees, the Lab organizations, and the nation as a whole? Up until now, I think we can all agree that the transitions at LANL and LLNL do not measure up in this regard. With all the computation and modeling capabilities at LANL and LLNL to predict complex physical phenomena, it seems ironic that DOE/NNSA were not able to plan for/forsee higher costs due to the transition.
"Instead of bashing, why not be thankful that our attrition and VSP saved us this pain so far. "
ReplyDelete4/15/08 9:27 PM
I guess you didn't hear that the VSP cost LANL so much money that LANS had to retroactively raise overhead taxes to pay for it. So far, $20M dollars and growing.
The VSP didn't save funding, it cost funding.
Another embarassingly stupid decision by LANS.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how silent the senior managers have been since the SSP took place? My AD used to send out weekly updates and she stopped cold back in Feb. I heard from colleagues in other directorates that they are hearing nothing as well. Something is a-brewin ... I guess now we know what.
ReplyDeleteIf that was the case, it points to differences in the Labs worth with their respective congressional representation. LLNL is a small fish in CA. LANL and Sandia pull alot more weight in NM.
ReplyDelete========================
There's a huge difference in support for
LLNL in the CA Congressional delegation;
vis-a-vis LANL and the NM delegation.
Take the Senate, for instance. The best
LLNL can hope for from Sen Feinstein is
benign neglect. She wouldn't go to bat
for LLNL; but she doesn't mount an
active opposition either.
Sen. Boxer would like to see LLNL and
its programs closed.
No - both of NM's Senators have been
better for LANL than anything that LLNL
has in the US Senate.
8:26 pm,
ReplyDeleteI see:
"This plan *includes* an Involuntary Separation Program (ISP) for up to 535 indefinite career employees."
Where do you see that the Flex-Term employees are not included?
"Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how silent the senior managers have been since the SSP took place?" (6:55 AM)
ReplyDeleteYes, something is a'brewing. No, you won't hear anything about it until they are good and ready to roll it out. Yes, it will be painful. No, they don't care. Yes, they want you to leave LANL. No, they don't want to to get severance when you leave. Yes, morale will fall even lower. No, it won't stop falling.
Any more questions?
Don't forget that Sen Feinstein is married to UC Regent Chairman Richard Blum... The same group that created LANS and LLNS.
ReplyDelete"Instead of bashing, why not be thankful that our attrition and VSP saved us this pain so far. I for one feel for our colleagues and their families at LLNL."
ReplyDeleteSaid 4/15/08 9:27 PM
It was the public relations debacle related to the 1995 layoff that made Lab management think twice this last time about doing what LLNL is doing now. I was involved in a couple of the recent meetings where concerns were raised regarding the possibility of another controversial layoff and nobody wanted that to happen again. So in a way those who fought the layoff in 1995 are the ones who are really responsible for sparing us the pain of another devastating round of LANL layoffs.
"No - both of NM's Senators have been better for LANL than anything that LLNL has in the US Senate."
ReplyDeleteHuh? All I ever read on this blog is how LANL is taking it in the ass. Your Congressional delegation, which includes republican Pete Domenici, has done a real bang up job protecting your interests. By your logic there would nothing but a desert of green glass where LANL now stands if Feinstein were representing you. Good thing a republican has your back.
If you haven't noticed, your being asked to develop your new performance plan in April. I think it is the first step in documenting your poor performance by managment. Then comes more written documentation of your poor performance sometime down the line. then you should get your last one before being terminated before October. Your "at will" now and being fired with documentation backing it up, it covers them from being sued for wrongful termination. If you get yours back and your manager rips you a new one, you'll be gone before the end of the year.
ReplyDeleteDo you truly believe that LANL will be spared layoffs? I suppose you also believe that the DOE guarantees the LANS TCP1 retirement.
ReplyDeleteWell, it is true. Welcome to for-profit weapons labs. At LLNL, we can't even blog without "scooby" giving it the sniff test first. What ever happened to free speech? As several have said here, we are all in trouble - doesn't matter whether LLNL or LANL, we have the same management. They only care about the all mighty dollar. Bechtel, the leader in both our parent companies is big on construction jobs (Big Dig in Boston for one). So, if this particular job only lasts another 5-6 years, who cares. If you look at the LLNL RFP, you will see that part of LLNS job is to shut down site 300 and the superblock - what part of down sizing don't people understand? LANL at least has Mikey and he's best I can tell more forthecoming than Georgie. LANL is at least getting pits - all we're getting at LLNL is "reducing our footprint". The average cost of an employee at LLNL is $250,000 a year due to our "high overhead". Somehow, our management seems to think that getting rid of people will reduce the rent when in reality, it simply increases the average cost per employee. Granted, they will save the salary and associated costs, but that's only about 1.5X the actual salary. You still have to pay the space tax. So, rather than the rent being split between 7,000 people, it's going to be split between 5,500 people. If people think the cost of doing business at LLNL is expensive now, just wait. Those that are able are jumping ship and taking the funding with them. Enogh of the rant. We have to stick together - we are all getting the shaft. Well, except for the LANS and LLNS managers.
ReplyDelete""This plan *includes* an Involuntary Separation Program (ISP) for up to 535 indefinite career employees."
ReplyDeleteWhere do you see that the Flex-Term employees are not included?"
By definition, Flex Terms are not Indefinite Career.
The Flex Term and Supplemental Labor employees have already had their turn at bat - with about 500 gone in one fell swoop earlier this year and others a few at a time since then. Indefinite Career employees are up next at the plate. Time to spread the pain and suffering.
Flex terms should have all been let go (or been converted) before 'Indefinite Career' were targeted. A Lawsuit is a guarantee.
ReplyDeleteAnd Limited Terms should be the first to be let go at LANL.
ReplyDelete"Flex terms should have all been let go (or been converted) before 'Indefinite Career' were targeted. A Lawsuit is a guarantee."
ReplyDeleteAmen to that. I wonder if they will try to get us to sign an "I will not sue" waiver to collect our severance.
"Actually, the flex term population has already been thinned out at LLNL. About 400 give or take have been released already."
ReplyDeleteYes, but there's still ~1000 left.
"Flex terms should have all been let go (or been converted) before 'Indefinite Career' were targeted."
ReplyDeleteI'll take a conversion - just convince my management - but don't do it before the 535 are gone. Conversions were put on hold last summer, well before the contract transition. Even those who had been in the pipeline for conversion for almost a year are still Flex Term.
Sue the lab for what? You guys seem to think your job is a birthright. LLNS can restructure the workforce anyway they see fit. Unless you can demonstrate some sort of discrimination for age or race I don't see what you would be suing for. LLNS could dump every single fte and replace them with contract labor if they so desire.Get off the "sue em'" kick
ReplyDeleteDr. Miller made the announcement today. The WARN act letters are being sent out today. People will be issued their "pink slips" the week of 19 May. Those with 10-15 years of service get 60 days. Those with 15-20 years get an additional 30 days notice, while those with 20 plus years get another 30 days notice. Severance pay is one week per year of service up to 26 weeks max.
ReplyDeleteThose with less than 10 years, get 30 days notice and will get pay in lieu of notice and will be out the door by Friday, May 23.
For the 200 series, (scientists & engineers) layoff policy is based on skills, knowledge and abilities -- for all other classifications it is seniority based.
Now, here's the great news for those who have more than 10 years of service. LLNL will not pay in lieu of notice - so, LLNL is sending those people to the "Transition Center". These employees will lose their DOE badge and not be allowed on site unless they are escorted. Employees will be given work by their programs and also be allowed to "spend reasonable time" looking for a job. These employees will not have access to anything classified. The transition center will be equipped with computers and other office equipment to assist employees in their job search.
"Transition Center" ==> Day Labor Camp (?)... need help with trash pick up, stop by the T. Center and select a warm body ...
ReplyDelete"Now, here's the great news for those who have more than 10 years of service. LLNL will not pay in lieu of notice"
ReplyDeleteNo, NNSA will not pay in lieu of notice. LLNL wanted it, NNSA denied it. Welcome to the new NNSA.....
So depending on years of service, people will be getting paid for 30 days (cash out), or 60-90-120 days of showing up, in addition to a 1wk/yr severance?
ReplyDeleteSounds a bit more costly than an SSP?
"4/18/08 10:52 AM"
ReplyDeleteDon't forget ... while at the
Detention (alias Transition) Center, collect an additional 2 days of vac per month (= approx. 10% of salary) ,
plus get 6%+5.5 401K (=approx. 11.5% of salary). Here's an easy one (think LLNS can figure thiis out ?),
provide the '120 days pay-in-lieu', and save 21.5% of monthly salary.
4/18/08 6:58 PM
ReplyDeleteNever look a gift horse in the mouth. Besides, it probably won't cost that much when compared to the overall budget. If you are one of the unlucky ones who end up in detention it sure beats what the non-scientists and engineers have waiting for them. They tear your eppilets off, bust your sword and throw you out the gate.
Oh yea ... kind of starting to feel 'sick' thinking about the Detention Center ... may have to burn all my sick leave.
ReplyDeleteAny ideas on why NNSA decided on the 'Detention Center' for the
'Over the Hill Gang' ??
Assuming that every steps they have taken is strictly cost saving ... how does this save $ for NNSA ?
"Any ideas on why NNSA decided on the 'Detention Center' for the 'Over the Hill Gang' ??"
ReplyDeleteBecause LLNS/NNSA considers them security risks.
"Any ideas on why NNSA decided on the 'Detention Center' for the 'Over the Hill Gang' ??"
ReplyDeleteLLNS wanted to do "pay-in-lieu notice" and included it the proposed 3161 Plan submitted to NNSA, but NNSA rejected... then NNSA balked at allowing LLNS to let notified employees have access to the Lab... so the holding area center was the only option for LLNS - other than LLNS immediately firing employees with no notice/pay (counter to LLNL HR policy), and then waiting for the lawsuits.
Once again NNSA creates a mess for the contractor to clean up and take the blame.
"...president created this mess not the California congressional delegation..."
ReplyDeleteSt. Pete is worth more than 51 Congressmembers, the House spokeswoman and 2 weak women Senators.
5th Generation Native Son
"has anyone else noticed how silent the senior managers have been since the SSP took place?
ReplyDeleteI'm too embarassed to venture out
The silence of LANS management since the SSP is mysterious. I'm also becoming curious about (1) the state of the TCP1 pension, and (2) whether LANS is holding back info on some of the "inflation" costs that LLNS has recently announced to the media.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the true state of LANL's financial condition? Why are we seeing complete silence from LANS?