"Dr. Steven Chu was confirmed on January 20, 2009, as the new Secretary of Energy." That statement and Dr. Chu's photo appear on the DOE website this morning, though DOE has yet to issue a press release, post his bio, or update it's org chart. The new stealth Secretary of Energy also seems to have taken LANL's NewsBulletin by surprise. They don't mention his confirmation at all.
Welcome aboard, Dr. Chu!
It will be interesting to watch and see how Dr. Chu deals with the part of the DOE that makes up over 2/3rds of his Department's budget -- the nuclear weapons complex.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that he had almost nothing to say about it at the hearings was a bit disturbing to me.
"Welcome aboard, Dr. Chu!"
ReplyDelete"Welcome aboard"... weren't these the very same words uttered to Captain Edward Smith when he came aboard the Titantic?
At least the Titantic had a few life rafts and possessed a rudder and a working engine. The USS DOE has none of these things at present.
Chu has the "smarts" for the position, but he will be used as the Obama machine sees fit, and he will follow their direction. He will not set the course. If you are waiting for a savior...he's not it! Better hang on to your ass, it's going to be a rough ride.
ReplyDeleteHe is only a figure-head, no one really cares what he thinks, DOE will tell him exactly what to do and how to do it. And it won't be good for LANL. Are you ready for the massive layoffs that are about to hit? Or are you hoping for a Savior to bail us out?...(again)
ReplyDeleteWe have been told LANL will be down-sized by 20% with-in the next few years, did you listen? Or are you still living on HOPE? If so HOPE runs out this funding cycle.
At least the Titantic had a few life rafts and possessed a rudder and a working engine. The USS DOE has none of these things at present.
ReplyDeleteHere we call these rescue devices "Golden Parachutes". They are, of course, not to be used by the lesser folk.
On the Titanic, it was "women and children first" into the life rafts.
ReplyDeleteWith LANS, it is Rechtels first.
I very much wish Dr. Chu great success. He's a very talented person and I want to give President Obama and his people a chance to be successful.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have my doubts since right now I see more "Hollywood" scripts and play acting.
But, like many, I intend to focus in on the results, not the speeches.
Yes 9:43, and it also be ineresting to watch and see how Dr. Chu deals with the witchcraft of polygraphy at his laboratories.
ReplyDeleteWe will hear on Thursday the news regarding "Workforce Planning"
ReplyDeleteAhhh, yes. Workforce planning, the ultimate oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteWorkforce Planning:
ReplyDeleteGetting rid of the high benefit, high salary workforce you currently employ and replacing it with a new lower benefit, much cheaper workforce.
Usually employed with an executive statement like, "We need to ensure that we have the right type of employees to face our bold, new future."
Sometimes combine with another management technique called "right-sizing", which involves reducing the number of employees (see RIF).
"Right-sizing" can be executed using a silent RIF strategy if means can be found to lay off large numbers of workers for "cause".
Note that these powerful management tools are only to be used on those employees who are not within the executive levels of a company.
Workforce planning... as in, "I just talked to Dr. Chu and realized that we don't need all these old weapon scientists who are experts in nuclear weapon designs. Instead, we need a young, new workforce at LANL who are experts in battery design."
ReplyDeleteThe fuzzy Ewok has awoken from his winter slumber and is eager to begin the spring mating process. Bend over, grab your knees, and prepare for deep insertion.
ReplyDelete"... and prepare for deep insertion."
ReplyDeleteFrom the director? Call me skeptical.
During the All-Hands for the Business Directorate held in mid January by PAD Mike Mallory (former BWXT General Mgr. at Pantex), Mallory presented a view graph and made some statements that shocked me.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mallory and his view graph, the science future of LANL may be in question, but there is little worry for his people because "business operations are the foundation of LANL." Funny me, but I always thought that science was the foundation of LANL.
This new for-profit Bechtel/BWXT crew running LANL really does see the lab in a very different light!
If business operations are the foundation of LANL, then our foundation is built upon sand. Of course anyone who has tried to procure a pencil in this place already knew that.
ReplyDeleteThe name Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) has become a misnomer ever since LANS LLC took over. This place is no longer about science. The science that is left is treated by the LLC power brokers as little more than window dressing.
ReplyDeleteA more fitting name for Los Alamos would be the Los Alamos Production and Organized Operational Plant (LA-POOP). This is the future direction that Bechtel and BWXT seem to have planned for Los Alamos. Mike Mallory and company are part of this new direction.
If Dr. Chu wants to improve science at LANL, his first order of business should be to throw the carpet bagging profiteers out of the NNSA national labs. Unless this is done, science at LANL will continue to deteriorate and the place will continue to look more and more like a production facility rather than a "crown jewel" science lab.
Why couldn't Dr. Chu recommend that the labs that will see increased funding in certain science/tech R&D areas find the (likely small) group of people at LANL who could work in these areas, and offer them positions?
ReplyDeleteApparently you don't get it 3:24. The more people that have to buy their pencils out of their own pockets, the bigger the profit (read bonuses) for LANS. So, exactly what would be their incentive to change that?
ReplyDeleteSo whats the story on the CR, will we see a budget this FY, or will we continue on with the CR? Anyone have any idea?
ReplyDeleteAt this point, the new Congress and President are only interested in the FY2010 budget. The current CR will most likely stay in effect until the end of the fiscal year.
ReplyDeleteGiven that LANL was due for huge cuts this year, that's a good thing. The $2 billion dollar question is what will next year's budget bring? We should know sometime around April or early May when the Obama Administration issues their first budget.
I concur with 9:57 pm. We will have a year-long CR or an Omnibus that will result in essentially status quo on budget. So say the LANL-ites who interact routinely with HQ, at least. FY10 will be the year to watch. Likely we will see a real budget - not a CR - on Oct 1, for the first time since Moses was a pup.
ReplyDeleteLet's postulate for a second that LANL's budget is intact but transformed (i.e. DP cuts are balanced by increases in NN, NE, and the like). Bear with me, it's just a thought exercise. What actions must LANL senior management take to ensure a successful year? Let's define "successful" as laying the groundwork for a sustainable future, including delivering on FY10 commitments to sponsors.
Obvious answers:
- Free up hiring (both internal moves and truly strategic external hires) to ensure we can execute.
- Reduce overhead and compliance burdens on workers (OK, how?)
- Improve work environment so we can attract and retain the right people for the missions (OK, how?)
- Enable retraining of displaced DP program workers (not a short term fix, but essential for long-term success). Or... Should LANS simply "buy out" these workers to get them off the payroll permanently? Would that be more cost effective in the long run (does LANS even care about the long run?)
Seriously, other than death by firing squad for all ULM's, what would it really take to be successful in transforming the Lab?
I have been at HQ and ABQ a lot lately for planning the upcoming budget summit (February is the kick-off the FY11 budget needs and to play catch up on FY09/FY10 realities). I have heard two not so good things: 1) congress is considering a $1B cut in FY09 to the ~$6B budget for NNSA (not sure nor are my federal contacts how likely that is to occur or how the cuts would be directed); 2) the FY10 "transition" budget is way less than the FY10 president's budget that we had been planning to for the last few years (this is not always true for each B&R but generally it is well below the budget we would ask for to meet the "requirements".
ReplyDeleteI also have heard that the idea of splitting the Pu operations into a separate business (think Y12 vs ORNL) is being seriously discussed - again. That might produce B&W PX-west.
Anonymous at 1/24/09 8:39 AM suggests:
ReplyDelete- Reduce overhead and compliance burdens on workers
THAT IS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. FAR TOO MANY OF THE OVERHEAD (ADMINISTRATIVE) AND COMPLIANCE (BS-LEVEL C-STUDENT ENGINEERS) ARE IN PROTECTED CLASSES. GETTING RID OF THEM IS NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED. THAT WOULD AFFECT MIKEY's BONUS. MORE MONEY CAN BE SAVED BY GETTING RID OF HIGH-PRICED SCIENTISTS.
A $1 billion cut to NNSA's budget for FY2010?
ReplyDeleteI sense we are quickly heading into a condition of "Game over, man!" for the NNSA research labs.
If this is what's coming, then those people at LANL or LLNL who have a DOE Q-clearance better leverage it quickly and more over into one of the fast growing DOE energy labs.
Director Anastasio and Sen. Udall can say all they want about LANL's "bright future".
ReplyDeleteFrom were I sit, it looks to me like LANL is toast! LANL may survive, but what's eventually left of it will not be a pretty sight, especially if you're are a research scientist trying to eek out a living at this "research" lab.
MANY OF THE OVERHEAD (ADMINISTRATIVE) AND COMPLIANCE (BS-LEVEL C-STUDENT ENGINEERS) ARE IN PROTECTED CLASSES. GETTING RID OF THEM IS NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED. (10:45 AM)
ReplyDeleteI fully expect LANS to circle the wagons around the 'protected' classes at LANL and then tell the rest of the research staff, "sink or swim". Given LANL's high overhead rates and stifling Work Free Safety Zone policies, most will end up sinking to the bottom.
I suppose this is all part and parcel of the NNSA's Complex Transformation policy. Some transformation, huh?
I have a good source (not a manager) which can trace some damning comments to Mike's own yap. Mike has said he cares about one thing and one thing only. Making DOE/NNSA happy (which in turn pays he and his corporate gang handsomely). You might say this opportunistic bunch are whores to the most incompetent agency in the entire US government. Worse than that, they are proud of it and have no apologies for the damage they are doing (with full knowledge) to LANL. In fact, Mikey has acknowledged that all of the failed business systems that LANs has brought us were never intended to make our jobs easier or us more productive. Every last one of them was put in place to satisfy some NNSA or federal bean counter. I hate to also report that Mike couldn't care less about the loss of talent and expertise and the fact that LANL has lost its place as a world class scientific institution. They fully intend to ride this horse into the ground.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I am imaging a big banner behind Mike on Monday that says "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". Of course the context is, LANL is no longer in the headlines (for any reason, good or bad). That is what NNSA wanted and what LANs has delivered. Unless Dr. Chu quickly exorcises the for profit management at LANL, we are all doomed.
Bleak, scientific "prisons" that none of the best and brightest would ever want to come and work for any longer, that's Sig Hecker's assessment. It's what he told Congress.
ReplyDeleteAnd, you know what?... he's right!
Mike Anastasio, Terry Wallace, and Mike Mallory are traitors to everything great which LANL once stood for. I hope they enjoy the money they received for selling out this once, great laboratory.
Hey 10:46 it is 8:46 again. That is $1B in FY09 not 10 they are worried that the CR will not last the year and in late March when it currently ends, they will reduce the NNSA by $1B. We have about 43% of the budget in the CR through the end of March (50% of the FY). The general idea is if we are on a 14% yearlong CR reduction now that they can take an additional 2% (1/6 is about 16%) and call it good. The problem is NNSA can reprogram (to a degree) the funding they have and the sites that get it.
ReplyDelete10:46, having watched "Aliens" again recently, I can't help but think of the excellent running banter of the Hudson (Bill Paxton) character.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rci8tAXGqEk&feature=related
About 2 min in, although the whole clip is good.
"Hey 10:46 it is 8:46 again. That is $1B in FY09 not 10 they are worried that the CR will not last the year and in late March when it currently ends, they will reduce the NNSA by $1B. We have about 43% of the budget in the CR through the end of March (50% of the FY). The general idea is if we are on a 14% yearlong CR reduction now that they can take an additional 2% (1/6 is about 16%) and call it good. The problem is NNSA can reprogram (to a degree) the funding they have and the sites that get it.
ReplyDelete1/24/09 5:41 PM"
What do you bet that this is what the Monday's all hands will be about. Mike has to say that they need to do preemptive RIF's or wage reductions, they have no choice.
A $1 billion cut to NNSA from the current FY09 budget? Oh, my, that is dire. Sounds to me like a RIF may result before summer even arrives. Where did you get this info, may I ask, 5:41 PM?
ReplyDeleteIf it is true, then perhaps this is why Domenici was looking so concerned before he left office last month and kept talking about the possibility of 2000 layoffs at LANL.
It will be interesting to hear what Mikey has to say about the remaining LANL '09 budget at his Monday All-Hands meeting. Does LANS talk of Workforce Planning really mean workforce reductions?
That massive $825 billion in Obama job stimulus money has to come from somewhere. I guess part of it may come out of NNSA's budget. If so, it won't be doing much in the way of job stimulus for Northern New Mexico!
ReplyDeleteFrom the LLNL blog, it sounds like something big and bad is up, at least as far as Livermore is concerned:
ReplyDelete--------
Something ugly involving budgets hit management this week. My department management went to DefCon 2 level of panic with several closed door meetings and managers getting called out of meetings to talk budget cut "scenarios" with ULM. I've overheard my management talking in the hallway saying - "everything's on the table" ... "we don't have anything left to cut" ... "might as well close the gates" ... "what services are we going to stop doing" ...
There's been a definite change this week.
January 23, 2009 7:56 PM
-----------
Time for another SSP. Speaking of which, anyone seen any SSPers from last year back at LANL now that one year has passed?
ReplyDelete"...damning comments to Mike's own yap. Mike has said he cares about one thing and one thing only. Making DOE/NNSA happy..."
ReplyDeleteUmm. So why is it bad to do what the customer asks? You don't own LANL, NNSA does.
8:46 here again.
ReplyDeleteThe $1B possible cut to FY09 will probably be kept quiet until congress goes public with it, otherwise it would be a self-fulfilling rumor. The budget iterations occur frequently over the next 8 weeks and then slowly until August's budget summit. LANL will keep its poker face on and ask for lots of money and tell the workers all is well.
Oh ya and no more SSPs just RIFs, that was made real clear to us last year. The 2007 SSP was a one-time offer. LANS no longer needs to ask permission to RIF they got a long-term approval for RIFs in the fall of 2007.
Hey 10:15
I have also heard that LLNL is in a crisis mode. Not sure if it is above the complex wide budget cuts or if there is something special brewing for them.
"LANL will keep its poker face on and ask for lots of money and tell the workers all is well." - 8:53 AM
ReplyDelete...until the very last minute, that is. George Miller over at LLNL did the same thing with his employees right before the Livermore layoffs hit. Don't expect much truth from the lips of the for-profit LLCs. There is little profit to be made in telling your employees the truth.