Job Cuts at Northern NM’s largest Employer? (Updated)
The Santa Fe ReporterIf there’s any truth to this anonymous tip posted on Frank Young’s feisty LANL blog, northern New Mexico stands to lose hundreds more well-paying jobs.
I’ve got an email out to a media rep at the Lab and will update this post when I get a response.
Updated July 7: LANL spokesman Jeff Berger told SFR yesterday afternoon that the rumor is false. “We do not have plans for layoffs,” Berger says.
Period?
“Period.”
What about going forward?
“If the budget necessitates layoffs, we would go there,” Berger says. “But we’ve anticipated and experienced in recent years relatively flat budgets. That’s what we continue to anticipate.”
20 comments:
No RIF and no plans for a RIF
So, again "no plans for a RIF"
means that the RIF will take place with no planing AGAIN!
Have you bought a computer for the lab lately?
Terry Wallace made it very clear in his late April All-Hands that LANS would never again repeat the SSP of last year because of the $55 million in severance had to be paid out *directly* from last years operating budget. It was a very painful budgetary hit. Therefore, you can assume that LANS will not be having a future RIF. It would cost too much in terms of any severance payouts.
Any further attrition at LANL will come from one of two methods: (1) staff getting de-moralized enough to finally leave; the LANS 1st choice, or (2) firings for cause.
NNSA has previously stated they want to see 5% attrition at LANL for this next year. Because of the large number of older staff who left with the SSP and many others who left before and after the SSP, it is highly unlikely there will be 5% of staff who use method (1) and voluntarily leave this next year. We are down to the hardcore at the lab will probably try to stay on under almost any dire circumstance. Therefore, you can expect that LANS will be forced by NNSA to reach for option (2), firings for cause.
If firings for cause were done in a strategic manner, it would be very painful but could be a good thing in terms of tightening up LANL's slip-shod operation. But, then again, remember that this is LANS we're talking about. Any firings would be done in a very ill conceived manner and none of the firings would ever touch the sacrosanct management chain of bottom feeders.
Given LANL's bleak future, I'm surprised as to why any good scientists would ever want to come work here any longer. When the 5% attrition has been achieved by LANS, there will be even fewer scientists left because LANS apparently does not like dealing with the budgetary uncertainties that come with some parts of LANL's research portfolio. LANS prefers the more stable budgets generated by enviromental cleanup, support, and facilities operations because they are simplier to deal with and the worker salaries and benefits are smaller in these areas. Science at LANL is dieing.
Anonymous said...
Have you bought a computer for the lab lately?
7/8/09 11:44 AM
Yeah, So what?
RE: Any further attrition at LANL will come from one of two methods: (1) staff getting de-moralized enough to finally leave; the LANS 1st choice, or (2) firings for cause.
If its option 2 there are plenty of morons, slackers and managers that are in over their collective heads working at the lab.
Problem is that management is chicken shit and rather than recognize who these individuals are they ignore it because they do not want a confrontation. On top of that I have witnessed lots of cases where even the performance appraisals make em all look good.
I am curious 12:14 about the cost of severance pay. Does SSP mean Self Select (I'm in Livermore, the synonymous term there was VSIP - Voluntary Separation Incentive Program). To get people to leave voluntarily required a carrot.
The RIF at Livermore was expensive in that the separation package for the engineers/scientist had provisions to payout up to 26 weeks of pay. Not that people acutally got that, the lab created an island of RIFFERS and told them to sit out there out there for the duration of up to 6 months. That was NNSA's requirement. They didn't want to pay out more that a month's severance pay.
After the RIF the layoff policy was re-written so everyone was given a month's notice with up to two weeks of pay in lieu of notice.
I was wondering if LANL's layoff policy had been re-written to make it cheaper to lay off as well.
If LANL's layoff policy is in step with the re-written one at LLNL,
Wallace would be correct that a SSP would not happen. They could accomplish the reduction through a RIF and it would not cost them like a SSP would.
The LANS severance pay policy has not changed since the January 2008 SSP. Severance costs for that voluntary RIF were about $26M. Such reductions in force are done under the direction of NNSA. What benefits and/or enhanced benefits that are offered are determined by NNSA/DOE requirements, not by LANS (or LLNS. It still amazes me that people try give the operating contractors at LANS/LLNS much more discretionary authority and therefore blame/credit for decisions over which they actually have no control.
7/9/09 12:06 AM - During the SSP LANS was even more generous than LLNS. The maximum severance pay was 39 weeks for all UC employees who transferred to LANS on 6/1/06. For transfers from LANS parent companies it was 26 weeks.
SSPed
"Severance costs for that voluntary RIF were about $26M." - 8:39 AM
Are you sure about that figure? It was my understanding that it was about double this amount.
Also, isn't severance considered an "accumulated benefit"? That is, further accumulations of severance can be modified downward or even stopped, but LANS can't wipe out the accumulated weeks of severance already earned without violating employment laws. Is this correct?
"What benefits and/or enhanced benefits that are offered are determined by NNSA/DOE requirements, not by LANS (or LLNS." ...
Not exactly ... severance pay is defined in the Personnel Policy which is entirely written by LLNS with guidance from Contract 44(LLNS). Contract specified (eg. ) up to 26 weeks severance pay. LLNS can provide 2 weeks (or anything less than or equal to 26 weeks) if they so chose ...
"Problem is that management is chicken shit and rather than recognize who these individuals are they ignore it because they do not want a confrontation. On top of that I have witnessed lots of cases where even the performance appraisals make em all look good."
Dude you have hit the nail on the head there. They don't manage they actually avoid it at all costs.
7/8/09 9:38 AM
ditto!
"LLNS can provide 2 weeks (or anything less than or equal to 26 weeks) if they so chose ..."
7/9/09 12:17 PM
This sounds ominous. Does this mean that LANS could do likewise and effectively wipe out the accumulated severance benefits of long term LANL employees?
What good are accumulated benefits if your employer can suddenly decide to cancel them out? And to think, these are the same folks who are now in control of LANL's pension!
"Does this mean that LANS could do likewise and effectively wipe out the accumulated severance benefits of long term LANL employees? "
I don't think LANS/LLNS consider severance pay as accumulated benefits.
Pension, vacation ...yes.
Sev. pay, sick leave, notification period ...don't think so.
I don't think you can call the SSP offer a "severance pay policy."
don't think LANS/LLNS consider severance pay as accumulated benefits. Pension, vacation...yes. Sev pay, sick leave, notification period...don't think so.
7/10/09 1:47 PM
So what, exactly, did long term workers at LANL earn over their many years when collecting that "severance" and "sick leave"? It sounds like LANS could decide to announce a RIF with little to no severance and not even credit accumulated sick leave towards pension service credit. That's a rather sickening thought.
P713-1, Reduction in Force, covers severance pay. Revision 2 was quietly issued on June 30, 2009. Was anyone paying attention? Fortunately the Rev 2 changes were document formatting only. Next time...?
LANS severance pay is not an accumulated benefit. It is payable only in a forced RIF termination, or with special DOE/NNSA approval, in an SSP such as the one in 2008. (And yes, the 2008 severance pay cost was about $26M. Dont know where the $52 M came from unless it included vacation, which is an earned benefit.
LANS could conceivably change its severance policy, but we cannot increase or decrease employee benefits without prior NNSA approval. We have heard nothing that indicates the NNSA has such an interest at this time.
"We have heard nothing that indicates the NNSA has such an interest at this time." - 8:39 AM
The key phrase being... "at this time".
Post a Comment