Sep 14, 2009

LANS Listens?


LANS survey sez....
For each question, the choices are: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree Nor Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree.

Page 1:

1. I feel well-informed about events, decisions, and other news at the Laboratory.

2. Management cares about my concerns related to Laboratory safety.

3. Career opportunities at the Laboratory are good.

4. The Laboratory provides opportunities regardless of age.

5. The Laboratory is a good place to work.

6. The Laboratory rewards those who contribute most.

7. Employees are treated with respect.

8. The leadership team is working together to advance the Laboratory’s mission.

9. I have confidence in the leadership of the Laboratory.

10. Laboratory managers set good examples.


Page 2:

11. I trust what I read in Lab-wide communications (LANLtoday, Intranet, news releases, etc.)

12. I know the proper channels for reporting my concerns about safety.

13. I am encouraged to find creative solutions to new challenges.

14. The Laboratory provides opportunities regardless of gender.

15. Overall, I like my job.

16. I am committed to the success of the laboratory.

17. Laboratory managers/supervisors consult employees about decisions that affect them.

18. My suggestions about security would be acted upon if I expressed them to management.

19. Favoritism is not an issue in my group.

20. Upward communication is encouraged and enabled in my division.


Page 3:

21. My suggestions about employee safety would be acted upon if I expressed them to management.

22. I am held accountable for my work performance.

23. My supervisor/manager takes appropriate action when workplace concerns are raised to him/her.

24. The Laboratory provides opportunities regardless of race.

25. My work is challenging.

26. I plan to be working here five years from now.

27. Laboratory managers/supervisors have the authority to make decisions related to their own work groups.

28. My morale at work is good.

29. I am valued by the Laboratory.

30. Upward communication is encouraged at the Laboratory.


Page 4:

31. I am encouraged by my supervisors to report any unsecure conditions I observe.

32. I am proud to tell people I work for the Laboratory.

33. The Laboratory supports diversity in the work environment.

34. My work is rewarding.

35. I have a good understanding of the scope and responsibilities of my job.

36. Laboratory managers/supervisors positively motivate others to achieve goals.

37. The morale of my co-workers is good.

38. I believe that action will be taken on the results of this survey.

39. I know the proper channels for reporting my concerns about security.

40. My supervisor treats me fairly.


Page 5:

41. The Laboratory's employee population is diverse.

42. I am satisfied with my overall compensation, including benefits.

43. What do you value most about the Laboratory? (FILL IN TEXT BOX)

44. What do you consider to be the most significant impediment(s) to getting work done at the Laboratory? (FILL IN TEXT BOX)

45. I receive the most useful information about the Laboratory from... (FILL IN TEXT BOX)


Mike Anastasio's claim that "morale at LANL is good" will now be put to the test. We'll also soon know if Kevin Roark is correct with his claim that this blog is the platform of only a few employees at the lab who are unhappy with LANS/Bechtel management. We'll know, that is, as long as LANS doesn't hold the results of this survey from staff under the pretense of corporate "proprietary information".

You have two weeks to enter your opinions if you want to be heard. Sheeple need not apply.

-Anonymous

146 comments:

Frank Young said...

The first question really sets the tone of this survey. The recurring theme is where do you get your information and what do you do with it.

Anonymous said...

Here's some info on National Business Research Institute (NBRI), the outfit that is doing the LANS survey. It is run by a group of industrial and organizational pyschologists.

You've got to wonder what they are going to think when they see the survey results flow in from LANL:

--

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
National_Business_Research_Institute

HISTORY (Wiki)

The company was founded by Organizational Psychologist, Dr. Jan Stringer West.

Over the next few decades NBRI developed standardized questions for specific surveys. In time, the company amassed a large database of responses to these standardized questions. NBRI's database includes responses from the customers and employees of approximately one third of all of the "ultimate parent" companies in the United States. The responses to these questions have been branded NBRINorms© and are used as benchmarks.


RESIDENT PSYCHOLOGISTS

NBRI employs resident Ph.D. Organizational Psychologists with experience in the business application of psychological research.

Resident NBRI psychologists have presented at the Oxford Round Table

Dr. West's writings have been referenced by the New York Times as well as other publications.

Anonymous said...

Rumors of more lab downsizing and layoffs are spreading again at both LLNL and LANL. Anybody know what's up? Is LANS planning to announce more downsizing right after the LANS Fall Festival has taken place?

Anonymous said...

"26. I plan to be working here five years from now."

Ha, ha, ha... that one is funny. I wouldn't count on it, suckers! Not if my bonus depends on meeting the latest NNSA attrition rates.

- MIKEY

Anonymous said...

I predict an industrial psychologist will soon win a Nobel Prize after thoroughly dissecting the data that is going to be present in THIS corporate survey! Ouch!

Anonymous said...

My answer to the last question was ... The LANL Blog.

Thanks Frank (and Doug)!!

Anonymous said...

Science used to be an afterthought at this lab as recently as a few years ago. No longer! Now, the thought doesn't occur at all to our beloved managers. Not one of the questions even mentions science! Who needs science anyway, at the Los Alamos National Obedience Laboratory?

Anonymous said...

"9. I have confidence in the leadership of the Laboratory."

Who really is the leader of this lab? Anastasio, Richardson, Marquez, Bechtel, none of the above? I'm not talking about org charts or who does the day to day firing. If this lab ever had to accomplish anything again, who would make it happen?

Anonymous said...

Too bad that there are no questions about cost, support organizations, broken systems, requirements, etc. If they really wanted to gauge the institution and such, then they questions might have been more thought provoking and/or probing.

But have no fear...when the survey suggests that there are a disproportionately large number of unhappy people, I suspect that they will be shown the door in the next RIF.

The budget for next year looks like it will be down. Thus, the management has decided to raise our G&A retroactively by 1.2% this year. Those of us who were expecting ti use carryover to offset the a smaller budget will have to think of something else. A decrease in the cost of benefits probably isn't in the cards.

Anonymous said...

Can we do this like an election with a straight party ticket vote?
I would like to pull the lever for NO on all of the questions.

Anonymous said...

I sure would like to see an independent audit of the results.

Anonymous said...

A retroactive increase in the G&A is taxing science for the benefit of overhead. We would not want to upset Anastasio's supporters in the overhead organizations as at time when a vote of confidence is taking place!

Anonymous said...

43. What do you value most about the Laboratory?

The annual picnic, of course!!

Each year I feel valued by senior management as they give me my ONE hotdog, ONE little bag of chips, and ONE drink. No going back, even if there is excess.

Since management is trying to increase bonus money, this year I hear we will be downsized to half a wiener each.

Anonymous said...

The survey should ask new hires after the 2006 LANS take over, how they like their retirement plan, especially since social security wont be around by that time . My excel sheet says I wont be able to retire within 80% of my projected salary until age 74. Maybe NNSA will hire me, they match their 401k at 6% and have a pension on top of that.

Anonymous said...

I am glad that LANS saved money by not wasting it on a qualified survey writer. The listed survey would not get a passing grade in an introductory social psychology class.

Anonymous said...

The questions in this survey are very obviously biaeed to produce all YES answers which will favor the present management. This survey would not be presented as impartial in any place.

Anonymous said...

You all can't seriously believe this survey is anonymous do you?

Each individual at the Lab received a unique password to access the survey, providing complete traceability back to the respondent.

Add to it the survey password was sent out on an email with embedded hyperlinks from an unknown outside web domain, against admonitions by the cyber security zealots not to read or click on links in email messages from unknown outside web domains, and we've got the most perfect example yet of what life at the Lab is really like in a survey asking what life at the Lab is really like.

LANS can't even ask its employees what they think without violating their own rules and screwing it up.

I won't be responding. I'd be too tempted to say what I think, and the traceability will give them all the tools they need to track me down and take reprisals.

Anonymous said...

"Rumors of more lab downsizing and layoffs are spreading again at both LLNL and LANL. Anybody know what's up?" - 11:07 PM

When the preliminary FY2010 NNSA budget came out this spring, the Los Alamos Monitor reported that LASO had listed a 2000 headcount reduction at LANL for this next year in their budget. The LASO office tried to quickly squash this story by saying that the 2000 headcount reduction figure was a mistake and, instead, they were only hoping for a 5% attrition rate in FY2010.

NNSA lies. The initial figure released was likely correct, but I strongly suspect NNSA did not want it released to the public. The continuing downsizing of LANL will occur at a much faster rate than most employees are expecting.

Anonymous said...

10:01 AM: "I won't be responding. I'd be too tempted to say what I think"

Coward! Another fine example of LANL sheeple-ization. You won't even respond to a survey which will be collecting responses from thousands of other lab employees. Instead, you would rather quiver in fear. That's pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Re: 10:01's comment.

The LANL Sheeple have bleated.

Baaaaah. Baaaaaahhhh!!!

Baaaaaaaahhhhhhhdd!!!!

Must not say anything baaaahhhhhddd in survey.

My LANS sheeple-masters might not like it if I say something not nice.



Same old story. You LANL mother-fuckers *deserve* what you get. I am so glad that I am no longer associated with LANL.

Fucking cowards.

Anonymous said...

"Fucking cowards." 9/15/09 10:15 AM

Hear, hear!!!

Anonymous said...

Poster 10:01 is a perfect example of the employee attitude that is helping NNSA and LANS to destroy this institution. In the end, his total inaction won't even save his precious job. This place is full of way too many 10:01s!

Anonymous said...

Here's a thought: We know that the questions on the survey are biased to return positive results and we think that they will be able to track who responded. SO, let's boycott the survey. Sort of like "what if they gave a war and nobody came?"

Anonymous said...

It's nice to be calling LANL employees cowards and sheeple, but many are concerned about losing their jobs. We do have responsibilities to our families. Jobs are scarce these days and houses are impossible to sell in Los Alamos.

My bet is that those brave anonymous people who spout this stuff about cowards and sheeple have never held a job in the real world. If you work in industry you do not publicly criticize your employer under any circumstances.

Anonymous said...

This just in from NNSA's Twitter site...

"NNSA says LANL survey demonstrates LANS is making INCREDIBLE PROGRESS in improving employee morale!"

Anonymous said...

"SO, let's boycott the survey."

Another coward's way out. LANL is, unbelievably, even more full of cowards than it was when Nanos took over.

If you stupid shits are so fucking fearful that you won't even fill out the survey with truthful responses then you will continue to get what you deserve.

Fucking, fucking, fucking cowards.

Anonymous said...

Listen up assholes, it's my survey and I will use the questions that I want. I do not need you ingrates messing up my bonus!

MIKEY.

Anonymous said...

10:36 AM: "We know that the questions on the survey are biased"

What are you talking about? Have you even looked at those questions?

They aren't biased. In fact, I'm surprised that LANS is opening themselves up to the possibility of incredibly harsh evaluations with this survey.

Jeeze, the idiocy level at LANL continues to grow with surprising force!

Anonymous said...

Fucking, fucking, fucking cowards.

9/15/09 10:42 AM

You need to add in some more "fucking's" to fully cover the extent of cowardice present at LANL, 10:42 am.

Anonymous said...

10:40,

"If you work in industry you do not publicly criticize your employer under any circumstances."

True enough. But the survey is not a public forum for criticism, it is a very private one; LANS has seen to that.

I hate to say this, but you sound like a coward for intimating that people should not fill out the survey truthfully.

Anonymous said...

"If you work in industry you do not publicly criticize your employer under any circumstances." (10:40 AM)

You'll make a fine LANS manager someday, 10:40 AM. Please be sure to suck extra hard on Mikey's left ball. He likes it that way.

Anonymous said...

Wow 10:12am, it's pretty brave of you to call someone a coward while you post anonymously. Check a mirror.

Who really believes a survey by LANS for LANS is really going to result in them making any changes at all in how they run the lab?

LANS is a lap-dog for NNSA and Congressional bullies. Someone bravely anonymous like you is not likely to affect their thinking, behavior, or bonuses.

The benefit to filling out the survey isn't anywhere close to the risk.

Please, though, do continue to anonymously berate individuals for being cowards. The therapy will be good for your symptoms of borderline personality disorder.

Anonymous said...

12:10 pm: "Please, though, do continue to anonymously berate individuals for being cowards."

Is that worse than anonymously berating individuals for anonymously berating individuals for being cowards?

Anonymous said...

Is that worse than anonymously berating individuals for anonymously berating individuals for being cowards?

I think Doug is the Master of all Recursions regarding anonymous cowards. So he may be able to give you some advice. On the other hand, except Doug, Frank, Eric and Greg, we are all anonymous cowards, regardless of depth of recursion. So what are you complaining about?

Doug Roberts said...

I usually hold my tongue on the subject of Anonymous Cowardly Sheeple. But, since 1:09 brings it up, I confess that I am disappointed in those comments that express fear of not answering the LANS survey questionnaire honestly.

Not surprised, just disappointed.

Regarding Anonymous Cowards calling Anonymous Cowards cowardly: well, have at it. I understand that viewers in Washington, DC and Fredricksburg find all of that rather amusing.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9/15/09 10:42 AM said...

"If you stupid shits are so fucking fearful that you won't even fill out the survey with truthful responses then you will continue to get what you deserve."

So we are cowards. But, isn't calling us stupid shits in an anonymous post an act of cowardice?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9/15/09 10:47 AM does not think that the survey is biased. Read the questions again. They are all written in a positive tone and set up to elicit the favorable response of "YES."

This survey would never be sent out in the real world.

Anonymous said...

Of course it's written to provide positive responses - all the lanl surveys going back many years ago are structured.

I agree - boycott the survey - that sends the best message of not wanting to participate in a psychological f--k me, f--k you (repeat several time) umm discourse

Anonymous said...

3:29 PM: "They are all written in a positive tone and set up to elicit the favorable response of "YES.""


And I take it that you are too stupid to answer these questions with a response of "Strongly Negative" rather than "Strongly Positive"?

The arguments being given against submitting answers to this survey are incredibly lame.

Anonymous said...

You are all a bunch of male pussies. Good God, I wrote what I thought and will stand by it. Yes, I am a female, ranked as a Scientist 5, but not paid as much as my male peers; however, certainly willing to say what I think and stand by it.

Doug Roberts said...

Ok 7:54.

But what did you write, behind which you so staunchly stand?

Remember, everybody here, with only a few exceptions, is anonymous[e].

(Male, fond of, but not classified as.)

Anonymous said...

Oh, I commented on how massive amounts of training and paperwork are NOT making me safer or more secure. In fact, the so-called "support" organizations are creating more work for the TSM paying their salaries.

I also said I get most of my information about LANL from the LANL blog. Many of my colleagues said they chickened out and wrote "other sources".

John said...

People are sadly very paranoid. I, for one, believe that the survey is anonymous. The password sent to me was sent to everyone in my group so they couldn't even track me like that if they wanted to.

I don't believe however that any good will come of it. I did however honestly answer the questions with many negatives and also commented about how the pendulum has swung WAY too far towards security and safety and away from productivity.

Please everyone, fill out the survey. Nothing bad can come of it and maybe, just maybe, they'll be forced by a large ratio of negativity to address some of our concerns.

Although thinking that they might actually address our concerns is probably laughably naive. Just read the lab's Reader's Forum to see how they never actually address any problems. The one about not creating a parking lot for overnight parking was the worst as far as I'm concerned.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but this survey is a sham. Any answer that is seen as negative will be tossed out. Will the "results" ever see the light of day? I doubt it, not in any accurate form anyway.

Despite my feelings, I filled out the survey too. I was honest because I don't plan on being here for 5 years from now. I don't even plan on being here 5 weeks from now.

Anonymous said...

8:54 pm: "I'm sorry but this survey is a sham. Any answer that is seen as negative will be tossed out."

And your evidence for this statement is..? Except for your pre-existing bias, of course. Neutral-minded, unbiased scientist that you are...

Anonymous said...

NNSA has said that they want to downsize LANL by 5% next year, and yet LANL has recruiters out telling the news media that the lab is hiring like crazy (see news story below).

What's up? Is LANS looking to replace the current workforce with a bunch of lower paid, lower benefit employees? And who is this Anita Carrasco person?

~~~~~~~~~
Recession over? Some job seekers say no
(KOB TV, September 15 2009)

There was mixed reaction at UNM Tuesday over the Federal Reserve chairman's opinion that the recession is over.

Ben Bernanke's comment is already drawing criticism from economists—especially those looking for a job. But others say Bernanke's comments are relief.

At the UNM job fair Tuesday, where more than 50 employers reached out to students and the unemployed, accounting major Victor Smith was skeptical.

"You can't say it's over now. How can you say it's over when there are still businesses declining, when there's still unemployment, when there's lack of funds for education and employment?" he said. "How can it be over with all of those stipulations?"

But Anita Carrasco, an engineer at Los Alamos National Lab, says things are looking up.

"We're hiring, lots of people are hiring. There's a lot of people at the career fair," she said.

Carrasco says the lab has paid internships for more than 1,000 students and has dozens of job openings—everything from engineers to physicists to scientists.

"I've never been asked to recruit, so just the fact that they're looking in our division to get people out here, looking for students, to me that's a sign that we're ready to bring people from universities and even professionals into the laboratory from outside," Carrasco said.

www.kob.com/article/stories/
S1140305.shtml?cat=516

Anonymous said...

Doug, here's a simple editing rule: When someone on this blog tells others to go kill themselves in graphic detail, then moderate it off the blog.

Many people at LANL are already highly stressed and don't need encouragement from some wacko to go commit suicide. There are several posts in the other subject categories that appeared tonight on this blog that meet this simple criteria.

We don't need to see this crap from the sickos with the serious anger management issues.

Doug Roberts said...

9:54,

Thank you for your simple rule. You are welcome to replace me as blog co-moderator at any time. I'm sure you'll do just fine.

Anonymous said...

What kind of idiot would actually GO to the "annual picnic"?

Anonymous said...

What kind of idiot would actually GO to the "annual picnic"?

Most of them, actually.

Anonymous said...

Does the newly required PTSD poster strike anybody as odd? If one was paranoid one would think DOE is prepping to cause some big stress amongst workers. Can you spell RIF?

Anonymous said...

"..one would think DOE is prepping to cause some big stress amongst workers. Can you spell RIF?" - 8:56 AM


RIFs? Only at the NNSA weapon labs. The DOE energy labs (esp. ORNL) are rapidly growing. ORNL is currently hiring about 50 new staff members a month. Most of the energy labs are getting large doses of new money for energy and climate research.

Anonymous said...

You can count on 2 things:

(A) Thousands of LANL employees will attend the LANS Fall Festival. It will be hailed as a great success!

(B) The results of the employee survey will be used by LANS to prove that morale at LANL is good, except for some small pockets of whiners which Kevin Roark likes to talk about. More inspiring leadership sessions with Mikey will be planned to "cure" those "small pockets" that are left.

Anonymous said...

"8:54 pm: "I'm sorry but this survey is a sham. Any answer that is seen as negative will be tossed out."

And your evidence for this statement is..? Except for your pre-existing bias, of course. Neutral-minded, unbiased scientist that you are..."

i filled out something for that postdoc association thing. my comments about the organization were not included in their report to the postdoc office or whomever they report the results.

Anonymous said...

What kind of idiot would actually GO to the "annual picnic"?
9/16/09 7:28 AM


Hijole, Vato! Only the lameculos go to those pickynickies. Grow a pair, ese. Put 'em with a boycott. There's no dinero rolling down to the brothers anyway.

Anonymous said...

Breaking News: New Mexico Department of Health just confirmed the death of a 21-year-old Los Alamos woman from the H1N1 influenza.

Few details are being released as the DOH is investigating whether the woman had underlying health problems that may have contributed to her death.

Anonymous said...

But Anita Carrasco, an engineer at Los Alamos National Lab, says things are looking up.

"We're hiring, lots of people are hiring. There's a lot of people at the career fair," she said.

Carrasco says the lab has paid internships for more than 1,000 students and has dozens of job openings—everything from engineers to physicists to scientists.

"I've never been asked to recruit, so just the fact that they're looking in our division to get people out here, looking for students, to me that's a sign that we're ready to bring people from universities and even professionals into the laboratory from outside," Carrasco said.

What's up? Is LANS looking to replace the current workforce with a bunch of lower paid, lower benefit employees? And who is this Anita Carrasco person?

Anita is a new Team Leader in W-Division of the Assembly Team. This is the same Group that Brett Knapp forced Joe K. Martinez (30-year Lab veteran) out as Group Leader and the same Division that Knapp forced a large number of engineers out of that were over 40-years of age. Knapp explicitly stated that he didn't think much of the LANL engineers so he just forced a large number of hand-picked people mostly minorities, and is now out looking for people that meet his high admission standards. Fact is, Knapp was a lousy engineer at LLNL who can barely speak English or spell his name. It amazing how these young engineers can't see what is going on right in front of them when they are shown gold. This all makes me want to barf!

Anonymous said...

"Breaking News: New Mexico Department of Health just confirmed the death of a 21-year-old Los Alamos woman from the H1N1 influenza." (12:40 PM)

This is sad news to hear. I guess we can assume that the H1N1 virus isn't always benign, especially to the 20-something age group.


Note to LANS - get rid of the lame:

- "Wear shoes that GRIP!"

safety motto and change it to:

- "Wash your damn hands or DIE!"

Putting out bottles of hand sanitizing lotions at all the hand geometry security portals might also be a good idea right about now.

Anonymous said...

"Who really is the leader of this lab? Anastasio, Richardson, Marquez, Bechtel, none of the above?" - 3:02 AM

No leaders, these are just bosses. Leadership takes skills and talent so that those under you will trust and follow you. Almost no one at LANL has this type of feeling about the names you listed.

C. Paul Robinson probably would have made a very good leader. He had the ability to call a spade a spade and stand up to the idiots in NNSA. Of course, that's not what NNSA wants, so his team had no chance of winning the lab contract.

Anonymous said...

New county administrator appointed
- Los Alamos Monitor, September 16th

County Administrator Max Baker retires Oct. 21 and Tuesday evening county council appointed Anthony Mortillaro to take the reins beginning the following day.

While not well known in the community, Mortillaro has served as assistant county administrator since 2004 and six of seven councilors voted for him.

“I cannot support this appointment at this time,” Councilor Robert Gibson said, after laying out reasons he feels more candidates should be reviewed and community input considered. “My vote should not be interpreted as a vote against Tony. It is a vote against making any appointment without taking advantage of this opportunity to reflect on what we really want and need in a county administrator and assure ourselves and the community we indeed are hiring the best possible person to do this very demanding job.”

Gibson mentioned that Mortillaro has made “some very costly mistakes” and wondered aloud what Mortillaro may have learned from those mistakes and how he would handle similar situations in the future.

****

No great surprises here, huh? The County rewards a crook and makes another very bad mistake. Watch out for your pockets, folks!

The Los Alamos County council and LANS are two groups who seem to be made for each other. At least Gibson has the ability to spot a snake in the grass.

Anonymous said...

not all of us are fucking cowards.

some of us older gentlemen suffer from ED* and would prefer to be called by our proper name, limp dick....


* our insurance says they cover it but will deny every claim

Anonymous said...

In case you haven't already figured it out, LANS knows that staff inclined to be critical of LANS "management" read this blog so it's LANS that's likely responsible for seeding this blog with comments intended to discourage readers from returning the survey. Return the survey. Be honest. You won't stand out if you choose to be critical - there will be plenty of other critical responses.

Anonymous said...

You won't stand out if you choose to be critical - there will be plenty of other critical responses.

9/17/09 7:19 AM

No, no, no, no! Kevin Roark says this blog is the domain for a few whiners at LANL who aren't happy with LANS/Bechtel. They are in the extreme minority. Most of the employees are happy and "morale is good" (Mikey). Kevin and Mikey never lie. Keep reading the lab's LANL Today news to get the *real* story. LANL is making "incredible progress" under Bechtel!!!

Anonymous said...

This just in from NNSA's Twitter site...

..."LANL Engagement Survey proves LANS is making INCREDIBLE PROGRESS in improving lab's morale!"

Anonymous said...

10:40AM spews: "If you work in industry you do not publicly criticize your employer under any circumstances."

Really? According to...? What if your employer is poisoning your family, or producing products that kill innocent people? Oh silly me. I forget, you work at LANL. Nevermind!

Anonymous said...

The New Mexico Department of Health has confirmed the Los Alamos woman who died Sunday from the H1N1 virus had no pre-existing health problems.

Aracely Marquez Marquez, 21, was an employee of Smith’s Food and Drug Centers at 535 Central Ave. She most recently worked in the Deli department.

Anonymous said...

10:35 am: "..."LANL Engagement Survey proves LANS is making INCREDIBLE PROGRESS in improving lab's morale!""

DOE is correct. It is indeed not credible!

Anonymous said...

I thought it was obvious what 10:40 meant, but perhaps many people here are too isolated from reality.

"If you work in industry you do not publicly criticize your employer under any circumstances."

Was implicitly followed by the concept or you will be fired and forever be unemployable by any employer who becomes aware of your prior public criticism of a previous employer.

It really doesn't matter if you are right in your criticism, you will still be unemployable. It is unfortunate, but it is the way the world works.

Doug Roberts said...

Excuse me, 6:47?

Major overstatement in your latest tirade. I'm living proof that you are wrong.

The simple facts are that sometimes management is not only wrong, but they are _so_ wrong that speaking out against them, publicly, is the only respectable, viable action.

My suggestion to you is to take a Xanax, you sound like you could use one.

Anonymous said...

6:47 pm is right in general, anecdotal evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. To publicly speak out against your employer and expect to stay employed is a fool's game. Whether you are "right" is not relevant.

Anonymous said...

Alright, pussies, I took the survey and let it all hang out and I bet I will still have a job in a few months.

Frank Young said...

6:47,
If you want to stay anonymous the blog allows that. How important being "right" is to you is completely your decision.

Anonymous said...

I agree, 8:19 pm. Employees who fill out this survey and let LANS know exactly how they feel will still have their jobs in a few months. However, cowards who quiver in fear telling everyone to beware and ignore this survey have lost something even more important... their dignity.

Anonymous said...

"... their dignity."

This does not seem to be a major factor with your average LANL employee.

Anonymous said...

This is 6:47.

I did not understand your comment at 8:37, Frank. Could you clarify?

Anonymous said...

I hope everyone answers this survey and tells LANS exactly how they feel. However, knowing LANS, they'll probably take any poor results and use them as a gauge of just how much additional attrition they need to generate to achieve a "sanitized" corporate work force.

Anonymous said...

This is 6:47.

I did not understand your comment at 8:37, Frank. Could you clarify?


It means that Frank doesn't love you anymore - and Doug neither.

Anonymous said...

if i told the truth I probably will get fired.

Anonymous said...

I think that there is a basic misunderstanding here. Only the scientists, who are a small minority of the workforce now, have problems with their work and management's attitude. The vast majority of support personnel and engineers working on things like safety, security, authorization base, construction, etc., are very happy. This will skew the results and provide something that LANS will be happy with.

Look at the LANL posted job ads and see who the predominant hires are!

Anonymous said...

What 11:24 am says is insightful and true. LANS looks at the scientists as a budgetary burden. When a scientist loses funding (not hard to do with a bloated $500K FTE labor rate!), it creates a nasty budgetary hole.

LANS doesn't like budget problems. Therefore, they are more than eager to get rid of the "expensive" research scientists. LANL gets plenty of other funding that comes automatically from NNSA like clockwork and doesn't require much from this "science lab" other than zero safety and security infractions.

Need further convincing? Just look at some of the recent stories and front covers of LANL magazines like "Currents" and "1663". You'll see plenty of front covers and stories of new Becthelized employees wearing hard hats and construction vests. Many of the stories concentrate on LANL cleanup, D&D, and construction efforts. LANS is sending a not too subtle message.

There is little future for research scientists at this once famous "science lab" now that Bechtel has taken over. LDRD is about the only "science" they wish to see. All other LANL research is headed on an unsustainable path due to outrageous over-burdened costs and crazy policies.

Any future LANS attrition efforts will be directed at the remaining science staff. It's part of the ongoing Bechtel-ization process that is destroying the lab. However, no one in Washington seems the least bit concerned. The LANS Engagement Survey will likely show that the huge number of non-scientists at LANL are quite happy with the lab's current situation. LANS upper management will not be sweating it out over the results.

Frank Young said...

"This is 6:47.

I did not understand your comment at 8:37, Frank. Could you clarify?"

Certainly. I was replying to your statement:

"It really doesn't matter if you are right in your criticism, you will still be unemployable."

and also to 9/17/09 8:15 PM:

"Whether you are "right" is not relevant."

Anonymous said...

Frank, you didn't mention your opinion about the issue of being "right" vs being "employable". Care to comment?

Frank Young said...

I did mention my opinion.

How important being "right" is to you is completely your decision.

Greg Close said...

I'm scared to fill out the survey because I think there's a micro-camera in my stapler reporting my actions back to a secret cyber-security unit that will then take adverse employment action against me for my honesty... I'm pretty sure it's run by alien hybrids and mysterious smoking bureaucrats.

I took the survey and answered honestly, and by honestly I mean there was not a lot of shiny happy rating of "strongly agree." I would say the same thing to any manager who asked my honest opinion, and stick my name on it just like I stick my name on it here. I am proud of what the Lab should be, and I think it's worth whatever "risk" there is in honesty to provide concise critique for constructive purposes. I'm not naive enough to think that will garner action, but I want to live my life knowing I've taken the action that was right, not just the action that was easy or free of risk. I can't control what those responsible for reviewing the survey results will do, but I can control what I do - and I won't live my life ashamed that I didn't say what I thought I should when I was asked. If you don't answer just because you think no one will listen to you or do anything about it, then you deserve whatever comes after because you didn't even TRY to make a difference.

And by the way 9/18/09 11:24 AM & 9/18/09 12:49 PM - you guys need to share the victim complex with the rest of us. On what data do you base this claim that only scientists are unhappy? Sounds like an assumption to me. Have you talked to a lot of us in support functions? I happen to know as a verifiable fact that a lot of support people are not "happy" right now. I'm one of them. Again, I'm not afraid to say it. If anyone cares to ask me why, I'm not afraid to explain. I just don't blame it all on LANS - that's ridiculous.

One last thing, re:"a decrease in the cost of benefits probably isn't in the cards". Uhhh... actually, for the most part there will be. The rates are posted on the Open Enrollment page already, so go take a look.

Anonymous said...

I think that there is a basic misunderstanding here. Only the scientists, who are a small minority of the workforce now, have problems with their work and management's attitude. The vast majority of support personnel and engineers working on things like safety, security, authorization base, construction, etc., are very happy. This will skew the results and provide something that LANS will be happy with.

Look at the LANL posted job ads and see who the predominant hires are!

9/18/09 11:24 AM

Please do not categorize any engineers as being "very happy". As an engineer I am miserable for a number of reasons. Prior to the LANS "occupation" of Los Alamos the engineers were treated like professions and is one of the reasons I came to work here. Now, engineers are treated like "job shoppers" even in weapon program where LANS can toss you from one side of the Lab to the other and pick and choose who they will transfer. Anastasio and Knapp consider engineers to be "support" and not an integral part of the program and are not a capability. As an example, as soon as RRW was completed Knapp (and Benner) ran off all the engineers working on this. Let's just hope we never need these guys again because that capability is gone.....lost.

Anonymous said...

Greg and others, Just make sure that you check a box at the "neutral" or "disagree" levels if you want your votes to be cast as anything other than a glowing endorsement of LANS. I've noticed over the years - even under UC management! - that "agree" and "strongly agree" are lumped together when the survey results are published.

Neko said...

I thought that all this fear of loosing jobs was over at LANL - word at LLNL is that LANL is getting lots of work. Me, I'd answer the survey as honestly as I could. Maybe, just maybe it's for real and ULM will actually listen

Anonymous said...

I took the survey, and while my answers were not on the far left or right of the extremes, they did vary around. For instance, i really enjoy my own work, and what I have been doing for years. I get enough good for this, that it overrides the stupid stuff that LANS shovels out. There is a balance in any work, good and bad. If you are stuck in a job that is all on the negative side, thats your own fault.


Answer to the question of "where do you get the skinny on LANL" was this blog! Isn't that the truth?

Anonymous said...

9/19/09 8:34am's advises people to "Just make sure that you check a box at the "neutral" or "disagree" levels if you want your votes to be cast as anything other than a glowing endorsement of LANS..."

I believe a "neutral" response would be tossed out, too, as it may not offer much in the way of feedback.

Anonymous said...

The key question about this survey is what will LANS do with the results to help fix things?

If the actions they take are nothing more than additional 'Rah-Rah' management leadership conferences and greater use of 'feel good' slogans, then nothing effective will have been done to correct the morale mess at the lab. The worst action they could take would be to start using the behavioral components in PerforM to lower the scores of those who don't like what's has happened to LANL under LANS.

Anonymous said...

Question:

Would it be 1) cowardly or 2) healthy to spend a few minutes each day asking yourself what it is that you are grateful for, in regards to working with LANL?

Question:
Is it 1) brave or 2) unhealthy to spend all of your waking hours focusing on what you perceive to be the negatives of working with LANL?

Anonymous said...

2:55,

Yes.

And, no.

Does that help?

Anonymous said...

2:55

The salary is the only reason I'm here at this once fine institution.

Nice use of the word "perceived" you Bechtellian scum sucking twit. Go back to your hole and practice amateur psychology on people who don't loath you and your type.

Anonymous said...

From 9/19/09 2:14 PM

The worst action they could take would be to start using the behavioral components in PerforM to lower the scores of those who don't like what's has happened to LANL under LANS.

Oh fear not. This is how the ADs, DLs, and GLs are following Terry's orders to manage most people's score average to a 3. Only friends and family, oh I mean the "special performers" get the higher scores.

Anonymous said...

One way to help cure morale problems is too have a swell corporate festival were all the employees and their family get free hotdogs and can play games with lab big shots.

However, the very best way to handle morale problems is to have a RIF. Those who are left after the layoffs become very thankful for their jobs and suddenly learn how to STFU! Trust me, it works every time.

- MIKEY

Anonymous said...

"9. I have confidence in the leadership of the Laboratory."

Anyone who answers this question with anything other than "Strongly Disagree" must be crazy (or works for Bechtel)!

Anonymous said...

9/19/09 12:10 PM wrote:

For instance, i really enjoy my own work, and what I have been doing for years. I get enough good for this, that it overrides the stupid stuff that LANS shovels out. There is a balance in any work, good and bad. If you are stuck in a job that is all on the negative side, thats your own fault.

I hope you get the privilege of getting forced out of that job you like and transferred to TA55 because LANS is going to lose out on its' PBIs. And you have house you can't sell, a mortgage to pay, and a family to support, and no other jobs to apply for. I would love to hear you say," I hate my job, but it is my own fault I'm here."

Anonymous said...

Wow, a real contest going on here between self-pity and schadenfreude. I guess they're just two sides of the same sad coin.

Anonymous said...

The LANS survey is a joke. All LANS had to do was implement the old upward appraisal that LANL used for many years. THEY COULD HAVE GOT SOME REAL FEEDBACK UP THE CHAIN, NOT A SOME wimpy SURVEY. MIKEY AND THE BOYS CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Anonymous said...

Whoa, 11:55. Please get some counseling, buddy.

Anonymous said...

Only 7 more business days left to leave your input on the LANS Employee Survey. Cowards need not apply, of course.

Anonymous said...

Hah ha. I was able to take the survey twice! It was like using a magnifying glass to fry ants. Oh so satisfying.

Anonymous said...

7:47 pm: "I was able to take the survey twice! It was like using a magnifying glass to fry ants. Oh so satisfying."

Do you also have experience beating chained dogs, and setting fire to captured cats? Torturing little children? Do you own an AK-47?

Anonymous said...

"Hah ha. I was able to take the survey twice!" (7:47 PM)

Twice, huh? Congratulations, 7:47. You just figured out how we plan on selecting our candidates for the RIF list for this next year. Feeling lucky, are you? Want to try for three times?

- Mikey

Anonymous said...

9/21/09 @ 11:55 said: "I hope you get the privilege of getting forced out of that job you like and transferred to TA55 because LANS is going to lose out on its' PBIs. And you have house you can't sell, a mortgage to pay, and a family to support, and no other jobs to apply for. I would love to hear you say," I hate my job, but it is my own fault I'm here."

Sorry my friend, but I won't be forced out of this job because it is in strong demand, funding is very good, I don't need to sell my already paid for house since I have this job and I could easily work from home doing similar work for others without the lab too.

Wow, all your negativity doesn't work here, but you sure need help.
I reiterate my earlier point that the lab does have good work going on, with satisfied people doing it. If you aren't in this category, it's your own doing. Wishing the worse on others won't solve your dilemma. Good luck with your career.

Al Charmatz said...

Regarding anonymity: A fair number of years ago the "old" Laboratory was running annual "Employee Attitude Surveys," which also were advertised as being anonymous. However, for demographic assessment - only reasons they asked certain questions. I remember standing alongside an even more senior colleague, who has been with LASL/LANL since the 1940s, asking how many people with your education and longevity, or mine, could there be at the Lab?

Regarding "leaders" and leadership: Harold Agnew was the one-and-only. (Starting with Bradbury, I served under 7 or 8 Directors.) I would re-name him "Harold Magnus" if there is ever a "Columbus-3," as a sequel to my first two Columbus-at-the-Leon-and-Castile-National-Sea-Laboratory stories (sometimes they were called "articles"). They were published in Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact in January and November, 1981. (The more things change, the more they remain the same.)

I'm a retiree, since 2002, folks, (and a Laboratory Fellow) and almost the last under the old PERS pension plan, so there's little or nothing "they" can do to me (I hope).

Don't get me started about CYA-vs.-national-security. Instead, search the web for Douglas MacArthur's 12 May 1962 Farewell Address to the Corps of Cadets, and read (better yet, listen) what "morale" and moral leadership really is.

Frank Young said...

Thanks Al.

I read the farewell address.

Anonymous said...

LANS and NNSA are only interested in two things as the lab moves forward: absolute compliance with ALL policies and formality of operations for ALL activities (research and otherwise, no matter how minor they may be).

This doesn't make for an intellectually stimulating center of scientific research, but that is not what they have in store for LANL's future.

The Bechtel-ization process will continue until most of the innovative research at LANL has been snuffed out of existence. In fact, looking at the recent 5 year "Path Forward" plans from the Director's office, it appears they are getting ready to speed up the Bechtel-ization process over the next two years. It's not going to be fun to watch this unfold.

Anonymous said...

"28. My morale at work is good."

Uh, shouldn't LANS already have a pretty good idea about staff morale since they are probably monitoring all the keystrokes entered on the FDE/SecureDoc laptops? Why bother to even ask any longer?

Anonymous said...

I left a 9 year LANL career shortly after the transition for anouther DOE site. My work is now rewarding and useful enough that I dont even need to surf the inet all day (at work) to stay sane. I make 15% more and live for 15% less and nobody has ever heard of stupid "moral" surveys, picknicks are all you can eat and 2wice a year and you get 1/2day paid to attend them. To all LANL staff "THERE IS LIFE OUTSIDE OF LANL".

Anonymous said...

"THERE IS LIFE OUTSIDE OF LANL".

9:51 PM

And, from the numerous typos and miss-spellings in your post, it appears that life outside of LANL still seems to involve generous amounts of booze while using the internet at home. Glad to see that some things never change.

;-)

Anonymous said...

Al Charmatz said,

Regarding anonymity: A fair number of years ago the "old" Laboratory was running annual "Employee Attitude Surveys," which also were advertised as being anonymous. However, for demographic assessment - only reasons they asked certain questions. I remember standing alongside an even more senior colleague, who has been with LASL/LANL since the 1940s, asking how many people with your education and longevity, or mine, could there be at the Lab?

Regarding "leaders" and leadership: Harold Agnew was the one-and-only. (Starting with Bradbury, I served under 7 or 8 Directors.) I would re-name him "Harold Magnus" if there is ever a "Columbus-3," as a sequel to my first two Columbus-at-the-Leon-and-Castile-National-Sea-Laboratory stories (sometimes they were called "articles"). They were published in Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact in January and November, 1981. (The more things change, the more they remain the same.)

I'm a retiree, since 2002, folks, (and a Laboratory Fellow) and almost the last under the old PERS pension plan, so there's little or nothing "they" can do to me (I hope).

Don't get me started about CYA-vs.-national-security. Instead, search the web for Douglas MacArthur's 12 May 1962 Farewell Address to the Corps of Cadets, and read (better yet, listen) what "morale" and moral leadership really is.

9/23/09 4:25 PM

Hi Al. How do feel about Lawrence Livermore (LLNL) finally taking over the Los Alamos weapon program? We always feared the worse which has finally occurred. I think you will agree that Anastasio, MacMillian, and Knapp are NO Seymour Sack, Hans Kruger, or Bob Clough. We definitely got the D-team. There are still a few of us left who knew real the LLNL weapon engineers and physicists not a bunch of greedy con artists who came here to stomp us out!

Anonymous said...

Has anyone taken a look at the Director's latest posting on the path forward for LANL over the next 5 years? It's available on the lab's internal web site.

It has all these references about "partnering with LLNL" and even justifies these efforts with words to the effect that LANS and LLNS are essentially one and the same corporate entity (same people on both LLC Board of Governors!). I wonder if this is going to be used by Mike and his pals in LANS upper management to start shifting more weapon design efforts over to Livermore?

One other thing that comes through very clear in this "path forward" document: LANS main thrust over the next few years will be even greater emphasis on "compliance" and "formality of operations" for just about everything! If you think it is bad now, just wait another year or two. It's just getting started. Your going to need paperwork filled out just to wipe your ass once this thing is done!

Al Charmatz said...

Regarding the question asked of me, re LLNL allegedly running our weapons program: There is a history of Los Alamos managers having been deemed, incorrectly, as being incompetent to run weapons programs. Recall, many years ago, Harry Reynolds and others being brought in from LLNL, for some unknown reasons.

Regarding several names you've mentioned: I served some time in W-4/TD-4 (now X-4), the primary design group, and I know of Seymour Sack as well as his name-calling, notorious letter, defending Livermore's historical role. Regarding Hans Kruger: we started out as adversaries during the Mk400 competition (became TRIDENT-I/Mk4/W76), then friendly adversaries, and then collaborative colleagues and friends. Indeed, he was one of the five endorsers of my Lab Fellow nomination (others included Harold Agnew and Rich Wagner, for those readers with memories). Hans is a friend with whom I am still in contact, and a good guy, and has also been shuffled-out from his Laboratory. Re Charlie MacMillan: ask him what he told us at a September 2006 (?) or 2007 (?) Fellows meeting, re what he found when he came here.

Folks, remember what I tell people: "Don't complain; THESE are the Good Old Days!"

Anonymous said...

Hi 10:44. Could you post the text of "the Director's latest posting."

Thanks from us retirees.

Anonymous said...

10:44 am: "LANS main thrust over the next few years will be even greater emphasis on "compliance" and "formality of operations" for just about everything!"

Please explain how a contractor can complain about "compliance" with an established contract. Or how "operations" can be conducted correctly or efficiently without "formality"? Tell me how you would deal with the contractor remodeling your kitchen if he refused to comply with the contract or decided to take an "informal" approach.

Anonymous said...

"Please explain how a contractor can complain about "compliance" with an established contract. Or how "operations" can be conducted correctly or efficiently without "formality"? Tell me how you would deal with the contractor remodeling your kitchen if he refused to comply with the contract or decided to take an "informal" approach.

9/25/09 10:00 PM"

The problem with the contract is there is nothing about actual results. It is like telling your
contractors not to break anything
in the house and not to hurt themsleves and that is what they will be paid for not for doing the kitchen. Get it now?

Anonymous said...

If NNSA was doing a remodel of my kitchen, it would probably cost 600% over the going rate, take a decade to complete and require permit paper work to cover the disposal of bent nails and worker bathroom breaks. Your analogy is lame, 10pm.

LANL and NNSA have gone way above what any sane person would consider to be reasonable in terms of requirements of compliance and formality of operation at the NNSA science labs. The science at the labs is suffering because of it and it's clearly about to become even worse over the next 5 years.

Oh, and in case you don't realize it, LANL is a *RESEARCH* lab and not a *CONSTRUCTION* site. Just so's you know.

Anonymous said...

Operating a world class research institute like a construction kitchen remodel job? Don't you know... this 10 pm fellow just has to be one of our new Bechtelites!

Anonymous said...

LANL is no longer a healthy place in which to conduct good science.

However, it's a great place to be if you're interested in doing kitchen remodels (i.e., construction) and floor mopping (i.e., facilities management)!

Anonymous said...

I doubt 9/25/09 10:00 PM is going to understand what you are trying to tell him. His mind is accustomed not to dialog or reason, but to obedience and compliance on the part of the other side.

Anonymous said...

11:34 am: "Oh, and in case you don't realize it, LANL is a *RESEARCH* lab and not a *CONSTRUCTION* site. Just so's you know."

Hahhahhah. Good one. You can wake up now. I guess you went to sleep around 1990. Look around - no research here! Just construction and "compliance". Wearing your "shoes that GRIP"?

Anonymous said...

Wearing your "shoes that GRIP"? - 9:40 pm


Do Armani shoes count?

(LANS' Bechtelite Executives)

Anonymous said...

Sounds like LANS needs to add a few extra words to the sign out in front of LANL...

"Licensed contractor; bonded and insured"

Anonymous said...

Only 4 days left to let LANS know how you feel about their leadership of LANL. Employees who refuse to fill out this survey have no morale right to continuing complaining about the condition of the lab.

Anonymous said...

10:49 am: "Employees who refuse to fill out this survey have no morale right to continuing complaining about the condition of the lab."

They do if it is 100% certain that the results of the survey will be ignored. And it is.

Anonymous said...

Wednesday is the last day to enter your voice on the survey.

Yes, it will probably be ignored by LANS upper management, but at least Anastasio and his buddies will be required to look over the results in shame and read some of the comments.

Anonymous said...

I sometimes wonder... does Mike Anastasio have any idea just how much he is disliked by most of the scientific staff that is left at LANL? Does he realize that a large segment of the TSMs feel he has been a complete sell-out to the boys from Bechtel?

Anonymous said...

Anastasio will rationalize to himself that everything is still wonderful, that we just don't *understand* all of the great accomplishments LANS has made and all of the improvements. He will likely blame middle managers for not communicating these things to the worker level.

Anonymous said...

In response to 9/25/09 10:00 PM:

As pointed out already, running a $2B/yr national laboratory is not quite the same as a kitchen remodel project. Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument, let's stick with your analogy.

The "contractor" here are the people who do the work: the engineers, scientists, and support staff of LANL (benefits, admins, travel, etc). The customer is the US taxpayer. These are the two relevant parties.

Now, imagine that in the middle of the remodeling process two strange characters show up at the door. Let's call them an unemployed lawyer and a retired vice admiral. Neither knows anything about building or remodeling houses. They, however, thrust themselves in the middle of the process and begin ordering the contractor around. They draw random chalk lines inside and outside the house and demand that the contractor not step over them without mountains of paperwork. They require that the plans of the remodel be redrawn, in ways that would make the structure fall apart. (Remember, they know nothing about building houses!)

To add insult to injury, they keep changing their exact requirements every day. All this while running around the house with a bullhorn and yelling "orders" and "instructions" at the contractor and demanding immediate and complete "compliance".

Pretty soon, the contractor is unable to get any work done, demoralized and exhausted. The customer is likewise not amused: he's paying the money!

This pretty much sums up things at LANL these days.

Anonymous said...

Great analogy, 9:24 am. You nailed it!

Only thing I would add is NNSA as the out of control permit issuing office. They drag their feet and routinely issue 6 month stop orders for the remodeling project.

Anonymous said...

"42. I am satisfied with my overall compensation, including benefits."


You betcha!!! (Wink, wink)

- MIKEY

Anonymous said...

One last day to go for input to the survey on lab morale (Wed).

I'm sure there are some employees who are very happy with LANS management of LANL. However, the overwhelming majority of employees I know seem to feel strongly that the transition to "for profit" management (esp. the Bechtel/BWXT components) was a fatal blow to this once great institution.

I doubt LANL will ever recover from the damage. The sense of betrayal that the staff feels toward LANS upper management is strong and very deep.

Anonymous said...

Yes! Betrayal is exact word I was searching for. We scientist have been betrayed by our management. 10:00am is a clueless bureaucrat with a vested interest in "compliance" - this vague ideal that is used to justify each and every betrayal.

Anonymous said...

5:45 am: "We scientist have been betrayed by our management."

You can only feel "betrayed" if you had some reason or right to expect loyalty in the first place. I think you had the employee-employer relationship backward.

Anonymous said...

9/30/09 12:33 PM wrote:

You can only feel "betrayed" if you had some reason or right to expect loyalty in the first place. I think you had the employee-employer relationship backward.

I see... So, according to your thinking, the word employer is a synonym for the one who's expected to betray? Interesting... Are you, by any chance, affiliated with LANS, LLC?

Anonymous said...

9:13 pm: "So, according to your thinking, the word employer is a synonym for the one who's expected to betray?"

Nope, but nice try at misdirection of my point, which was, the employer should never be expected to be loyal to the employee; just the opposite. It's all about who's paying money for the other's services.

Anonymous said...

Well, and that's exactly the point, 10:04. It used to be about more than a paycheck around here for the employees, and it used to be about more than extracting the largest unit work for the smallest unit pay for the employer.

Anonymous said...

7:03: "It used to be about more than a paycheck around here for the employees, and it used to be about more than extracting the largest unit work for the smallest unit pay for the employer."

LOLZ. It used to be about going to junkets in Europe and Hawaii for the employees. And the concept that LANL is at all interested in the work/pay ratio is laughable. The pay/manager ratio is more like it.

Anonymous said...

to 9/30/09 10:04 PM:

No, it's you who's trying to deflect 9/30/09 9:13 PM. The true employer here is the American taxpayer, not the lawyers or the admirals who trust themselves in the middle. Don't lose sight of that fact. We've been through that discussion already.

As an employee, I take very seriously my responsibilities to my employer. I see that the lawyer and the admiral are subverting the intention of my employer, whether for reasons of stupidity or deliberate fraud, and I am very troubled by that. I especially resent their running around with the bullhorn yelling idiotic, incompetent instructions at us and pretending that they are our real employer and we are their disposable hourly workers.

Now, the lab's management sees the same thing, that the lawyer and the admiral are defrauding the taxpayer, while ravaging this National Laboratory. Yet, for reasons of convenience and expediency they choose to side with them, not with the taxpayer or the employees. This is betrayal, in the classical sense of the word.

Anonymous said...

10:04 AM: "..the employer should never be expected to be loyal to the employee; just the opposite."

You'll go far up the LANS executive ladder, you boot-licking scumbag. Is this Mikey's attack dog, Knapp? And is it any wonder that almost no one left at LANL trusts the LANS/Bechtel management team any longer? What's next, another round of signed loyalty oaths to the Director, ala Pete Nanos?

Anonymous said...

9:33 am: "The true employer here is the American taxpayer"

Right. WHo signs your paycheck, controls your terms of employment, and can hire and fire you? I think your opinion of your importance to the "taxpayer" is a little inflated.

Anonymous said...

Oh nice! So what portion of the LANL $6.4 billion budget can I deduct from my taxes? I'd love to wash my hands of this mess.

-A. Taxpayer

Frank Young said...

How about we just deduct the unearned bonus money and leave the rest of the budget intact.

Anonymous said...

10/1/09 8:34 PM:

What a scumbag! A worthless bureaucrat, with delusions of grandeur and self-importance, to the point of actually imagining that he is the Employer at the National Laboratory. So much disdain, both for the taxpayer and for the workers at LANL, this is really repugnant to watch. And all this combined with hopeless stupidity. Just plain disgusting!

And how much of your own money have you invested into this enterprise over the years, Mr. Employer? Maybe the $2.2Billion that is the yearly budget of LANL comes out of your own pocket, not from the taxpayer? Freaking moron!

Sorry to prick your bubble, but:
You are not the owner of this National Lab, you are nothing but a parasite, who attached himself to the source of taxpayer money and has been sucking the life out of it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to prick your bubble, but:
You are not the owner of this National Lab, you are nothing but a parasite, who attached himself to the source of taxpayer money and has been sucking the life out of it.

10/6/09 10:31 AM

10/1 8:34 pm here. Nope, I'm just an employee, but I, at least, understand who controls my fate (as long as I choose to remain here), and it ain't "the taxpayer."