I wouldn't bet on the feedback being overwhelmingly negative, 12:29. Think about it: only staff who have been around since before 2004 have any first-hand knowledge about how LANL used to be. Back in 2004, there were approximately 14, 000 employees at LANL. Now there are less than 8,000. In 2005 alone 3,000 staff left.
I suspect that most of today's staff at LANL are too young and ignorant to realize how fucked up LANL has become. Some of the newer staff probably even think Anastasio is doing a swell job.
A lot of institutional knowledge has been lost during the past five years, and this seems to be exactly what NNSA, DOE, and our fine New Mexico politicians wanted.
From the looks of it, much more downsizing still needs to be done if LANL is to meet NNSA's latest employee quotas. Your numbers are incorrect, though your premise is still extremely valid.
The NNSA weapon labs (particularly LANL and LLNL) are going to continue to be significantly downsized in the future. We've been told that by NNSA on many occasions.
LANL's future looks rather bleak. However, the DOE energy labs are all being heavily up-sized to help take up the slack. Look outside of LANL and LLNL if you want a real career and not just an insecure job working for a profit driven construction company (Bechtel).
How about Terry's slide number 6, where we find out that LANL won a grand total of only $7,000 in DOE/Arpa-E money for this last year. Not $7 million, not $70K, but a minuscule $7 thousand!
That pays for about two days of a TSM's effort at present FTE rates. Rather pathetic, wouldn't you say? I'm sure far more than this small amount was spent just working on the Arpa-E proposals.
Of course, given the online charge code usage training everyone took this last year (you know, the one with the video of Terry at the start), we all know that proposal writing must always be charge only to valid charge accounts or very bad things can happen to you, right?
Thanks for the correct figures, 10:58. I was working from memory. At one point LANL + contractors was ~14,000. I thought it was 2004, but it must have been earlier.
The NY Times once quoted a 14,000 employee figure in an article right after the Nanos shut-down. I also vaguely remember hearing that same figure from LANL managers during that period.
I'm not sure who to believe any more: LANS, the "old" UC LANL or the NY Times?
It is interesting to observe how some people were referred to this blog, like the Office of the President earlier this morning.
Gosh, a search on the phrase "senior management are shit"? As if that was unknown?
ReplyDeletehey... this blog alway good for a good laugh :)
ReplyDeleteFor extraordinary diplomacy at the Gates-Crowley “Beer Summit”
ReplyDeletehey... this blog alway good for a good laugh :)
ReplyDelete10/9/09 3:55 PM
Yep - also good for someone who doesn't check spelling before posting.
What would really be shocking is a search for the term: "senior management are brilliant"!
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to see the results of the LANS morale survey. It will be telling to see how much of this data they actually release to the employees.
I wouldn't bet on the feedback being overwhelmingly negative, 12:29. Think about it: only staff who have been around since before 2004 have any first-hand knowledge about how LANL used to be. Back in 2004, there were approximately 14, 000 employees at LANL. Now there are less than 8,000. In 2005 alone 3,000 staff left.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that most of today's staff at LANL are too young and ignorant to realize how fucked up LANL has become. Some of the newer staff probably even think Anastasio is doing a swell job.
A lot of institutional knowledge has been lost during the past five years, and this seems to be exactly what NNSA, DOE, and our fine New Mexico politicians wanted.
"Back in 2004, there were approximately 14, 000 employees at LANL. Now there are less than 8,000." (12:56 pm)
ReplyDeleteGet your wild ass figures correct, 12:56 pm. Here are the official figures from TW's latest presentation (Slide 16):
***************
FY04: 12,252
(Staff: 9843, Students: 1321, Contractors: 1189)
FY09: 10,079
(Staff: 8611, Students: 1059, Contractors: 409)
***************
From the looks of it, much more downsizing still needs to be done if LANL is to meet NNSA's latest employee quotas. Your numbers are incorrect, though your premise is still extremely valid.
The NNSA weapon labs (particularly LANL and LLNL) are going to continue to be significantly downsized in the future. We've been told that by NNSA on many occasions.
LANL's future looks rather bleak. However, the DOE energy labs are all being heavily up-sized to help take up the slack. Look outside of LANL and LLNL if you want a real career and not just an insecure job working for a profit driven construction company (Bechtel).
How about Terry's slide number 6, where we find out that LANL won a grand total of only $7,000 in DOE/Arpa-E money for this last year. Not $7 million, not $70K, but a minuscule $7 thousand!
ReplyDeleteThat pays for about two days of a TSM's effort at present FTE rates. Rather pathetic, wouldn't you say? I'm sure far more than this small amount was spent just working on the Arpa-E proposals.
Of course, given the online charge code usage training everyone took this last year (you know, the one with the video of Terry at the start), we all know that proposal writing must always be charge only to valid charge accounts or very bad things can happen to you, right?
Thanks for the correct figures, 10:58. I was working from memory. At one point LANL + contractors was ~14,000. I thought it was 2004, but it must have been earlier.
ReplyDeleteThe NY Times once quoted a 14,000 employee figure in an article right after the Nanos shut-down. I also vaguely remember hearing that same figure from LANL managers during that period.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure who to believe any more: LANS, the "old" UC LANL or the NY Times?