tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post4920790368937733594..comments2023-08-27T06:53:36.768-06:00Comments on LANL: The Rest of the Story: CPD Phase 2Frank Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02134775226991383924noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-54881221484316615762008-06-26T13:48:00.000-06:002008-06-26T13:48:00.000-06:00I was offered a 32k raise to do a similar job for ...I was offered a 32k raise to do a similar job for a defense corporation out of Washington. This is a 14% raise after cost of living adjustments. Other benefits are comparable to what was offered before the LANS disaster. Now that I'm leaving, I venture to guess others will find equally attractive offers outside while LANS freezes your salary to match up with the GS series.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-72106647117768566082008-06-24T09:33:00.000-06:002008-06-24T09:33:00.000-06:006/23 11:20 am: ""Won't happen. No one will sit sti...6/23 11:20 am: ""Won't happen. No one will sit still for no raises."<BR/><BR/>Wow! That's really a hilarious comment after watching how LANL staff acted during the last 5 years to a whole slew of insults. As usual, they did absolutely NOTHING! And they will do nothing this time, too. Same as it ever was."<BR/><BR/>Some of did something. We simply left. Quietly. Unless you intend never to work again, you don't burn bridges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-5698577018016043582008-06-23T11:20:00.000-06:002008-06-23T11:20:00.000-06:00"Won't happen. No one will sit still for no raises..."Won't happen. No one will sit still for no raises."<BR/><BR/>Wow! That's really a hilarious comment after watching how LANL staff acted during the last 5 years to a whole slew of insults. As usual, they did absolutely NOTHING! And they will do nothing this time, too. Same as it ever was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-51235575125933159642008-06-22T23:50:00.000-06:002008-06-22T23:50:00.000-06:00"..Any way you slice it, the salaries of scientist..."..Any way you slice it, the salaries of scientists at LANL appear headed for a significant hair-cut..."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Won't happen. No one will sit still for no raises. <BR/><BR/>Market is too strong at the technical centers. LLNL ISP folks are getting multiple offers.<BR/><BR/>Q/SCIs are worth quite a premium. <BR/><BR/>The market will tell LANS and LLNS what to pay, not vice versa.<BR/><BR/>Same as it ever was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-40648237531939427312008-06-22T14:31:00.000-06:002008-06-22T14:31:00.000-06:00Anyone hearing a thing about the Oct 1st raises? ...Anyone hearing a thing about the Oct 1st raises? Do we get another tiny 2% raise, or perhaps none at all? <BR/><BR/>And what does the budget look like as we near the end of this fiscal year? <BR/><BR/>Mike hasn't held an All-Hands since way back in January and LANS has said very little about how the books are looking as we close out the year. The obvious lack of any meaningful communication and forth-rightness between LANS and the LANL staff is dis-heartening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-20198585787727756762008-06-20T10:14:00.000-06:002008-06-20T10:14:00.000-06:00"Level 1 "Assists": Entry LevelApproximate Estimat..."Level 1 "Assists": Entry Level<BR/>Approximate Estimated Mapping: 20% (includes most postdoc conversions)<BR/>Salary band = $69-113K"<BR/><BR/>Actually, I was told by my Neu that this was not true and that most PD conversions will be Level 2. Also, she said that she was pushing to put most of her directorate into 4 and 5 and she is calling for a few 6's as well (like Klimov, for example) since she thinks ADCLES has the best scientists at the Lab. Since Terry and Mike are ball-less, she usually gets what she wants. This means the rest of the Lab will have to occupy the lower levels to make the mandated % work out ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-79746281340968125932008-06-20T00:31:00.000-06:002008-06-20T00:31:00.000-06:00RE: 6/19/08 11:59 PMI'll be honest, I don't know h...RE: 6/19/08 11:59 PM<BR/><BR/>I'll be honest, I don't know how the breakout of funding for the initial retirements under TCP1 were worked out specifically, only that it was necessary to coordinate between our Pension Administration unit and that of UCRP in order to make sure the payments were made (until all UCRP funds had officially been transferred). As to percentages of benefits from one place or the other, I just don't know. <BR/><BR/>Sorry I can't shed much light on that.Greg Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421655534557259332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-545723803050722922008-06-20T00:28:00.000-06:002008-06-20T00:28:00.000-06:00Poster 11:59 PM, I believe UC sent LANS a small am...Poster 11:59 PM, I believe UC sent LANS a small amount of "up-front" money soon after June 1, '06 to cover any TCP1 retirees during the interim period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-47906833977346752442008-06-19T23:59:00.000-06:002008-06-19T23:59:00.000-06:00Mr. CloseIf April 2007 was true, from what fund di...Mr. Close<BR/><BR/>If April 2007 was true, from what fund did LANS pensions get paid for the staff retiring from LANS during the period from June 2006 to April 2007?<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your willingness to answer questions here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-40012680226920776962008-06-19T23:38:00.000-06:002008-06-19T23:38:00.000-06:00Re: 6/19/08 11:08 PMI don't know how to be LESS ev...Re: 6/19/08 11:08 PM<BR/><BR/>I don't know how to be LESS evasive on this topic... <BR/><BR/>You can get an accounting just as you requested, but you have to read the directions, first. <BR/><BR/>I re-quote, from the 2006 SAR that I posted earlier on this thread:<BR/><BR/>"Your Rights To Additional Information<BR/>You have the right to receive a copy of the full annual report, or any part thereof, on request. The items listed below are included in that report:<BR/>1. an accountant's report;<BR/>2. financial information; and<BR/>3. actuarial information regarding the funding of the plan.<BR/>To obtain a copy of the full annual report, or any part thereof, write the office of Kenny Leivo, Los Alamos National Security, LLC, Post Office Box 1663, MS P280, Los Alamos, NM 87544."<BR/><BR/>IF you want this level of detail, don't complain about not having it, just ask for it! If we don't give it to you, THEN complain about us being evasive.<BR/><BR/>Do I really seem evasive? I'm really trying hard to be open and honest here, I don't know what else to do to change this perception?!<BR/><BR/>gsclose@lanl.govGreg Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421655534557259332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-72972449334217444512008-06-19T23:08:00.000-06:002008-06-19T23:08:00.000-06:00"The value of plan assets, after subtracting liabi..."The value of plan assets, after subtracting liabilities of the plan, was $1,399,854,200 as of December 31, 2006, compared to $0 as of June 1, 2006. During the plan year the plan experienced an increase in its net assets of $1,399,854,200*."<BR/><BR/>This is meaningless info. What many pension holders really want to know is where, exactly, the assets of the TCP1 pension have been invested and the assets' current rate of return.<BR/><BR/>The financial news is full of horror stories of pension funds being handed over to poorly run hedge fund outfits, badly timed investments into commodities, and pensions buying up mortgage junk debt. <BR/><BR/>What have the $1.4 B in LANS TCP1 funds been invested in and has it been able to sustain an 8% return that most pension funds attempt to achieve? These are the critical questions that need an answer. I sense some stalling on LANS part in giving out these answers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-90929191180058064972008-06-19T23:05:00.000-06:002008-06-19T23:05:00.000-06:00Responses to 7:37 PMPlease, please - make sure you...Responses to 7:37 PM<BR/><BR/>Please, please - make sure you are referencing the right chapter and verse of ERISA scripture before quoting. The section of ERISA you are referencing is “Sec. 2520.104b-2” which is specific to Summary Plan Descriptions, NOT to Summary Annual Reports. Please refer to the link I provided earlier, to “Sec. 2520.104b-10 - Summary Annual Report” to view that data. I am not trying to quell disagreement, only trying to make sure we are disagreeing about the same thing! ;)<BR/><BR/>In answer to your question, it is a qualified "Yes". We sent out our Summery Plan Descriptions by the ERISA deadline in 2006. The TCP1 Pension SPD was the one description we had to post a month or two late, because of some concerns on part of our ERISA lawyers. I believe this even came up in an All Hands meeting at that time, and there were more than a few explanations on the web page and via email for the delay. <BR/><BR/>FYI, the SPDs are still available for review on the benefits webpage, here: http://www.lanl.gov/worklife/benefits/summaries.shtml<BR/><BR/>To clarify my earlier statement, taken somewhat out of context, "the Plan did not exist as a separate entity under Trust for LANS until April of 2007. " What I was trying to state, perhaps none-too-clearly, is that all assets had not been transferred into the LANS TCP1 Plan until April 2007 from UCRP. Arrangements were made to make any and all payments out of the plan to annuitants with the cooperation of UC until the plan was strictly on it’s own two feet. My point was that the plans full assets were not transferred, approved by the IRS (and a bazillion lawyers), and therefore "whole" until April of 2007. This was all done with full approvals of all regulatory bodies - there was no ERISA violation, however poorly I may have worded my attempt to condense all the boring details into blog-friendly "Cliff Notes." And, remember that the violation referred to would only have applied to an SPD, not a SAR. Apples and Oranges, each with their own bureaucracy.<BR/><BR/>I think, legally and ethically, we have gone to great lengths to try and be open and forthcoming with plan details since June of 2006. I'll never claim perfection - but I do sincerely value the binding doctrine of ERISA, and the day I know we intentionally violate it is the day you won't see my name out here posting facts and explanations to the contrary. <BR/><BR/>gsclose@lanl.govGreg Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421655534557259332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-2236132460184297832008-06-19T19:37:00.000-06:002008-06-19T19:37:00.000-06:00Greg,LANS had 90 days after June 1, 2006 to distr...Greg,<BR/><BR/>LANS had 90 days after June 1, 2006 to distribute the plan description to all participants. LANS was also required to furnish ERISA rights to each employee at that time. Was that done?<BR/><BR/>The next SAR was due 210 days after the completion of the plan year; by reading the initial SAR the clock restarted on Jan 1, 2007. The SAR for plan year 2006 was due in September 2007. Since the initial SAR covered that same time period, that appears to have been done on time. <BR/><BR/>The next SAR is due on September 27, 2008. <BR/><BR/>Your statement that the plan did not exist until April 2007 is directly contradicted by the initial SAR and, if that was true, LANS would be in violation of 10 CFR 2520.104b-2(3)(i); reproduced below.<BR/><BR/>10 CFR 2520.104b-2<BR/><BR/>(3)(i) A plan becomes subject to part 1 of title I on the first day on which an employee is credited with an hour of service under §2530.200b–2 or §2530.200b–3. Where a plan is made prospectively effective to take effect after a certain date or after a condition is satisfied, the day upon which the plan becomes subject to part 1 of title I is the day after such date or condition is satisfied. Where a plan is adopted with a retroactive effective date, the 120 day period begins on the day after the plan is adopted. Where a plan is made retroactively effective dependent on a condition, the day on which the plan becomes subject to part 1 of title I is the day after the day on which the condition is satisfied. Where a plan is made retroactively effective subject to a contingency which may or may not occur in the future, the day on which the plan becomes subject to part 1, title I is the day after the day on which the contingency occurs.<BR/><BR/>(ii) Examples: Company A is negotiating the purchase of Company B. On September 1, 1978, as part of the negotiations, Company A adopts a pension plan covering the employees of Company B, contingent on the successful conclusion of its negotiations to purchase Company B. The plan provides that it shall take effect on the first day of the calendar year in which the purchase is concluded. On February 1, 1979, the negotiations conclude with Company A's purchase of Company B. The plan therefore becomes effective on February 1, 1979, retroactive to January 1, 1979. The summary plan description must be filed and disclosed no later than 120 days after February 1, 1979.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-46412232372789221082008-06-19T13:37:00.000-06:002008-06-19T13:37:00.000-06:00Just to address the thought that we're keeping any...Just to address the thought that we're keeping anything in the dark, here's a copy/paste of the SAR language currently on-line (for 2006 partial/initial year):<BR/><BR/>SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORT<BR/>FOR LANS DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN<BR/>This is a summary of the annual report for the LANS Defined Benefit Pension Plan, EIN 20-3104541, Plan No. 003, for period June 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. The annual report has been filed with the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, as required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).<BR/>Basic Financial Statement<BR/>Benefits under the plan are provided through a trust fund.<BR/>A total of 6,519 persons were participants in or beneficiaries of the plan at the end of the plan year, although not all of these persons had yet earned the right to receive benefits.<BR/>The value of plan assets, after subtracting liabilities of the plan, was $1,399,854,200 as of December 31, 2006, compared to $0 as of June 1, 2006. During the plan year the plan experienced an increase in its net assets of $1,399,854,200*.<BR/>Minimum Funding Standards<BR/>An actuary's statement shows that enough money was contributed to the plan to keep it funded in accordance with the minimum funding standards of ERISA.<BR/>Your Rights To Additional Information<BR/>You have the right to receive a copy of the full annual report, or any part thereof, on request. The items listed below are included in that report:<BR/>1. an accountant's report;<BR/>2. financial information; and<BR/>3. actuarial information regarding the funding of the plan.<BR/>To obtain a copy of the full annual report, or any part thereof, write the office of Kenny Leivo, Los Alamos National Security, LLC, Post Office Box 1663, MS P280, Los Alamos, NM 87544.<BR/>You also have the right to receive from the plan administrator, on request and at no charge, a statement of the assets and liabilities of the plan and accompanying notes, or a statement of income and expenses of the plan and accompanying notes, or both. If you request a copy of the full annual report from the plan administrator, these two statements and accompanying notes will be included as part of that report.<BR/>You also have the legally protected right to examine the annual report at the main office of the plan (Los Alamos National Security, LLC, Post Office Box 1663, MS P280, Los Alamos, NM 87544) and at the U.S. Department of Labor in Washington, D.C., or to obtain a copy from the U.S. Department of Labor upon payment of copying costs. Requests to the Department should be addressed to: Public Disclosure Room, Room N1513, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.<BR/>*$1,399,854,200 in receivables were due to this plan from the University of California Retirement Plan effective December 31, 2006.Greg Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421655534557259332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-21244181140877849572008-06-19T13:34:00.000-06:002008-06-19T13:34:00.000-06:00A) it's 9 months, please read the law - I did prov...A) it's 9 months, please read the law - I did provide the link for your reference. There are many requirements for many different docs, please make sure you are referring to the appropriate information (for example, SPDs and SARs are different docs with different regs and time tables).<BR/>B) There's a preliminary SAR already posted, link provided earlier. We are making every effort to keep everyone informed with the info we have on hand to share.<BR/>C) The intent is to provide the next SAR as soon as it can be provided. There is no intentional delay to "keep people in the dark." On the other hand, it's not like someone at the Trust presses a big red button that say "Make SAR" - it has to be compiled and vetted. It's a very important document, after all.Greg Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421655534557259332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-47012301834250215352008-06-19T13:05:00.000-06:002008-06-19T13:05:00.000-06:00Greg,Thx for the info.Greg,<BR/><BR/>Thx for the info.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-86125172963148484392008-06-19T10:07:00.000-06:002008-06-19T10:07:00.000-06:00"As I understand it, the law allows up to 9 months..."As I understand it, the law allows up to 9 months following the close of the Plan Year to issue the report." (Glenn Close)<BR/><BR/><BR/>I thought the time limit was only 6 months. <BR/><BR/>Also, even though the original TCP1 plan was "born" on April 07, it seems logical (and perhaps even a legal requirement?) that at some point the controlling regs would be sync'ed up to the calendar year.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure a lot of people in HR care about TCP1. LANS could go a long way to reassuring us all by letting us know the financial condition of the investments they have been making with our money. <BR/><BR/>It will have a big effect on TCP1 workers if they suddenly have to start kicking in a substantial part of their salary to keep it afloat. This is a huge issue that LANS cannot leave in the dark. The sooner they let us know what's going on, the better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-42826267225096504862008-06-19T09:11:00.000-06:002008-06-19T09:11:00.000-06:00One clarification to my previous statement. Ther...One clarification to my previous statement. There is a SAR posted right now on the benefits web-site for the TCP1 DB Plan. <BR/><BR/>http://int.lanl.gov/worklife/benefits/pdfs/summary2007_dbpp.pdf<BR/><BR/>This only covers the period I described wherein UC, DOE/NNSA and LANS were negotiating the funds transfer from UCRP (June 1 - Dec 31, 2006). I'm assuming this is not what you're looking for, but after discussing with the Pension Plans Administrator, it seems we should point it out so that it doesn't appear to be hiding in plain sight.<BR/><BR/>Thx,<BR/>GregGreg Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421655534557259332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-89963333621164736272008-06-18T22:10:00.000-06:002008-06-18T22:10:00.000-06:00In answer to: 6/18/08 1:56 PMThis is actually a ve...In answer to: 6/18/08 1:56 PM<BR/><BR/>This is actually a very good question, and there is a very boring, rational, answer.<BR/><BR/>There is an assumption that since the Transition was in June of 2006, that the TPC1 Defined Benefit plan was also in existence in June 2006, and is therefore now two years old with no SAR. That is incorrect. Due to lots of legal negotiations with UC and DOE/NNSA the Plan did not exist as a separate entity under Trust for LANS until April of 2007. Therefore, as the plan just reached the close of it's first full plan year in April of 2008, the first TCP1 SAR (Summary Annual Report) hasn't been completed, filed, or shared as yet. It will be, as required by law, and within the deadline set by ERISA. If I knew the exact date I would post it, but I don't - and if I guessed and I was wrong I'd be roasted alive, I'm sure. Instead, I'll post a link to a useful overview of the ERISA regs concerning a SAR. As I understand it, the law allows up to 9 months following the close of the Plan Year to issue the report. I imagine we won't take that long, but again - I'm not going to guess.<BR/><BR/>http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/EBSA/Title_29/Part_2520/29CFR2520.104b-10.htm<BR/><BR/>I hope that takes some of the mystery away from this topic. As I've mentioned before, the people primarily responsible for the health of the pension plan are both in TCP1, so there is a vested interest in it being a success on their part. I think it sometimes helps to remember that people in Benefits and HR are employees in pretty much the same boat as any other employees, and not involved in any far-reaching conspiracies or hidden councils to defraud themselves or their peers.<BR/><BR/>I'm happy to address any follow up questions on this to the best of my ability.<BR/><BR/>gsclose@lanl.govGreg Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421655534557259332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-21328046964113774562008-06-18T13:56:00.000-06:002008-06-18T13:56:00.000-06:00Greg, where is the TCP1 (Annual) Report with the P...Greg, where is the TCP1 (Annual) Report with the Plan's assets, liabilities and investements located? Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-43572567701537340532008-06-18T12:25:00.000-06:002008-06-18T12:25:00.000-06:00"Re: As with the tcp-1 pension plan the official w..."Re: As with the tcp-1 pension plan the official word is 0, zip, nada."<BR/><BR/>I don't understand this statement - we've got lots and lots of TCP1 information available; more than required by law, to date. Please let me know if you want any answers to TCP1 questions, and I'll happily point you to the resources.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>GregGreg Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17421655534557259332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-2646332788361458982008-06-18T07:59:00.000-06:002008-06-18T07:59:00.000-06:00Per 6/17/08 10:38 PM--Lawrence Livermore Laborator...Per 6/17/08 10:38 PM--Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Layoffs Affecting Quality of Science, Workers Say-- "Some fear the lab's ability to employ the country's top scientists, critical to its ability to carry out its mission, is in jeopardy."<BR/><BR/>Same script was used at LANL. Same UC/Bechtel monkeys are in charge, they're just squatted on different trees now. The best and brightest argument is already worn to the bone. No more "great" science needed in the bomb-making department unfortunately. We’ve got the gist of it now. So maybe it’s time to change the script. Better yet, maybe it’s time to change jobs if you're really that interested in being a legitimate scientist. But what about your house you say--all that equity down the toilet if we leave now? Well then, better pucker up, hold your breath and learn to like chunky peanut butter. What you see now, is precisely what the rest of your career is going to be like. This is as good as it gets. Remember the movie?<BR/><BR/>--Sir Richard of LANSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-54131029709660690652008-06-18T07:29:00.000-06:002008-06-18T07:29:00.000-06:00"It appears that 80% of the research TSMs of Phase..."It appears that 80% of the research TSMs of Phase 2 will be in Level 1,2 or 3, and thus held to under $140K in salary for the rest of their careers unless that make the rarefied levels 4, 5, or 6."<BR/><BR/>OK, this statement actually makes me laugh. Have you looked at the current (UC-historic) salary bands for TSM's? A PhD with 16-20 years of post-BS experience is supposed to max out in the 130's, while 20+ years experience lets you into the 140's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-21934132096013959752008-06-17T22:38:00.000-06:002008-06-17T22:38:00.000-06:00Meanwhile, over at LLNL...========================...Meanwhile, over at LLNL...<BR/><BR/>=============================<BR/>Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Layoffs Affecting Quality of Science, Workers Say<BR/><BR/>www.contracostatimes.com/ci_9591711<BR/><BR/>By Betsy Mason<BR/>Contra Costa Times<BR/>06/15/2008 12:01:44 AM PDT<BR/><BR/>In the wake of its most significant layoffs in 35 years, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is not the place it once was.<BR/><BR/>Not even close, according to some of those who got the boot last month, as well as others who remain.<BR/><BR/>Some fear the lab's ability to employ the country's top scientists, critical to its ability to carry out its mission, is in jeopardy.<BR/><BR/>"I think the lab is going to be a mediocre place, and I just don't see good support for scientific research here," said physicist Govindasamy Bala, who survived the layoffs but left about a week later for a research position at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore after 11 years at the lab. <BR/><BR/>Even before the layoffs, the cultural shift to a new corporate manager coupled with budget cuts threatened several core attributes that made the Livermore Lab an attractive place to work. Shifting priorities for the Department of Energy and the country have added to the uncertain future. Although the lab has always been about more than nuclear weapons, steep federal cuts to the weapons programs have stung.<BR/><BR/>Lab director George Miller sees plenty of room for growth in other areas, such as climate, energy and anti-terrorism, however.<BR/><BR/>"These are things that are of fundamental, long-term concern," he said in a meeting with the Times editorial board in April. "The laboratory is ideally suited to help the country deal with these sets of problems.<BR/><BR/>"The real issue is are we going to<BR/>be able to, as a country, sustain the investment in these very important pieces of science and technology that will allow us to get out of some of the really difficult problems we're facing."<BR/><BR/>Working on these types of problems is part of what has attracted scientists to Livermore.<BR/><BR/>Once linked to a prestigious academic institution — the University of California, which ran the lab until October — the lab was a place where promising young scientists would choose to spend their entire careers, forgoing more prestigious academic positions and more lucrative industry jobs.<BR/><BR/>In return, they got job stability, UC's generous benefits and the opportunity to do cutting-edge research.<BR/><BR/>But under new corporate management, the workforce has been subjected to layoffs for the first time in three decades. Of the 440 employees escorted off lab property May 22 and May 23, more than 150 were scientists and engineers, including 110 with at least two decades of experience at the lab.<BR/><BR/>About 100 additional temporary workers will lose their jobs in July.<BR/><BR/>"I do not believe, given the information I have now on our budget situation for (fiscal year 2008) and what we might expect for (fiscal year 2009), that future involuntary separations will be necessary," Miller told employees in an internal e-mail in May.<BR/><BR/>But that hasn't stopped the bleeding.<BR/><BR/>Bala, the physicist who left for India, said he felt increasingly stifled.<BR/><BR/>"During my first 10 years, if there was a great idea, you could pursue it and there was money to do it," he said. "I think in the past couple of years it has become more difficult."<BR/><BR/>Several scientists still at the lab spoke on condition of anonymity, for fear of putting their jobs at risk. One who is staying at the lab while his children are in school, but is looking for future opportunities, said the lab has been fundamentally changed.<BR/><BR/>"I feel like I'm working for a corporation now, a corporation that's out to make money, not necessarily to do great science in the public interest," he said.<BR/><BR/>Others are worried about job security.<BR/><BR/>"We used to feel like a research arm of the university," said one physicist with 32 years at the lab. "Now, it feels like we're contract scientists, and we are at-will employees. It's easier to fire us."<BR/><BR/>The new manager, Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, is jointly owned by UC and several private companies led by Bechtel International.<BR/><BR/>Mistrust of the new management, which many employees refer to simply as Bechtel, has been simmering for months.<BR/><BR/>A year ago, when the UC-Bechtel team won the contract, Miller said he expected the corporation's $40 million fee boost and other increased costs of moving to private management would be recouped by efficiencies that Bechtel and its industry cohorts would implement, not from laying off subcontractors as had happened at Los Alamos Laboratory after its transition to private management.<BR/><BR/>Now, he said that by the end of the year, the lab will have lost about 1,900 employees since 2007 through layoffs, buyouts and attrition, all part of the effort to make up for $100 million in federal budget cuts.<BR/><BR/>On top of that, the costs of the change from public to private management have spiraled to $180 million, $100 million more than originally estimated.<BR/><BR/>That miscalculation did little to generate goodwill from workers, and today some of them are having trouble believing Miller when he says the layoffs are over.<BR/><BR/>"Part of the reason I'm leaving now is I don't have confidence that there won't be more rounds of layoffs in (fiscal year 2009)," said Jeff Collins, an engineer leaving the lab voluntarily for an industry job.<BR/><BR/>The distrust and resentment was further stoked by the perception that the recent layoffs were handled unfairly and disrespectfully.<BR/><BR/>"Our No. 1 goal throughout the entire process was to try to do this in the most empathetic and dignified manner possible," lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton said.<BR/><BR/>Management went the extra mile, she said, by providing counseling, allowing forwarding e-mails to be automatically sent to people who contact workers after they are gone and giving scientists who opted to continue doing unclassified work for two to three months the option to work at home rather than in an office outside the lab's perimeter fence.<BR/><BR/>They have arranged a job fair with many employers eager to get their hands on laid-off lab employees, to be held Thursday at the Robert Livermore Community Center.<BR/><BR/>Houghton said they tried to keep things low-key and professional, but the needs of employees had to be balanced with the fact that it is a national security laboratory.<BR/><BR/>Some employees likened the process to the kind of treatment normally given to criminals, a kind of "perp walk."<BR/><BR/>Each departing worker was watched by a colleague designated as an escort as they gathered their belongings, drove to the "exit center" to fill out the necessary paperwork and then drove off lab property through a lane lined with orange cones and security guards, escorts still in tow.<BR/><BR/>"I felt like a lamb being led to slaughter," said Albert Lopez, 52, who worked as a buyer at the lab for 20 years, first as a contractor and then as a lab employee. "Twenty years of my life just gone out the door in 45 minutes."<BR/><BR/>Some older laid-off workers feel they were targeted because of their age, and some employees say the lab bent the rules by breaking groups of workers with the same job designation into smaller "business units" — a way to skirt the rule that requires layoffs to be seniority based.<BR/><BR/>"Absolutely not true," Houghton said. "Every layoff decision was reviewed by the lab's legal department and the (Department of Energy)" to be sure policies were followed.<BR/><BR/>"It was based on where we can get efficiencies and what level work will be needed in the future," she said.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, for those remaining at the lab, "the atmosphere has been wounded," a physicist and group manager said. "There's more stress. There's so much pressure on worrying about your budget."<BR/><BR/>And the loss of support staff means "you're going to find a physicist like me doing more paperwork because there are fewer administrative people," he said.<BR/><BR/>Houghton, while recognizing this painful period, said the "worst is behind us."<BR/><BR/>"I think there is a general desire to get to that good science, to get back to why we are here in the first place and fulfill our mission for the nation," she said.<BR/><BR/>Miller has tried to rally the troops in staff meetings and e-mails to employees, calling the transition an opportunity to help forge the Lawrence Livermore Lab of the future.<BR/><BR/>"Working together, your leadership and commitment, your talents and ideas will propel us into a successful future," he told employees May 27.<BR/><BR/>But energizing the troops may be tougher now than ever.<BR/><BR/>"The whole atmosphere is not this 'rah rah, let's make a new beginning,'" one scientist said. "That's the kind of stuff we've been hearing from management, but I don't think anyone in the trenches feels that way.<BR/><BR/>"It feels more like the end than a beginning."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-53996154741373650842008-06-17T22:31:00.000-06:002008-06-17T22:31:00.000-06:00"My management refuses to even openly acknowledge ..."My management refuses to even openly acknowledge such a plan exists." - 7:53 PM<BR/><BR/>I'm hearing that the DLs are already at work mapping staff into the various TSM levels. What has not yet been fully resolved is the exact salary bands for each of the levels. <BR/><BR/>Like you, I'm finding that lab management is extremely reluctant to discuss what they are doing. I suspect they plan to suddenly announce their final plan as a "done deal" to the general staff sometime later this summer.<BR/><BR/>As far as the Monday meeting went, attendance was sparse and the info content was almost nil. No figures were given for the salary bands of each level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com