tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post8388346868150155571..comments2023-08-27T06:53:36.768-06:00Comments on LANL: The Rest of the Story: Editorial: LANL layoffs: Again, pleas for a new missionFrank Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02134775226991383924noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-87972111939293739492007-11-25T21:17:00.000-07:002007-11-25T21:17:00.000-07:0011/21/07 2:06 PMWhoever you are, you are right on....11/21/07 2:06 PM<BR/><BR/>Whoever you are, you are right on.<BR/><BR/>This takes it back right to the beginning of a DOE plan/conspiracy to "put LANL in their place".<BR/><BR/>This post needs to be placed at the top for all to read and absorb.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-15613011409504486632007-11-24T11:08:00.000-07:002007-11-24T11:08:00.000-07:00Isn't it true that UC, just before they lost the c...Isn't it true that UC, just before they lost the contract, converted several hundred contractors into LANL employees? Could that have bloated the staff numbers so much that RIF's were inevitable, despite funding issues?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-81747321380256333102007-11-24T10:22:00.000-07:002007-11-24T10:22:00.000-07:00Sorry, guys. Nobody has "refuted" my position. I...Sorry, guys. Nobody has "refuted" my position. If someone can present proof that the present RIF situation has come about because of anything other than the increased cost of business that LANS and NNSA have brought to LANL, I'll gladly post a big, fat top-of-the-blog apology. It will require proof, not just the vigorous expression of opinion.<BR/><BR/>Until then, the fact that LANS will be RIFing up to 750 staff during this go-around as we continue under the flat funding of the present '07 CR stands as sufficient proof that LANS is costing quite a bit more to run LANL than in the UC days. Otherwise, staffing levels would be as flat as the budget.<BR/><BR/>-GusGussie Fink-Nottlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17432364594434404990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-13804934451752285652007-11-22T14:05:00.000-07:002007-11-22T14:05:00.000-07:00I don't really care about the details of which acc...I don't really care about the details of which accounting column caused the deficit that is now being used as the excuse for the RIF.<BR/><BR/>The new contract caused a dramatic upheaval in costs, from $8M to well over $200M. Under UC, the pension costs were destined to rise over the next seven years, but it would have been a gradual increase. This sudden jump plus the fee and the GRT were all predictable new costs back in 2003 when Bodman announced the competition.<BR/><BR/>Yet absolutely no budget was provided, and we were blatantly lied to that efficiencies would absorb the cost with no RIF. Well, guess what, we laid off hundreds of contractors last year, and we're laying off hundreds more regular employees this year.<BR/><BR/>Does anyone recall that the unused snow days budget was used to pay the GRT? How is that efficiency?<BR/><BR/>Anastasio states the RIF is to save $100M. Why in the world would we not connect the dots with the dramatic jump in costs just 18 months ago?<BR/><BR/>I hate being lied to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-47932664416926467042007-11-22T12:07:00.000-07:002007-11-22T12:07:00.000-07:00Continuing what I said in my last post, there are ...Continuing what I said in my last post, there are other possible reasons for projected cost increases (and the RIF) apart from the relatively constant element of LANS burden. These could include, for example:<BR/><BR/>inflation<BR/><BR/>budget uncertainty - the post CR predictions are grim.<BR/><BR/>desire of the NNSA to put more resources into infrastructure and less into labor.<BR/><BR/>The last is just a guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-7657688014190021522007-11-22T11:55:00.000-07:002007-11-22T11:55:00.000-07:00No doubt that DOE/NNSA wants to reduce LANL's size...No doubt that DOE/NNSA wants to reduce LANL's size and cost, one way they can quickly make that happen is to hire LANS at an obscene cost without funding the cost increase thus making LANS lay off 1300+ staff and contractors. Then DOE fires LANS for cause (multiple causes already exist) and reinstates a not-for-profit contractor saving LANL ~$160M which can be cut from the budget. Net result, LANL is 1300+ employees smaller, $160M cheaper, and the pension liability is reduced dramatically, all in less than three years. <BR/><BR/>The workers and New Mexico are the victims, LANS plays the part of the villian, but LANS is really just the stooge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-33085983711147495902007-11-22T11:50:00.000-07:002007-11-22T11:50:00.000-07:00There is another observation that supports Gussie'...There is another observation that supports Gussie's claim - LANS knows the staff believes the layoffs to be a direct consequence of the LANS $175M annual cost. If Gussie's claim wasn't true, LANS would have opened its books and provided refuting evidence. They haven't because they can't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-60528424820932720882007-11-22T11:48:00.000-07:002007-11-22T11:48:00.000-07:00You are missing my point, 11:01. You said we made...You are missing my point, 11:01. You said we made it through last year without a RIF. True, but other measures were taken to defray the LANS burden last year, and some of those measures are still in effect. All I am saying is that attributing the entire amount of the RIF to one particular cost element is arbitrary.<BR/><BR/>This is really just an academic discussion about how costs are allocated. Sorry I brought it up. I agree that the LANL burden is large, and it is bad. Having to pay for it is bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-71392435004656627092007-11-22T11:01:00.000-07:002007-11-22T11:01:00.000-07:00In the absence of actual data such as the current ...In the absence of actual data such as the current loaded (benefits + overhead) rates for LANL staff, current budget, actual GRT payments, etc., there is a relatively simple empirical proof that Gussie is correct.<BR/><BR/>Which is: we are under a continuing resolution which is funding LANL at the same levels as we were funded last year. We made it through last year without needing to RIF any staff. Contractors, yes, but not staff. So why else are now facing up to 750 staff RIFs unless LANS has increased the cost of doing business by that amount?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-46784371363538721912007-11-22T10:49:00.000-07:002007-11-22T10:49:00.000-07:00That's certainly one opinion, 10:34.Personally, I ...That's certainly <I>one</I> opinion, 10:34.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I haven't seen sufficient proof to substantiate either claim. Nor have I seen anybody from the LANS side provide any explanation of the $41 million KSL cost overruns, as reported in the Washington Post. Where does the money come from to cover that "unexpected" line item? $41 million would cover 91 staff members at LANL's current obscene TSM loaded rate. If LANS has been that cavalier with LANL budget regarding KSL, where else are they wasting money?<BR/><BR/>You can side with LANS on this issue if you like. I would prefer to see all the numbers (and not just take Roark's word for it that Mike is doing all he can to minimize the need to get rid of people) and do the arithmetic myself.<BR/><BR/>As another poster commented, each funded TSM has to bring in enough money to pay for about 1 1/2 overhead staff. That's just not right! Mike's RIF numbers simply don't explain what the real budgetary situation at LANL is. If you RIF a funded TSM, who is going to do that work? staff are not interchangeable parts. If you RIF a funded TSM, who gets to pay for those 1 1/2 overhead staff that he'd been carrying on his back?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-46352519283408952292007-11-22T10:34:00.000-07:002007-11-22T10:34:00.000-07:00"Mr. LANS" (who does not deserve that nickname) ha..."Mr. LANS" (who does not deserve that nickname) has successfully refuted Gussie's statement:<BR/><BR/>"The need to lay off 500 - 750 staff at this point in time is due <I><B>solely</I></B> to the increased cost of doing business that LANS and NNSA have brought to LANL."<BR/><BR/>Obviously, some of the FY-07 cost saving measures, including laying off a number of contractors (whatever the number), has helped to defray a fraction of the LANS fee and GRT problem. The only question is what fraction. What we need to face in FY-08 is the incremental budget, cost, and uncertainty. The RIFs do not have to pay for the entire LANS burden all over again, although the burden is always present.<BR/><BR/>Gussie is taking a certain cost element and arbitrarily saying the RIF is needed to cover it, even though certain cost saving measures were already made to cover a fraction of it. He could just as well say that the RIF is needed to pay for building maintenance.<BR/><BR/>I am not saying that I like the LANS burden. I think it sucks. But I think the financial accounting of it ought to be presented fairly.<BR/><BR/>So, on the face of it, I believe that Gussie's blanket statement, especially the word "solely" is not true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-70759516036572180272007-11-22T09:52:00.000-07:002007-11-22T09:52:00.000-07:00812am, you are partially correct, but not entirely...812am, you are partially correct, but not entirely. Cutting 750 people and have them off the books by March at the earliest does not have a huge effect on FY08. If LANS had not covered the increased costs in FY07, we would have been RIFing already. As I said, contractors were cut and carry over was used. FY08 is still unknown and the planned RIFs would have some effect on FY08, but this is really a workforce adjustment for FY09 and beyond due to weapons program budget projections. The processes required for RIFing folks just do not allow things to happen fast enough to solve all of FY08 problems, however big or small we seem to think they are. Should FY08 turn out worse than currently projected, contractors and limited terms will suffer the most immediately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-14796006806262775052007-11-22T09:04:00.000-07:002007-11-22T09:04:00.000-07:00Good grief people. Why is it when things get tough...Good grief people. Why is it when things get tough, the people resort to attacking LDRD, Fellows & contractors, and blame everything on racism in Los Alamos?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-14361865228818298702007-11-22T08:30:00.000-07:002007-11-22T08:30:00.000-07:00> Where else can you find no one > behind a counte...> Where else can you find no one <BR/>> behind a counter who speaks English <BR/>> without an accent, but whose <BR/>> ancestors have lived in the US for <BR/>> over 20 generations?<BR/><BR/>Umm... Boston. Brooklyn. New Joisey. South Carolina. Maine. Vermont Kentucky. etc. etc. etc.<BR/><BR/>What exactly do you mean by, "unaccented English?" Something like the British Received Pronunciation?<BR/><BR/>New Mexico has its accent, just like lots of other places in the USA. Shouldn't stop anyone from getting a job. <BR/><BR/>It's lack of education that does that, which we have plenty of, here in the Land of Enchantment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-77386320235857296902007-11-22T08:26:00.000-07:002007-11-22T08:26:00.000-07:00This is to the first poster (9:15 a.m.). I'm not ...This is to the first poster (9:15 a.m.). I'm not from LANL but when I worked at a DOE lab LDRD was used to develop new ideas that would lead to proposals in the future. Showing proof-of-principle to make a stronger proposal. Isn't that a perfect mechanism by which a number of TSMs could have been diversifying their research over the years? LANL is not forced to do some things; other parts of DOE have solicitations and LANL has been free to participate in them. For every big block of money from NNSA it is correct to say that you must do the science that NNSA directs, but that seems short sighted. Why haven't people been leveraging LDRD money to increase chances of proposals outside of NNSA? Is LDRD used there in a different way than all of the other DOE labs seem to use it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-66385446630409207092007-11-22T08:12:00.000-07:002007-11-22T08:12:00.000-07:00Arithmetic 101-By LANS's own numbersTotal staff (c...Arithmetic 101-<BR/><BR/>By LANS's own numbers<BR/><BR/>Total staff (contractors included)is ~12,000. Total salary paid - $911M. Average Salary is ~78,000. Contractor multiplier = 2.5.<BR/><BR/>If the average contractor makes the average salary (they don't, they make less), the total savings from laying off 700 would be $136M not $175M. So even with the most optimistic math, LANS didn't cover its shortfall last year.<BR/><BR/>If the number of contractors laid off was 600 FTE, and the average salary 60,000, more reasonable estimates, then the savings was $90M, about 1/2 of the $175M shortfall. That's why Anastasio needs to cut another 500-750 staff to balance the books and regain the ability to fund maintenance activities.<BR/><BR/>Wait and watch - the involuntary RIFees will predominantly be younger staff members simply because they have the fewest weeks of severence pay accrued. If LANS lays off 20+ year employees in January - February, they don't save a dime this FY, but if they layoff <6 year employees, they can start to save money by April.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-35062619440697011832007-11-22T06:54:00.000-07:002007-11-22T06:54:00.000-07:00I visited LANL last week, the drivers on the road ...I visited LANL last week, the drivers on the road up the hill were nuts. Speeding, weaving lanes. The cafeteria was almost empty at lunch, lots of folks shuffling around heads down. Not a lot of brisk striding into the bright future of high technology to be seen. The fire-swept hills, and in the back of my mind the CDC analysis of historical plutonium releases there...I could not wait to get out of town, sorry to say. A unique heritage, a lot of smart folks doing important work to be sure...but I could not shake the feeling that the times had changed. Then driving down Pajarito past the new gates and the new security area I understood that was where all the action is going to be, in pit processing. Good luck, folks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-81249815826952365502007-11-22T02:19:00.000-07:002007-11-22T02:19:00.000-07:00"No fluent, unaccented English = no career, and no..."No fluent, unaccented English = no career, and no income. Just a fact."<BR/><BR/>A lack of education may equal no income, but an accent shouldn't matter. Have you looked at who is enrolled in our top schools lately? A large percentage of them are foreigners...with accents. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-67040279728462498242007-11-21T23:59:00.000-07:002007-11-21T23:59:00.000-07:0011/21/07 10:03 PMGet Lost11/21/07 10:03 PM<BR/><BR/>Get LostAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-74477957235766190272007-11-21T23:56:00.000-07:002007-11-21T23:56:00.000-07:00Actually Mississippi is the original 3rd world cou...Actually Mississippi is the original 3rd world country in the US.<BR/><BR/>Something approaching 700 contractors were let go over the past year.<BR/><BR/>If not enough people volunteer to be RIFed, the next step will be to examine limited term employees and contractors. These are the "flex" employees Mike referred to in his talk. These can be let go with no severance considerations. They will be the next to suffer. <BR/><BR/>Then it will be involuntary time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-7573956470555789242007-11-21T23:30:00.000-07:002007-11-21T23:30:00.000-07:008:52 pm: "welcome to NM the newest Third World cou...8:52 pm: "welcome to NM the newest Third World country..."<BR/><BR/>Newest?? You've got to be kidding. Anyone who has lived elsewhere knows NM is the ORIGINAL "third word country" in the US. The NM Legislatures and Governors have seen to that since I've been a resident, over 30 years. Last in absolutely everything. I live in the highest income county in the state (maybe the US), and my property taxes are almost exactly one-tenth of those of my friends on the East Coast. Is this a good thing? Depends on if you care about education or careers. The NM drop-out and unemployment rates are leading the nation. One of these days I'll stop pouring my tax money (little as it is) down the NM rathole and move "back to the States" where you can actually get a 16-year old to finish school, because his/her parents actually care.<BR/><BR/>Where else can you find no one behind a counter who speaks English without an accent, but whose ancestors have lived in the US for over 20 generations? Not a racist statement, just a factual one. No fluent, unaccented English = no career, and no income. Just a fact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-59012673708213033732007-11-21T23:14:00.000-07:002007-11-21T23:14:00.000-07:00Contractors were laid off in FY07. Why is this eve...Contractors were laid off in FY07. Why is this even a question? Anastasio announced that it would be around 350 or so, but then seemed puzzled by his own math as to what the total number would be (did he mean 350 more, or 350 total).<BR/><BR/>But both he and LANS were adamant that it was not a true RIF, since what they really did was simply cancel contracts with the subs. The subs were the ones who did the layoffs, hence there was no LANS RIF.<BR/><BR/>Udall publicly stated that regardless of semantics, he was distressed that hundreds of his constituents were now out of a job. <BR/><BR/>This all happened in the Fall of 2006. Are our memories so short that we are now arguing whether or not a de facto RIF occurred in FY07?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-26136470673274297462007-11-21T22:44:00.000-07:002007-11-21T22:44:00.000-07:00Gussie wrote:"Mr. LANS contends that everything is...Gussie wrote:<BR/>"Mr. LANS contends that everything is under control cost-of-ops-wise, as well as every-otherwise, presumably"<BR/><BR/>Nope. Try reading what I wrote for comprehension. Might work for you. I will repeat it here: cost-of-ops is what it is. Could it be less? Sure, and it should be. Is that what is causing 750 people to be RIF'ed? No. That is much more a function of Congressional budget action and the future of the weapons program under any scenario.<BR/><BR/>"I suggest that you all question him about the $41 million (plus change) "accidental" KSL overcharges that were paid out by LANS in FY'07, and while you're at it, ask him about LANS' decision to renew KSL's contract."<BR/><BR/>WTF does that have to do with the current RIF plans?<BR/><BR/>"You might want to get his opinions about the cost burden which the 60 or so additional AD+ level managers that LANS has added in FY'07 to LANL's infrastructure."<BR/><BR/>Did that significantly change since LANS took over? We've had that going for more than a year now. Do you really think that it suddenly spiked and now we have to RIF 750 people because we have 60 ADs? Please.<BR/><BR/>"Have him tell you about the funding mechanism for the $79 million annual award fee, and from where the GRT payments must come from."<BR/><BR/>They come from the same place they came from in FY07. Yes it now costs more to run this place. These costs have been known and planned for now for over a year. The GRT burden is less. Again, this is not driving 750 people being RIF'ed.<BR/><BR/>"Have him break down the (average) $450K annual FTE cost for a TSM, and to compare and contrast that to the FTE rates of FY'05."<BR/><BR/>I can't break down a fictional number. Perhaps you could derive this figure for us here so that we can see how you calculated it.<BR/><BR/>The average FTE cost varies from org to org, but it appears to be hovering around $380k. Still too high, but I cannot defend a figure that came out of your head.<BR/><BR/>"While you're at it, you might want to ask him to compare and contrast the average contractor FTE rate vs. the average LANL staffer rate."<BR/><BR/>Contractors are cheaper. There's a news flash. I guess that is why so many places, including LANL, use them.<BR/><BR/>"Don't try to engage him on the subject of upper manager bonuses, he might get defensive."<BR/><BR/>Nope. I don't know what "upper manager bonuses" are. Do you? Of course you don't.<BR/><BR/>"Ask him about LANL's FY'08 RIF plans."<BR/><BR/>It depends on the budget we get from Congress much more than it does our operating costs.<BR/><BR/>Anything else I can help you with?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-56892078890082236152007-11-21T22:28:00.000-07:002007-11-21T22:28:00.000-07:00"Since you seem to know so much about the RIFS, an..."Since you seem to know so much about the RIFS, and LANS, perhaps you should explain to us why Gussie is wrong. The arithmetic involved seems pretty straight forward. Unless you choose to hide behind a corporate veil of secrecy, of course..."<BR/><BR/>It is simple. Gussie says that the reason we are having RIFs is because of the increased costs due to LANS. I am pointing out that this alone is not the issue. In fact, the larger issue is the decline of the budget not the increase in costs. As I said a few iterations ago, the increase in costs are a factor but not a dominant factor. He believes this because he wants to believe it. He wants to make this be about LANS and not about Congress. <BR/><BR/>The fact is the picture is much more complex than this. Little children don't want to hear that, though, so naturally I am attacked as Sir LANS or whatever. Keep throwing those sticks and stones, children. Hope it works for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-80532579870923420022007-11-21T22:03:00.000-07:002007-11-21T22:03:00.000-07:008:52 PM - you are correct. The Lab managers need ...8:52 PM - you are correct. The Lab managers need to get rid of the limited term scientists. They cannot do any programmatic work and are sucking off the teat of LDRD and other programs. Right Klimov? Oh, but the director indicated that he is too good to let go ... Mikey will probably be giving him millions of LDRD $$ to keep him and his hallway of worker-bees happy. I am sure there are many more that fit this bill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com