LLNL : The Real Story

Closing Remark for LANL Blog

2006-06-30T10:37:00.000-07:00

Dear beneficiaries, supporters and especially Doug Roberts, host of this Blog,

Although tempted to write my own contribution to this Blog about my favorite DOE funded Boondoggle the NIF, my own real-story has not been necessary. The contributors to this Blog who remain at the Labs have illustrated the fraud and mis-management of this program as credible insiders even better than I could do writing from the outside. The contributors have fired enough torpedoes into the NIF that the Titanic metaphor demands a rewrite. Not only will the NIF run into it's own flawed fundamentals in both engineering and fusion physics, but the program director will deem the collision successful since the unwritten criteria for success has now been massaged from "Ignition" to the "Demonstration" of colored light - all for just $5 billion bucks. To the competent engineers who practice good engineering judgement despite your incompetent management, I say Thank You for illustrating the truth on NIF. Grab a nipple and milk it, the ride is almost over.

Les G. Miklosy
Former Computer Scientist LLNL

Do all of us at LLNL a favor

2006-06-10T11:18:00.000-07:00

Knowing that nothing on the LLNL The Real Story Blog pertains to LLNL
please flush its entire content and start fresh. Having seen the real
number of how many people stayed at LANL aka LANS,LLC I see now need
for the whinnying.

With: (66% going with TCP 1 where they gave up their UCRP retirement
and 33% going TCP2 who did not and less then 1% retirement, I'd say
that it's a done deal.) I would be will to be a months pay that
these very same numbers will occur at the LLNL site. So enjoy your
new corporation and having got the boner. Welcome to corporate
America. It is the way of the new world with no hopes of ever
returning to what we have known as being normal, with a pension and
light at the end of the tunnel. I will you all well in your
endeavors. May I suggest again that all entries on the LLNL blog be
abolished and you state with an opening statement as such:

Now that the numbers are in "66% - TCP1, 33% - TCP2 and < 1%
retirement, what are "YOU" going to do?". It is time to get people
active on this blog and find out who is doing what so that everyone
can make their plans accordingly. If you procrastinate, you will get
what you deserve. Remember, the housing market is saturated and sales
are down tremendously. If for some reason you decide a year from now
to put your house on the market because you hate the new contract;
whic I assure you will not be in your favor, you may in fact not be
able to sell and be stuck with the new contractor. It's a double
edged sword and you can get slices by it coming from either
direction. The idea is to not get stabbed or poked at all. Be wise my
friends. Be very wise.

Words from the (LANL The Real Story) Blog-- may want to listen for a change and regroup

2006-03-08T17:50:00.000-08:00

All that I can say to LLNL is that, "you're next" and you are soon to become as privileged as LANL has been, if you'd like to call it privileged. Please don't be naive and think that you're something special and that you'll be treated differently. I will assure you, you will not be. My suggestion is that you get organized now because you are about to come up against the big dogs whose attention can only be acquired by the assertion of an equal and opposite force. That force can only come from all of you working in unison towards a common goal that will yield results that are in your favor. If this requires bringing in the lawyers, then so be it. Please pay attention to the details in the upcoming proposal, as did the people at LANL. Learn how to read between the lines and look beyond the tip of your nose. Do not assume that they are acting in your best interest or even care about your feelings. Remember that DOE / NNSA and the UC Regents objective is about cost cutting and making a profit. For anyone who has been around for a while I am sure they'll understand that the first thing to go in the private sector when it comes to cost cutting is "people" and "benefits". If you have taken the time to read what they have offered LANL one can see that nothing in the Mercer proposal was to the benefit of the workers, but once again upper level management was treated as royalty. If you choose to be a pansy and tuck your tail between your legs you will get a mud hole stomped in your butts in a micro second. You must stand up for what is rightfully yours to assure that the outcome is in "your" best interest not theirs. In their eyes you are just an expendable commodity that can be replaced by a monkey on a moments notice.
# posted by b-ohica : 3/08/2006 01:10:02 PM

Words from ( LANL the real story)

2006-03-04T10:11:00.000-08:00

Please post these words so that all LLNL employees might get a clue. From what I have seen they are basically brain dead and have the most lackadaisical attitude about their future that I have ever seen. I am highly disappointed in their lack of participation on this new contract which by the way is exactly what we are going to get ). So far it is a big bonner !!

Here are some words directed to Michael Anastasio and crew now known as the "fantasy four" after one of his attempt to kiss ass to the people of LANL and they general public of Los Alamos, NM.

==================================

Speaking for myself but trying to help others these are my feelings.

As far as I am concerned Mike, you can stop talking for now and forget the pep talks, politics and public affairs agenda. From what I have gathered you are only addressing about 50% of the lab employees who have no choice but to stay because they are under aged and cannot retire. The other 50% which is the backbone of the operation are only concerned as to whether or not they are going to be allowed to retire on the primary UCRP, and that justice is served if they lose their retirement because some buffoon put a clause in the contract that reads, "Under the terms of the contract that DOE awarded to the Los Alamos National Security LLC (LANS), employees at the Los Alamos National Laboratory are required to leave the University of California Retirement System (UCRS) and have their pensions and associated financial obligations and assets transferred to LANS. The calculation of the amount of money to be transferred from UCRS to LANS is a complex issue."

If it comes about that the "fantasy four" as all of you from LLNL are now know by are allowed to retire on the primary UCRP and we are not; rest assure that justice will be asked for from those who you assume you command. So maybe it's time for you to start doing something constructive for the troops instead of putting the cart before the horse. Please spend your time convincing the UC Regents that it would be in their best interest if they would allow all previous retirees, and all of those who are going to retire on May31st to remain on the primary UCRP.

Now that would be an agenda worthwhile and may even get your future employees to give you some respect. As for now you have about the same rating as the President of the United States does with the national media.

Bid for LLNL by LLNL's own employees ? --posted anonymously

2006-01-17T13:01:00.000-08:00

Why not ?

For example, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is the largest employee-owned research and engineering company in the United States. http://www.saic.com/

UC to give away UCRP for all LANL and LLNL employees and retirees to LANSLLC - posted anonymously

2006-01-16T17:48:00.000-08:00

Monday, January 16, 2006

Timely UCRP Pension Concern Voiced by UPTE

[Note: Good luck on getting anybody to intervene on this. The UC special committee on compensation is meeting to decide on this Wednesday. This Wednesday. --Doug]

From: J. Binstock
To: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov, senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov, tom.udall@mail.house.gov, Senator.Ducheny@sen.ca.gov
Cc: camrl@la-tierra.com, pumbanm@cybermesa.com, president@upte-cwa.org, steve.cz@comcast.net, Robert.Dynes@ucop.edu, lanlblog@parrot-farm.net
Date: Jan 16, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: Timely UCRP Pension Concern Voiced by UPTE

Senator Jeff Bingaman,
Senator Domenici,
Representative Tom Udall,
CA Senator Denise Ducheny,
Manuel Trujillo
Chuck Montano
Jelger Kjalmijn
Steve Czuchlewski (CLE (Coalition for LANL Excellence), member of Executive Committee>,
President Dynes
Douglas Roberts < http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com>

Attachment 1
Attachment 2

Manuel Trujillo, president of the Los Alamos chapter of UPTE (Union of Professional and Technical Employees), has authorized me to send you this email on his behalf. Manuel expects to visit the Santa Fe offices of Senator Bingaman and Representative Udall to discuss this issue, on the afternoon of Tuesday, January 17. Since the subject of our concern is the proposal that University of California (UC) President Dynes will present at 10:50 PT on the morning of Wednesday, January 18, the issue is a timely one.

Our Concern
We would like your help in forestalling what appears to be an imminent massive (in the billion dollar range) raid on the pension fund assets of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) retirees and inactive members. The actuarily-derived "surplus" that is at stake is a phantom surplus, that becomes a shortfall if ERISA-required life-expectancy tables are used, instead of the arbitrary Regents-sanctioned incorrect tables specified in the UCRP source document (see the discussion we present in ref. 1 below). It is in the interests of the LANL UCRP retirees and inactive members for the following proposal to be delayed until the California Legislature has a chance to evaluate the consequences. It is entirely possible that the California Legislature is unaware that UC has a Regents-provided exemption from Federal ERISA requirements, and that all UCRP members (most of whom vote in California) lack the basic protection provided by ERISA.

The attached UCRPDoc.pdf (accessed from the LANL home page Friday January 13, 2006) contains the proposal by UC President Dynes to create a separate UCRP-LANL pension plan, to be discussed at the 1/18/06 Regents' meeting described in the attached comp.pdf. This proposal contains the statement

"To facilitate compliance with the current UC-DOE LANL contract close-out obligations and to provide for administration of a site-specific plan, consistent with the objectives of the National Nuclear Security Administration, President Robert C. Dynes is recommending that the UC Board of Regents consider at their January meeting a proposal to place the University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) assets and liabilities of the LANL employees, retirees and inactive members in a separate UCsponsored pension plan, the UCRP-LANL Plan, subject to DOE approval."

However, a separate UCsponsored pension plan is not required by the UC-DOE LANL prime contract W-7405-ENG-36, which can be found at http://labs.ucop.edu/internet/comix/contract/LANL/lanl_k.pdf
(See p. 20, H.008 for UCRP pension requirements).
Only site-specific bookkeeping is required, and that is already a part of the current annual process. What this new Plan will facilitate, for LANL UCRP retirees and inactive members, is (from a reading of the UC-DOE LANL prime contract)
(a) a skimming of their "surplus" pension assets
and
(b) different treatment from those in the main UCRP Plan, up to and including their transfer out of UCRP altogether and into the new as-yet-to be-determined stand-alone pension plan associated with the new LANL contractor. Another possibility is that their pension plan membership will be terminated and private annuities will be bought with their actuarily-determined liability amount. The annuity that this actuarily-determined liability amount will buy on the open market is substantially less than the associated UCRP monthly payment, again due to the UCRP determination of liability using the incorrect life-expectancy tables discussed below in ref. 1.

As UCRP members who vote in California would vote against anyone who permitted these attacks on their pension assets, the Regents would want to exclude Californians from these actions, hence LANL UCRP members have to be separated out.

However, if the UCRP pension money of LANL retirees and inactive members can be isolated and skimmed off in this manner, Livermore could be next, so Livermore should be as concerned as we are about the proposal to be presented 1/18/06.

Below find a more detailed discussion of these issues.

* * * * * * * * *

Five points of concern follow, although much more can be said:

(1) UC uses understated (non-ERISA) life expectancies (ref. 1), and

(2) the current contract specifies that the entire (overstated) pension surplus goes to the new stand-alone pension plan (or reverts to DOE) (ref. 2).

The fact that the surplus is overstated (point 2) follows from the use of the understated life expectancies (point 1). Point (1) also results in understated lump sums for those who choose that option.

If the UC pension plan were required to comply with ERISA regulations, the current "surplus" would change sign.

(3) The new, intermediate, pension plan proposed by President Dynes in UCRPDoc.pdf will not only have its "surplus" skimmed off for the newer stand-alone plan (or for DOE), it will also have no active employees after the transition to the new stand-alone pension plan called for in the RFP. All members in the intermediate UCRP-LANL pension plan will be either retired or inactive. This means that should the assumed 7.5% return on assets not materialize, or should the UCRP-LANL plan members turn out to have the life expectancies represented by the ERISA tables, they will find their pension funds run out of money before the pensioners run out of years. There will be no new source of money from active employees, as there will be no active employees. This would not be the case if UCRP-LANL pensioners remained in the main UCRP plan.
(4) The current formula for the UCRP annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) underrepresents the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment. For example, if the the CPI growth for a given year is 4%, the UCRP cola is 2%. The UCRP source document cited in Ref. 1 specifies that a CPI growth rate of 4% is assumed, so a COLA of 2% is assumed for the liability calculation. Currently, UCRP supplements its annual COLA's with occasional additional ad hoc cost-of-living adjustments intended to keep a floor under pension buying power. Separating out the UCRP-LANL plan will permit UC to reserve its ad hoc COLA's for the main plan. This would be justified by the fact that the "surplus" has been skimmed from the UCRP-LANL plan, and funding for ad hoc COLA's has to come out of this "surplus", because it isn't included in the liabilities.

(5) What state law will govern the separate UCRP-LANL pension plan proposed by President Dynes - California's or New Mexico's? How interested will the California Legislature be in overseeing a separate pension plan for people who live and vote in another state? What checks and balances are there for pensioners who can't vote the pension plan overseers out of office?

In addition to requesting that there be no split-off UCRP-LANL pension plan, we suggest that ERISA rules be applied to both the main UCRP pension plan (it is currently exempt), and to any stand-alone successor pension plan. The application of Sarbanes-Oxley-like rules to require language clarity in DOE contracts governing the treatment of thousands of employees would also be desirable.

* * * * * * * * *

See below for the relevant citations from the UCRP source document and Section H.008 of the current contract.

REFERENCES
Reference (1): Article 2.06(c), page 15 of University of California Retirement Plan source document dated September 2004. Note that the ERISA-mandated tables are unisex, with no age age setback, so that UC is twice-over reducing the assumed life-expectancy, for a drastically understated UC-assumed liability.
2.06
ACTUARIALLY EQUIVALENT
Actuarially Equivalent means benefits and payment options the actuarial
present values of which are equal. Actuarial present values shall be
determined using the Actuarial Assumptions from time to time approved
by The Regents and incorporated into this Section. The current
assumptions are:
(a) assumed rate of investment earnings: 7.5% per year;
(b) assumed rate of Consumer Price Index movement: 4.0% per year;
(c) assumed rates of mortality used to determine benefits and payment
options:
(i) Effective July 1, 2004, the 1994 Group Annuity Reserving Table
for Males with ages set back three years for the Member and
ages set back five years for the Eligible Survivor or Contingent
Annuitant;
(ii) Prior to July 1, 2004, 1983 Group Annuity Table with age set
back four years for the Member and set back six years for the
Eligible Survivor or Contingent Annuitant;
...

Reference (2): Section H.008 (f) pp. 27-30 of the current UC Contract No. W-7405-ENG-36, Modification No. M579. Note that it is the A-B formula that results in the entire (overstated) surplus being transferred either to the successor pension plan or to the DOE.

(f) Contract termination and selection of a successor contractor. Should another contractor
replace the Contractor, the following become requirements:
(1) Liabilities for present and future benefits of Contract employees in the event there
is a successor plan. The liabilities as of the effective date of disaffiliation for
members to be covered by a successor pension plan shall be calculated by using
the UCRP Plan provisions, actuarial assumptions, and actuarial cost methods as
then in effect. Active members not retained by the Contractor are the only
members to be covered by a successor pension plan.
(2) (i) Contract service assets in the event there is a successor pension plan.
Contract service assets shall be determined by a formula to be negotiated
between the Parties, subject to an IRS ruling and in compliance with the
laws of the State of California as to permitted agreements that may be
contained in the aforementioned formula. If permitted, contract service
assets for a successor contractor shall be determined generally in
accordance with the following formula:

A - B, where
A = Market value of assets assigned to the DOE Laboratories as
determined from subparagraph (b)(5), as of the last business day of the
calendar quarter which ends coincident with, or next preceding, the
effective date of disaffiliation. From the effective date of spin-off to the
date of transfer of the assets, interest will be credited at the rate
established for a one year Treasury bill as published by the Federal
Reserve.
B = Liabilities associated with pensioners, survivors, terminated vested
and nonvested inactive members, members receiving disability income
under the UCRP and active members (contract employees) who are
retained by the Contractor as determined pursuant to subparagraph (f)(1)
above.
If, for technical, administrative, or regulatory reasons, the preceding
formula proves inapplicable, the Contractor and DOE shall bargain in good
faith to produce a result which would be as equitable to both parties as the
preceding formula and in compliance with applicable law.
(ii) In no event, however, shall the UCRP retain an amount less than the
liabilities for benefits of members whose liabilities are retained by the
UCRP. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph (f), the Parties
further agree to consider the desirability of covering pensioners, survivors,
UCRP disability recipients, and terminated vested and nonvested members
under a successor plan.
(3) Disposition of contract service assets and liabilities. The Parties agree that any
disposition of contract service assets or transfer of liabilities upon Contract
termination shall be consistent with the then applicable federal and state laws
relating to qualified defined benefit pension plans and shall be subject to obtaining
such rulings and/or approvals from cognizant Federal and State agencies as may be
required by law or deemed prudent by the Contractor or DOE.
(i) Retention of assets and liabilities. When a successor pension plan has
been established by a successor contractor, UCRP shall retain the liabilities
associated with pensioners, survivors, UCRP disability recipients, and
terminated vested and nonvested members and active members who are
retained by the Contractor as determined in subparagraph (f)(1) above. In
the event that there is no successor plan, UCRP shall retain the liabilities
associated with all members (contract employees).
(ii) Transfer of assets and liabilities to successor pension plan. Under a
successor pension plan acceptable to the DOE and which fulfills all of the
Contractor's fiduciary responsibilities under UCRP, and which further
assumes UCRP liabilities for transferred Contract employees, the
Contractor agrees to transfer to the trustees of such successor plan an
amount equal to the contract service assets as determined in subparagraph
(f)(2) above. Such amount shall be transferred as investment holdings of
the UCRP, plus any necessary United States Currency, or, by mutual
agreement of the Parties, the total amount may be transferred as United
States Currency. Agreement by the DOE and Contractor will not be
unreasonably withheld.
(A) If the asset transfer to the successor contractor's trust is made in
the form of investment holdings, such holdings shall include cash,
equity securities and fixed income securities, but shall exclude
investment holdings (and earnings thereon) acquired after the
effective date of disaffiliation. Such assets shall be allocated on a
pro-rated basis, with proration for fixed income assets based on
rating and classification. The pro-rata allocation shall be the ratio
of (A) and (B) where, (A) is the contract service assets referred to
in subparagraph (f)(2) above and (B) is the total assets of the
Retirement Fund of UCRP at market value as of the effective date
of disaffiliation. Such assets shall be transferred within 36 months
of the effective date of disaffiliation, and shall include actual
investment earnings(gains or losses) of such assets less expenses
and benefit disbursements from the effective date of disaffiliation
to the date of transfer.
(B) The Contractor will transfer assets at a rate at least sufficient to
meet the cashflow requirement of transferred employees who go
into benefit status under the successor plan.
(C) If the transfer is made as United States Currency, the transfer shall
be increased to include interest on the amount at the rate
established for a one year Treasury bill as published by the Federal
Reserve, from the first day following the effective date of
disaffiliation through the day of payment.
(4) DOE agrees to require that, in the event of termination of work under the contract,
a successor contractor shall permanently maintain the benefit accrual terms and
conditions of UCRP for the Contractor employees transferred to the successor
contractor insofar as UCRP is consistent with the provisions of applicable law.
(5) In the event that there is no successor plan, a reconciliation of funding obligations
shall be done. A separate accounting of assets and liabilities for contract
employees shall be maintained by the Contractor. The Contractor shall assure
that accrued obligations to contract employees are met and that the fund is being
prudently managed. If, pursuant to approval by the Regents of the University of
California, all UCRP obligations to contract employees are fulfilled through a plan
spin-off and termination under the process outlined in subparagraphs (e)(3) above
and (g)(2) below, as applicable, the Contractor shall return any net excess assets
attributable to contract employees to DOE, if approved by the Internal Revenue
Service. If a funding shortfall arises as a result of economic conditions beyond the
Contractor's direct control, the DOE agrees to contribute funds necessary to fully
fund liabilities to cover obligations to contract employees, not including active
employees who continue to be permanently employed by the Contractor.
(g) UCRP plan termination.
(1) In the unlikely event of plan termination, the Contractor shall not terminate any
pension plan (commingled or site-specific) without notifying the Department at
least 60 days prior to the scheduled date of plan termination, or if earlier, 60 days
before plan members are notified of the plan termination.
(2) The Contractor may satisfy plan liabilities to plan members by the purchase of
annuities through competitive bidding on the open annuity market or through the
payment
...

# posted by Doug Roberts : 1/16/2006 02:45:00 PM 5 comments

posted anonymously

2006-01-15T12:27:00.000-08:00

Better wake-up all 8000 lab employees reals soon, like yesterday. I refer you to :

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2006/01/regents-to-consider-proposal-to.html

LLNL will get more of the same. As one post said:

It is clearly time to put DOE/ UC / UCRP on report and those who dreamed up this BS, up the creek without a paddle and no life preserver. Do you have time to save your retirement? How much is it worth? It's your call.

senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov
richard_pombo@mail.house.gov
president@whitehouse.gov
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
first.lady@whitehouse.gov
mrs.cheney@whitehouse.gov
comments@whitehouse.gov

UC retirement system following United Airlines Lead -- posted anonymously

2006-01-14T08:40:00.000-08:00

Friday, January 13, 2006

REGENTS TO CONSIDER PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH SEPARATE PLAN FOR LANL

http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/UCRPDoc.pdf

[LLNL_The_Real_Story Editor's note: The rest of this post copies posts to LANL_The_Real_Story, beginning with post by Doug Roberts : 1/13/2006 08:54:00 AM and ending with post b-ohica : 1/14/2006 09:35:19 AM. I don't feel comfortable copying posts so please read at http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/]

Please clean up your act (posted anonymously)

2006-01-02T15:32:00.000-08:00

Please remove any post that does not pertain to LLNL pension and benefits. After all that is what we all work for, well at least that's all I work for. You can work for what ever reason please you. So lets stop the small talk and get the 8,000 people are LLNL involved in those blog to discuss their future outside LLNL not inside the walls that just screwed you. The employees at LLNL should only be concerned with one thing and one thing only and that's their future. Obviously there is nothing left all the lab to work for. A 401K without matching funds will do you absolutely no good at age 55 or 60. It is time to bring in a union such as the AFLCIO and take a
stand, unless of course your job is your life and you are foolish enough to think you are going to live off your on site accomplishments. For those who thing this way, good luck when you get old. You're going to be screwed.

The bottom line is, it's all about pension , benefits and retirement. That is all normal people work towards.

The question is how are you going to get the 8,000 people at LLNL realize that they just got the shaft and get them focused on what really important. This blog should since Dec 21st, 2005 realize that " your next" and you are going to get screwed. Now its time to rally the troops into a mass exodus on Sept 2007 or before.

They Screwed You and now it time to give them a bit of their own medicine.

Please post

2006-01-02T12:31:00.000-08:00

I have a wish and one wish only and that is that between LLNL and LANL we have a minimum of 15,000 qualified people walk off the job the day before the new contractor takes over and that on their way out the gate with their retirement in hand they give DOE, NNSA and the UC a big international piece sign and wish them luck. These organizations need to understand that what they did to you and me will not be tolerated "for any reason" .
# posted by b-ohica : 1/02/2006 12:17:24 PM

LLNL / LANL --Take their money and run, run very fast

2005-12-29T07:22:00.000-08:00

October 30, 2005

The End of Pensions

By ROGER LOWENSTEIN

I. THE LATEST FINANCIAL DEBACLE

When I caught up with Robert S. Miller, the chief executive of Delphi Corporation, last summer, he was still pitching the fantasy that his company, a huge auto-parts maker, would be able to cut a deal with its workers and avoid filing for bankruptcy protection. But he acknowledged that Delphi faced one perhaps insuperable hurdle - not the current conditions in the auto business so much as the legacy of the pension promises that Delphi committed to many decades ago, when it was part of General Motors. This was the same fear that had obsessed Alfred P. Sloan Jr., the storied president of G.M., who warned way back in the 1940's that pensions and like benefits would be "extravagant beyond reason." But under pressure from the United Auto Workers union, he granted them. And as future auto executives would discover, pension obligations are - outside of bankruptcy, anyway - virtually impossible to unload. Unlike wages or health benefits, pension benefits cannot be cut. Unlike other contracts, which might be renegotiated as business conditions change, pension commitments are forever. And given the exigencies of the labor market, they tend to be steadily improved upon, at least when times are good.

For the U.A.W., Miller noted forlornly, "30 and Out" - 30 years to retirement - became a rallying cry. Eventually, the union got what it wanted, and workers who started on the assembly line after high school found they could retire by their early 50's. "These pensions were created when we all used to work until age 70 and then poop out at 72," Miller told me. "Now if you live past 80, a not-uncommon demographic, you're going to be taking benefits for longer than you are working. That social contract is under severe pressure."

Earlier this month, Miller and Delphi gave in to the pressure and sought protection under the bankruptcy code - the largest such filing ever in the auto industry. It followed by a few weeks the Chapter 11 filings of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines, whose pension promises to workers exceeded the assets in their pension funds by an estimated $16 billion.

The three filings have blown the lid off America's latest, if long-simmering, financial debacle. It is not hedge funds or the real-estate bubble - it is the pension system, both public and private. And it is broken.
...

Roger Lowenstein, a contributing writer, has written about Social Security and health care reform for the magazine.

[Moderator of LLNL_The_Real_Story : This article is quite long and does not mention LLNL so I am only providing the introduction. Email me for the rest of the article.]

From the LANL Blog (posted for anonymous)

2005-12-23T20:14:00.000-08:00

A Los Alamos Christmas

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the labs, came the word from Saint Bodman of the contract we have.

Employees sit quiet watching the boob tube in awl, as he swears with a straight face that no politics was involved.

As he spoke to the people whom DOE just screwed, the director was given a signal, do not snooze.

By noon of the same day Michael announced he was through, then jumped on a plane in route to the new.

As we sat by and wondered why Mike's was in such a hurry, the answer was big bucks that loomed in the flurry.

We hear 1.3 million to be exact, as he licks his lips as if they were chapped.

Now say howdy to Miller, Knapp and Shotts, whose pay most likely will quadruple on the spot.

It not about good science, technical achievements or people, but all about fame that can be achieved by evil.

So say goodbye to your retirement, benefits and dreams, since those whom you once worshiped just brought you to your knees.

Is it time for payback as the deadline draws near, where the masses of intellects leave these facilities in fear.

The answer is yes and let there be no fear, for we wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Years

A post from the LANL The Real Story Website

2005-10-16T12:54:00.000-07:00

One must remember that for every door that closes another one opens

From Anonymous:

____________________________________

Thank you Doug,

Now that we know this blog is going to be shut down in June of 2006 I would like to take this time to say thank you for all of your dedication to the cause. I did not discover this blog until long after it was establish but once I did I used it to my advantage and others, not that it is going to make a hill of beans anyway. The blog gave me the opportunity to post as a third person throwing out concerns that were not necessarily mind. They were concern that came from people at LLNL that were scared to death of expressing their opinions in fear of being fired or suffer some form of retaliation. In some respects I would say that people such as this get what they deserve. Regardless this is my last post on this blog and I am relieved that this is all coming to an end soon.

The bottom line is that no matter what you think or feel about how the labs are being contracted out there is absolutely nothing you or your unions are going to do about it. Those in higher places have their minds made up and it will be done as they wish.

This eye opener came after careful examination of the jobs that were available to be filed. There is nothing new happening at my facility that I could see as making great leaps and bounds in an area that was to the benefit of the nation, and the projects that were had their funding cut by DOE. This was simply because the labs approach to everything is not geared to compete with the private sector to where they actually have to turn out a final working product on time and on budget. This is about to change, I hope.

For now I am finding myself participating in the very same experiments that I did ten years ago. The only difference is that we have more up to date diagnostic equipment. Knowing this my question has always been, why are we bothering? For now we are doing nothing but re-making the wheel by using stockpile stewardship as a crutch for the sole purpose of keeping people employed, in hopes that someday our facility will once again be needed. In the real world they call this busy work and that normally leads to a RIF of which DOE is giving you in a very nice and mannerly way.

From what I have read out here over the last few months I have found that most of the posts are just a lot of finger pointing and blaming someone else for the way of the times. Most of the posters believe that they are special and cannot be replaced and for some reason think that they are owed something. That's sad. The system owes you nothing, not even the time of day. Mr.Bodman made that very clear in his speech at LLNL, if you didn't catch it. I only wish I could post the three .avi clips that I have from that speech for you all to listen to but no one seems to have the space for such things on the web. He told it like it was and I respect him for that.

After listening to these clips many times I too was upset, especially knowing that I was going to be forced out the door before I was fifty-five, having to freeze my retirement and start all over again for the next ten years in order to have enough to live on. The fact is, "it is what it is" . One must remember that for every door that closes another one opens and I have assisted the opening of mind. It is "all good" regardless of the circumstances and I intend to make the best out of it. I suggest that you all do the same.

As I read in a post out here someone said that until the labs can prove that they can do something useful for society and the world other then nuclear weapons they will continually be down sized and jobs will be banished, is the absolute truth. The nation labs must change their thought process. To do this the contractor would be wise to get rid of the old, meaning all of those fifty years of age or older as soon as possible and keep the young whom they can groom to their standard operational procedures. Knowing this I would expect the private entity to make cuts shortly after the take over. They are not going to tolerate dead weight or excessive overhead. Be wise and prepare for this event.

Good luck people. I am ready any time they are.

Have a good day.

Thanks Doug. You are truly and inspiration.

posted by Doug Roberts : 10/16/2005 10:36:00 AM

Letter to Bodman

2005-08-07T18:00:00.000-07:00

How does one post to this blog? (anonymous comment to an existing post)

Taken from a post on the LANL site but it really belongs to the LLNL blog

Another letter to Mr. Bodman:

Dear Secretary of Energy,

I realize that Ed Moses and his crew put on a brilliant and spectacular show for you yesterday that would bamboozle the best of us, however please do all of us a favor. Please do not fall for the smoke and mirror show. The laser program has successfully survived for four decades on politics and salesmanship an attribute seldom prevalent in a brilliant scientist. Please examine their tract record over the last twenty five years or so and ask yourself a few questions. Have they every really produced anything that was of value or that has worked as promised? Has what they develops survives past its expected life time? And then finally ask yourself this question. Is there an apparatus out there that is a thousand time cheaper that can acquire the data necessary for stockpile stewardship, yet has survived for four decades and still to this day is the backbone of all the current nuclear shock physics data. The answer is, yes and its not a laser.

It is time to put the nail in NIFs coffin and do as any great manager for corporate America would do if he or she was in a profit making organization. Cease all funding for the program and order the immediate closure of the entire facility and its employees. Please do not do as others have done before you and be persuaded into spending another 100 billion dollars to build something that in the end will be outdated and dysfunctional. Please look beyond the construction cost and look at the millions of dollars it will take for it upkeep this beast.

Afterwards please take a inquire into what a two stage gas gun is and where in fact all of the stock pile stewardship data has been derived from since its conception. You will find that it came from the shock physics at both labs, JASPER and HEAF. These are in fact the only remaining facilities that are producing data. If DOE intends to invest in shock physics then please consider the tools that can get the job done

Americas economy has no room for any further boondoggles.

In conclusion I have enclosed Ed Moses so called NIGRAM. Apparently he was not watching the same video presentation on the date of your appearances at LLNL as I was. He is confident that his empire will be fully funded and that it will be business as normal. I sincerely hope this is not the case.

Thanks for your time.
# posted by Anonymous : 8/05/2005 06:43:22 PM

                      o_o_o_o
                   /| ,[_____],
              |¯¯¯L --0IIIIIII0--
            ()_)¯()_) ¯¯¯¯¯ )_)

Mention of Lee Scott Hall of LLNL on LANL :The Real Story

2005-06-09T14:11:00.000-07:00

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/06/comments-on-hook-news-posts.html

Story by Mike Weiss of SF Chronicle (2/15/2000)

Waste

2005-06-07T16:28:00.000-07:00

Among the many, many examples of patent waste I have witnessed at LLNL, here's just one:

Today, I noticed a 3" round zerodur mirror in an outdoor trashcan--not a scrap or salvage bin--just an ordinary trashcan, full of sundry waste items (e.g., candy wrappers).

A quick query on the Internet prices the mirror at ~$600.

Fwd: dnsfb site report - 1/21/2005

2005-02-28T11:56:00.000-08:00

I think the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) reports for LLNL are a must-read. Here's the one regarding the stand-down in the Plutonium Facility (all reports available at http://www.dnfsb.gov/pub_docs/llnl/wr_ll.html) :

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
January 21, 2005
MEMORANDUM FOR: J. K. Fortenberry, Technical Director
FROM: Michael J. Merritt, DNFSB Site Representative
SUBJECT: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Report for Week Ending January 21, 2005
Plutonium Facility Operating Status: On January 15, 2005, LLNL management directed a stand-down of programmatic work in the Plutonium Facility. As part of implementing the stand-down order, the facility mode was changed (on January 18, 2005) from Operation to Standby in accordance with the facility's Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs). The standdown is a result of unresolved safety issues and the failure of LLNL to provide the Livermore Site Office (LSO) with compensatory measures that adequately address existing safety deficiencies. To date, LSO has rejected two LLNL plans of action; the first plan was dated December 20, 2004 (see weekly report dated January 14, 2005); and the second was dated January 13, 2005.
According to the TSRs, in Standby mode, all programmatic operations are suspended - by definition. However, transfer, handling, sampling, and storage of radioactive materials is allowed. Additionally, in-process materials may be placed in a safe configuration. Maintenance activities will also continue, including the performance of surveillance requirements and administrative controls procedures. Facility management has indicated that limited programmatic activities may be allowed to continue. The authorization of these programmatic activities would require approval by the Deputy for Programmatic Operations. A potential conflict may exist between the TSR requirements for Standby mode and the authorization of programmatic work.
Plutonium Facility TSR Violations: The TSRs for the Plutonium Facility require the implementation of ten safety management programs. Three of the ten programs have been declared by LLNL as being in a TSR violation condition. On January 11, 2005, LLNL declared that the configuration management program was deficient (ORPS report OAKLLNL-LLNL- 2005-0004). On January 13, 2005, LLNL also declared that the unreviewed safety question (USQ) process and a component of the radiation protection program were deficient (ORPS reports OAKLLNL-LLNL-2005-0006 and OAKLLNL-LLNL-2005-0007). LSO is currently working with LLNL to define a corrective action plan for the configuration management of vital safety systems (see weekly report dated December 10, 2004) to respond to a Board letter. LSO has provided LLNL with comment on their USQ procedure in a letter dated January 13, 2005. The primary issue with the radiological control program deals with the implementation of the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles. A requirement exists to perform and document formal ALARA reviews for any operation where individuals whole body dose are expected to exceed 100 mrem or collective doses are expected to exceed one rem. This requirement has not been satisfied for some work in the Plutonium Facility.
Despite the fact that corrective action plans are being developed to correct the conditions that resulted in TSR violations, it is not clear that compensatory measures have been identified and implemented to address the existing safety deficiencies. Compensatory measures may be necessary regardless of the facility's operational mode.

LANL: The Real Story

2005-02-18T10:25:00.000-08:00

I'd like to acknowledge that the idea for this blog came from the excellent blog "LANL : The Real Story" :

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/

Thank you "LANL real people" for having the courage to speak out.