Monday, April 11, 2005

Perhaps PNNL an option?

I've talked with great talent at LANL who are sticking it through
despite the recent challenges, and I wish the organization luck.
However, if you are considering leaving LANL anyway, I ask that you at
least consider Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (
We're hiring for many positions and offer an income-tax free state with
a low cost of living (about $160,000 on average for a house) with a
competitive relocation program. If you want to learn about specific
opportunities, contact me and I'd be happy to guide you to the right

Rob Dromgoole
Executive Search Consultant
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(509) 375-2441

Wow! The vultures are circling!

LLNL and LBL have been warned off of recruiting from LANL (to the point of "reverse discrimination")... I wonder if the other labs managed by private concerns (PNL/ORNL - Battelle) and (SNL - LockMart) have been warned off similarly? Apparently not!

BTW... PNL has a lot of things going for it, both for career opportunities and the regional quality of life... I just don't like the way private corporations (including supposedly not-for-profit Battelle) do science sometimes.

Can anyone else report on whether other DOE labs have been "warned off" of recruiting at LANL?
I doubt that warning other laboratory would be legal. The "in-house" proscription is a creation of Admiral Foley I do believe. It's a modern version of shanghaiing or as the cause de bellum in the War of 1812, "impressed crewmen."

Vultures look for dead or dying carcasses. These are not vultures but gold-rush opportunists working the richest vein in the mother lode of all mother lodes. After being treated like scum by our current management, it is good to be wanted. There will be more of this kind of raid and the only thing that will suffer will be the nation's nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and counterterrorism programs. I hope DOE and NNSA, the real buzzards, are happy. Unfortunately, UC has not picked up a stick and chased them away. That would take courage.
Thank-you for your kind words- We have been a bit battered by our perfect storm.

As to all the statements that we are not marketable- I checked my own specialty on and got 380+ hits. And Q clearances are running more than two years, costing ~50K, so you are definitely marketable.

BTW- I asked a friend at Sandia what changed when they lost their old contract and got Lockheed. "Not much day to day- just the benefits about a year later. They changed the retirement charts" "So you could still make a safety mistake or print an extra label, even with Lockheed?" "Sure."

Tell me, WHAT is the point of destroying LANL?
I am surprised more companies haven't put up similar posts.
They will be posting ads and they are already recruiting by direct contact. Poster (7:01PM) mentioned the length time required for Qs. I hope NNSA/DOE takes heed to this point. Someone mentioned that X division has a large number of people who haven't gotten their clearances stashed across the Laboratory's uncleared areas. Wait until retirements start ramping up (contingent on when the contract will be finalized). There'll be uncleared and unproductive people stashed all over the county and the corporate knowledge so vital to the nuclear weapons programs in particular and to science and nonproliferation programs as well will be hemorrhaging out the back door with no replacements coming in the front (they will not have Qs even if they are hired.) In the commercial world that often fatal malady is called "organizational carcinoma." More cells on overhead than actually working and deficit transference of corporate DNA.
Why would anyone care if DOE/NNSA takes heed?
The talented staff who have endured this inexcusable, abusive, disrespectful treatment which Nanos has dispensed over the past 9 months deserve a better work environment than LANL is capable of providing, given that Nanos is still director. If someone receives a better offer from a place like PNL, take it! You owe nothing to the current LANL management "team".

You do owe yourselves and your families a healthier working and living environment than the current owners of the LANL contract are capable of, or even inclined to, provide.

Current LANL management gives no respect; they deserve none in return.
To 5:47 post.

What are you talking about. Two people
from my division are now going to
LLNL. Also I know Oak Ridge is trying
to get a couple of more people. There
is no "warned off" at LANL. Hey it is
a free market.
Taking a job at LLNL looks especially attractive. After DOE sees how much
the new LANL-specific pension will cost both DOE and the staff, I'll bet they
will have no qualms about letting LLNL keep a UC pension if UC wins the LLNL
contract. It is also highly likely that UC will keep the contract at
LLNL. Thus, TSMs who make the move to Livermore will likely (1) keep their
lucrative UC pensions and (2) remain UC employees for a long time into the
future. Taking a LLNL jobs looks like a no-brainer to me. The only
difficult part would be selling your home if you happen to live on the Hill.
Don't the people that transfer to LLNL from LANL usually get about a 10% increase in salary due to the higher cost of living as well?
A few years ago a friend of mine retired from LANL and hired on at PNL. I asked her if PNL was better than LANL. She said it was different. It had problems, but different ones.
She later said that when the whole complex had to account for all of its CREM thanks to the LANL debacle, PNL was able to do so in just a couple of days.
Don't be so damn sure that LLNL will stay with UC. Remember the argument for keeping LANL and LLNL under the SAME MANAGEMENT--"friendly competition"?

If LANL goes to LockMart/UT, and with Sandia under same, the Bush gang will make it 3 for 3 with LLNL in 2 years.

Why move to LLNL for 2 years, just to be snapped up by LockMart?

-Devil's Advocate
Warned Off vs. Free Market

"Warned Off" is when a hiring manager at LLNL or LBL wants to make you an offer and their manager tells them that all hires coming from LANL need their Director's approval.

Someone suggested that Foley did this particular "warning off". Seems likely... it could also be spontaneous "professional courtesy" between UC Labs not to start "raiding"?

I'm sure it is anything but a free market.

Meanwhile, I remain a LANL employee in the face of other options, not out of loyalty to management, but out of loyalty to what the lab has been and could possibly be, and to the others who have not left.

I hope NNSA/DOE/UC/LANL management take seriously the real threat of a mass exodus. Sadly, they may take it as a promise...
5:53 - Why do you hope they take the "threat" seriously? Are you in some sort of danger?
People who are secretly wishing for a mass exodus of staff at LANL need to
get a grip. It's not going to happen. At most, around 15% of staff will
leave, but more likely, the numbers will be around 10%. Most of these
will be older staff who are close to retirement age. While a 10% figure of
LANL staff leaving will certainly be noticed by fellow workers, it's not
a disaster and will be little noticed by DOE.

Most of us will still be working here come Oct 1st and don't need the
extra burdens of also dealing with a staffing disaster at LANL. Just
because things are currently rotten at LANL shouldn't give cause for one to
hope that we go into a staffing "melt-down" mode. The greatest benefit to
future staff reductions will come from the very top -- when Pete Nanos is
finally made to walk the plank. That is a scenario almost everyone at
LANL will eagerly await.
PNNL an option? Has it come to that? That people would "escape" to the Penal Colony???
What a year it's been, eh?
I've worked for both Lockheed and LLNL: I'll take Lockheed anyday. One's brain and one's ethics are a terrible thing to waste.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?