Monday, April 18, 2005

You know, we might have a problem at Los Alamos

From Anonymous:

Did anybody else notice how often UCOP was on the blog today? It's as if somebody at UCOP woke up this morning and said, "You know, we might have a problem at Los Alamos," and then went in to work and told all his friends. I wonder what finally got their (perhaps still somewhat dim) attention? The post from a division level manager expressing how he was fed up the the crap he continuously gets from Nanos and his band of ADs? A couple of well-written posts from Sandians who say that LM is not only not that bad, but apparently a whole butt-load better than UC when it comes to running a National Lab? A couple of well-written posts from LM employees describing how parts of the real world really work wrt LANL's situation, and how LANL's situation could stand to improve?

Whatever it was, we can be certain it was not the voices of LANL staff who have been writing letters to President Dynes about the abuses that his choice of director has been heaping on us for the past nine months. You know, when I hear how LM has modernized Sandia's operations in areas such as the travel department as described by a Sandian, and you compare that with the decrepit, inefficient, costly systems that UC has stewarded at LANL, I simply cannot wait until UC loses the competition and LM wins it.

I am not looking forward to having to give up my benefits inorder to get the foreign travel department reformed? The problems with foreign travel weren't my doing.
If any employee should pay to have them straigtened out, the manager who was in charge of the system should be punished. He was completely incompetent and lost many good employees -- female ones -- to other smarter divisions at LANL because he wouldn't pay them as well as males doing similar jobs. Yet he remained in charge for years.
I don't know why UC can't manage, but I suspect that they would have done a lot better job if they had been paid $100 million to do it.
That way they could have had some consultants come in and evaluate their management and suggest some cures.
What makes people think that our benefits will be reduced if UC does not win the compete? The RFP is not even out yet, but you can be sure that whomever does win the contract will adhere to its terms regarding benefits, and that includes UC, on the remote chance that they win it. Face it, folks! It doesn't matter who wins the contract -- our benefits are going to change. Our new benefits package will be determined by the terms of the RFP, not who wins the contract.
4/18/2005 06:08:04 PM
Thank you for the dose of much needed
reality. The benefits package will be what it will be. DOE decides that. UC vs LM vs NG is irrelevant. Don't like it? Remember that it was your friends in DOE who serviced you.
Interesting post...but I think it's too late. LM is the one to beat, and honestly I'm not sure I'd to see them take a 'University Partner.'

UC blew it so bad, it's going to be a business-school case study for years to come.

The story of how foreign travel worked at Sandia was so remarkable, it almost brought a tear to my eye.

When I think about how slow even our domestic travel is, how inconsistent it is w.r.t. the rules, and how often I've been stiffed on legitimate costs, it makes me think of the total magnitude of LANL management's ineptitude.

LM, don't let us down.
To 4/18/2005 06:08:04 PM:
I fear that if UC received $100M that would translate immediately into pools of fools, whole navies of clones of Admiral Sly Foley sailing around in Oakland Bay firing salvos of inanities filled with insanities. If UC is really in need of cash, I'll send President Dynes ten bucks so he can afford to pick up the phone and do now what he has known for a year that he eventually has to do. That is, call up Nanos and tell him that his debased demeanor and abusive treatment of UC employees is totally unacceptable and that his services are no longer needed or desired at Los Alamos.
How does one know "Did anybody else notice how often UCOP was on the blog today?" whether or not UCOP was on the blog let alone any other entity?
Interesting timing for this post -- Nanos was in Oakland today to negotiate his separation from LANL. Tensions are high, and the director wants to stay on for several more months. UCOP wants something very soon.
To 4/18/2005 08:14:51 PM:
If true UCOP needs to adopt Nanos's approach, "Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead" regardless of consequences and "no mid-course correction" even if new info/data warrant it.

I hope this includes the rest of the senior managers. Including the chief scientist and deputy since they have demonstrated how they are only Nanos mouthpieces and don't really care about science.
4/18/2005 08:14:14 PM, Re: how does one know who is visiting the blog, click on the sidebar link named "Current Graph of Hits on the Blog". That takes you to a hit counter web page. Click on "Details".
4/18/2005 08:14:51 PM:

Another "Nanos is going to be gone soon rumor". I don't suppose you could supply some basis for this one, could you?
Perhaps Dynes is planning on coming out to LANL once again to give us another
"help us help you" pep talk? Too late Dr. Dynes. I don't wish to help
UC win the contract any longer. I'm beginning to realize just how screwed
up Los Alamos has become due to UC's indifference to our management. We
can do better. And I'm sure UC can find a place to put Mr. Nanos after
Oct 1st comes around. Hey, how about making him a UC Regent? Only the
best for UC.
Nah, Regents are appointed by the Governor (along with a few ex-officio members).

Real question is will they "find" a place for him in UC? He and Foley chew up some serious salary. If UC is that strapped, there's some bucks right there if they let those two go.
I like 11:38's suggestion. Dynes deserves Nanos.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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