Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Doug, Please post this online.
I'm a reporter at KQED Public Radio in San Francisco, and at our statewide show- The California Report.
I'd be very interested in hearing from LANL employees by email or phone Wednesday after the DOE announces who will manage LANL.
I'd like to give our listeners first hand impressions from the people most effected by this change-- the scientists and other staff who work at Los Alamos. I'm interested in your impressions, even if you prefer to remain anonymous… but we will want to identify you by name (and title if possible), to include your thoughts in our broadcast report- to be aired across the state Thursday morning.
You can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Or call me at 415 553-2289.
I'll need to hear from you as early as possible after the announcement to meet our deadlines.
We're looking forward to hearing from you.
Cy Musiker, Reporter
The California Report/KQED Public Radio
2601 Mariposa St. San Francisco, CA 94110
415 553-2289. Cell: 415 819-4195
The California Report, examining the people and issues of the Golden State, is heard weekdays on 23 public radio stations across California. A production of KQED Public Radio, 88.5 FM San Francisco/89.3 FM Sacramento.
Perhaps I'm in the minority but I think UC got an unfair deal here. UC, I think, was hired to be an absentee landloard. Someone to provide health care, retirement, etc. They were NOT hired to take an active part in the day to day operations.
On the rare occasion when I had to deal with UC I found them to be helpful. For example I retired in 97 and went to Benefits very early to set that up. Benefits took the extra time to make the experience, well, worse than I would have thought possible. The University of California, however, identified the problem (which I didn't even know I had) and straightened the mess out.
I don't believe that the problems at the lab were ever UC's doing. The problems, in my opinion, always were a direct of local management and that isn't likely to ever change.
Yes, UC has done a marvelous job with the retirement program. Clearly a better, more competent organization than the DOE would have given UC some direction on what needed to be changed. But, then UC should have been paying attention to business here also.
In the end, the employees will be the ones getting it up the butt. With a $70M increase in the management fee, about $80M in pension costs, and about $100M in gross receipts tax, there will be a RIF and very likelly will be employee contributions to the pension plan. We have UC to thank (blame) for all of that.
UC and local management/staff seemed to be unaware of the changing political culture in the country. The bomb culture (and in many ways the big science) is over in the country and with it the money that went with it. What is left of the bomb culture is sabre rattling, and big science has become the same.
Walp didnt do the Mustang incident.. that was 60 minutes.
BUT, well, I'll never believe that all the problems were of UC's causing.
Regardless of who wins, could the group that does not win sue? Could they tie this thing up in knotts indefinitely?
I almost asked if the looser could sue but, well, looser in that context could well have a double meaning. The winner might well be the group that doesn't inheret this mess.