Two anonymous contributions on pension contributions:
1)
Since LLNL is looking at employee contribution for next year what percentage did the LANL employees have to start contributing and what's the increase every years after that. Is it going to start at 2% and then go to 16% like was dicussed during the transition. We all want to know at LLNL how much we should bend over.
2)
I hear UC has started deducting 4%from everyone's paycheck and they're going to follow CalPer's plan of increasing that 5% to 7% and up as time goes on. This took affect 4/15/2010. LLNS should start shortly. With LLNS retirement plan being $408M short I'd say 4% would be a good start and then as years go on maybe we can get it up to 16% as was talked about during the transition at which time they said, "not at this time". What a CYA statement. Someone please tell LLNL what LANS started at and what their project pay cuts are.
23 comments:
Where do you get that LLNS pension is short ? Its more than adequately funded. Count your blessings instead of spreading fears that have no basis in fact.
Since when is the LLNS retirement plan short by 400 plus million?
I guess they're going to start 4%contributes next year just for the hell of it, or maybe for the same reason LANL did. Guess what. LLNS is going to follow UC and CalPers path. That 4% now and 5-7%later so open those wallets and stop whining about how your take home pay is going to hell and you're falling behind every year. Now pay up folk and like it.
Where have you heard LLNL is looking to start employee contributions next year? If you can back up where you received your information and it is legit, then post. Otherwise keep your wishful thinking to yourself.
April 30, 2010 4:48 PM
OMG! I can't believe I am reading this! Please quit wasting our time with your fantasies.
TCP1 salary contribution will grow and grow over the next few years until the employees are finally crying out for the pension to be frozen so that the financial pain will stop.
I would plan on seeing about 3% taken from your paycheck at the start, with a trend toward 15-20% within five years. Projects will also be heavily taxed to pay for the pension, thus making it harder and harder for projects to keep fully staffed with people.
It's NNSA and the "for-profit" LLCs' plan for killing off the lab venerable pension system. The funding condition of the pension is not the real issue with these people.
I would plan on seeing about 3% taken from your paycheck at the start, with a trend toward 15-20% within five years.
May 2, 2010 6:53 PM
Hah hah hah!! Stop, tou're killing me!! hehehe. Good one! You are counting on no one being able to do the simple actuarial calculations to show what nonsense that is.
6:53 PM
The pension at LLNL is already "frozen."
It is also well overfunded and there are no plans for employee contributions.
I would plan on seeing about 3% taken from your paycheck at the start, with a trend toward 15-20% within five years.
May 2, 2010 6:53 PM
I don't know why you would plan on that, but if you insist, go ahead.
"Hah hah hah!! Stop, tou're killing me!! hehehe. Good one!" - 7:28 pm
Check back in about 5 years. We'll see who get the last laugh at that point in time, 7:28 pm.
The LANS DP plan, like UCRP, is taking a 2% employee contribution beginning April 19, 2010. Don't have a clue where people are getting some of the fantastic numbers that are posted above, but they are nonsense.
There is no current shortage in the LLNS plan, but it is an expensive plan just like LANS so that could happen ff the market rebound doesn't continue.You guys might actually have a chance to miss out on future employee contributions if all goes right.
There is enough real angst out there without needless fear mongering such as much of the above. Some of the posts above are worse than the LANS bunch would do.
Some of the posts above are worse than the LANS bunch would do.
They could be LANS. Where else to vent their spleen.
May 3, 2010 2:27 PM
Finally got the answer we are looking for 2%, if all goes well, if it doesn't this will increase as time goes on.
Finally got the answer we are looking for 2%, if all goes well, if it doesn't this will increase as time goes on.
May 5, 2010 8:55 AM
Nice, reasonable, rational response. What the hell is wrong with you??!! You don't belong on this blog!!! (But thanks anyway.)
8:55, you still didn't get the answer you were looking for. Read it again, with your eyes open please. LLNS has no plans for contributions. Can it be any clearer than that? Nobody said 2% if all goes well, you paraphrased that all by yourself.
Does anyone know why the TCP1 plan liabilities have been growing so rapidly (2008: $791M; 2009: $896M; 2010: $1,130M)? This comes from the mailing in April 2010, which also reports an estimate for 2007 liabilities at $1,040M - which leads me to believe the calculation method may be a moving target. I can't imagine how liabilities could have increased by26% in a single year.
I just received my annual pension plan funding notice from LLNS this week. Per then notice, as of January 1, 2009 the LLNS Pension is well over 100% of the "Funding Target Attainment Percentage."
This is the percentage of the Plan's liabilities that are covered by the Plan assets. On Jan 1, 2009 it was 145.57%. This is down from Jan 1, 2008 when it was 209.62%. For 2007, it was 161.06%
As of Jan 2009, the LLNS Pension Plan (which is a closed plan), has
Assets = $1,304,977,764
Liabilities = $896,443,646
Participants = 3,429
The other way the notice shows the plan's status is "Fair Market Value of Assets" based on actual market values. This reflects a clearer picture of a plan's status at a given point in time, but fluctuates daily since its tied to the stock market. As of December 31, 2009, the fair market value of the LLNS Plan's assets was $1,546,093,137 and the liabilities were $1,130,212,068. Giving a 37% overfunding of the plan.
I looked at the LANL website and the briefing viewgraphs of the resumption of employee contributions for the LANS Pension. In comparison, the LANS Pension is 36% underfunded based on market values.
This is why LANL is restarting employee contributions and why LLNL is not.
7:52, thank you for giving us facts, and not biased opinions or speculations.
"As of Jan 2009, the LLNS Pension Plan (which is a closed plan), has
Liabilities = $896,443,646
...
As of December 31, 2009, the fair market value of the LLNS Plan's assets was $1,546,093,137 and the liabilities were $1,130,212,068
I understand that 'assets' is a soft number (depending on how stock-bond markets perform). and Liabilities is a 'hard' number. The number of members is known in this closed system. Member's ages are known. Actuarial tables are known. How does the liabilities go up by 26% ($896K to $1130K) in twelve months ??? Any explanation ?
"How does the liabilities go up by 26%"
It's all those new Bechtel execs who have moved into the LLC "for-profit" managed NNSA labs. After two years, they get to come off the Bechtel retirement plan and are dumped onto the far more lucrative TCP1 pension. This suddenly adds to future TCP1 liabilities.
It's a great deal for Bechtel because they get to erase their corporate liabilities yet add to the lab liabilities.
"come off the Bechtel retirement plan and are dumped onto the far more lucrative TCP1 pension"
My understanding is that TCP1 is closed as of 10-1-07. All members (that selected TCP1) were transferred from UCRP/preLLNS, and no new members can be added. Therefore, Becthel employees can NOT be added.
May 11, 2010 8:32 PM:
Sorry, but given the minescule number of Bechtel transferees compared to employees in TCP1, the numbers just don't add up. Another urban myth exposed. What's the real reason?
Sorry May 11, 2010 8:32 PM, you don't know what you are talking about.
I looked at my LLNS TCP1 notices from 2008 and 2009 (just received). The plan is closed.
As of 1/1/08
Total Participants = 3927
Active Participants = 3429
Retired receiving benefits = 89
Retired entitled to future benefits = 273
Terminated during 2008 before 100% vested = 136
As of 1/1/09
Total Participants = 3792
Active Participants = 3429
Retired receiving benefits = 90
Retired entitled to future benefits = 273
Post a Comment