A posting from another thread that is worthy of some discussion:
Anonymous said...
I just have one question for folks who decided to take TCP1: If your pension is to be paid by LANS/LLNS, and they lose the DOE/NNSA contract at some point after you retire, what happens? The LLCs were created for the sole purpose of running the labs, and and will dissolve as corporate entities after that purpose ends. Do you trust that DOE/NNSA will effectively transfer the pension responsibilities to the new contractor with no detrimental changes?
Anonymous said...
I just have one question for folks who decided to take TCP1: If your pension is to be paid by LANS/LLNS, and they lose the DOE/NNSA contract at some point after you retire, what happens? The LLCs were created for the sole purpose of running the labs, and and will dissolve as corporate entities after that purpose ends. Do you trust that DOE/NNSA will effectively transfer the pension responsibilities to the new contractor with no detrimental changes?
Comments
March 27, 2013 at 3:05 PM
Do you mean former DOE workers or former contractors? Which former RF contractor? Who pays the pension? BTW, RF was open, although not producing anything weapon related, as late as 1993 or 1994 - I was there. I believe it was being called "Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site."
Status of Contractor Pension and PRB Benefit Programs – September 30, 2011. Also TCP1 is backed by PBGC.
DOE Wide / Closure Sites
Defined Benefit Pension Plans
40 / 6
Defined Contribution Plans
35 / 0
PRB Plans
>100 / >10
Active Participants
79,000 / 0
Retirees/Survivors
71,000 / 7,680
Terminated Vested Participants
42,000 / 5,100
FY 2011 Pension Unfunded Liability
$16,103 Million / $0 Million
FY 2011 PRB Unfunded Liability
$13,977 Million / $1,754 Million
FY 2011 Total Unfunded Liability
$30,080 Million / $1,754 Million
http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits/maximum-guarantee.html#2013
March 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM
Sarcasm aside, a few facts: 1) UC pension funds are in fact "doing better and better." If you were in one you'd know. 2) UC has nothing to do with LLNL (or LANL) retiree health benefits. Those were transferred (for ALL previous UC retirees) to the LLCs at the transition. Get a clue and catch up with reality. Whistling past the graveyard isn't going to help you. The question is do LANS/LLNS TCP1 (pension) retirees have anything to count on after the LLCs disappear other then PBGC? If not, they are screwed.
The first poster has a good point. There are many retirees (contractors, not feds) who used to work at DOE production plants; isn't it true that some of those entities no longer exist? And, isn't it true that, for decades, they have all been getting their pensions?
You have a good point that nothing is certain and we could get screwed, but you can say that about any entity, including UC. If you are a national lab employee or retiree, why would you choose to enter into employment with a government-owned lab if you have such hatred for the government? If so, you have certainly made an interesting choice. Perhaps you should have gone to work for a more trustworthy, non-governemnt affiliated private sector entity that you could trust more, such as AIG or ENRON, etc.
Best to face the music now. With the government already borrowing over 40 cents of every federal dollar spent it shouldn't be too long before the extreme measures begin.
Anything is possible. Just look what happened in Cyprus this last week where bank account holders suffered a 40% haircut. You can't depend on the historical results of past decades for comfort. We are obviously living in a dangerous new world! Only super-elites make out well these days.
Keep in mind that we chose to work in a GOCO, and we also chose our political leaders, so we share the blame in this situation; only those without sin should expect a bed of roses.
Indeed, the dollar is the "last man standing" and is strengthening and will likely continue to strengthen over time. While the US politicians would love to devalue the dollar, it's become obvious that they cannot do it given the global economic situation.
A strong dollar weakens US "exports and costs domestic jobs as a result. We don't need further depression of the economy. The desirability of a weak or strong dollar depends greatly on the state of he US economy at any given time. If the dollar were weaker (cheaper on the world market), our goods would be much more affordable overseas.
March 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM"
This is point people don't seem to get. We need to weaken the dollar right now. All we do is buy, buy, buy. So we have to borrow, borrow, borrow. What we need to do is sell, sell, sell which we will happen if we become who lot cheaper. This is just econ 101 folks.
To do this you have to have a slave labor work for life society and the same wages and beneifts as China. Whoo, wait a minute . That's exactly what the Obama supporters vote for twice. Good going fools, you're well on your way towards your sell, sell, sell wet dream.
You are completely ignorant of basic economics. Not everything is political.
A colleague and I went through all the details and advised LANL employees when the transition to LANS occurred. Those advised seem to be happy with what we told them.