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?
20 comments:
I trust that the TCP1 pension will in fact be there. Case in point: In 1987 the Rocky Flats plant (part of the NWC and run by private company Lockheed Martin) was raided by the EPA and 100 FBI agents. The plant was shut down, and some folks went to jail. The plant was "dissolved" and is now a wildlife refuge. And guess what? Those former DOE (NWC) workers and retirees STILL receive their pensions in full.
Those former DOE (NWC) workers and retirees STILL receive their pensions in full.
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."
Rocky Flats was managed by Dow Corning from 1951 through 1975 when the contract was assigned to Rockwell International. EG&G was "arm-twisted" into taking over in 1990. Lockheed Martin never had a management role at Rocky Flats.
Pension funds will be transferred to the new contractor, like the UC to LANS/LLNStransition. For DOE closure sites like Rocky Flats and Mound the is the DOE Office of Legacy Management. They deliver post-closure benefits. Here is the data from DOE LM for 9-30-2011.
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
The question is about employees who retire from the current contractor and then that contractor ceases to exist. Transfer of UC pension funds from UC to LANS/LLNS for retained employees choosing TCP1 under the new contractor is not relevant to the question. I retired from UC before the LANS transition and am still paid my pension from UC. What if you retire from LANS before LANS subsequently loses the LANL contract and disappears? If PGCB is your only hope, you are screwed. It is severely underfunded for all the private pensions it supposedly "backs."
I would think in todays world they'll hand TCP-1 over to PBGC and you'll get what you get based on their scale. It's the perfect time to dump their obligations and be done with it. take a look at what you'll get after 30 years or age 65. What I don't know is can you draw SS and PBGC too.
http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits/maximum-guarantee.html#2013
You're all going to die hungry and destitute you useless government hacks!
Oh my god, I feel so terrible about choosing TCP-1. I think I'll end it all this weekend. Maybe the Easter bunny can stomp on me.
I, too, am feeling so terrible about taking TCP-1!!! Also, UC was so well run, and now they are doing better and better, and they have not eroded any of the LLNL retirees health benefits, so I trust them more than the federal government! And the State of California is financially managed so much better than the rest of the U.S. - how could I possibly have more trust in the federal government than I have in UC? The fact that all of the retired contractors from the nuclear weapons complex whose companies no longer exist are still having their retirement benefits honored means nothing to me ...
I haven't heard anybody regretting taking TCP1, interesting. If anything, I think those who took TCP2 are a little concerned because any future reductions in salary are going to impact them more than those who can at least rely on their highest HAPC from the last three years. But getting back to the question, I believe NNSA has a contractual obligation to support TCP1 and TCP2 (should UC default), and if LANS/LLNS loses the NNSA contract after we retire I thought it had to be transferred over to the new?
I, too, am feeling so terrible about taking TCP-1!!! Also, UC was so well run, and now they are doing better and better, and they have not eroded any of the LLNL retirees health benefits, so I trust them more than the federal government! And the State of California is financially managed so much better than the rest of the U.S.
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.
UC is having terrible financial problems. UC does have something to do with LLNL - they are a major component of the LLC known as LLNS, and LLNS has not been kind to LLNL retirees. UC is more likely to disappear than the federal government.
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.
Once the federal government gets closer to collapse due to massive over-spending then everything is on the table. When that day comes they'll pull an "Argentina" and start confiscating the money in pensions and retirement accounts.
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.
The U.S. government will not confiscate our money. Instead they will devalue the dollar and pay off the debt with reduced value dollars. Private sector companies and UC would do something to get out from under their obligations as well. Good idea to be vigilant, since no organization can be completely trusted, but the real question is who you are least comfortable with. At least within the nuclear weapons sector, the government has a decent historical record, compared to the alternatives. That is the only data we have. Those who trust the elements of the private sector who are unaffiliated with the federal goverment less than the unaffiliated private sector should change employment and work somewhere else, and perhaps even move to another country, if they think that is more secure and value security above other matters. I feel that they would be less secure, and probably also make less money, and have less interesting work, but of course I could be wrong, and there might be exceptions.
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.
I see no devaluing of the US dollar as the rest of the world faces financial ruin, esp. Europe.
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.
Anonymous said...
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.
March 28, 2013 at 9:57 PM
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.
March 31, 2013 at 8:53 AM:
You are completely ignorant of basic economics. Not everything is political.
The actual situation is much more complex than this and worse for pensioners.
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.
Post a Comment