BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Friday, August 30, 2013

Pensioners

Pensioners
Didn't LLNS know when they bid on the contract they were taking on pensioners?

We're not DOE employees, we're LLNS employees. UC puts in their money. LLNS, not DOE, needs to put in theirs.

Sorry you miscalculated your profits. When you take post tax contributions from your employees, you have no place to hide.

By the way, you don't need permission to do the right thing.

79 comments:

Anonymous said...

LLNS still owes you guy more than $88M to be put into your TCP-2 plan. I'd find a lawyer to sue their asses for 5 times that much just to be safe. These Rechtal employers are AH's and will screw you for profit anyway they can while walking away with their severance package laughing all the way to the bank at your expense.

Anonymous said...

Bechtel is one gigantic scam corporation. They have no shame.

Anonymous said...

Bechtel is one gigantic scam corporation. They have no shame.

August 30, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Yes, but keep in mind they're not the controlling partner in LLNS - UC is.

Anonymous said...

As soon as Riley Bechtel can figure out some way to raid the pension and deposit the money in an overseas account, he'll probably do it.

Rechtel is one evil company! The have no business running our national research labs.

Anonymous said...

I think Bechtel has a bigger piece of the partnership than UC. You don't see UC managers coming in to run directorates at LLNS.

Anonymous said...

You don't see UC managers coming in to run directorates at [LLNL].

Other than at the time of the Lab's founding and the associated influx from the Rad Lab, was there ever a serious flow of UC academic managers to either LANL or LLNL?

Anonymous said...

UC puts in their money. LLNS, not DOE, needs to put in theirs.

UC put in money that DOE or its predecessors agreed were allowable costs covered by the contracts. I'm not aware of the academic system ever subsidizing costs at the labs other than the superb investment performance of UCRS providing a free ride to all for many years.

Anonymous said...

"UC put in money that DOE or its predecessors agreed were allowable costs covered by the contracts. I'm not aware of the academic system ever subsidizing costs at the labs other than the superb investment performance of UCRS providing a free ride to all for many years.

September 1, 2013 at 7:59 PM"

Well I do know thar UC does have programs for funding undergraduate, graduate and collaborations with the labs that from the contract fee money. It does help both UC and the labs and shows good faith.

I bet a company like Bechtel would be so evil that if it ever figured a way to take over the public water water system it would jack up the prices and prevent people from even collecting rain water! If the people rose up they would probably have them killed...Oh wait, ya they already did that. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/thestory.html

Anonymous said...

Did LLNS ask DoE before it gave NIF another $88 million?

Dr. Albright, if we have to put in - you have to put in.

Where's our $88 million?

Anonymous said...

Pretty amazing the misinformation. Llns doesn't put a nickle into the pension, and will never. It is guaranteed by DOE. DOE makes contributions by taxing the payroll. There is no current requirement to put in $88M or any amount. What Parney has said is that he will raise the overhead on payroll in 2013 by $40M (DOE approved $20M in 2012), and then, depending on how long term interest rates go, raise it to $60M in 2014, etc. He is doing this in advance of any requirement to do so, and has convinced DOE to allow it, because if he waits until a contribution is required he would need to contribute something like $120M out of overhead. Since the total lab allocation from DOE is more or less constant, where do you think the overhead amount comes from?? You guessed it: programs. That means that Parney would need to do a lay off. Parney is doing the right thing, which is to convince DOE to allow payments in advance of any requirement, try to minimize the impact on overhead, and minimizing the need for layoffs. In order to get DOE to agree to advance payments, they required employee contributions. These are facts, and consistent with what Parney has been saying for about a year.

Anonymous said...

"9:35 PM"

I am calling BS on this. How much does the LLNLs get in fees? About 90M. Hmm that is all you need to know baby, all you need know.

Anonymous said...

"9:35"

So where's this money from
"overhead on payroll" going? Where is it now?

Certainly not to the pension fund. Why take my money first, and then pay nothing?

Something doesn't sound right.

Anonymous said...

September 2, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Personally I don't think the people GAF about layoffs due to lack of overhead. What they acre about more than any project you will ever have al LLNL is their pension, as they should. Anyone who put the project first is a fool. If overhead funds usage assure no lay-offs then why do you have so many people on the EBA and transition list? I say those two list need to be done away with. No money, no job, immediately, no expense to the firm.

Anonymous said...

"Pretty amazing the misinformation"

Pretty amazing the spin you're putting on it.

What you are saying is only *retroactively* true because lobbyists buried some language in the MAP21 transportation bill to radically change the way pension obligations are calculated.

Under the standard pension obligation calculations, Parney owed the $88m.

Which is why you sneak into your argument phrases like "what Parney has been saying *for about a year*" and "there is no *current* requirement", etc.

Typical Bechtel lawyer spinning and weasel wording.

The fact remains: that when we were told we all were going to contribute to this, management said they were putting in $88m and we were putting in our 7% share. Since, then, they've used this loophole inserted into a transportation bill to duck their full share, while charging us our full share.

If, under the new lobbyist-inserted math, they don't need to put funds into the pension, then it is overfunded (Parney said it was at 109%), and we don't need to either.

Those are the facts.

Your spin is appalling, purposefully misleading, and exemplifies everything that is wrong with the current era.

Anonymous said...

So where's the LLNS pension money from the increase in 2012 & 2013overhead?

Where did it go?

Employees are making their POST tax contribution. What about the employer?

Anonymous said...

All employee and employer contributions go to the pension. The $40M was paid in, or is about to be. The pension will always be "healthy" since by contract DOE must meet the obligation. The only question is how does DOE do it. They could wait until obligated by law, which happens when the assets cover less than 100% of the liabilities, or they could allow some payments up front to mitigate the cliff that occurs if they fall under 100%. No matter what the pension is covered. The "standard" pension calculation (which isn't "standard", just very conservative) assumes that the bond yields stay at their historic low values over the next 40 years or so. Parney is making a bet that he can avoid larger overhead impacts later by hoping that the yields go back up. There is no way that either approach "hurts" the pension. If he has bet wrong, then there would be a big overhead cost in a few years. Correcting another bad "fact", the llns fee is about 3%. So the maximum fee is around $50M. Around half goes to UC, which puts their share back into the labs in joint research projects. Even the LANL fee isn't $80M.

Anonymous said...

"September 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM"

Not buying it, if it is a clear as you say it is they could have simply said this. They have have now which points to only one reason. Something about your posts always sounds like propaganda and bs.

Anonymous said...

"September 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM"

I'm buying it because it is correct. It is also what Parney has said pretty cleaerly.

Anonymous said...


Why don't we get to "bet" that yields will go back up....and not pay in our post-tax 7%, like they're not paying in their full pension payment?

Apparently only the employer gets to do that? Only a lawyer could call the current state of affairs "substantially equivalent".

Either we BOTH don't pay in and we gamble together on future rates...or we both pay in our fair share and build up some breathing room for future market crashes.

The current situation is unequal and NOT what was briefed to us very clearly in the pension contribution briefing. We have the slides. You and Parney can spin it all you want. The facts remain.


Anonymous said...

Someone above said - No matter what the pension is covered. (by DOE)

Where is DOE's legal obligation to make the pension whole spelled out?

I thought LLNS is managing our pension and they will just (like all corporations) kick it to PBGC if it starts failing...?

How is DOE involved?

Anonymous said...

"I'm buying it because it is correct. It is also what Parney has said pretty cleaerly.

September 3, 2013 at 9:38 PM"

I think not. You sound like you have an agenda to me. In no way was it ever spelled out clearly by Parney or anyone else what the situation is and you know this.

Anonymous said...

"It is guaranteed by DOE." (9:35 pm)


Really? Guaranteed? By DOE?

Bwaaaa, haaaa, haaaa, haaa, haaaaaaaaaa !

You swallowed that "substantial equivalent" verbal promise by DOE of years past, I see. Good luck with that one.

Anonymous said...

The situation has been clearly spelled out to anyone who has paid attention and can read. There's nothing mysterious or sinister going on. But I suppose the lowest common denominator always retreats to juvenile conspiracy mongering.

Anonymous said...


You must travel in high management circles...for the rest of us peons all we can do is go to the all-hands and read the slides. The information provided to us is paltry and often not in writing (ie % funded of pension, when and how much LLNL is putting into pension each year, etc).

From your posts (assuming you made some of the posts above) I learned as much as I've learned from the all-hands.

Anonymous said...

If employer contributions are so clearly spelled out, why can't someone say X dollars for FY12 and FY13?

You know when & what employees paid.

Employees are well aware that the original proposal held true only for employee contribution.

Anonymous said...

The situation has been clearly spelled out to anyone who has paid attention and can read. There's nothing mysterious or sinister going on. But I suppose the lowest common denominator always retreats to juvenile conspiracy mongering.

Can you provide a link or reference to this information? Is there a table or chart somewhere? That would be very useful. I am truly interested.

I have heard many times over the past year that LLNL plans to contribute X to the TCP1 pension, but as far as I know there have been no employer contributions. I do not want to know what is "planned." I want to know what has been done.

LLNL/LLNS tried to describe how our 62% payroll burden was being used to benefit employees in a mailing distributed in March/April. Some items were obvious such as employer contributions to social security and health care. But they had the audacity to claim that all TCP1 pension benefits were the result of the LLNL payroll burden. This was a ridiculous claim because essentially all of the pension value is due to previous actions at UC.

So I want to know, what have they actually contributed? Simple question.

Anonymous said...


That mailer was a joke. Full of lawyer weasel words, caveats, asterisks, etc.

It never says LLNS paid into our pension. It says LLNS "accrued liabilities" and "incurred costs", never says they actually paid a dime in.

And I love all the caveats:

"This statement is for illustration purposes only....not intended to be a record of actual benefits"

"LLNS reserves the right to terminate, amend, or replace these plans at any time. Nothing in this statement shall be construed as...a guarantee of any rights or benefits under the plans.

Not to mention that the whole thing is a projection, not an accounting of what they/we actually paid in. Giving them a huge legal out to just say, "oh, I guess we projected wrong....things changed, etc"

I'd like to see some straight talk.

TCP1 employees paid in X in year Y.
LLNS paid in X in year Y.

Simple table.

Anonymous said...

"September 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM"

I am not saying you are wrong but when I talk to my coworkers not one of them really understands what is going on with the pension, if you ask 10 people you get 10 different answers. I think we where trying very hard to listen and understand what has been said but we really do not understand. I hope you can understand our apprehension.

I have to be honest I was initially very skeptical of what was said on this and the former LANL about the conspiracy of all the bad things that where going to happen to the labs once the contract changed. I thought this was just fear of anything different or of chang. I even thought change can be good. After the last five years I have seen that many of these fears are indeed true. We when through a buyout, a RIF, another buyout, huge uncertainty and fear, outrageous overhead, confused talk, and huge salary increases for management. It was all they said and worse. There has not been a single benefit to LLNL, LANL and the United States people from the contract change. So pardon us if we do not understand what is being said or that we do not trust what is being said. LLNL and LANL used to be great places to work where served your country. This I fear is no longer the case. The post by Keven Moore rings true and for the young people they can see that there are much better places to be where you can serve your country and not make a profit for a company who does not care about you, the work or the United States.

Anonymous said...

To set the record straight - DOE does not guarantee the TCP1 pension.

Per LLNL 2007 transition slides:
"LLNS’s benefit plans are governed by a federal law known as ERISA, which provides rights and protections to plan participants and beneficiaries that are different than those applicable to public sector employees covered by State of California benefit provisions."

on the web: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was established by ERISA to provide coverage in the event that a terminated defined benefit pension plan does not have sufficient assets to provide the benefits earned by participants.

If a plan is terminated because an employer has financial difficulty and cannot fund the plan, and the plan does not have enough money to pay the promised benefits, the PBGC will assume responsibility for the plan. The PBGC pays benefits after termination up to a certain maximum guaranteed amount.

Once again I thank god I'm in TCP2.

Anonymous said...


PBGC is in serious financial trouble.

And even if PBGC survives, their maximum payouts are very low. ie very best you'll do is 37k at age 60.

http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits/maximum-guarantee.html

Anonymous said...

Which is why its critical for the employer to do their fair share. Even if it means the pension is over funded.

Your talking about people that gave you their career, now you've got to take care of them. You don't get to eat the meal and forego the payment.

Anonymous said...

That mailer was a joke. Full of lawyer weasel words, caveats, asterisks, etc.

It never says LLNS paid into our pension. It says LLNS "accrued liabilities" and "incurred costs", never says they actually paid a dime in.


I looked at the mailer. The mailer tries to assign a cost value beyond salary for employee benefits received in 2012 (e.g., health care). There are two columns. One column says, "You Paid". The other column says, "LLNS Paid". It says I paid $500 for Health Care (approximately) and LLNS paid $5000. It says I paid $0 for Dental and LLNS paid $500. Fair enough.

But for the TCP1 pension or my future benefits from the pension, the mailer says that I paid $4000 and LLNS paid $40,000 in 2012. Huh??? Yes, I paid $4000 last year but LLNS did not pay anything as far as I know. They certainly did not pay 10 times the employee contributions.

Yes, there is an asterisk in the mailer mentioning "accrued liabilities" and so forth. But this is just plain ridiculous. Since the pension has been over funded since the transition, accrued liabilities are effectively still being funded by the UC over contribution in 2007. At least currently, LLNS has nothing to do with it. Zip.

So it was really offensive for LLNS to claim that they contributed funds (it said "LLNS Paid") to my pension benefits when they have not.

But I agree with your post. I do not believe a simple table is too much to ask.

Anonymous said...

A simple table. No asterisks, no credit for what UC did prior, no suppositions, & no weasel words.

Actual employee & employer numbers of dollars from LLNS take over to date.

Anonymous said...


I had very similar numbers in my mailer. Showing "LLNS Paid" 10x what I paid in to the pension in 2011 and 2012.

That clearly is NOT the case. In fact, best I can tell LLNS paid ZERO in in 2011 and 2012 (still coasting on UC gains from the past).

LLNS claims they're going to put 40m in for 2013...but then again LLNS claimed they were going to put 88m in for 2012 (verbally and in writing), and that never happened. So, their promises are irrelevant. I want to see an accounting of what's actually going in from us and from LLNS.

Anonymous said...


To clarify: the mailer showed I paid zero in 2011, but showed they paid 41k in (which they didn't). And then showed my payment (incorrectly calculated, but within a thousand) in 2012 and theirs roughly 10x mine (though actually lower than 2011).

The whole thing makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Albright, there is a way out of this, before too much scrutiny occurs.

Start making regular & routine contributions to the pension fund (with some part of that increased overhead rate money).

Doesn't matter if its over funded, think of it as PR. The employees sing you praise, other complex managers are dazzled at you're managerial suave, and LLNS come out looking competent & smelling like a rose.

We get it, Why should a short term contract "for profit" company want to spend money on pensions. Its just one of those expenses you can't avoid. Remember UC did it with less money, it can be done.

Anonymous said...

The employer contribution in 2012 was $20M. It was $40M in 2013. Parney was clear in his all-hands given in October 2012 that the 2013 contribution was planned to be $40M. Just looked up his charts on the internal web site. Vugraph #3. The graphs on that page show why he wants to make early contributions. LLNS doesn't "owe" the pension anything, DOE does. They the graph shows what it would owe if no contributions were made, and interest rates stay flat. If that happened, DOE would need to contribute over $200M in one year, and high levels afterwards. It would pay that by adding to the LLNL payroll burden, which would require big cuts elsewhere at the Lab.

Anonymous said...

All I see in VG 3 from the October 2012 all-hands are words like "Proposed" and "Projected." I do not see, "Already Contributed." Yes, it is from October but I do not know if 2012 refers to the fiscal year or the calendar year. Employee contributions and pension actuarial information are based on the calendar year. Maybe it was carelessness on the part of Parney, but I'd think he would jump at the opportunity to emphasize contributions already made by LLNS. I would.

For all I know LLNS contributed $20M in 2012. They first said they would make contributions. Then they said they would not. Then they said they would. But I have yet to see an explicit statement about what was actually done in 2012. Not planned, but done.

Why is it so difficult to put this information in a simple table that is available on the benefits web site or another location?

Anonymous said...

Once again, the contributions are not made by llns. They are made by DOE, through a tax they allow the lab to charge to its payroll. Parney said verbally at the last all hands that there had been a $40M contribution. A more basic question is why do you care? The pension is backed by Uncle Sam. The only controversy is whether Uncle Sam makes smaller contributions early, and before they are required, so that overhead rates stay manageable, or waits until the law requires a contribution, which would be a much larger overhead tax. People in tcp1 shouldn't care except unless they think they are vulnerable to the layoff that would happen if DOE waits until they are legally required to make a contribution. Parney said clearly at the last all hands that DOE was unwilling to make an early contribution unless the employees made a contribution similar to UC's current policy. All they care about is the contribution amount. They do not care if it is pretax or posttax.

Anonymous said...


Provide a reference to a written commitment that our pension is "backed by Uncle Sam". I have seen no such proof. I have requested it from HR multiple times and received no answer each time, over a number of years.


Anonymous said...

Why should they care about their pension? You've lost your mind. Of course they should care.

Overhead rate have gone up, Where is that money going?

Additionally, Pre vs. Post tax means having a 7% vs. 14% paycheck reduction.

Anonymous said...

"September 5, 2013 at 8:04 PM"

I have looked over the slides, read what you said, looked at documents that are available. Sorry I am still very confused and so are my coworkers.

Anonymous said...

To 10:20, this was the information supplied before the transition, which I believe indicates that the TCP1 pension is backed by Uncle Sam:

LLNS is legally required to make the necessary contributions to the plan and would be reimbursed for those contributions under the contract between LLNS and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is a part of the United States Government under the Department of Energy. NNSA is contractually obligated to reimburse the pension costs under the contract. NNSA's contract with LLNS also requires that at the end of the LLNS contract, the responsibility for the pension plan be transferred to the entity which is awarded the follow-on contract with NNSA or, if there is no such entity, the contract be extended with LLNS so the payment of the costs of continuing the benefits can be made by NNSA. NNSA thus has an ongoing obligation to reimburse the allowable TCP1 pension plan costs in the future.

Anonymous said...

Regular and routine contributions, by UC, are how the fund was built and maintained.

Regular and routine contributions, by current managing party, are how to continue maintenance of that fund.

Post tax employee contribution alone, is an abrogation of the managing party's responsibility.

Anonymous said...

For quite some time, neither UC nor employees made any contributions. That was because the assets were well ahead of the liabilities for that same time. It is important to recognize that UC (and later, llnl) made no contributions over that time. That they did is a myth. Once contributions loomed, the choice was whether to make contributions in advance of the need, with a manageable impact on overhead, or wait for a likely big impact on overhead when the law required a contribution. In either case, once UC started employee contributions, llns had at doe's direction to follow suit. That too is stated in the contract---that llns should follow what UC does. I think it is clause H. Look it up on the llns website. The question about "why do you care" has to do with the only real controversy (since DOE guarantees the pension): should the lab do early contributions to mitigate a potential future catastrophe in overhead, or wait until contributions are really required, when something like $200M+ would need to be found suddenly. In every case the pension is safe. In the first case the impact on the workforce is much lower than what would happen in the second case.

Anonymous said...

No offense intended, but a de facto 14% pay cut is a serious workforce impact.

Anonymous said...

When Parney talks about making $40M contribution, or $80M, or $250M, his thinking is only about how to manage risk to the lab. He has to know that in no scenario is there a risk to the pension holders. He should watch interest rates, as he said, and calibrate contributions to avoid any sudden jump in overhead rates. It is strange that tcp1 people think that somehow their pension is being hurt under any of these cases. Strange because they are understandably obsessed on the pension, but don't seem to have any idea of how it works, or how it is funded. If Parney is taking any risk, it is that his contributions are too low to avoid a big jump in overhead in a few years. He is taking no risk with the pension. Even if he wanted to, he has no power to do that.

Anonymous said...

DOE would not permit their contribution to the pension without an employee contribution. It had to the the same contribution as UC. Pretax or posttax is not important to them. They just care about the share of the contribution. From the employee point of view, it matters a lot, but DOE doesn't care. Over time, naturally, the gap goes down, since a UC employee will pay tax on that part of the pension when they collect, while the llns employee will not. A different workforce issue is what would need to happen if the lab suddenly had to find over $200M in overhead.

Anonymous said...

Something to consider.... since LLC "contributions" to the pension are really based on the tax to incoming funds and not from actual contributions from the for-profit management LLC team, what happens when funding for projects at the NNSA labs decrease?

Will NNSA: (a) make the project fund "pension tax" even higher, thus killing off the viability of some research projects, or (b) take even more out of the salaries of the employees to make up the growing pension shortfalls?

It's clear that incoming funds for the NNSA labs are dropping so this situation is going to hit eventually.

Anonymous said...


Good point.

Anonymous said...

And yet the question remains, what did anyone besides the employees put in. Actual numbers.

You'd think a simple data table of actual out-of-pocket contributions would be easy.

Anonymous said...

The number to be put in determines the tax. So for the $40M that was contributed by the employer in 2013, the overhead was calculated to get to that amount. If program funding goes down, the overhead would need to go up to get the desired number. Of course Parney has some flexibility when contributions are being made before the law requires, since if he sees interest rates turning up he can decide to contribute less, not take the overhead rate too high, and save some jobs. Once assets fall below liabilities, and he is required to make a big contribution (when that happens the law basically requires that twice the required contribution has to be made) then the amount of needed contribution is fixed by law, and the overhead bump is whatever is needed to get that amount, without regard to NNSA funding levels.

Anonymous said...

For 9/7 12:35pm, the answer is:
$20M in 2012
$40M in 2013.
None before 2012 for years.

Those were employer contributions.

Employee was probably around $10M in 2012 since it was 5% and didn't start right away, and around $20M from here on out. This is based on assuming roughly 3000 in tcp1, 7%, and average salary of $100K.

thief said...

I FOUND THE MISSING PENSION CONTRIBUTION!

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/6/energy-department-loses-42-million-loan-michigan-c/

Anonymous said...

Post tax contributions are double the employee out of pocket expense.

You think it would be taken into consideration. Not all employees earn many hundreds of $K per year.

Anonymous said...

Pre-tax vs post-tax is discussed in another thread. It appears the IRS laws dictate that our contributions are post-tax; LLNS has no say in the matter.

Too bad.

Anonymous said...

9/10 said it should be taken under consideration, (I think) when matching UC, who's pre tax. Its a legitimate point.

IRS doesn't say how much who should pay.

Anonymous said...


UC employees pension pay cut = 7%
LLNL employees pension pay cut = 14%

Only in the lawyers "substantially equivalent" world are these 2 things equal.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

PBGC is in serious financial trouble.

And even if PBGC survives, their maximum payouts are very low. ie very best you'll do is 37k at age 60.

http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits/maximum-guarantee.html

September 5, 2013 at 3:24 AM

Just hand TCP-1 over to PBGC and get-r-done with. It's been heading that way since 2007. It is time for LLNS to do what is right.

Anonymous said...

7:14pm. From the doe point of view, uc contribution 7% LLNL contribution 7%. Completely equivalent.

Anonymous said...


LLNL pension: 109% funded
UC pension: 85% funded

Is that also "completely equivalent" from the DOE point of view...

Anonymous said...

Just hand TCP-1 over to PBGC and get-r-done with. It's been heading that way since 2007. It is time for LLNS to do what is right.

September 12, 2013 at 7:08 AM

You really won't like that if you are in TCP1. PBGC is much less well funded than TCP1 and can only cover about 60% of its obligations. You think 60% of your pension is a good deal?

Anonymous said...


PBGC is NOT the answer!!!

1) It is nearly bankrupt.

2) PBGC maximum payouts are very low. ie very best you'll do is 37k at age 60.

http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits/maximum-guarantee.html

Anonymous said...

Wake up and smell the coffee. The many promises made to employees about retirement benefits and pension payments will be severely cut back. It's already happening in the wider corporate world.

Employees have lost all power when it comes to dealing with corrupt & greedy managements. It's not about to change anytime soon. The only safe path is to have your own money saved up in your bank account. Even then, you can expect the government to come after it with taxes and fees in future years. Just look what happened to the bank accounts of the poor people of Cyprus this year!

Anonymous said...

"look what happened to the bank accounts of the poor people of Cyprus this year!

September 14, 2013 at 9:17 AM"

The poor people of Cyprus? I have no sympathy for them nor should you. We all play the game and some win and some lose, just like at LLNL. To blame the management at the labs for being corrupt is just pathetic. The management and other members of corporate American are just people that that adapted to the new rules of the game, and yes
all games have winners and losers. I am sorry that you lost but that is how it goes. You are just like the people that made a living off horseshoes in 1905. You new the car could be coming but you said no fair I should keep doing it my way. The more savvy people knew where to move and you cannot blame them for doing so. The exact and I do mean exact thing is true in LLNL and more broadly the new economy. The world was changing and you had to had to adapt and become part of the management and benefit or stay a horseshoe salesmen. You have no right to blame LLNLs, LANs or anyone other corporation that is successful for the fact that you insisted on selling horseshoes. This is the law of the world and always has been. There is no such thing as a morally good or bad corporation and manager, there are simply managers and corporations which are you part of or not, just as there was no morally good or bad cars that replaced horses. You can say we are LLNL or LANL and we are special! Wake up you not, there is no difference between you and any other corporate worker, except workers in the real world are grateful for what they have and do not blame the boss for being a success.

Anonymous said...

10:52 will now read to us chapter and verse from the good Bechtillian's book of Psalm. Oh, please don't bame the boss.

Anonymous said...

Changes in technology are not equal to changes in morality, ethics, etc.

Winning does not make something right.

By your philosophy serial killers are great, as long as they keep "winning"

Terrorists are great, as long as they keep "winning"

Brutal dictators are fantastic, as long as they keep winning.

Your philosophy makes zero sense.

You have such an impoverished sense of life that getting with the winners (regardless of who they are, what they're doing, and how they operate), is all you live by. Very sad.

Anonymous said...

And not a crumb left for those who worked their entire careers?

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Mark 8:36

Anonymous said...

This entire thread seems to be much ado about nothing. The pension is healthy, is guaranteed by uncle Sam, and the only issue is whether the plan falls below 100% in the future, which would cause the overhead rates to go up (so that DOE can collect what it needs) and the work force to shrink because of that.

Anonymous said...

The pension is healthy, is guaranteed by uncle Sam...

September 15, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Try to pay better attention. There is no "guarantee" - the government pension safeties don't apply, and PBGC coverage will not even get you 50% of what you are due. Wake up.

Anonymous said...

>Winning does not make something >right.

Losing does not make anything right either and is usually rather inconvenient

>By your philosophy serial killers >are great, as long as they keep >"winning"

Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god.

>Terrorists are great, as long as >they keep "winning"

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

>Brutal dictators are fantastic, >as long as they keep winning.

History is written by the victors

>Your philosophy makes zero sense.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

>You have such an impoverished >sense of life that getting with >the winners (regardless of who >hey are, what they're doing, and >how they operate), is all you >live by. Very sad.

Sincerity makes the very least person to be of more value than the most talented hypocrite.

Anonymous said...


Well, you've clearly got it all figured out and rationalized away.

US invasion ever comes:

You will be with the invaders.

I will be with the resistance.

Good to know. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

7:26 it seems you are the one not paying attention. Even if you thought DOE could legally walk away from its obligation to the pension, which they cannot, do you really think they could walk away from the ensuing political heat? In fact, one strategy Parney could have taken would have been to simply not make any doe-paid early contributions, DOE would not have insisted on employee contributions, and wait to slip below 100% and force DOE to pay up. The risk would be that DOE would then take it out of the LLNL topline, forcing a layoff.

Anonymous said...

The decision to make early contributions was George Miller's. Parney apparently agreed with the need, and modified the plan to account for rising interest rates.

Anonymous said...

September 16, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Please cite where anything says that DOE has any obligation at all to cover the LLNS/LANS TCP1 pensions? These are pensions offered by private firms and are not government funded. I think you need to get a clue about for whom you actually work. Or, try reading the NNSA (not DOE) contract.

Anonymous said...

Where do you think the money comes from, Bechtel tosses it in out of the goodness of their hearts? It is a reimbursible expense.

Anonymous said...

It is a reimbursible expense.

September 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM

That doesn't make it a government pension. NNSA has no obligation to make up any shortfalls. If the pension investments tank, so do the payouts.

Anonymous said...

See the sept 6th, 12:06 posting. Or read clause H in the contract, posted on the LLNS website. It is not a "government pension" but NNSA is obligated to reimburse the costs. The fact that it is not a "government pension" is what sets the threshold of 100%. Government pensions are not covered by the Pension Protection Act. Most DOE labs are in the same boat, since their pensions are backed by the full faith and credit of the government, but because most are "private" (Sandia, most of the Science labs, llnl, LANL) they fall under the rules for private pensions. The UC pension is below 100% sure but is allowed to do that since that pension is backed by the state, so they do not need to worry so much about raising overheads.

Anonymous said...

If the assets in the pension were to "tank" then the fund would drop below the 100% threshold, and the law would require double contributions to get it back above 100%. Those payments would have to be made by NNSA. It would be done by raising the overhead, although NNSA could also just make a separate payment. In either case don't think it wouldn't somehow come out of the LLNL program.

Blog Archive