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

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

TCP1: closed-ended or open-ended?

If Charlie takes questions at this week's all-call, could be interesting to hear what he has to say about TCP-1 allegedly now not being a closed plan.

Since LANS and LLNS are, for all meaningful purposes, one in the same, whatever he says will have ramifications for those working at LLNL.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

One of the people I know who asked a question at an all-hands meeting, was basically taken for North Korean style re-education. That was under the Nanos dictatorship but it is a big risk to ask the higher-ups any question especially one they won't like.

TCP1 is being used as a perk for Bechtel people. You will have to do some investigation to get more proof than has already been put forth on this blog, but it is real and it is a threat to the health of the fund.

Anonymous said...

Bechtel ... Winning!!!!

Anonymous said...

"...big risk to ask..."

True, but less so for TCP1 retirees.

Anonymous said...

No one has the fortitude to take on LANS/LLNS cheating on their own policy to not add more participants to the TCP-1 plan. Anybody?

Anonymous said...

No one has the fortitude to take on LANS/LLNS cheating on their own policy to not add more participants to the TCP-1 plan. Anybody?

May 6, 2016 at 3:26 AM

It's not "cheating on their own policy." It's violating explicit wording in the Prime Contract. It is NNSA who should be "taking them on."

Anonymous said...

Bechtel = BOHICA!!

Anonymous said...

Bechtel is evil.

Anonymous said...

An "openable" TCP1 has not been confirmed correct?

Anonymous said...

The Prime Contract" is very clear. It is not "openable" and that term itself has no legal meaning.

Anonymous said...

Not only is it "not openable" TCP1, because it is a plan run by an LLC, pension plan does not have the same protections the UC pension has. Terms and conditions AFTER one retires from TCP1 Can be changed anytime, including turning over the entire plan to the PBGC which is the quasi government company that manages orphaned corporate pension plans.

As the money starts to run out, retirees could be subject to reductions in their pension they have already been receiving, some for many years. Imagine, being age 77 and being told your monthly payment is going from 4500 a month to 2500 a month. Good luck with that. There will be no incentive for future contractors at LLNL to expend costs to manage a pension plan that very few people will be part of and as time goes by, as the last person retires and turns out the lights, it will eventually become a white elephant.

The UC pension terms and conditions cannot be changed by law after one retires from UCRP it has a higher standard of legal protections because it is a non profit plan, and employees are still funding it, it is open ended unlike TCP1.

Good Luck TCP1'rs, you should be suing the Bechtel corporate raiders for setting you up in that losing proposition.

Anonymous said...

What a thread. No information. Baseless provacative speculation.

Anonymous said...

11:25, as has been stated numerous times on this blog, NNSA guarantees TCP1 just as it guarantees TCP2. Your statement that TCP1 can be changed anytime is false. Try sticking to the facts. What exactly is the motivation of your post? TCP2 regrets? Personally I don't know anyone who regrets their choice, be it TCP2 or TCP1. Posting baseless speculation just makes you look like a fool.

Anonymous said...

11:04 AM shows a lack of understanding of TCP2. It is not guaranteed by anyone, since it is an individual account. The investment profile is selected by the employee, from the options presented by the employer. If the account is not balanced in risk, and one sector tanks, then the account could suffer massive losses. Defined contribution accounts are not guaranteed by the very nature of how they are established.

Anonymous said...

Most people who took TCP2 froze with UC, and it is the UC pension NNSA has an obligation to fund if needed (same obligation for TCP1's LLNS pension). Of course those who are not part of this are excluded.

Anonymous said...

Defined contribution accounts are not guaranteed by the very nature of how they are established.

May 18, 2016 at 2:23 PM

Correct, which is one reason they are not called "pensions."

Anonymous said...

2:23, this discussion is about pensions (the pension portion of TCP2). It appears you are the one confused. Of course defined contributions are not guaranteed, who said they were?

Anonymous said...

4:03 PM

Let's be clear here - there is NO part of TCP2 that is a pension.
Discussion over.

Anonymous said...

Yes, to clarify, it is TCP2 with UCRP retirement. Since the post talked about TCP1 vs. UC, I think most knew what it referred to since the only choice to retire with UC AND take advantage of defined contribution matching was to choose TCP2.

Anonymous said...

May 18, 2016 at 4:55 PM is correct. TCP2 does not include any "pension" i.e., defined benefit, component. Some people obviously retired with a UC pension and then went into TCP2 with LANS/LLNS. The two are in no way connected. TCP2 is a 401k defined contribution plan. But all new (since the transition) employees are required (by law and the Prime Contract with NNSA) to enroll in TCP2 with no, repeat no, access to any "defined benefit" or "pension" plan. i.e., TCP1. For all you rocket scientists, this is not rocket science. Get a clue on your future.

Anonymous said...

Prior to the transition employees who opted to continue working had two choices: TCP1 or TCP2. Many of the discussions on this blog seem to be targeted at TCP1 and at those who chose to trust LANS/LLNS. The "some people" you are referring to who were able to retire and continue working with a UC pension + TCP2, or froze with UC + TCP2 are who we typically refer to on this blog as "those who chose TCP2". The discussions on THIS particular thread have nothing to do with new (since the transition) employees, which I think is obvious to everyone. But thanks for clearing it up for us rocket scientists.

Anonymous said...

May 18, 2016 at 10:16 PM is wrong. This particular thread has had discussions related to McMillan allegedly opening up TCP1 (a legally closed defined benefit pension plan) to select new (since the transition) employees. This subject is obvious to everyone except a few posters that have tried to divert the topic. If the plan was opened to ANY one after it was closed at transition, the cohort of impacted employees would include ALL hires since transition. You might note that both first-time employees as well as those who retired under UC, are included in this cohort.

Blog Archive