Contributed by anonymous:
The following except was taken from the following link:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/jan08/f10.pdf
“The proposed agreement between the University and the DOE/NNSA governing the transfer of assets and liabilities from UCRP to the LLNS Plan substantially replicates the transfer agreement for the Los Alamos National Laboratory transaction with one exception. For the LLNS transaction, UCRP will retain $75,000,000 in excess of the amount of assets required to be retained under the Contract, which will represent the initial credit to a pre-funded reserve referred to as the “Contribution Reserve Amount.” The Contribution Reserve Amount, adjusted as provided in the agreements with DOE/NNSA, will provide the DOE/NNSA with an identified funding source to apply against any future funding obligations to the LLNL Segment."
Say what? DOE/NNSA has agreed to misdirect $75M of LLNS pension funds into a reserve account to be used by the Livermore segment within UCRP? (Hmmm, and there's that word again... “substantially”.) Any thoughts regarding whether this passes the legal smell test? Or how about when employee contributions kick-in again for the LLNS pension fund; is the money going to be reimbursed by DOE/NNSA? This sure comes across like DOE/NNSA believe they “own” the assets within the UCRP/LLNS pension plans and can redirect as they please. I believe "we" the employees deserve (and should demand) full disclosure from DOE/NNSA regarding the ramifications associated with this agreement BEFORE the transfer of assets transpires. Or we can simply sit back passively and let DOE/NNSA railroad us once again.
12 comments:
the 75 million is to pay the TCP 2 cola's and pension shortages as required by ucrp contract with doe.
George Miller in his talk today said that DOE simply wants to leave some money in UCRP to pay for future underfunding issues. He also said that TCP-1 is way overfunded and he did not see contributions required for a number of years. Basically, this is a non-issue and is good news for those of us that chose TCP-1.
January 17, 2008 7:32 PM
Cosidering the stock market and a known coming recession I wouldn't get to happy. This along with people who are going to be forced out the gate that will retire if they want to get mediacl will put a hurt on the TCP-1 pot of defined money, soon to be drawn down to $0.0 for those who leave last. Oh I know the "white paper" from NNSA which has yet to be proven a legal document says they will find all shortfalls. Could that be like, all contract and term employees will be terminated before any FTE is sent home without pay?
No career employee has been RIF'd yet. We'll have to see how many take the retirement incentive, then we'll have to see if DOE allows any to be RIF'd after that. Most that take the package will be TCP-2ers. Those TCP-1ers, if they are RIF'd, will be getting a much lower retirement pay than if they stayed and retired later.
January 17, 2008 7:32 PM: Please proofread your post -- you are very confusing and rambling.
I'm a mid-career TCP-1'er, and I for one am convinced that I am better off in TCP-1 under LLNS than the UCRP system.
Why?
First, as a private company, LLNS can engage in risk management on the pension (i.e., buy insurance that protects against loss). UC, as a State entity, generally "self-insured" against risk (i.e., if something bad happens, we'll hope the Assembly will fix it).
Secondly, with the state budget in tatters **again**, how long until the state starts tapping into all that juicy cash? Maybe you don't trust George and LLNS, but be sure as can be that Perata, Nunez, and company are far less trustworthy. Once the assets are transferred to LLNS, the state can't tap into them.
Sometimes a big pool is good -- but not always.
I believe Miller quoted a very large number in terms of what is in one or the other of the two funds (LLNL portion of UCRP, or the LLNS TCP 1). Does anyone recall this as well? What was that number if so.
Relax, everything is fine. Just keep listening to the sweet words coming out of DOE and LLNS. If Miller says TCP1 is over funded, then it must be so. Besides, what's a measly $75 million when borrowed among friends. LLNS, DOE, and all the LLNL employees... we're all like close family now, and family would never steal from each other. You can count on DOE and LLNS to be there for you when you need them in your old age 20 years from today. When has DOE ever let you down?
Skeptical or hopeful?
More realistic to be skeptical. But...
The last time I checked UCRP, with the market rise over the past year, UCRP was about 10 - 15% overfunded. The current market decline will have reduced this to about 5% surplus because the UCRP holds about 65% domestic equities.
Let's start with this and play a bit. George said the full value of LLNL's employee pension is shy of $5B. We know that the split between the UCRP segment and TCP-1 is 50/50. So the UCRP remaining segment gets $2.5 B plus $75M. That means TCP-1 starts out funded 105% plus gets another 2% from transferring the balance of the UCRP overfunding. TCP-1 will begin with a 7% surplus. And it is closed, it has no increases in liability because there will be no new members. (Remember, medical costs come out of current LLNL budgets, not pension funds) All future liabilities are, in the aggregate, predictable and conservatively estimated by ERISA rules. And the US equity market will more likely outperform the ERISA estimate in the long-term. So the future of TCP-1 doesn't look too bad unless the US equity market tanks another 10-20% and we sit there for 10 years.
So I feel pretty lucky have chosen TCP-1.
Perhaps George can sweeten a VRIP pot to incentivize TCP-1 folks to help reduce labs overstaffing problem. He has enough in the pot to offer a 3+3 to perhaps 500 folks while still having a 2.5% surplus. Plus minus.
Now, I'll have to put down what I'm smoking so I can pass the random test.... back to skepticism.....
George Miller in his talk today...... .......said that TCP-1 is way overfunded and he did not see contributions required for a number of years. Basically, this is a non-issue and is good news for those of us that chose TCP-1.
This is the very same George Miller that stated VERY CLEARLY before the transition that there are NO PLANS FOR A LAYOFFs. So, yea, I believe every word he says...........NOT!!!
BTW, did anyone notice that in the Q&A archive on the Beyond the Transition website, all questions that asked about a layoff have been removed????
Geroge's talk on Thursday was another punch in the gut to the LLNL employees. Does he have any concern moral? Does this type of treatment of the workforce attract the "best and brightest"?
"BTW, did anyone notice that in the Q&A archive on the Beyond the Transition website, all questions that asked about a layoff have been removed????"
Yep, they erased them and we got a copy. Check the root page of the blog, upper right hand corner. I suggest you download a copy and keep it in a safe place immdeiately. Enjoy
Yep, they erased them and we got a copy. Check the root page of the blog, upper right hand corner. I suggest you download a copy and keep it in a safe place immdeiately. Enjoy
THNAKS!!! I knew I had seen a cop on one of the blogs. I will copy and keep in a safe place.
The chart shows 8200 in FY '07, 7300 in FY '08. 900/8200 is about 10%. This 10% includes the 500 already let go, leaving about 400 for the rest of the year (which will mostly come from the career workforce). Miller some weeks ago said he wants 300 career to go. The numbers seem basically in line with that. Where are you getting 10% on top of those that already have been let go? I also didn't hear Miller say 10% in each of the next 2-3 follow on years either, but I left before the Q&A session completed so someone may have asked that question. He said that change will continue, but that doesn't necessarily mean more layoffs.
Post a Comment