I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
Comments
Actually, if we got 3% the after tax distribution would probably be no more than 2%. The post at the LANL blog was about LLNL not LANL.
On another note, the entire "ranking system", aka - give the best raises to those who kiss butt must go!
He has no leadership skills and needs training badly.
He is surrounded by people who slave
and get 0.25 to 1% raises.
2007 was the last year salary info was public. I bet it is worse now
There was a good reason why LLNS top management decide to make lab salaries proprietary information. They didn't want employees to know about the vast increases in upper management compensation once the for-profit LLC took over the lab.
In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprise to find out that they have decide to raise executive salaries by large margins to offset any of the upcoming increases on income tax for those making over $250K. Of course, you'll never hear about it if they do.
As UC employees LLNL salaries were public information. This is no longer the case. No other DOE contractor - other than UC at LBNL - that I'm aware of releases employee salary information.
Even though there are already rumors and misinformation on this subject out on the blogs and elsewhere and employees are asking questions, I do not want to run the risk of sending out information prematurely, only to have to retract or correct it later. It is important that we communicate what we know and what we don't know, avoid speculation and accurately reflect this situation in our communications:
We are aware that DOE is considering a variety of options for this year's CIP but there is no official decision at this moment. Senior management has discussed how we might respond, including how we could ensure that the annual Performance Appraisal process is properly timed with respect to the CIP. Final decisions on the Laboratory's part must await official guidance from DOE. As soon as there is an official decision from DOE, we will communicate that decision immediately.
I realize that we are in an awkward situation with respect to the timing of the annual Performance Appraisal process, but any action is premature. I request your help in accurately conveying the situation and avoiding creating the impression that we've decided to delay the annual Performance Appraisals.
Regards, George
If that really is you George you will note that, even though this blog isn't as mature nor does it attract the sort of wordsmiths you will find at the LANL blog, there is a very serious morale problem and it is getting worse.