Anonymous contribution (edited):
Two things came out of G.M.'s all hands today that were pretty significant. One is that UC will be asking LLNL employees to contribute to the UC retirement fund to help cover lab retiree annuities. The other is that DOE/NNSA is thinking about raiding the LLNS defined benefit fund to help solve underfunded defined benefit plans of other national labs.
28 comments:
My jaw dropped... WTF!? TCP1 is at 150% over the necessary levels to cover the pensions of its members and they (UC and DOE) want to raid it! Why am I not surprised.
Miller's talk here's what I heard
"we have to redouble our efforts to deliver on our promises"
"relentless pressure to reduce costs and become more effective and efficient."
"safely and securely delivering on our missions and promises;"
So lets see redouble effort when we are already tripling effort since we lost more than have our people laid off. Reduce cost while tripling effort and do this safely this seems like a recipe for disaster.
Well there is a 6% -13% cut in pay, and since LLNS TCP-1 is 150% funded I can see why DOE wants to tap it. Say goodbye to your TCP-1 security. Regardless, if DOE doesn't take it back the state will.
Thanks George, I sure am glad we have you overpaid, overfunded, wealthy Laboratory LLNS to help your sister Lab LANS here in New Mexico. An electronic transfer to my personal bank account would be great. I'll make sure it is well spent. Sincerely, Mikey the Great of LANS.
October 21, 2009 6:39 PM
Don't worry LANS you're getting all the weapons work from LLNL anyway. Enjoy. One way or the other LLNS isn't going to keep that over funded TCP-1 very long. DOE will treat it like social security to bail out some program or the state saying they'll pay it back later only in the end to realize, opps, we can't, we don't have the money so we'll just raise taxes on the working class. Sound familiar.
"we have to redouble our efforts to deliver on our promises"
"relentless pressure to reduce costs and become more effective and efficient."
I heard him say that costs are going up 4% in FY10. Well with fewer employees overall the cost per person should go up, and of course it has. Everyone I know is pulling extra weight already. How much more effort can one redouble without reaching burnout. Oh, but there is a work-life balance blog now, that will make us all feel that we are balancing our efforts between work and family while we burn out.
How can a government entity (DOE or UC) legally get their hands on a private company's (LLNS) ERISA sheltered retirement funds, no matter WHAT the current funding level is? This is NOT the collective Gulags of the former soviet union we're talking about.
12:47 pm if you had bothered to read the orginal rfp, white papers and congressional reports on the contract you would have seen in very fine print a statement giving doe any and all money left over in tcp1 pension when the last payment is made to the last living retiree. also llns owes UC 475 million doto uc over paying LLNS for tcp 1
12:47 pm : The DOE previously tried to tap the pension of Sandia. A lawsuit turned them away......
October 22, 2009 12:47 PM
Wantta bet. I guess the same way we'll all be donating to national healthcare, the 10% increase in state tax, the increase in medical cost and it goes on and on and on, until you are all equal and at the povery range in life.
4:51 AM
"How much more effort can one redouble without reaching burnout."
"Give me a good man and I will burn him out in five years." John Emmett 1974
Those who fail to study history are destined to repeat it
12:47 PM
This is NOT the collective Gulags of the former soviet union we're talking about.
"Watch and learn" Dr. Charles A. Forbin 1970
Why not give TCP1 funds to those who needed it. Don't be so lacking in compassion. Its for the greater good. After all, comrade, this is Amerika.
BTW, if we are going to give TCP1 funds to LANL will they give us some of their funding ?
First. The Supreme Court has held that pension funds are held in trust for the exclusive benefit of the pensioners, and can not be applied elsewhere until the pensioners are paid in full.
So the only way the funds could be raided prior to the paying of the last living beneficiary, is for the fund to be dissolved and everyone paid off with a lump-sum or annuity.
Could it be done? It would require ending TCP-1. You decide.
Second. As long as the fund is not dissolved it is not accessible.
George blew the explanation.
DOE can direct that current operating funds be used to "shore up" pensions that are currently underfunded. In fact, DOE has guaranteed UC that it will pay yearly to bring up the underfunded obligation for LLNL and LANL TCP-2 beneficiaries at the rate of ( if I remember correctly 1/7 of the shortfall per year). This is the same formula that is used under ERISA, though ERISA doesn't apply to TCP-2.
DOE left $75M in a escrow account that can be applied to the first yearly shortfall payment when the transition to LLNS occured two years ago.
DOE has up to this point, kept all obligations to former pension beneficiaries in underfunded pension plans. The DOE budget has payments for Mound and ORNL (I think) last year.
The problem that George mis stated is that the LLNL operating budget could be reduced, ie less funds for work, not as he mislead,that the surplus of TCP-1 could be transferred.
"..I heard him say that costs are going up 4% in FY10..."
George is poorly informed. He must be studying the Mike Cambell school of public relations.
Do the numbers yourself. Run pricer for 2009 and 2010 with the same manpower for whatever account you want. Prices up 10%.
And for WFO, the retroactive Security Tax will add another 7%.
Someone in the budget office briefing King George is smoking medical mischief...
Worst of all, with travel services being so poor, how can his holiness be advised to justify raping unwitting sponsors with a $1.5 tax on every $1 travel dollar spent?
Is George paying off an extortionist? If not, this is an abuse of accounting standards and the culprit in business operations should be reported as waste, fraud or abuse.
Under these circumstances, it is hard to take anything that self-righteous pompous blowhard says.
As for me, I am now working under too much pressure and am dropping the ball too ofter.
Yesterday, I quickly turned and ran from the auditors with the clipboard canvassing passersby if they knew their safety catechism.
orwell would be amused
UC have not right to ask TCP1'ers to pay for those who chose TCP2. They should ask the TCP2 double dippers to contribute.
October 22, 2009 12:47 PM
Ask George, he is the one who said it.
October 23, 2009 2:22 PM
I don't think George was talking about tcp2. he was referring to the defined benefit plan (tcp1) not the 401k(tcp2).The 401k obligation is no big deal really(compared to the defined benefit).
October 23, 2009 12:28 PM
Unless the TCP1 account is over-funded, which it is.
October 23, 2009 8:53 AM
I thought it was "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it"
October 23, 2009 2:22 PM
NOT, sorry, we got ours and we're keeping it. You TCP-1er's were the ones who were so sure LLNS would not screw you, and you were told during the transition that'd you be paying from 6% to 16% of your wages to sure up YOUR pension choice. Have a good day and enjoy your pay cuts, one after another as time goes on.
From the accounting I believe you LLNS-TCP1ers still owe UC a fair amount of money. Perhaps, we can stop the additional payments being taken from the UC employees.
Thanks LLNs, I guess there is a possible silver lining!
The standard of living in America has been dropping. What you are experiencing is just one of the outcomes of this. Your living standards will be lowered, one way or another. How it is done is trivial.
If America had not fallen, you would all be getting great raises.
There may still be time to call your politicians to bring back manufacturing, shore up the dollar, and stop the corruption in Washington. You still have a few months left. Enjoy.
"Do the numbers yourself. Run pricer for 2009 and 2010 with the same manpower for whatever account you want. Prices up 10%. And for WFO, the retroactive Security Tax will add another 7%." - 1:08 PM
Wow, a 17% increase in sponsor costs for WFO work at LLNL! That should have them beating down our doors to give us more work!
The writing is on the wall for all to see. The path which LLNS and NNSA have set this lab on is not sustainable.
Instead of making the lab more efficient and less costly, "for-profit" management of LLNL has blown this lab's cost profile through the roof! Get out while you can.
"First. The Supreme Court has held that pension funds are held in trust...".
First: In this case funds can be taken as long as the contractual obligation is met. !50% funding level suggest at least a 25% over-fund. Its gone.
Second: The supreme court has never made such a ruling.
Post a Comment