Skip to main content

UC pension fund for LLNL and LANL in budget

Anonymously contributed:

The President's budget for 2012 includes a request for at least $71.4M for the UC pension fund for LLNL and LANL retirees, before the LLC's. It is in the Nonproliferation part of the NNSA budget request - a strange place to put it, but I have not found any more elsewhere yet. Has anyone heard about this request from the UC side?

Comments

Anonymous said…
And the President's budget request for the LLC's current TCP1 pension shortfalls? What about that one?

Oh, I forgot. The DOE's promise of "substantially equivalent" is now null and void.
Anonymous said…
This contribution is the minimum required by the UC/DOE agreement. It is about 1/7th of the smoothed under funded figure. This information is usually in UC and UCRP annual reports thourgh June 30th of each year and published after accouting review in Nov or Dec. It is alot more infomation than LANS and LLNS publish about pensions.
Anonymous said…
9:55 pm: 'And the President's budget request for the LLC's ...'

Check pages 15-16 of the NNSA budget. There is money there (but none for LLNS, because it doesn't need it yet).

On the same page you can see where your raises went.
Anonymous said…
How about a link . . .
Anonymous said…
Could someone provide the link to this information? Thank you.
Anonymous said…
Here is a link the NNSA budget submission
http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/FY%202012%20NNSA%20Congressional%20Budget%20Submission_0.pdf
Unfortunately it is 562 pages long and the relevant paragraph is on page 354. Here it is copied below
University of California Pension Payments and
Contractor Pension Cost 0 0 71,448
Includes funding for contractor pension payments, primarily for the University of California, and
expected shortfalls from contractor supported defined benefit pensions. Unlike contractor pension
payments at NNSA sites, collected through labor rates and paid by the M&O contractor, the
University of California payment is a direct federal payment remaining from the transition of the
LANL and LLNL sites to private contractors.
Anonymous said…
Here is what I found on pages 57 and 467 of the 2010 NNSA congressional budget request (link below). The budget indicates $64.2M in the weapons element and $57.8M in the naval nuclear reactor element. That totals $122.0M, keep in mind that would be distributed amongst many agencies.

Here is some wording:

The requested funding will be used in part to reimburse the costs of DOE contractor contributions to defined-benefit (DB) pension plans as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), and consistent with Departmental direction. The PPA amended ERISA to require accelerated funding of DB pension plans so that the
plans become 100 percent funded in 2011. Most contractors that manage and operate DOE’s
laboratories, weapons plants, and execute environmental clean-up projects at various government owned sites and facilities are contractually required assume sponsorship of any existing contractor DB pension plans for incumbent employees who work and retire from these sites and facilities.

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/10budget/Content/Volumes/Volume1.pdf
Anonymous said…
Does anyone know why the 2010 budget request for the pensions of $122M was eventually cut or not approved and why there was apparently nothing requested 2011? Does anyone care?

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!