ANonymously contributed:
============================================================================================
Parney does it again....
Did Parney say what I thought I heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Contributions are not required for TCP-1 right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) LLNS is still going to try to contribute $40M this year (half of what they planned)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) The employees are still required to make contributions in spite of 1) above, and LLNS is going to increase it by 40% in July "because that's what UC is doing".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So....the employees are going to see an increase in contributions, which are not required now, to offset future DOE contributions?
Yes, I know, the pundits in the crowd are going to ask why I'm surprised....I'm not.
Comments
My notes from the meeting:
Actuaries say contribution required for pension is 80m, but we [LLNS] are going to take a "calculated risk" and only pay in 40m this year.
Meanwhile you [the employees] are going to have a 40% increase in what you pay in.
No "calculated risk" reduction in your required pay-in. [After all, that wouldn't get me a bonus.]
Anyway...no big deal...we're just staying "substantially equivalent" to what the UC is doing.
/////////
Of course, that is a complete lie because:
UC goes 5% to 6.5% on July 1.
We go 5% to 7% on Jan 1.
UC is pre-tax
We are post-tax.
Bottom Line: The lab is choosing to underfund their end of the pension bargain they sold us when they announced (with zero employee input) that they were imposing a post-tax pension fee on us.
We have no employees on our own pension board!
These decisions are being made for selfish reasons and personal gain (bonuses, currying favor, etc) by people who are not even in our pension.
It's disturbing and augurs poorly for the future health of the pension.
After that, you'll get a match of some sort to your 401k if you're lucky and perhaps a reduction in future medical retirement benefits.
The trend should be clear by now. WIthout a strong voice (i.e., union representation) you have no negotiation power when management decides to change things. Yes, you can go get a lawyer, but they have more lawyers and can stall out any legal actions for many years.
Only a union with strike threat ability can stop a management team that jerks around emloyees. The federal government would not like seeing a strike at their nuclear weapons facilities. It's not like they could break the strike by suddenly bringing in a bunch of TS cleared nuclear physicist with weapons expertise along with radiation facility engineers.
Add that to the ~14% pay cut (7% x 2 for taxes) that the pension pay-in will be hitting us with in a couple of months.
The deal at LLNL continues to get worse with every passing month and more and more talent will continue to leave.
Which I guess must be what they want.
That's how they did it all across corporate america...same playbook will be used here.
Below is the original post for this thread (seems it got mangled above by the blog software):
Parney does it again....
Did Parney say what I thought I heard?
1) Contributions are not required for TCP-1 right now.
2) LLNS is still going to try to contribute $40M this year (half of what they planned)
3) The employees are still required to make contributions in spite of 1) above, and LLNS is going to increase it by 40% in July "because that's what UC is doing".
So....the employees are going to see an increase in contributions, which are not required now, to offset future DOE contributions?
Yes, I know, the pundits in the crowd are going to ask why I'm surprised....I'm not.
After a bunch of these games, they'll freeze the pension.
That's pretty much baked in.
What's next: the shortfall the pension will have 10-15 years from now and who will pick up the bill for that?
PBGC? (30 cents on the dollar)
DOE? (if they exist then)
DOD? (if LLNL is under DOD then)
Contractor at that time? (if LLNL still exists then)?
That's the next big screwing point. The current screwing is over. As someone said above, there is no visibility or influence into the pension decisions being made now.
Set your sights on defending the next big screwing point.
Add that to the ~14% pay cut (7% x 2 for taxes) that the pension pay-in will be hitting us with in a couple of months.
Welcome to LANL. Three years ago.
As for where the money comes from, overhead skim. Why do you think DOE pushed back when LLNL first requested?
LLNS should have given up the $80M this years and $80M every years afterwards instead of playing games with people's lives. I guess they needed the extra $40M for bonus checks and pay raises for ULM or maybe it went to NIF, Afterall they do have HOPE.
"As for where the money comes from, overhead skim. Why do you think DOE pushed back when LLNL first requested?"
That doesn't make any sense...DOE should want us to spend our overhead on shoring up the pension, since they're on the hook for our pension if it fails.
Why would DOE be against that???
That certainly wasn't made clear in the transition meetings/materials.
The warnings were there, maybe not in a bolded large font, but they were there with a minimal amount of digging.
I chose TCP2 because I didn't trust LLNS. If TCP1 survives in good order, I made the wrong choice.
October 14, 2012 3:47 PM
NNSA will never "go away." If you believe it will, you are hopelessly naive. NNSA is a well entrenched beaurocracy, with well-established DOE hacks and apparatchicks in control. The Feds in the Forrestal will be there long after you have been booted out to try to survive on a bankrupt "pension." The sooner you make peace with this reality, the better you will be prepared for your personal fiscal cliff.
Isn't PA just another contractor like the rest of us?
He simply cannot be that dense.
Is he still being advised by Lynn Soderstom?
You must pay but NNSA reneges?
Wow, if this stands he should just take your wallets.
Seedy, Feckless leadership.
Molly Munger only wants 5% more, Barry O'drama wants 12% more.
Gov. Moonbeam is a piker asks only 3% more.
Veto them all. Sure are a lot of hands out for your hard earned dollar.
Local governments take budget knife to retiree health plans (Reuters, Oct 15th)
As cash-strapped U.S. cities and states struggle to address gaping budget holes, a long-honored benefit for public-sector workers has come into the cross-hairs of budget cutters: retiree health insurance.
A growing number of states and cities are eliminating or reducing health coverage for retirees, a benefit that has long fallen by the wayside for most private-sector workers.
Are these the folks that were already retired at the time of transition?
Just like his salary.
What cavalier decision.
You cannot save for your kids college because Parney wants to be extra careful.
He is out of touch.
According to Newsline the date of the 40% increase to the TCP1 Employee contributions is now at same time as UC (July 2013).
No commitment on LLNS contribution to TCP1. Note how they never put these commitments in writing (so they can deny/change them later).
UC employee contribution 6.5% *pre-tax*
LLNL employee contribution 7% x 2 (for taxes) = 14%
6.5% vs 14% is NOT "equivalent"
6.5% vs 7% is not "equivalent"
Parney has spent way too long in Washington....where lying is the primary way of talking.
Poor decision.
Poor transparency.
Poor communication.
Poor damage control.
Bring back Tarter.
What a powerful, discouraging message.
October 17, 2012 6:55 PM
It is not just "optics;" the lab IS bad, by all objective criteria. Bringing back Tartar, even if it were possible, could not possibly change things at this point. The die is cast. Wait for the past to come again or deal with the present. Which is the rational choice?
"It is not just optics, the lab IS bad"
I hate to say it, but I'm coming to that same conclusion myself...at some point we have to stop giving these guys the benefit of the doubt and accept that this is who they are.
They've given no evidence to the contrary over these past 5 years. It's really stacking up.
One thing I appreciated during the UC days was that we were all in the same boat (benefits, pension, etc) and we rose and fell together as a team. The way things are structured now incentivizes every man for himself, and we have been seeing that in spades over these past 5 years.
It's sad. I deeply enjoy the scientific side of my work, but at some point all of these games are too much and it's time to do that work elsewhere...
PGBC will pay 20-30 cents on the LLNL pension dollar. Have to start diversifying my retirement strategy.
It is an unnecessary material decline in the employee standard of living.
All because Bodner, D'Agostino, Pryzbylek, Domenici, Stupak and Dingell thought they had a bright idea... the miracle of privatization.
Congressional and Executive hubris.
Approximately $200M in increased management fees, new tax liabilities, medical cost increases due to smaller employee pools, increased pension costs occur EACH YEAR compared to UC management.
All borne by firing 1800 employees and reducing the standard of living of the remaining 6500.
For a dubious bit more NNSA management control?
Who managed to keep their labs existing management contracts in place in spite of the orgy of folly surrounding them.
When the first effects privatization were upon us, I thought to at least keep the compensation rate the same by reducing effective hours worked to something more reasonable. It appeared that many of colleagues did the same, and we accepted the increased response time. I soon tired of more passive-agressive measures and for a while put in only 40 hours per week, but found it didn't suit, so instead I avoided taking on or doing well those items I disliked.
I did not present the required scold to employees for trivial matters such as parking offenses, gave people needed time off for family leave, didn't look scrupulously at "work at home" issues, would not force employees to do things they objected to and in general, lead a work life that was less assiduously rule-based and more tolerant of human conditions.
This felt better to show that some unenforced onerous conditions aren't.
And it didn't affect my non-existent performance compensation.
And I tried, at least once per week, to preserve the afternoon stroll through the department offices to see what my favorite lovelies were wearing that day.
Some of life is what you make it.
The sad thing about these parodies is that sometimes you cant tell if they are real or by some really crazy person. Everything in the post is opposite of the truth so I am going for parody.
Cherry Murray is a Dean at Harvard now. She is very highly regarded. She was not at the lab long enough and did not bring in an army of people she knows, to create a system of cronyism.
The other individual... well, you can connect the dots.