Pensioners
Didn't LLNS know when they bid on the contract they were taking on pensioners?
We're not DOE employees, we're LLNS employees. UC puts in their money. LLNS, not DOE, needs to put in theirs.
Sorry you miscalculated your profits. When you take post tax contributions from your employees, you have no place to hide.
By the way, you don't need permission to do the right thing.
Didn't LLNS know when they bid on the contract they were taking on pensioners?
We're not DOE employees, we're LLNS employees. UC puts in their money. LLNS, not DOE, needs to put in theirs.
Sorry you miscalculated your profits. When you take post tax contributions from your employees, you have no place to hide.
By the way, you don't need permission to do the right thing.
Comments
August 30, 2013 at 2:05 PM
Yes, but keep in mind they're not the controlling partner in LLNS - UC is.
Rechtel is one evil company! The have no business running our national research labs.
Other than at the time of the Lab's founding and the associated influx from the Rad Lab, was there ever a serious flow of UC academic managers to either LANL or LLNL?
UC put in money that DOE or its predecessors agreed were allowable costs covered by the contracts. I'm not aware of the academic system ever subsidizing costs at the labs other than the superb investment performance of UCRS providing a free ride to all for many years.
September 1, 2013 at 7:59 PM"
Well I do know thar UC does have programs for funding undergraduate, graduate and collaborations with the labs that from the contract fee money. It does help both UC and the labs and shows good faith.
I bet a company like Bechtel would be so evil that if it ever figured a way to take over the public water water system it would jack up the prices and prevent people from even collecting rain water! If the people rose up they would probably have them killed...Oh wait, ya they already did that. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/thestory.html
Dr. Albright, if we have to put in - you have to put in.
Where's our $88 million?
I am calling BS on this. How much does the LLNLs get in fees? About 90M. Hmm that is all you need to know baby, all you need know.
So where's this money from
"overhead on payroll" going? Where is it now?
Certainly not to the pension fund. Why take my money first, and then pay nothing?
Something doesn't sound right.
Personally I don't think the people GAF about layoffs due to lack of overhead. What they acre about more than any project you will ever have al LLNL is their pension, as they should. Anyone who put the project first is a fool. If overhead funds usage assure no lay-offs then why do you have so many people on the EBA and transition list? I say those two list need to be done away with. No money, no job, immediately, no expense to the firm.
Pretty amazing the spin you're putting on it.
What you are saying is only *retroactively* true because lobbyists buried some language in the MAP21 transportation bill to radically change the way pension obligations are calculated.
Under the standard pension obligation calculations, Parney owed the $88m.
Which is why you sneak into your argument phrases like "what Parney has been saying *for about a year*" and "there is no *current* requirement", etc.
Typical Bechtel lawyer spinning and weasel wording.
The fact remains: that when we were told we all were going to contribute to this, management said they were putting in $88m and we were putting in our 7% share. Since, then, they've used this loophole inserted into a transportation bill to duck their full share, while charging us our full share.
If, under the new lobbyist-inserted math, they don't need to put funds into the pension, then it is overfunded (Parney said it was at 109%), and we don't need to either.
Those are the facts.
Your spin is appalling, purposefully misleading, and exemplifies everything that is wrong with the current era.
Where did it go?
Employees are making their POST tax contribution. What about the employer?
Not buying it, if it is a clear as you say it is they could have simply said this. They have have now which points to only one reason. Something about your posts always sounds like propaganda and bs.
I'm buying it because it is correct. It is also what Parney has said pretty cleaerly.
Why don't we get to "bet" that yields will go back up....and not pay in our post-tax 7%, like they're not paying in their full pension payment?
Apparently only the employer gets to do that? Only a lawyer could call the current state of affairs "substantially equivalent".
Either we BOTH don't pay in and we gamble together on future rates...or we both pay in our fair share and build up some breathing room for future market crashes.
The current situation is unequal and NOT what was briefed to us very clearly in the pension contribution briefing. We have the slides. You and Parney can spin it all you want. The facts remain.
Where is DOE's legal obligation to make the pension whole spelled out?
I thought LLNS is managing our pension and they will just (like all corporations) kick it to PBGC if it starts failing...?
How is DOE involved?
September 3, 2013 at 9:38 PM"
I think not. You sound like you have an agenda to me. In no way was it ever spelled out clearly by Parney or anyone else what the situation is and you know this.
Really? Guaranteed? By DOE?
Bwaaaa, haaaa, haaaa, haaa, haaaaaaaaaa !
You swallowed that "substantial equivalent" verbal promise by DOE of years past, I see. Good luck with that one.
You must travel in high management circles...for the rest of us peons all we can do is go to the all-hands and read the slides. The information provided to us is paltry and often not in writing (ie % funded of pension, when and how much LLNL is putting into pension each year, etc).
From your posts (assuming you made some of the posts above) I learned as much as I've learned from the all-hands.
You know when & what employees paid.
Employees are well aware that the original proposal held true only for employee contribution.
Can you provide a link or reference to this information? Is there a table or chart somewhere? That would be very useful. I am truly interested.
I have heard many times over the past year that LLNL plans to contribute X to the TCP1 pension, but as far as I know there have been no employer contributions. I do not want to know what is "planned." I want to know what has been done.
LLNL/LLNS tried to describe how our 62% payroll burden was being used to benefit employees in a mailing distributed in March/April. Some items were obvious such as employer contributions to social security and health care. But they had the audacity to claim that all TCP1 pension benefits were the result of the LLNL payroll burden. This was a ridiculous claim because essentially all of the pension value is due to previous actions at UC.
So I want to know, what have they actually contributed? Simple question.
That mailer was a joke. Full of lawyer weasel words, caveats, asterisks, etc.
It never says LLNS paid into our pension. It says LLNS "accrued liabilities" and "incurred costs", never says they actually paid a dime in.
And I love all the caveats:
"This statement is for illustration purposes only....not intended to be a record of actual benefits"
"LLNS reserves the right to terminate, amend, or replace these plans at any time. Nothing in this statement shall be construed as...a guarantee of any rights or benefits under the plans.
Not to mention that the whole thing is a projection, not an accounting of what they/we actually paid in. Giving them a huge legal out to just say, "oh, I guess we projected wrong....things changed, etc"
I'd like to see some straight talk.
TCP1 employees paid in X in year Y.
LLNS paid in X in year Y.
Simple table.
I am not saying you are wrong but when I talk to my coworkers not one of them really understands what is going on with the pension, if you ask 10 people you get 10 different answers. I think we where trying very hard to listen and understand what has been said but we really do not understand. I hope you can understand our apprehension.
I have to be honest I was initially very skeptical of what was said on this and the former LANL about the conspiracy of all the bad things that where going to happen to the labs once the contract changed. I thought this was just fear of anything different or of chang. I even thought change can be good. After the last five years I have seen that many of these fears are indeed true. We when through a buyout, a RIF, another buyout, huge uncertainty and fear, outrageous overhead, confused talk, and huge salary increases for management. It was all they said and worse. There has not been a single benefit to LLNL, LANL and the United States people from the contract change. So pardon us if we do not understand what is being said or that we do not trust what is being said. LLNL and LANL used to be great places to work where served your country. This I fear is no longer the case. The post by Keven Moore rings true and for the young people they can see that there are much better places to be where you can serve your country and not make a profit for a company who does not care about you, the work or the United States.
Per LLNL 2007 transition slides:
"LLNS’s benefit plans are governed by a federal law known as ERISA, which provides rights and protections to plan participants and beneficiaries that are different than those applicable to public sector employees covered by State of California benefit provisions."
on the web: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was established by ERISA to provide coverage in the event that a terminated defined benefit pension plan does not have sufficient assets to provide the benefits earned by participants.
If a plan is terminated because an employer has financial difficulty and cannot fund the plan, and the plan does not have enough money to pay the promised benefits, the PBGC will assume responsibility for the plan. The PBGC pays benefits after termination up to a certain maximum guaranteed amount.
Once again I thank god I'm in TCP2.
PBGC is in serious financial trouble.
And even if PBGC survives, their maximum payouts are very low. ie very best you'll do is 37k at age 60.
http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits/maximum-guarantee.html
Your talking about people that gave you their career, now you've got to take care of them. You don't get to eat the meal and forego the payment.
It never says LLNS paid into our pension. It says LLNS "accrued liabilities" and "incurred costs", never says they actually paid a dime in.
I looked at the mailer. The mailer tries to assign a cost value beyond salary for employee benefits received in 2012 (e.g., health care). There are two columns. One column says, "You Paid". The other column says, "LLNS Paid". It says I paid $500 for Health Care (approximately) and LLNS paid $5000. It says I paid $0 for Dental and LLNS paid $500. Fair enough.
But for the TCP1 pension or my future benefits from the pension, the mailer says that I paid $4000 and LLNS paid $40,000 in 2012. Huh??? Yes, I paid $4000 last year but LLNS did not pay anything as far as I know. They certainly did not pay 10 times the employee contributions.
Yes, there is an asterisk in the mailer mentioning "accrued liabilities" and so forth. But this is just plain ridiculous. Since the pension has been over funded since the transition, accrued liabilities are effectively still being funded by the UC over contribution in 2007. At least currently, LLNS has nothing to do with it. Zip.
So it was really offensive for LLNS to claim that they contributed funds (it said "LLNS Paid") to my pension benefits when they have not.
But I agree with your post. I do not believe a simple table is too much to ask.
Actual employee & employer numbers of dollars from LLNS take over to date.
I had very similar numbers in my mailer. Showing "LLNS Paid" 10x what I paid in to the pension in 2011 and 2012.
That clearly is NOT the case. In fact, best I can tell LLNS paid ZERO in in 2011 and 2012 (still coasting on UC gains from the past).
LLNS claims they're going to put 40m in for 2013...but then again LLNS claimed they were going to put 88m in for 2012 (verbally and in writing), and that never happened. So, their promises are irrelevant. I want to see an accounting of what's actually going in from us and from LLNS.
To clarify: the mailer showed I paid zero in 2011, but showed they paid 41k in (which they didn't). And then showed my payment (incorrectly calculated, but within a thousand) in 2012 and theirs roughly 10x mine (though actually lower than 2011).
The whole thing makes no sense.
Start making regular & routine contributions to the pension fund (with some part of that increased overhead rate money).
Doesn't matter if its over funded, think of it as PR. The employees sing you praise, other complex managers are dazzled at you're managerial suave, and LLNS come out looking competent & smelling like a rose.
We get it, Why should a short term contract "for profit" company want to spend money on pensions. Its just one of those expenses you can't avoid. Remember UC did it with less money, it can be done.
For all I know LLNS contributed $20M in 2012. They first said they would make contributions. Then they said they would not. Then they said they would. But I have yet to see an explicit statement about what was actually done in 2012. Not planned, but done.
Why is it so difficult to put this information in a simple table that is available on the benefits web site or another location?
Provide a reference to a written commitment that our pension is "backed by Uncle Sam". I have seen no such proof. I have requested it from HR multiple times and received no answer each time, over a number of years.
Overhead rate have gone up, Where is that money going?
Additionally, Pre vs. Post tax means having a 7% vs. 14% paycheck reduction.
I have looked over the slides, read what you said, looked at documents that are available. Sorry I am still very confused and so are my coworkers.
LLNS is legally required to make the necessary contributions to the plan and would be reimbursed for those contributions under the contract between LLNS and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is a part of the United States Government under the Department of Energy. NNSA is contractually obligated to reimburse the pension costs under the contract. NNSA's contract with LLNS also requires that at the end of the LLNS contract, the responsibility for the pension plan be transferred to the entity which is awarded the follow-on contract with NNSA or, if there is no such entity, the contract be extended with LLNS so the payment of the costs of continuing the benefits can be made by NNSA. NNSA thus has an ongoing obligation to reimburse the allowable TCP1 pension plan costs in the future.
Regular and routine contributions, by current managing party, are how to continue maintenance of that fund.
Post tax employee contribution alone, is an abrogation of the managing party's responsibility.
Will NNSA: (a) make the project fund "pension tax" even higher, thus killing off the viability of some research projects, or (b) take even more out of the salaries of the employees to make up the growing pension shortfalls?
It's clear that incoming funds for the NNSA labs are dropping so this situation is going to hit eventually.
Good point.
You'd think a simple data table of actual out-of-pocket contributions would be easy.
$20M in 2012
$40M in 2013.
None before 2012 for years.
Those were employer contributions.
Employee was probably around $10M in 2012 since it was 5% and didn't start right away, and around $20M from here on out. This is based on assuming roughly 3000 in tcp1, 7%, and average salary of $100K.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/6/energy-department-loses-42-million-loan-michigan-c/
You think it would be taken into consideration. Not all employees earn many hundreds of $K per year.
Too bad.
IRS doesn't say how much who should pay.
UC employees pension pay cut = 7%
LLNL employees pension pay cut = 14%
Only in the lawyers "substantially equivalent" world are these 2 things equal.
PBGC is in serious financial trouble.
And even if PBGC survives, their maximum payouts are very low. ie very best you'll do is 37k at age 60.
http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits/maximum-guarantee.html
September 5, 2013 at 3:24 AM
Just hand TCP-1 over to PBGC and get-r-done with. It's been heading that way since 2007. It is time for LLNS to do what is right.
LLNL pension: 109% funded
UC pension: 85% funded
Is that also "completely equivalent" from the DOE point of view...
September 12, 2013 at 7:08 AM
You really won't like that if you are in TCP1. PBGC is much less well funded than TCP1 and can only cover about 60% of its obligations. You think 60% of your pension is a good deal?
PBGC is NOT the answer!!!
1) It is nearly bankrupt.
2) PBGC maximum payouts are very low. ie very best you'll do is 37k at age 60.
http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits/maximum-guarantee.html
Employees have lost all power when it comes to dealing with corrupt & greedy managements. It's not about to change anytime soon. The only safe path is to have your own money saved up in your bank account. Even then, you can expect the government to come after it with taxes and fees in future years. Just look what happened to the bank accounts of the poor people of Cyprus this year!
September 14, 2013 at 9:17 AM"
The poor people of Cyprus? I have no sympathy for them nor should you. We all play the game and some win and some lose, just like at LLNL. To blame the management at the labs for being corrupt is just pathetic. The management and other members of corporate American are just people that that adapted to the new rules of the game, and yes
all games have winners and losers. I am sorry that you lost but that is how it goes. You are just like the people that made a living off horseshoes in 1905. You new the car could be coming but you said no fair I should keep doing it my way. The more savvy people knew where to move and you cannot blame them for doing so. The exact and I do mean exact thing is true in LLNL and more broadly the new economy. The world was changing and you had to had to adapt and become part of the management and benefit or stay a horseshoe salesmen. You have no right to blame LLNLs, LANs or anyone other corporation that is successful for the fact that you insisted on selling horseshoes. This is the law of the world and always has been. There is no such thing as a morally good or bad corporation and manager, there are simply managers and corporations which are you part of or not, just as there was no morally good or bad cars that replaced horses. You can say we are LLNL or LANL and we are special! Wake up you not, there is no difference between you and any other corporate worker, except workers in the real world are grateful for what they have and do not blame the boss for being a success.
Winning does not make something right.
By your philosophy serial killers are great, as long as they keep "winning"
Terrorists are great, as long as they keep "winning"
Brutal dictators are fantastic, as long as they keep winning.
Your philosophy makes zero sense.
You have such an impoverished sense of life that getting with the winners (regardless of who they are, what they're doing, and how they operate), is all you live by. Very sad.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Mark 8:36
September 15, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Try to pay better attention. There is no "guarantee" - the government pension safeties don't apply, and PBGC coverage will not even get you 50% of what you are due. Wake up.
Losing does not make anything right either and is usually rather inconvenient
>By your philosophy serial killers >are great, as long as they keep >"winning"
Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god.
>Terrorists are great, as long as >they keep "winning"
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter
>Brutal dictators are fantastic, >as long as they keep winning.
History is written by the victors
>Your philosophy makes zero sense.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
>You have such an impoverished >sense of life that getting with >the winners (regardless of who >hey are, what they're doing, and >how they operate), is all you >live by. Very sad.
Sincerity makes the very least person to be of more value than the most talented hypocrite.
Well, you've clearly got it all figured out and rationalized away.
US invasion ever comes:
You will be with the invaders.
I will be with the resistance.
Good to know. Good luck.
Please cite where anything says that DOE has any obligation at all to cover the LLNS/LANS TCP1 pensions? These are pensions offered by private firms and are not government funded. I think you need to get a clue about for whom you actually work. Or, try reading the NNSA (not DOE) contract.
September 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM
That doesn't make it a government pension. NNSA has no obligation to make up any shortfalls. If the pension investments tank, so do the payouts.