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
His complaint that a replacement was not in his opinion qualified, is matter of dispute. The hiring manager and responsible individual disagreed.
So we see very effective and well stated safety and work authorization procedures being followed by all, imcluding Rivera, perhaps peckishly.
What Moniz must decide is whether the safety issues Rivera , a senior technician, continued to raise cocerns in the face opposition of other reviewers, more experienced engineers, who better educated and experienced subject matter experts. Or were the congression law considerations, misappropriation of public funds by an unauthorized individual more important.
Either way Moniz decides this issue, the LLNL safe work authorization process works well.
Remember his narrow subject matter expertise relative to available etech positions lead his to be between assignments, like many other techs, for a number of periods over those periods of low funding. That he, along with 1700 very qualified and long-serving LLNL employees were released as a direct result of the increased costs of administering LLNL after the NNSA contact rebid blunders of 2007 and 2008 is not evidence of being fired for whistleblowing. Too many others like him were frogmarched out of LLNL on that shameful day.
Not sure what Moniz will do, but we wish him well. He did what he thought was right.
October 12, 2015 at 6:05 PM
So you think this blog is the only venue where these things get aired? Parochial.
BOTH OF THESE COST INCREASES OCCURED BECAUSE, IN SPITE OF BEING EXPLICITLY WARNED OF MUCH HIGHER COSTS, TRULY INCOMPETENT NNSA FOOLS WENT FORWARD WITH THE LLNL CONTACT REBID IN SPITE OF MASSIVE UNREIMBURSED ($150M) COSTS AT LANL DUE TO THE CONTACT REBID THERE.
NNSA stpidly plodded onward in face of sure knowledge of their error, costing Rivera and 1700 others their emploment...
..WHILE COSTS TO THE TAXPAYER, 1.5B, REMAINED THE SAME. 30% LESS WORK AND NO COST SAVINGS.
Bodner, d'Agostino and Pryzbylek are among
THE worst, most incompetent employees ever to mismanage government processes. I wish for each a painful, restless, quick, unhappy demise.
Nero is your memory.
Did you think that your shouting (in caps) would enhance your credibility? Nope. Try some more respect and civility when you post. But I guess as one who hopes for others "a painful, restless, quick, unhappy demise," you will not follow my advice. So much hate, so little perspective or knowledge or understanding. Well, luckily no one listens to people like you.
"...The employer has not sustained its burden to show that the claimant's conduct was willful or wanton under the circumstances and therefore has not shown misconduct. Accordingly, the employer discharged the claimant for reasons other than misconduct..."
It would seem after hearing testimony and case document analysis, the LLNS "for cause" dismissal allegation based on "poor performance" and "poor conduct" did not hold water with the Judge. The "under the circumstances" suggests LLNS did not apply its set of employment policies correctly or consistently in some manner, or the policies referenced by LLNS were irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Does this open the window for a FMLA violation complaint to the Department of Labor on top of Mr. Rivera's DOE complaint?