Skip to main content

Lab pension increase?

The Feb 2016 CPI-U was 3.0 in SF and 2.4 in LA. Therefore lab pensioners should see at least a minimum of 2.0% increase in pension payments in August.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The amount of the increase is also dependent on when you retired.
Anonymous said…
9:24 How does that work? For example I retired in 2006.
Anonymous said…
You ask how it works, who knows. Bean counters in the back figuring out things with ouija boards, tea leaves and actuarial tables.

Here's a link for the 2015 COLA announcment:

http://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2015/04/ucrp-benefits-recipients-to-receive-cost-of-living-adjustment.html

For those not willing to got to the link here's the salient information for the 2015 COLA:

Retirement Date COLA

On or before July 1, 2006 2.00%
July 2, 2006 – July 1, 2009 1.33%
July 2, 2009 – July 1, 2010 1.69%
July 2, 2010 – July 1, 2011 1.70%
July 2, 2011 – July 1, 2014 1.33%

I do not see a listing yet for 2016, but the announcement for 2015 was done on April 20th, so give it another week or so and Google ucrp cola 2016 and see what hits you get.
Anonymous said…
Thats ucrp. Tcp1 is different. Even though the minimum formula is the same for both. From memory:

If Cpi-u avg 0-2% full year increase is cpi-u avg
If Cpi-u avg 2%- 4%. 0 additional added above upper number.
If Cpi-u > 4% increase 1/2 (cpi-u - 4%) to 2% above.

It is effective in August pension payment. It is prorated in tcp1 for partial years. Ucrs may be different.

For the feb to feb year over year average of la and sfo cpi-u.

Also occasion adjustments are made periodically to bring segments closer to cpi.
stments
Anonymous said…
Here it is, the Cola for 2016

The July 1, 2016 COLA rates for UCRP and UC-PERS Plus 5 benefit recipients, including those receiving survivor and UCRP disability income, will be as follows:
Retirement Date COLA
On or before July 1, 2006 2.00%
July 2, 2006 – July 1, 2008 2.72%
July 2, 2008 – July 1, 2009 2.69%
July 2, 2009 – July 1, 2010 2.31%
July 2, 2010 – July 1, 2011 2.30%
July 2, 2011 – July 1, 2013 2.72%
July 2, 2013 – July 1, 2014 2.67%
July 2, 2014 – July 1, 2015 2.00%
Jhon Marshal said…
It was another joy to see your post. It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues. Great stuff as usual...
security guard service
Anonymous said…
So would the COLA for TCP1 retirees be the same as UCRP given the same retirement date ?
Anonymous said…
Again from memory, in years past the announced adjustments between UCRS and LLNL Tcp1 hss been slightly different,.. again giving lie to the ignominious Tyler Pryzbylek's soporific "assurance", "Substantially equivalent".

Both use the same basic yearly adjustment formula, but the additional recovery, in every cohort above the amount over 2%, appears to be a judgement call.

Be hopeful.
Anonymous said…
What? Tyler lied? Who knew?

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!