Friday, April 8, 2016
NNSA plan to reduce contractors' pension obligations
I just browsed through the just released NNSA FY17 Stockpile Stewardship Plan, and an item in the 5-year funding plan caught my eye. NNSA is planning to reduce their contractor pension obligations by 70% over the next 3 years ! Reminder: contractors = LLNL, Sandia, Lanl, etc. That's us folks ! There is not a single word in that document that says how they plan to dump us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Nothing surprising here.
Would that affect current tcp1 retirees too?
NNSA employees lack adequate vision to do their job. With no sense of what to do, they settle on what not to do. Don't pay pensions.
Instead, the mindset should be what do we need to do to attract, train, motivate and retain a somewhat better cohort than is needed to do the mission?
Since training and retention is so important to this endeavor - nuclear weapons science and related special and emerging technologies, including a platform and complex overhaul over the next 100 -200 years, until someone has a better idea than Pax Americana- long term retention is a requirement.
A pension, not necessarily a lavish pension, but time phased slowly accrued defered compensation over the desired retention time, is a sound, proven aid in keeping the folks that were trained and have essential knowledge and capacity.
One leg of the human performnce triad, which msintains our defensive triad.
Does DC care? The smart ones do.
Where are the string of communications from SHRM to lab employees on this important matter? Cricket, cricket.
FY16 NNSA SSMP regarding the Legacy Contractor Pensions funding line: "This funding provides the annual NNSA share of the DOE’s reimbursement of payments made to the University of California (UC) Retirement Plan (UCRP) for former UC employees and annuitants who worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) and Los Alamos National Lab (LANL). The UCRP benefit for these individuals is a legacy cost and DOE’s annual payment to the UC is required by the contracts. The amount of the annual payment is based on the actuarial valuation report and is covered by the terms described in the contracts. Funding for these contracts will be paid through the Legacy Contractor Pension line item."
Funding for these contracts will be paid through the Legacy Contractor Pension line item."
April 10, 2016 at 9:31 AM
Which NNSA is reducing by 70% over the next three years, according to FY17 plan.
Only a fool believes the promises of our government.
Blundering government was the genius of the founding fathers. Less government means better, freer lives for citizens.
What does this mean for the LLNS/TCP1 retirement system?
We were over-funded at 125% two years ago.
This is the annual NNSA share of the DOE's reimbursement of payments made to UCRP, so not sure how it impacts TCP1, seems like it would impact TCP2 (for those who are freezing with UC)? I think if there is any concern it wouldn't hurt for someone to give them a call to clarify.
What, a voice of reason??? Shame on you!!
If my memory serves, pension obligations to active pendions are paid out of current institutions funding and employee member contributions. So for TCP2 members the lab contribution to 401k for years of service, plus its emploee match comes from its current budget. In TCP1 its contibution is a lump sum based on its perception of what the ERISA rules are. A few years ago llnl decided to contribute $40 m to TCP1. Employees contibutions are also made.
So the funding of ongoing pensions is different, if memory serves, than the legacy agreement between UCRS and DOE to manage its portion of any underfunding of UCRS for lab employees who have or will retire under UCRS. The obligstion was a contract between DOE and the UC Regents stipulating the parties obligation at the contact (48) termination.
In the recent past LLNL TCP1 pension obligations rose about 5% each year. This grows with the CPI increase of retirees, drops with the folks who die, and increases with the new accrued year of service and salary increase of future pensioners. It increases by the employee and employer contributions and decresses by payouts. Recently the net of all these changes is about 5% each year.
An estimate can be made of the current funding ratio by taking the last publically disclosed number, perhaps 120% subtracting 5% and then adding the estimated returns on the investment portfolio. Last year probably -0%.
It can most dramatically be affected by ERISA mandated changes in the discount rate, which is the denominator in the expected value of future cash flows. These are large one time large changes that reflect ERISAs assessment of future market returns. Since the current value is a very reasonable 5,5%, it is unlikely to be changed much in the near future. For comparison UCRS, PERS and STRS use nearly 7%. Unachievable according to an internal source.
When our chilfren get a correct complete accounting of the public obligations we have left them, they will see that we die early. And we will deserve it.
What is the impact on current UCRP pensioners of the 70% decrease over the next 3 years in the NNSA legacy pension line item?
It is an estimate of what will be needed to meet the shortfall in funding for DOE contractual obligationns to the labs cohort that has or will retire from UC. Done by actuaries who read the separation agreement contract between the DOE and UC Regents and predict based on suvival, cohort size, pension amounts tech how much is required, The requirement changes if conditions change based on the agreement.
Reiirees see nonebof this, they reire sccording to thebterms ofbUCRS pension.
... sorry about the quality, on an android tablet the text editor is damn near impossible to use well. Key parts of the text box are hidden from the editor during review.
In short, DOE sigened an enforcement contract with the regents, to make good the pension obligation of lab UCRS retirees. It is making whatever payments are necessary.
But NNSA is planning on reducing their obligation by 70% over the next 3 years. Are they hoping for a monumental die-off, nuclear war, or simply planning to jerk the rug out from under UCRS retirees in true NNSA FU style? BOHICA !!
The reasons depend on the agreement terms. We do not know them. It may be as simple as DOE agreed to pay the full liability in a few years and it now is nearly paid off.
Or it could be actuarial reasons. The amount of the shortfall or surplus is not linear year to year. The increase in liabilities due to current active members may be a slowly decreasing funtion. The changing divisor of the annutiy present value is a step which for this agreement is unknowh. It can change positively or negatively as the expected market returns are updated.
Not enough info here to know.
Not enough info here to know.
April 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM
Agreed. However, plenty of reason to set some folks' hair on fire. as usual.
A 70% reduction in 3 years is not a "slowly decreasing function." Doesn't anyone have real information about this?
Doesn't anyone have real information about this?
April 15, 2016 at 7:52 PM
Yes, but you won't find it on an idiotic blog. You actually have to do some hard research and query government agencies for information, maybe file a FOIA request, you know, do your homework and stop being so lazy. If you are lucky, contact a journalist who has sources and contacts he/she is willing to mine for info. Blog postings looking for real information are for kids in pajamas in their parents' basements. If it is really important to you, be willing to expend some actual effort.
LLNL and LANL retirees need to take up more smoking, drinking, and general bad behavior (like street racing) so as to reduce the number of people in the pool. That would minimize the shortfall. Got it !
That's the ticket ! Go for it, we are behind you.
HeHeHe - not a chance, sonny boy, We got ours; you're on your own. HeHe!
Somebody is approaching her time of the month. Tred softly.
Chocolate. A warm bath. And for you retirees in California acting peckish, a marinol brownie.
"You.have to..you have to.. you have too.." must be an only child.
From Ernest Moniz's congressional statement:
http://energy.gov/articles/secretary-monizs-written-testimony-presidents-fy2016-budget-us-house-representatives
Excerpt:
MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE: IMPROVING EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
Building on the Department’s FY 2015 emphasis on management and performance, the FY 2016 Budget moves forward on initiatives that continue to identify and institutionalize improvements across the DOE enterprise.
In the Department’s efforts to improve management and performance, we have adopted project management reforms, including strengthening the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) from an ad hoc process into an institutionalized regular process for situational awareness on project progress and issues, as they arise. ESAAB will be supported directly by a Project Management Risk Committee, which brings together DOE experts for a continuous look at the risk profile of major projects and issues. We have also taken steps to improve the project peer review process and institutionalize other project management reforms.
We have also continually worked to improve management, increase efficiency, and support diversity on a number of fronts. We have recruited 30 high-level Ambassadors from industry, academia, and nonprofits to increase participation of minorities in energy. We have resolved hiring issues at the Bonneville Power Administration, providing additional Human Resources training and restoring hiring authority. The Department’s management and operating contractors have reduced pension plan liability by $100 million through lump sum buyouts. Our management and operating contractors have also established Health Reimbursement Accounts at 13 sites for their medical-eligible retirees, reducing long term financial statement liability by $2.8 billion.
Going forward, the Budget includes $25 million for the Office of the Human Capital Officer to implement a new Human Resources service delivery model to streamline our HR model and eventually consolidate 17 current service centers to five key delivery centers. We will also implement a new Energy Jobs Council to improve calculation of energy jobs data and strengthen technical support for state workforce development programs. We will also continue to strengthen Departmental cybersecurity programs, part of the Cybersecurity crosscutting initiative, through an enterprise-wide cyber council established in 2013 for securing personal data, our nuclear security data, and the privately-owned energy infrastructure."
High Retention CPI
http://androidappinstall.salvusappsolutions.com/account/login
High Retention is our more advanced CPI product. Users get incentivized for downloading, installing, and keeping your app
for at least three days.This is the right campaign type for you if you are looking for users to keep your app for at
least a certain amount of time in order for you to improve your play or app store ranking.
High Retention CPI
Post a Comment