After some digging I have managed to get numbers on participants in LANS TCP1. At the end of 2012 there were 6172 people in the plan. At the end of 2014 there were 6181 people in the plan. So small numbers of people do seem to be getting into the plan. I do not know any way that spousal support or other mechanisms could increase the plan numbers. I think only allowing some more people in could increase the numbers. Does anyone know of any other mechanism that could increase the numbers?
The numbers are small but if some people can get into the plan, why not current employees? Does not seem fair or maybe even legal
The numbers are small but if some people can get into the plan, why not current employees? Does not seem fair or maybe even legal
Comments
If these numbers are correct, this smells like two class-action cases in the making. Those that elected to take TCP-1, having been informed that is was a closed plan, should have a decent case that additions to the plan after transition caused them damage. A much stronger case could be had by each and every employee hired by LANL after the transition that was not offered TCP-1. If one exception was made, then a few thousand exceptions should have been made. In the end, this may be much more costly than the WIPP fines or any lost fees.
April 17, 2016 at 2:18 PM
You must be enjoying it, because you're not leaving.
April 17, 2016 at 4:32 PM
You cannot leave because you cannot get a job, without Bechtel there is nothing for you in the real world, be grateful for job that Bechtel lets you have.
HaHaHaHoHoHoHeHeHe!!!!!! As if! Gone!!! Unlike you you corporate turd.
April 19, 2016 at 4:26 AM
Can someone cite the policy that permits this? And can anyone confirm when the policy went into place?
You could ask Director Bill Goldstein and Art Wong (SHRM) about TCP1 add ons after the 2007 transition.
April 19, 2016 at 4:26 AM
If true, that violates explicit wording in the Prime Contract. As if the Lab Director can grant himself authority to violate the contract by establishing a new "policy." Maybe there is more to the non-renewal of the Prime Contract for LANL than we've been led to believe.
The Lab Policy states that Charlie (and Anastasio) can approve anyone to be granted into TCP-1, and he's (they) been using his authority liberally to do so.
April 19, 2016 at 4:26 AM
Really?? Has this been in LANL policy ever since the transition? A reference to the Lab Policy would be helpful.
You are just wrong. TCP-2 is and was the retirement benefit plan available to all new employees after the transition. It is a 401k plan with match dependent on age and service. Look it up.
April 20, 2016 at 7:30 PM
It is not a pension!! Did you not understand that? It is a defined contribution plan, not a defined benefit plan. Do some homework. You have the same type of retirement benefit plan as almost all corporate employees in the US (which is what you are, and what you signed up for).
have switched between these two plans after the transition? For example, TCP2 employees wanting out of the plan after the stock market slide in 2008? (UCRP pension maintained and new zero balance TCP1 plan started)
April 21, 2016 at 8:35 AM
TCP-2 is not, and never was, a defined benefit plan. It permits individual employees to create individual defined contribution retirement accounts. If someone was dumb enough to place all their investments into a single basket, then they may have lost a lot. The more prudent choices are to have a diversified portfolio, and most of those weather bull and bear equities runs without going belly up, but also do not post 30% gains.
This is the exact issue with retirement options at LANL. The big promise of TCP-2 was that individual accounts would be controlled by the employee, not by the administrators of the plan. Many scientists held the view that they were smarter than the typical stock investor, and could realize many times larger returns than the more conservative UCRP.
TCP-1 was a defined benefit plan, pretty close to UCRP and was (supposedly) closed to new membership on the date of transition. Now it emerges that Charlie apparently has been adding friends and family to the "closed" plan in recent years.
If this turns out to be how it was done, the resulting scandal will take years to blow over.
Employees and former employees may feel differently of course.
April 22, 2016 at 7:39 AM
Don't know how NNSA can approve something that violates a contract that they signed, without an official contract modification. Maybe someone should ask the DOE IG about this. Because if it happened, then one party or both, violated the contract.
Excellent observation. I don't know if beneficiaries resulting from a QDRO are "on the list" as pension recipients, but that should not be too hard to determine. Good catch.
----
The provisions described in this SPD, except as indicated, are effective January 1, 2014.
Eligibility
You are eligible to participate in the Plan if:
- on September 30, 2007, you were employed by, or on an approved leave of absence from employment with, the University of California (UC), and were an active participant in the University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) or in an employment classification eligible to become an active participant in the UCRP, and
- you have not retired from or elected inactive vested status in the UCRP, and
- you accepted employment with LLNS on October 1, 2007 (or you accepted employment on a later date but only if you were on an approved leave of absence from employment with the University of California on September 30, 2007), and
- prior to accepting employment with LLNS, you elected Total Compensation Package 1 (TCP1).
Who May Not Participate
You are not eligible to participate in the Pension Plan if ANY of the following applies to you:
- you began employment with LLNS after October 1, 2007 (unless the delay in your date of hire was due to an approved leave of absence from employment with UC-LLNL), or
- you were not a participant in the UCRP or in an employment classification eligible to become a participant in the UCRP prior to October 1, 2007, or
- prior to accepting employment with LLNS, you elected to be employed by LLNS under the terms of Total Compensation Package 2 (TCP2) and did not elect TCP1, or
- you were not hired in a category of employees eligible to participate in the Pension Plan (for example, you are employed in the job classification “Laboratory Associate”), or
- you are not classified by LLNS, in its sole discretion (even if the classification is subsequently determined to be erroneous or is retroactively revised) as a common law employee of LLNS for purposes of federal tax withholding (e.g., you are an independent contractor), or
- you are reemployed after a termination of employment, and are not subject to one of the exceptions stated on page 6, or
- you are a “leased employee,” as defined in federal law.
Effective on and after May 1, 2008, members in the employment classification of “student employee” shall no longer be eligible to participate in the Plan and shall not thereafter resume participation in the Plan even if their employment classification changes.
---
So at least at LLNL it seems clear TCP1 is a closed plan.