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
42 comments:
Mitosis?
LLNS can do what it wants. If you are important enough and they want to hire you, they can add you as a perk. They must have added more than 9 people in that time, because some people in the plan died.
TCP-1 at LANL is either a closed plan or it is not a closed plan, don't see how it can be any other way. As pointed out by an earlier poster, all closed plans have shrinkage on an annual basis, as members die. Having growth in a plan on an annual basis looks like it is NOT a closed plan.
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.
Did LLNS add to the "closed" TCP1 population after the transition as well? The topic refers to the LANS TCP1 head count after transition.
Bechtel is raping us. Surprised?
Bechtel is raping us. Surprised?
April 17, 2016 at 2:18 PM
You must be enjoying it, because you're not leaving.
Oh, I'm leaving alright...
Oh, I'm leaving alright...
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.
April 17, 2016 at 7:18 PM
HaHaHaHoHoHoHeHeHe!!!!!! As if! Gone!!! Unlike you you corporate turd.
It must be the bitter LANL dude again.
Getting back to the topic of the post, this could be easily cleared up by a LANL release stating that indeed TCP-1 has been a closed pension plan since the date of UC contract transition. Without that release, the stench just gets stronger and stronger that a double system was in place, and TCP-1 was not a closed plan after all.
Do you expect a straight forward answer from LANS managenent if they indeed added employees to TCP1 after it was defined to be a closed pension system?
A Human Resource (HR) representative informed me that Becthel (and parent companies) employees are being hired at about 5 per week (actually 6 to 7) since LANS took over. That's 250 per year for 10 years (since 2006, when doom struck), thats 2500 employees. Most have been approved by upper Management to be on TCP-1. 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. Read it and weep folks!
I hope no one doubts that LLNL is doing the same thing.
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
Can someone cite the policy that permits this? And can anyone confirm when the policy went into place?
"...LLNL doing the same thing..."
You could ask Director Bill Goldstein and Art Wong (SHRM) about TCP1 add ons after the 2007 transition.
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
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.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
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.
Lab Policy is for the little people.
Is this a secret policy that benefits lab "worker bees" too or just incoming LANSLLNS management?
I don't understand why everyone here is willing to accept that "policy" trumps the Prime Contract. And why NNSA accepts violations of the Prime Contract. Maybe they don't...
Nobody "accepts" being raped by Bechtel. Still, there is precious little the average person can do.
If this turns out to be factual, then it will be more fodder for Congressional Hearings.
What does the prime contract state regarding the discretion of the contractor (LANS or LLNS) to alter or delete workforce policies or benefits? The contractor may only need NNSA approval.
9:28 AM may have a point on minor issues related to the LANS/LLNS workforce; however, the major effort in forcing employes to select between TCP-1 and TCP-2 at the time of transition would fall out of bounds. In all communications, it was clearly given that TCP-1 was a closed plan, and no additions would be made to it after transition. As an earlier poster indicated, one exception to this and the plan is no longer considered closed, and should have been offered to each and every new employee that came after transition.
The prime contract states clearly that TCP-1 becomes a closed plan at the transition and that ALL new employees after transition will be in TCP-2. It is not ambiguous and does not contain any exceptions or allowance for deviation.
You clearly defined the TCP1 language at the point of transition. No argument. Question: Could LANS or LLNS have petitioned the NNSA for a deviation from the closed TCP1 plan for a select set of prospective employees sometime after the transition? I'm not saying it is right or wrong. The NNSA may have rubber stamped such a request.
TCP-2 is not available to new employees, who get a less-attractive 401K plan. TCP-1 and TCP-2 were plans offered to UC employees at the transition, only, so in that sense they are both closed. But I really doubt there is any prohibition anywhere on LLNS or LANS offering identical packages to "special" new employees.
April 20, 2016 at 5:50 PM
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.
New employees have zero service. There is no age factor, http://lanl.gov/careers/employees-retirees/new-hires/benefit-options/retirement-plans.php
New employees have zero service. There is no age factor, http://lanl.gov/careers/employees-retirees/new-hires/benefit-options/retirement-plans.php
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).
That's funny, 8:52 doesn't even understand the last few posts before that were talking about a 401K plan, not a pension. Must be a LANL guy.
Coming back on the topic of TCP-1 being a closed plan or not, it seems that Charlie has some explaining to do. One might imagine that the employees hired after transition that were only offered TCP-2 have a solid case. Even if only a few hundred of them would have selected TCP-1 when presented with a choice, the problem is that they were not given that option.
If a select group of new employees were offered entry into TCP1 after the transition(s), could existing high profile TCP1 or TCP2 emloyees
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)
TCP2 employees wanting out of the plan after the stock market slide in 2008?
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.
Disingenuous yes, a low morale refresh yes, lack of transparency yes, but it won't be labeled a scandal by the NNSA if they approved it.
Employees and former employees may feel differently of course.
it won't be labeled a scandal by the NNSA if they approved it.
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.
What about accounts that are 'split' on a divorce?? One worker with 30 years service becomes divorced worker plus spouse at 15 years each. Wouldn't that create new names on the list??
A new topic has been suggested that raises ERISA questions of an openable TCP1 plan.
April 22, 2016 at 1:10 PM
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.
I looked in the Summary Plan Description for LLNS's TCP1:
----
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.
Until upper management (i.e., Bechtel) and NNSA collude to make it not so. Which is the current concern.
Post a Comment