If Charlie takes questions at this week's all-call, could be interesting to hear what he has to say about TCP-1 allegedly now not being a closed plan.
Since LANS and LLNS are, for all meaningful purposes, one in the same, whatever he says will have ramifications for those working at LLNL.
Since LANS and LLNS are, for all meaningful purposes, one in the same, whatever he says will have ramifications for those working at LLNL.
Comments
TCP1 is being used as a perk for Bechtel people. You will have to do some investigation to get more proof than has already been put forth on this blog, but it is real and it is a threat to the health of the fund.
True, but less so for TCP1 retirees.
May 6, 2016 at 3:26 AM
It's not "cheating on their own policy." It's violating explicit wording in the Prime Contract. It is NNSA who should be "taking them on."
As the money starts to run out, retirees could be subject to reductions in their pension they have already been receiving, some for many years. Imagine, being age 77 and being told your monthly payment is going from 4500 a month to 2500 a month. Good luck with that. There will be no incentive for future contractors at LLNL to expend costs to manage a pension plan that very few people will be part of and as time goes by, as the last person retires and turns out the lights, it will eventually become a white elephant.
The UC pension terms and conditions cannot be changed by law after one retires from UCRP it has a higher standard of legal protections because it is a non profit plan, and employees are still funding it, it is open ended unlike TCP1.
Good Luck TCP1'rs, you should be suing the Bechtel corporate raiders for setting you up in that losing proposition.
May 18, 2016 at 2:23 PM
Correct, which is one reason they are not called "pensions."
Let's be clear here - there is NO part of TCP2 that is a pension.
Discussion over.