Skip to main content

TCP1 retiree COLA

Image
By
Has LLNL announced 2016 cola adjustments for eligible TCP1 retirees?

Comments

Anonymous said…
July 2016 COAL is based on the 2.72% average increase in the CPI. We'll find out with the next pension check whether we'll get the full amount or not ! Varies with retirement date, but should be around 2.5%
6/17/2016 10:09 PM
Anonymous said…
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%
UCRP benefit recipients are eligible to receive a COLA after receiving benefits for at least one year. Therefore, members whose retirement or disability date is after July 1, 2015, are not yet eligible to receive a COLA.

We are everywhere! Better than six sigma!!
6/18/2016 10:33 AM
Anonymous said…
That's a nice table, does it apply to TCP1? Obviously the first line containing the figure for those that retired on or before July 1, 2006 does not apply since TCP1 was not in existence at that date.
6/18/2016 6:51 PM
Anonymous said…
Of course TCP1 was in existence before '06. That was the normal retirement plan (with pension) before the pension was restricted for new employees.
6/18/2016 11:22 PM
Anonymous said…
TCP1 (and TCP2) are retirement plans provided by the LLNS company which was not in existence until 2007. The pot of money that seeded the TCP1 plan is money rolled over from the UCRP to the pool of employees that chose to transfer their retirement from UCRP to TCP1.

If you were vested in UCRP you had the choice of freezing your retirement in that plan and were put into the TCP2 plan. All employees who began employment after the lab came under the control of LLNS were covered only by the TCP2 plan.

6/19/2016 7:49 AM
Anonymous said…
Can anyone answer the original post?
6/19/2016 12:48 PM
Anonymous said…
According to this document the TCP1 plan was going to replicate the UCRP COLA. Not being in TCP1 I can't say for sure if it does or does not.

See page 8:
http://www.llnlretiree.com/other_documents/llns_total_comp_7-12-7.pdf
6/19/2016 4:53 PM
Anonymous said…
My TCP1 pension pay stub for June, 2016 implied that I would receive an 2.72% increase in the July payment. I retired at the end of 2012. We will see shortly.
6/19/2016 6:50 PM
Anonymous said…
~2.25%. Retired June 2011.
6/29/2016 8:04 PM
Anonymous said…
Can't think now. Time for siesta.
6/30/2016 2:04 PM
Anonymous said…
"My TCP1 pension pay stub for June, 2016 implied that I would receive an 2.72% increase in the July payment. I retired at the end of 2012. We will see shortly."

Received exactly 2.72% increase in the pension amount beginning July, 2016.

Great ! Now I don't have to give up that Livermore and Sonoma County wines !
6/30/2016 11:35 PM
Anonymous said…
I'm confused here. I thought that TCP1 (and UCRP) COLA's were calculated according to the following formula:

" 100 percent of the CPI increase up to 2 percent
• 75 percent of the CPI increase over 4 percent
• A maximum of 6 percent"

So if, as stated earlier, the CPI is 2.72%, then doesn't that mean that the COLA is 2.0%?
7/09/2016 9:37 AM
Anonymous said…
No, 2.72% CPI gave exactly a 2.72% COLA. I'm as surprised as you and very pleased, finally, with the LLNL pension system doing the right thing. Really did get a 2.72% increase in the pension amount starting July 1st, 2016.
7/10/2016 10:40 PM
Unknown said…
I am TCP1, retired in 2012....my pension ck for July and Aug have not shown a COLA adjustment. Have others seen their COLA adjustment?
7/30/2016 9:32 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
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!
79 comments
Read more