I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
Comments
4/15/2020 8:02 AM"
I am rather confused what NNSA lab work falls out of weapons related? Maybe you are you talking about NIF, which is considered weapons related by some. Other than that I am unaware of anything. I guess there is all the outreach and small business stuff which has lots of waste in it.
"At least half of all work done at all three weapons labs is non-weapon related. NIF has been double-dipping for decades. It may well be time to face the facts that instead of being both weapons and energy related it is neither weapons related nor energy related. "
Yes I am now very confused by your comments. Besides NIF, which again is argued to be weapons related and agree that is up for debate, the labs do mostly weapons work. The idea that half the work the labs do non-weapons work is just loony tunes, I mean out there in the great unknown. It it is so far off that one has to ask what is your point. Maybe at Sandia this is true but they have broader mission by definition.
"In these trying times, it should get thrown overboard as a luxury we cannot afford."
You might want to check the news, but in these "trying times" the labs may be getting more money for you know "reasons".
Speaking of trying times I have to ask...could you be posting from some other nation perhaps? There is something a bit off with your comments in any case 你好 Nǐ hǎo.
The answer to your question is simply past is prologue. If and when the need for a layoff arises, the NNSA and the contractor will have reviewed and finalized its terms together before the worker bees learn of its existence. It makes no financial sense for the contractor to go completely rogue in a layoff situation since the NNSA has very deep pockets to help the contractor if lab employee lawsuits follow a botched or mishandled layoff. Good question!