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
Its just a job, nothing changes for the low lever worker bees when the contract changes. Nothing can change, it cold be Bechtel, could be Musk. Who cares, besides very few people are going to ever be working at LLNL long enough to care about retirement benefits. You come for 2-3 years and move on the next job.
You make some good points, although the pre-2007 UC/LLNL Retirees likely have a different opinion since their collective monthly medical benefits became much more expensive after the transition to LLNS. The ~130 laid off lab employees months after the 2007 transition to LLNS may also have another viewpoint. I guess the question is could something happen of equal magnitude during the next contract to manage LLNL? Is "What’s Past is Prologue" applicable here and worth considering?
I don't know what percentage of lab employees stay "2-3 years and move on", but with eroding benefits and portable 401ks, I assume there has been some increase in revolving door short term lab employees to the detriment of long term NNSA missions.
Use to be, national lab employees had a commitment to national security.
Very true, but that “used to be” “commitment” was previously fortified with long term strategic planning and stable lab employee work benefits, that generally encouraged lab employees to stick around, while short term contractor profits, were deemed counterproductive to national missions.
Use to be, national labs had a commitment to national security. Now it seems they are primarily interested in grift and pronouns.
I know, let’s continue to keep our lab salaries, and bonuses undisclosed, that should keep employees focused on national security objectives instead of just a focus on lining ones pockets through secret contractor kickbacks. Not.
5/06/2022 1:34 PM
That's because no one from LLNS reads this blog anymore?
1. “Russian troops exposed to radiation, Chernobyl experts say | USA TODAY
Three-week old news”
2. “I think about 20 or 30 people read this blog regularly, and about half that bother to comment, most of whom have no recent experience at either LLNL or LANL, just long-term grievances. Scooby should get a real job.”
Scooby, if someone submits a rather neutral link about radiation exposure, it’s untimely. If someone has any critical opinions of LLNS, it can only be old grievances. So, you must be doing something right Scooby, because the LLNS pro-party line street sweepers are out in force. Good job!