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!
Comments
4/26/2025 7:28 AM
Gen X are slackers, and the millennials are even worse. The Boomers earned every penny and worked hard. Instead of listening to Nirvana, or trying to be on Tick Tock, you should have worked hard. The first step is stop blaming boomers.
I should also mention that LANS/TRIAD is very secretive about how (and who) they manage this private pension. I've tried without success to determine the qualifications and credentials of the personnel that manage the pension, let alone specifically where the investments.
Given we at 84% with decline of 5% every year I guess in one year and it goes to the Federal government. I am not sure how many people this effects but If you got to LANL 1998 or latter you better hope you had 401K.
“Baby Boomers earned their retirement”
Let’s look the LLNS TCP-1 facts. The folks that came over from UC experienced a “funding holiday” starting in 1987 as they put it in the 2008 LLNS TCp1 2009 annual report. Then again instead or paying into it it became super funded at 165% and in the years 1990, 1992, 1994, 2002, and 2004 payments were actually sent out to its members…. So yea typical of that generation. Many of those Boomers who came after 1987 retired from LLNS and started collecting their pension once 7% was required. Hardly paying for your retirement… sorry.
The millennials on the other hand were in school when these payments were made and were 18 - 27 when TCP-1 was created and will spend the next 35 - 40 years paying into a system that will only pay them back what the the PBGC will allow. It’s already in trouble today each one of them is carrying the load of 2 retirees Simple put you have that quite backwards.
As blaming Gen X. Last time I checked many of them entered the job market when both labs were on a hiring freeze post the end of down hole testing etc. They had to play the contractor game of the 90’s and early 2000’s once again were able to get into UC and the pension right before the transition so they could get burdened by people that enjoyed a funding holiday and actually made extra money from the system. Slackers… yea your kids are left with a mess and your bill any you act this way!!! Once again Thanks for the bill.
Things have changed and the younger generation feels cheated for no reason. If you don't like contributing to tcp1, don't blame the retirees. They worked hard. You are just beginning and you will have to work hard too . You have a choice
pension is “guaranteed by state law”. CalPERS can’t therefore become insolvent to the extent CA can use revenues or raise taxes. For this reason, having a look see at CalPERS practices, salaries, benefits, cost projections, etc., because it can impact every Californian short and long term.
“Defined Benefit Pension Plan through the California Public Employee Retirement System, known as CalPERS…Defined Benefit Pension Plans do not rely on investment returns to determine your benefit, like a 401(k) plan. Instead, calculations using the employment factors and formula can ensure a lifetime retiree income. Your accrued benefits are guaranteed by state law.”
https://esa.santaclaracounty.gov/career-seekers/benefits/about-countys-defined-benefit-pension-plan-retirement-income-life#:~:text=Defined%20Benefit%20Pension%20Plans%20do,are%20guaranteed%20by%20state%20law.
Let’s try to stay on topic…Unlike UCRP, CalPERS, CalSTRS, or US SS those are open systems with people still paying into it and the backing of the State or Federal budget a very different situation. Unless Congress or DOE / NNSA forces the contractor to meet its legacy obligations some people are going to be paying into a system they will never collect from. American Airlines pension comes to mind here. There is no state law guaranteeing TCP1 a small pension of a Delaware LLC conglomerate running a Federal lab that just happens to be in California. The only guarantee is the federal PBGC fund that pays pennies on the dollar. Not sure why someone would post a link to CAL PERS here, LLNS TCP1 isn’t connected to this program, doesn’t mention it in the official LLNS TCP1 annual statement, apparently you don’t get this documentation… I get it if you worked at the lab in the 50’s and 60’s you had the option of CAL PERS apparently. But if you were at the lab in 2007 and didn’t have enough service years to freeze your UCRP you were put into TCP1, once again a very different retirement program than a State pension. I guess it’s the same “in the aggregate”
Apparently some of you are fine with this as you have your UCRP (a separate system BTW) and are not remotely affected by this or are collecting the LLNS TCP1 and won’t be your problem by the time this happens.
The math doesn’t look good the past few years the S&P has returned double digit growth while this relatively small pension assets have grown by less than 1% and had dropped significantly in funding. What’s going to happen next year and the coming recession?
Thank you for a well-articulated explanation. I agree that current TCP1 contributors may never be able to collect because of the lack of legal protection.
The person who said "that tcp1 was going to be the same as UCRP in the aggregate '" had no clue what he was talking about !
I remember all the debt back in 2007 as to which plan - TCP1 or TCP2 to take. It really came down to each individual's situation. I took TCP1 and while still working at LLNL I'm at 90% pension under it. However I've been blessed enough to have been contributing near the IRS max to a "supplemental" 403B/401K since the 1980s and it's now at $2.1 million. Add in SS, and I should do okay...
As I recall, UCRP employees outside of LLNL, whose age and service did not add up to X by 7-1-13, were forced into a 2nd tier system that either impacted their pension age factor, or medical benefits in retirement. The point being, UCRP hasn’t been the gold standard for a long while.
When UC/LLNL employees selected TCP1, millions of dollars were transferred from the UC pension fund to the TCP1 pension fund based on the ~3,000 employees that selected TCP1 over TCP2 yes?
I assume new hires prior to October 1, 2007, in terms of UCRP funds moved to TCP1, were small compared to those UC/LLNL employees that had 10, 20, or 30 years of service within the UCRP system. Furthermore, those new hires (referenced here as part of the 1,000 still working), had the option of TCP2, a point worth remembering.
The 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and its 2006, 2006, 2019, and 2022 updates, are designed to protect pensions. Let’s hope right.
When I read 1,000 TCP1 employees are paying in, and 2,000 employees are collecting a TCP1 pension, it comes across like TCP1 doesn’t resemble a self-sustaining pension that just needs annual tweaks, and more like slow motion Ponzi scheme? What argument can be made that TCP1 insolvency is inevitable largely due to the ratio of active to retirees on the TCP1 system?
December 31, 2024…84.06%, December 31 2023…87.70%
December 31 2022 85.52%