DOE and NNSA are under orders to reduce their pension liabilities in the near and far term (the transfer of $1.25 billion from UC to LANS and the Complex 2030 plan seem to be aspects of this reduction).
So, to me, in reading the proposed pension and benefit document from LLNS, a reasonable question is "Where are my benefits, especially 5 to 10 years from now and beyond, being reduced?" A second question is "How much is this reduction and do I care?"
The third question is then likely to be "If this reduction is too large for me, what can I do to lessen the reduction?"
A suggestion for today is for people to read the proposal for pensions and benefits and try to find all of the reductions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I am not sure anyone see's the reductions. All they are looking at is what plan will gain them the most income at the end of their term wether it be 55 or 60 years old, not realizing that the reason the plan pays more as you get older is because you are closer to death ie 72, end of show...
The sad part is that no matter how you run the numbers no one except for upper level management is going to get what they would have if NNSA would have left us in UCRP. The people that do the work and make management look good, all got screwed and have lost at least 50% of their pension and one-half of what their 403b would have been if they were able to continue contributions at the same rate.
When I look at going TCP-2 and therefore freezing my UC retirement I only gain 2% a year and even if I start drawing my pension and bank the maximum allowable 401K contribution with a 6% matching fund until the end of my career I am still $1000 a month shy of what I would have gotten if I was allowed to stay in UCRP, and my 403b grows no more. If you do as I have described about until age 60 and then assume you are going to live to 100, and start taking withdraws from your 401k equal to the difference between what you would have gotten from UC out of the 401k it will only last until about age 65. The only saving grace there is social security, and that does not make up the full amount lost after depleting the 401k.
Having said that most people are going to see TCP-1 as the saving grace, that is, until LLNS says hey people I now want 5% of your earned income and NNSA reneges on their funding promisees. Here is where the average person is going to have a cow. They are going to take a pay cut year after year that will be donated to the TCP-1 plan, making it impossible to build your own 401k that is to take the place of your 403b that you no longer have. Why? Because you had to give everything that you planned on saving to TCP-1, leaving your 401k dead to the point where you can not put 6% of your income into the 401k.
I guess this is where management once more makes out like a fat rat. This is the only group of employees that can afford to give 5% to LLNS TCP-1 and 6% to their 401k, simply because an 11% cut in pay doesn't affect their livelihood. Hell if you think about it, the salary increases that these guy are going to get can be 100% totally sheltered in the plans and in the end they again leave you poor and them rich.
Has it even dawned on you just how well you have been shafted? How sweet it is, for some. So I have a few more questions:
Do you believe for a minute that LLNS hasn't figured this out and planed their promises accordingly? Any good company like MERCER or Hewitt could have figured this out long before they gave the tactics to LLNS and NNSA to impelement. So do you truly believe that you will never be donation 5% of your earned income to TCP-1 for all long as you have remaining? Can you afford 5% to TCP-1 and 6% to your 401k. If so TCP-1 is the way to go. If you can't you need to look out for yourself, take what is yours and use TCP-2 to do the best you can for _your_ future. It is obvious to me that NNSA doesn't give a damn about you. They are protecting their assets at your expense. PERIOD.
Their problem is resolved, your problems have j
Not to be less cheery, but things may be worse than you have stated.
If LLNS is the holder of your TCP1 pension money and either Livermore downsizes or LLNS decides that it no longer wants to run Livermore, then there may either not be enough money to pay you or there may be no one to write your check because you are no longer part of either UC or DOE.
Please read this:
Please correct me if I am wrong but what I understand from this statement in quotes below is that if LLNS were to walk away, every dime that the employees have put into the pension plan wether it be their UCRP or the contributions that they will make can not be touched for any reason. This would aso include the 6% + 5% that they have given each person TCP-2 401k. Is this NOT true
" These laws require that the assets of the TCP1 pension plan be held in trust for the exclusive benefit of the employees in the plan."
A: This is the coordinated answer between NNSA and LLNS, LLC: The TCP1 pension plan will be funded by transferring funds from UCRP to cover the vested, accrued benefits for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) employees who elect to participate in Total Compensation Package (TCP) 1 as of October 1, 2007. The new contractor, Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS), is a Limited Liability Corporation subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and to other laws that did not apply to the UCRP. These laws require that the assets of the TCP1 pension plan be held in trust for the exclusive benefit of the employees in the plan. If additional funds are needed in the future to fund benefits in the TCP1 pension plan, ( the employer (LLNS) will be legally obligated to make contributions to the plan.) LLNS would make the necessary contributions to the plan and would be reimbursed for the allowable costs for those contributions under the contract between LLNS and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is a part of the United States Government under the Department of Energy. NNSA's contract with LLNS also requires that at the end of the LLNS contract, the responsibility for the pension plan be transferred to the entity which is awarded the contract with NNSA or, if there is no such entity, the contract be extended with LLNS for the purpose of reimbursing the costs of continuing the benefits. NNSA thus has a continuing obligation to reimburse the allowable TCP1 pension plan costs in the future.
July 7, 2007 2:25 PM
That's a wonderful thought, one that did not dawn on me having always been dependent on the government and assuming that they will always be there for me. I guess being co-dependent was not the thing to do, was it?
Again I need a more in depth explanation. You are saying that if LLNS were to pull the plug and say have a good day they could walk away before we had a new contractor in place? Are you sure or are their feet held to the fire for the next seven years. I did hear rumor that one subcontractor known as BWXT at LANL has sold and bailed but I can not find proof or who took their place. I guess what ever happens to the subcontractors is not my concern but what does concern me is how many people at LLNL are going to lose their jobs because of them. I am sure that each and every one of these subcontractors is going to want to bring in their own people who work directly for them, leaving any FTE slot that becomes available to be fill by one of the subcontractor employees..I hear that this is already happening at LANL. from a corporate America stand point and the contractors point of view, it only makes sense to get rid of people , make slots and fill them wit their own kind. Can you imagine the animosity that there is going to be at LLNL in the next five years or so. team work, what the hell is that. NOT!!!
http://www.bwxt.com/news/news_maint.asp?news_ID=70
And it gets worse not only for LLNS and LANS but for the entire nation.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/your-long-term-market-assumptions-may/story.aspx?guid=%7B29C95E3E%2D9C7C%2D44DF%2DB389%2D8B0C1D5EE7E7%7D
"http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/your-long-term-market-assumptions-may/story.aspx?guid=%7B29C95E3E%2D9C7C%2D44DF%2DB389%2D8B0C1D5EE7E7%7D
July 8, 2007 9:04 AM"
Interesting read, thanks for posting :)
Post a Comment