Friday, June 24, 2005

Lab Visit Invigorates Team Leader for UC

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

The head of the University of California and Bechtel National team preparing for the competition to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory visited with Los Alamos community and business leaders on Thursday to gather input that he said will help shape the team's bid to run the lab.

"It was invigorating," said Michael Anastasio, director of the UC-run Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and head of the UC-Bechtel team now about halfway through preparations on their bid for the $2.2 billion LANL contract.


Full Story

I was invigorated by all the retirement parties I went to today.
I just calculated using UC bencom that I will lose about $400/mo in retirement pay due to the changeover to the LLC arrangement (since I will go inactive in UC). Nothing like getting ripped off to perk up your spirits.
Has anyone noticed how smoothly things seem to be going at LANL, now that
our ADs are all out at UCOP furiously working on the bid to safe their high
salaried jobs? Maybe DOE should extend the bidding period for a few
more years.
From the LA Monitor:
"Not dwelling on what UC did or did not do as a manager in recent years, Anastasio emphasized, "This is a new team. It's not UC. It's not Bechtel. It's a team that brings the best capabilities across the spectrum of science and technology, management, business, safety and security - all the teams it take to run an effective national laboratory."

So the official UC position over all the damage they have done is "Just get over it." I suggest we each send another $100 to Sara Kauppila as part of our healing process.

The smarmy little bastard won't even take responsibility for the damage UC has done to us all. Robinson can't come fast enough for me...
I don't believe 6/24/2005 11:04:25 PM took the 401k defined contribution component of LM's benefits program into account in his calculations. When I did the comparison there just was not that much monitary difference compared to LANL's program.
It seems very pre-mature to use Sandia's retirement program, and going inactive in UC, foregoing rolling into the new stand-alone plan 1, as the basis to calculate that one is going to get 'ripped off' as part of the RFP.

It's appears it's going to be our choice whether to roll over into plan 1 or go inactive with plan 3.

Going into plan one requires buying into a viable future for that plan, while going inactive (and also becoming a new member of the new retirement system, completely undefined at this moment) will probably involve trade-offs for the enjoyment of the percieved additional security of staying inactive in UC.

But to be able to calculate a loss of $400/mo while the second retirement plan one would become a member of isn't even defined yet is just guessing.

A point that the economic trade-off is emerging is possibly valid: roll over into the new 'plan 1' that is supposed to be equivalent but stand-alone (= possible long-term risk over UCRP) or go inactive in UCRP and pay for the percieved lower long-term risk in some fashion.
It would be good if we could somehow develop a "rules of thumb" guide with respect to plans. I'm planning on taking the lump sum and will have 7.25 years in UCRP at the end of the extension. If I want to work another 5 years, which is the best option? Binning all the scenarios and building a table of best options (with rationale) would be helpful to the rest of the workforce.
Anonymous at 6/25/2005 08:08:09 AM is probably correct in stating that with the 401k in place, the retirement income will not be that much different from what it would have been under UCRP. BUT, I will bet that there will have to be significant employee contributions to the 401k with little organizational matching funds. The DOE and the new contractor will state that the pension is "comparable" and that may be true in terms of the payout at retirment. BUT, if we have to start contributing 7 to 10 % while we work, then that is fundamentally not true.
I was invigorated when Nanos left.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?