Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Future of lanl retirees' pension fund

At the meeting at UNM-LA yesterday, LANS’s John Mitchell was asked, “Is the
company (LANS) interested in managing our (retirees’) pension fund?” His
answer: “If the government asks us to do this, yes, we will do it.” So we
have been told what is the probable future of our pension fund. Like some
others who have written in to the blog, we believe that action must be taken
NOW. The only action that has any possibility whatsoever of salvaging our
rightful pensions is legal action. Also like some others, we too are willing
to commit a thousand dollars toward such legal action.

Comments:
Would be nice if some LANL retirees (or spouses) with law degrees could get things started.
 
The union (UPTE) has the resources (legal referrals for competent firms in California and New Mexico, as well as contacts inside both states' Congressional delegations) to begin the process of starting a class-action lawsuit on the UCRP-LANL pension scam.

I know that most of you out there are absolutely HORRIFIED at the thought of joining a *union*, but now is the time to start girding your loins, or at least to begin thinking about girding your loins, for a battle. It costs just a few dollars a month to join the union, but we are talking about the fate of $4.3 billion in the proposed new UCRP-LANL scam to continue the privatization of LANL (and soon, LLNL, by the way). Best not to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

[Math time: $4.3 billion / 4000 retirees = $1 million/retiree. It ain't chump change.]
 
Just another thought about *unions*: The Neo/theo/con Republicans in the U.S. Senate aren't about to give up THEIR "socialist" cushy retirement plan, nosirree! They've got their own comfortable little *union*, just like upper Lab management. So, in reality, there isn't anything immoral whatsoever in the retirees (and potential retirees before June 1) to start doing a little collective action. Neither the Congressional delegation, nor DOE/NNSA, nor UC, nor upper LANL management are going to look out for the employees and retirees at LANL. They got theirs, Jack. -Think about it; don't rush; take your time, but don't take TOO MUCH time.
 
How does a retiree join a labor union?
 
C'mon now, Brad.

That $4.3B is the estimated TOTAL amount in UCRP-LANL for ALL the actives, inactives, retirees, disabled, and beneficiaries. As of 6/30/05, that was 14,760 total, of whom 9730 were still active.

You know the money for the 4000 or so unvested is moving to LANS Plan 1, along with the funds attributable to those vested that elect to roll their pensions into LANS Plan 1. The bottom line is that it is less money, and more people than you indicate.

Section 2, Exhibit I, pg 12, of the Addendum Report, shows that the estimated actuarial accrued liablity for the 4061 retired, disabled and beneficiaries to be $1.621B, and the 969 vested inactive members to be $0.128B. That gives $1.75B for 5030 people, about $399k each. It also leaves about $2.550B attributable to the 9730 Actives, about $262k each. (The average retiree pension is about $35.6k/yr, about $16.5k/yr for beneficiaries and $21.4k for disabled.)

There are other items of interest that might be inferred from the tables in the report, but that's for another time. Point is, looking at those numbers, would you not want to pay those 969 vested inactive their $0.128B (average $132k each) ASAP and get them out of the plan?
 
I don't think the federal retirement plan has any party preferences. I think the Democrats are just as much wanting this as the Republicans (and not making something equivalent to others). This has nothing to do with neo/theo/cons which itself has nothing to do with much of anything except trying to pin labels on people.

And there certainly isn't anything immoral about unions. The main problem I have is that they frequently, but not always, have political agendas that aren't reflected in their membership.
 
[Math time: $4.3 billion / 4000 retirees = $1 million/retiree. It ain't chump change.]
# posted by Brad Lee Holian : 1/24/2006 03:18:03 PM

How about let get LLNL people involved because they are next and add an additional $1M to that. If people are smart they will in fact get off the stick and do something.If not, well we all know the answer to this.

Again like a broken record here are the people to contact. This is the firm that is familiar with UC, California law, etc and they have taken on the UC before and won. So what do you say. Are we meaning LANL and LLNL going to put and end to this BS or just take the shorts and move on. It's really your call. Do not for a minute think that (management) is going to take your side or help you. You must do this on your own.

http://www.giccb.com/
1999 HARRISON ST.
SUITE 1600
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
94612
510-832-5411
510-832-1918 FAX
E-MAIL:
webinfo@GICCB.com
 
Just recieved my UCRS 2005 annual statement today.

Under the Defined Contribution Plan, what the heck is "SR MGMT SUPPLEMENT"? I'm not in management...they got something the troops don't have? Bloating needs to be supplemented?
 
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/ news/compensation/chronicle/871million.pdf

Could this be it?

However it does not matter, we need to focus on the law suite and our future. What they pay these goons is irrelevant to me. I am interested in the next 40 years of wages.
 
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
C'mon now, "educatedbeyondmyability". If we take $20/month union dues x 12 mos./yr. = $240/yr., and we take the smallest number you quote for a beneficiary, namely, $16,500/yr., the ratio is about 70. Good return on the money invested in the union, I'd say, especially if union lawyers can get the attention of the UC Board of Regents.

And of course, David, the Democrats are sticking their straws in the socialistic Congressional retirement trough, too. But the level of hypocrisy for the Republicans is so much higher, that I just couldn't help myself in grabbing for that rhetorical gold ring. They make it so EASY...

And the Senior Management Supplement, whether UC or LANL (or DOE/NNSA or Congress, or ...), should make it clear that "political agendas that aren't reflected in their membership" cuts AGAINST the staff and retirees of LANL, when carried out by management. Hence, the recurrent need in history for organization by the underclass--*unions*. There, I said it out loud.
 
FYI: Retirees are welcome in UPTE, according to its President.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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