Saturday, January 14, 2006


According to these documents, all LANL retirees will be affected, not just those who choose to retire during the contract transition period.


Doug: Is this the beginning of the "sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention" you referred to in The Chicken Joke up top?
They are screwing us here. I suspect that the LLC figured out that they were going to have to start a pension plan with no assets so this was a way to jump start the pension plan. We need to get some legal advice on this.
If the separate UC/LANS plan is funded out of UCRS according to actuarial tables only, then we are screwed out of the significant surpluses UCRS earned on our share of the investments over the last many years.
From reading the UC memo, it appears that if you are a current retiree, you
will NOT be in UCRP for much longer. You are going to be moved into a
special pension, called "UCRP-LANL". This is very interesting and bears
very close watching. If nothing else, it will probably allow the DOE
to have more control over the benefits in this LANL-specific "UCRP-LANL"
pension, as it will only contain LANL employees -- even those now retired!

Here comes the rooster!
You just had to read the requirements written by the federal government to see this one coming. This should be no surprise to anyone who has paid attention.
Does anyone else see this as strange that this is now being published on a Friday before a 3 day weekend. Less than 1/2 the Lab is in. And this goes to the Regents next Tues/Wed/Thurs.

Is this because the LLC now knows that they won't have enough $$ to cover the impending mass exodus of LANL folk and that UC doesn't want the liability? Push it through after being discussed in smoke filled rooms.
It's called "reachback". UC is now going to reach back and reduce the benefits of all retired LANL employees.

Read a subsequent post about "stealth screwing", and you will start to get the picture.
If I am reading this bulletin correctly it says that all LANL employees will still be on "a" UC retirement plan, but that plan will be separate from the current UC retirement system in all aspects. It also tells me that those who wish to retire under the current UC system "must retire" before lansllc officially takes over on June 1st. If you chose to stay beyond that date you must retire under the new LANL_LANS retirement plan, what ever that is.

To me this bulletin seems to implicate that the current UC's retirement system will be managed very well in order to protect those whom they favor, but there will be little or no concern about the LANL-LANS system; since if the corporation goes belly up they’ll just turn it over to the Government Retirement Plan; with will have little or no impact on current UC system.

Is this a correct interpretation?
"Is this a correct interpretation?"

As far as it goes. The part you leave out is that LLNL is next.
Yes, you are correct. I think it is the beginning of the end of two organizations that once had a real mission. Lets hope the LLNL people pick up on this rather fast. I have a sneaky suspicion that LLNL will not last until 2007. The extension says that they are granted an extension until 2007 but it can be terminated at any time. So I ask you this, why after they work out all of the bugs with this new contractor at LANL would they give LLNL the entire grace period. I'd be scared, very sacred if I were an LLNL employee that believed, " that nothing" is going to c
Is this Fiday the 13th all-paranoids day? This is exactly what the RFP had spelled out. The fact that it will be managed by UC like UCRP sounds like good news to me for those who want to stay on and maintain their eligibility with the new contractor.
"The fact that it will be managed by UC like UCRP sounds like good news to me for those who want to stay on and maintain their eligibility with the new contractor."
# posted by llc001 : 1/13/2006 08:52:36 PM

You hit it right on the nose. For those who wish to stay with the new contractor.I think the people of both labs are wiser then this, but I could be proven wrong. I think today is called "dump day".

Excuse me, but the RFP never said that CURRENT retirees would be pushed
out of the huge UCRP pension and placed into a special LANL-only
pension called UCRP-LANL. This UC memo, however, says exactly that.
Once this is done, it becomes far easier for certain people to monkey
around with the pension benefits of current LANL retirees. One of
the main reason that DOE could never touch the old UCRP pension
(even though they tried) was because LANL retirees were part of a
much larger and politically powerful group. It looks to me like
those days will soon be over, even for current LANL retirees.
It would appear that all LANL retirees ("legacy" and recently retired) and inactive-vested are being assigned significant additional risk under this proposal. UC apparently intends to first set aside in a government-LANL pension plan about 10% of total UCRS assets (an actuarially determined fraction based on the LANL-related population), and then subsequently carve, out of this pool, assets for the corporate-LANL pension fund for employees transferring to the LLC.

Estimating that this second transfer will consume about half the resouces, I see current LANL retirees, etc., ultimately ending up in a plan having only 5% of the assets of the original UCRP. And no one (e.g., younger employees) will ever be contributing another ncikel to this plan, unlike the 90% UCRS plan left behind or the corporate-LANL fund, both of which will enjoy additional future contributions (and assume additional liabilities, of course) from employees and their employer(s).

With no mechanism ever to augment the assets in the plan (other than the trustees making favorable investment choices), retirees would appear to be assuming added risk that the fund will not be able to meet its obligations some time in the future--read benefit cuts, no COLAs, etc., here. This risk is exacerbated by the larger fluctuations in mean lifetimes, etc., associated with a dramatically smaller pool of people.

A rhetorical question: Why not just leave LANL-related retirees and inactive-vested in the original UCRS pool, and transfer a "fair share" of assets from UCRS to the corporate-LANL pension fund for the transfering employees?
With no mechanism ever to augment the assets in the plan (other than the trustees making favorable investment choices), retirees would appear to be assuming added risk that the fund will not be able to meet its obligations some time in the future--read benefit cuts, no COLAs, etc., here. This risk is exacerbated by the larger fluctuations in mean lifetimes, etc., associated with a dramatically smaller pool of people.

So what this means is, as there are no more contributing new hires along with those who will exit and take their lump, sum the UCRP will fall into the same trap that most corporations have. They will not have the funds to continue paying the retirees, which will lead to what happened to United Airlines. Everyone will get a note in the mail stating that you will now get .33 cents of the dollar for the rest of your life instead of 100% of your retirement. This is not a good deal.Now we should all understand why the UC wants their retirement plan separate from our. It's all so very clear and well planned.Any good lawyers out there that want to take this on? Shouldn't this fall into the same level of crime as pre-mediated murder?
I wonder if its time to find someone in NM equal to this firm to take on the UC and therefore protect what is yours before its to late. It's you call.Maybe they can keep the UC in check and legal.
I'd say its open to interpretation whether "retirees" means all current retirees, or only those who will retire. Maybe first we should request that the wording be clarified.
I think you are right. Maybe we should send the .pdf file to this firm and have them pulse the UC just to get their attention and make them realize that there are people out here that are concerned, very concerned.

This topic seems to have regressed and gotten lost in other superfluous BS, when in reality this topic should remain at the TOP and supercede all other topics until it is clarified.


Doug, if you are reading this could you please make sure this stay at the TOP of the post. It is critical to ALL
The full LANL pension fund(s) recommendation about to be proposed to the regents is available at
No bohica, I think you did not read it correctly. ALL LANL retirees are at risk of losing their UCRP retirement benefits. ALL LANL retirees (including those who have already retired) would have their benefits moved to a much smaller fund if this "SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION" accepts the proposal. Not, as you state:

"So again, if you retire before the new contractor takes over you will be with the UCRP as it stands."
This is not good.If this be the case then I think it is time to seek legal help to see if what they are doing it legit. So I was right when I posted that I suspected that the UC lawyers got together to figure out how they could dump 22,000 or so lab employees from both LANL and LLNL off of their pension plan in order to protect their own kind. It seems that the UC has just thrown us to the wolves with a very well crafted proposal as has corporate America done across the nation. Can anyone see where this is leading?

There is a twenty-five page document that depicts what is going on but I doubt anyone cares, so here is the last paragraph:

It would be nice to think that reform would include a future for pensions, but on the private side at least, it is doubtful. As Delphi's Miller put it simply: "A pension plan makes no sense in today's world. It's not wise for a company to make financial promises 40 or 50 years down the road." Most American executives would agree. Miller says he has not decided what to do at Delphi. If workers grant wage concessions, he has said, the pension plan, which is $4.5 billion shy of what it needs, might even survive. This has the sound of a bargaining ploy. Knowing that the P.B.G.C.'s guarantee is in place, the unions will probably insist on keeping their wages as close to intact as they can, and Miller will probably end up handing the pension plan over to the agency, just as he did at Bethlehem. Then, Miller and other executives will get stock and dandy bonuses in a new Delphi that is happily stripped of pension obligations, and some 45,000 employees and retirees will, in time, happily collect their pensions - courtesy of the U.S. Government. Moral hazard at work.

Roger Lowenstein, a contributing writer, has written about Social Security and health care reform for the magazine.

If anyone cares to read the entire thing I can give it to Doug to post. It's spells things out very clear.
I am expecting that these changes are being caused by the following:

1) The UC fund has been self-funding, but has not grown at a rate it needed to really meet the future needs of all the promises it has made. Most funding formulas seem to be based on the idea that you will retire at 65 and die at 72. From what I have read, governments are realizing that their formulas are more out of date than corporations and aren't as well funded as they are for populations that might retire earlier and live longer than 85.

2) This is from party hearsay of what some doctors were saying a christmas ago to some T division physicists. The fact that LANL/LLNL people have the following issues make them more expensive.
A) Higher average salaries than other UC campuses.
B) Longer lifetimes than other UC campuses.
C) Higher medical costs and promised benefits than other UC benefits.

3) A regular complaint from Congress and NNSA early in the bid process was that the UC pension program was oversold.. this was something a lot of people said was double-talk for "not competitive with underfunded corporate pensions." but may have also had a bit of truth to it.

I am thinking that if any of the above were more than 10% true, UC put it in their public/private presentation of how they would 'reform' it if they got the LANL bid.
So want does this all mean to the employees of both labs who will either retire before the contractor takes over or afterwards? The results are the same. If the corporations goes belly up, they will follow United Airlines lead and turn the retirement fund over to the government pension plan, which by the way will only pay .33 cents on the dollar. Just ask any one from UA that had a pension of $100K a years and within weeks got a note in the mail that said, "we're sorry but your new yearly retirement pay is now $33K a year". Thank you for your service.

So everyone needs to think about how a 66% reduction in pension would affect them. Can you say, thank you sir, can I have another?

Had enough time to figure it out?
More food for thought.

Since rumor has it that they are going to take away the dental and vision care, and we all know that medical care is next on the chopping block; I would venture to say that "everyone" would be better off taking their retirement in lump sum and investing it in a "lifetime fixed annuity" whereby you will get the same return on you funds equal to your UC retirement. This would make your retirement "a substantially equal to but separate plan". This would avoid your money going to the goverment pension plan as will all others.

If they take these three coverages away, we would be fools to leave our funds in the "new corporations" insecure retirement plan, wouldn't we?
In anticipation of the Regents' meeting next week, I'm worried that taking the lump sum by May 31st will not even be possible...i.e., that we will be cut off from that option before retirement paperwork can even be completed.
I'm not a lawyer or accountant - just an old engineer with 20+ years at LLNL and a nonDOE national Lab - but looking at both the press release and regent's proposal, this all seems like a good thing for LANL employees and retirees. {the best would have been no requirement for a separate retirement plan or LLC, but that's water long passed under the old bridge}...

UCOP is proposing to "clone" UCRP for LANL and move LANL employees/retirees into it as a holding plan until LANS LLC develops a specific plan for LANL. Keeping in mind that at the moment there are no HR/Benefit managers or staff in LANS LLC to deal with LANL HR/Benefit issues. Remember that LANS LLC, other than some senior people, is an empty shell. There are only a few months before LANS LLC is going to be in charge of things - and I doubt that Bechtel, BWXT or WG care or known anything about the HR/Benefit system UC has had in place at LANL. Can you imagine what would happen if UCOP did nothing other than in June mail LANS LLC the names of all LANL employees/retirees, a big check with their lump funds from UCRS, and a nice hallmark card to saying - "Good luck on figuring this all out and writing a retirement plan, Love & Kisses UC"

So it appears that UCOP is attempting to set up LANS LLC's retirement plan for them by creating an interim UCRP-LANL plan, which could then be taken over almost as is by LANS LLC in June. To do otherwise would mean more pain for LANL employees/retirees as the new LANS LLC HR/Benefits staff and management grappled with all the headaches associated with starting a "new" company with 10,000 employees from scratch. UCOP is basically going to hand them a "ready to go" standalone retirement plan - that satisfies the terms of the RFP, has gotten all the needed DOE and IRS approvals, and looks as close to UCRP as allowed under the RFP.

As time goes on LANS LLC will tweak and put its own (re: Bechtel and DOE influenced) spin on the plan, but at least for a while LANL's plan will be as close to the UCRP plan as UCOP and the Regents could legally and financially make it.
Larry I hate to tell you this but I as an employee who is going to retire before the new contractor takes over I would have preferred to have been left in the UCRP system, as well as all of the previous retirees would. This is preferred because we know that the UCRP is stable and well protected by a staff of which the UC picks to maintain their retirement plan to the best it can be. They are almost always guaranteed to be successful. What the UC has just done to all of the LANL and LLNL employee is to put us in a plan with people that have no experience and are in business to make a profit, whereby people are an expendable commodity usually disposed of in quick and dirty RIF's when funds get tight. With this, we have more or less already gotten the Hallmark card with no thank you note, not that either are worthy of the time it would take to hear or read. Basically we got screwed, period; and nothing can make up for that. To me as it should be to others I see this routine dumping of people off of pension plans in order to save the retirement fund of the few Gods in office, as a criminal offence punishment equal to that of which a drug lord would receive, if he or she was in a mid-western state. It truly is criminal not only to the 22,000 employees it just affected but to society as a whole, especially when all of these people are going to be seeking social programs to stay afloat in the future as inflation catches up with them. It's going to be a mess that only taxation equal to Canada can resolve and we all know what that means don't we.
Well, b-ohica, I'd like Anastasio's salary too, but complaining about it will not make it happen. The world has changed. This sounds like the same conversation USW had around Pittsburg and the UAW around Flint. The gravy train is ending. I suppose you could argue for the "jobs bank" that the UAW extorted out of GM, but we will see that collapse soon. As Tarter once said, absent a national imperative, we will ultimately be judged/managed/run like other large scale organization. Last time I looked, no one in the DoD was asking for a phase 3. Been that way for awhile.
I also hear that the new LLC is now offering their respective BWXT, Bechtel, WSMS workers the option to stay with their orgs or to come into the LLC. I wonder if these orgs are also providing $$ to the plan to cover these extra folks, or are we all now expected to pick up the slack for people who have never contributed but could retire out of the LLC in 5 or so years.
Comment sent in by someone else:


Please post under topic
Regents to consider proposal to establish separate plan for LANL

Details of the proposed plan can be found at

The last page lists three addendum
Clicking on "two", one obtains
UC Retirement plan
Addendum Report
Actuarial Valuation Results for LANL as of July 1, 2005

Particularly noteworthy on p. i


The funded ratio for LANL's portion of the Plan on an actuarial basis decreased from 107% as of July 1, 2004 to 99% as of July 1, 2005. The LANL portion of the Plan is now in an unfunded position as the actuarial accrued liability exceeds the actuarial value of assets by $54 million.
An appropriate book title may be: Parents don't bring up your children to be DOE Contractor employees.

It may be necessary to begin the process of starting up a class action law suit, since we are all active or retired UC employees (who just happen to have worked at a DOE Lab), in an attempt to protect our right to an expected (assumed/promised?) UC retirement.

I welcome your comments concerning this proposal . . .
I can only tell you that this is the law firm that took on the UC for trying to fire a lady for misuse of here computer while she was on the job, and UC lost.

I'll bet that they would be more then willing to take on the UC for what you have stated.

Remember that its not only the UC trying to pull this crap but it was pulled off by many private firms such as GM, United Airlines, Delphi, and now IBM, etc, etc, etc
It seems that once Enron got away with it everyone jumped on the wagon and it has not stopped.

Maybe someone who knows how can get this firms attention.
To all LLNL Employees and legal Services:

In accordance with these two documents all LLNL retirees will be affected too, not just those who choose to retire during the contract transition period but even those who have already retired. Remember that LANL is the model to be used for LLNL

If you read UCRP.pdf ( above ) you will clearly see where LANL is to be used as the model to determine what is to be done to you ( LLNL ). I know that all of you at LLNL are sitting there saying; we have until Sept 2007 to make up our minds of what to do, and that's a long way aways. Not really, considering the facts. I understand that some of you are trying to get as many years and time in service as you can in hopes that your retirement check will be that much bigger, That's all well and good, but you don't have until Sept 2007, and here is why.

First of all, after reading the documents above; you can clearly see that they have just transferred every current and retired LANL employee to a "new but separate" retirement plan that is not UCRP's. The retirement fund will be managed by the new contractor, just as will your medical benefits, That's right, effective very soon all retirees and current employees of LANL will not and can not retire under the UCRP even if they do leave before the new contractor takes over. They have taken that option away. Not only that, but with extremely good planning the UC/ DOE has even taken the option of cashing out away. It's to late and too close to the take over time to do that. So what should this mean to all LLNL employees and retirees? It's my hopes that what you have read will open your minds to the possibilities and consequences.

To me it says LLNL employees still have a chance to retire under UCRP if you do so by June 28th, 2006 not Sept 1st, 2007. Why? Well lets look at what just occurred.

On Friday the 13th LLNL was officially put up for bid and this gets the time clock started. Secondly, in the two year extension there is a clause that says that "UC can terminate the extension at any time", and for any reason before Sept 2007. This means that there is no guarantee as many believe that they can be comfortable until Sept 2007.

Thinks about this. It is evident that that UC wants you off their retirement plan, so why would DOE allow LLNL employees to remain under UCRP when they have the template for your demise already in place and totally legal? Sure they'll have the competition between UC/ Bechtel and lets say UT/ Lockheed, but we all know by watching what recently happened that it's a "canned formality" and "dog and pony show" for the politicians and the American people.

So again I ask you, what makes you think they are going to give you until Sept 2007 to get you ducks in a row, when in fact they can cut you off at the knees within the next six months or so? From what I have seen there is not basis to believe differently.

So this brings me to the a conclusion of which each and every one of you LLNL employees better think real hard about.

As it stands to date LLNL employees can still retire under UCRP, but not for long. If you retire now and before the new contractor take over, which I am going to bet will be a lot sooner then Sept of 2007; you have a chance because, "this is not our contract". However that does not preclude anything that I have said above. Please do not let anyone make you believe that UC is watching out for your welfare or that the circumstances for your demise are going to be any different just because you are Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. They are not. So what does that tell the "thinking person"?

I'd say they're are no options. You must retire on June 28th 2006, not only to get the 2% COLA; but because if you don't you will be subject to loosing it all just as every LANL employee has. You have exactly 5 months, 12 days, 15 hours, 50 minutes and 41 seconds to determine your future. You can do nothing and become part of the food chain, or will you can be the one sitting at the head of the table waiting to be served. It;s your choice.

Can you say, pull the D-ring and bail now? I am.

Personally I would hope that all LANL employee both present and past would bring a class action law suite against the UC and DOE in order to save all that they have ever worked for, but having been on this blog for a while and noting the few that have taken part; I doubt that they can muster enough people with a backbone to stand up for their entitlements and fight until death. We'll see.
Well, that's certainly one way to try to stem the tide of May retirements: guarantee that the folks out the door before the handoff take it in the backside like the ones who stick around.

I wonder if this is what Nanos meant by "a sense of shared fate"...
I'd say it was the smart thing to do.Got any better ideas. Please advise.
I consider UC's recent memo on their plans to put all the current
LANL retirees into a "special" UCRP-LANL pension to be very big news.

None of the current LANL retirees expected to hear this, and it will
have important repercussions for their future. Why has UCOP done
such a poor job of informing people about this big change? And why
did the Los Alamos Monitor feel that a huge story like this belongs
in a small slot on the back pages of their Sunday edition? It appears
to me that UC wants to execute this plan very quickly. Note that the
"60 day" benefits clause in the RFP will give UC the necessary cover
they need for implementing this huge change with minimal public input.
Is this an early example of UCOP's new way of doing business?

If you're a LANL retiree, you can soon kiss your rock-solid UC-based
pension goodbye. In its place will be a replicate with a much smaller
pool of employees that will be ripe for eventual transfer over to
the new LANL-LLC pension at some later date. UC appears to be getting
ready to wash its hands of all LANL pension liabilities. You might
think "they can't do this", but current stories we've all read in
the news show that corporate America can do almost anything they
want with pension benefits these days, and no one in Congress will
bother to stop them.
It would seem any future funding contributions for the UCRP-LANL plan would have to come from the Feds if it stays within the UCRP.

One cannot help but wonder if this is UC's way of "getting even" for all the heat they have taken over LANL. In other words, they could finally be free of the LANL hassle.

Not only that, it appears as though they are giving DOE something they have long awaited - a total segregation of LANL/UC assets and liabilities.

Does anyone think this plan was dreamt up in a day with no legal consultation or financial input? Remember the LANL employees who sued when the VERIP in the mid-90's gave them a lesser incentive than the rest of UC? The LANL employees lost that lawsuit.
I still say you should try and put the nubs on this by taking part. Or, maybe you just like the deal you are getting. ( J. Gary Gwilliam Attorney at Law ) ( Fox News )
You people didn't expect this little number, now, did you? So what! Paybacks a bitch, isn't it? Now, get back to work before I fire the whole bunch of you! Hmmm, maybe I'll decide to transfer my dear friend, Adm. Nanos, back into LANL as one of your new ADs. I can do that now that we've won back the contract, you know. Anastasio? He's just a convenient little hand puppet. I control the real power within UCOP's lab management. You'll be seeing more of me now that we've put this little contract mess behind us. Bwaaah, hah, hah, hah, haaaaah!
"The funded ratio for LANL's portion of the Plan on an actuarial basis decreased from 107% as of July 1, 2004 to 99% as of July 1, 2005. The LANL portion of the Plan is now in an unfunded position as the actuarial accrued liability exceeds the actuarial value of assets by $54 million."

It seems a bit fishy that the Plan assets "allocated" to LANL are not doing quite so well as the overall Plan assets. The UCRP annual report for the year ended 6/30/05 can be found at the following website

From p14: "As of June 30, 2005, the date of the most recent actuarial valuation, the Plan's funded ratio was 110.3 percent, compared to 117.9 percent at June 30, 2004, and 125.7 percent at June 30, 2003."

So, by spinning off an underfunded UCRP-LANL, the remaining UCRP should immediately enjoy a funded ratio in excess of 110.3 percent (6/30/05). At the very least, why shouldn't assets allocated to UCRP-LANL exactly track the overall funded ratio? Does LANL have a champion anywhere to ensure fairness here? God forbid that DOE/NNSA plays this role, but I suspect that's exactly the case, at least for now.
So, in the end, UC walks away from the mess that they created and the LANL retirees and employees get screwed. This is an outrage!

The question is whether Admiral Butthead's pension will go with ours or be kept in UCRS?
I would venture to say that everyone except upper level management will retire under UCRP and everyone one else will someday get a note in the mail saying, "We're sorry to inform you but due to budgetary constraints and the mismanagement of your retirement fund we had to hand your pension plan over to the "government pension fund; where as your retirement check is effectively reduced by 70%". Have a good day.

Now you can either accept this, or do something about it. The choice is yours. Both labs, their employees and retirees are being set up for a fall. Can you not see the hand writing on the wall? Do you not understand that after all of your years of service and being so close to retirement, UCRP is going to protect their own kind and to hell with all of you? Only your participation can resolve this dilemma. If you do not, you have accepted your own dismal fate.

My number one choice would be to provide the fact to the national media's and let the chips fall where they may. We all know that DOE/UC loves to make the national headlines. It's the only way that all retirees can be informed. ( J. Gary Gwilliam Attorney at Law ) ( Fox News )

After this dust falls I believe that any body who went to work for either lab would be a complete fool. If they succeed in screwing you, what's to say they will not screw the next generation. Now where are those who said they want to make a difference? ( J. Gary Gwilliam Attorney at Law ) ( Fox News )
at 1/16/2006 09:34:49 AM, itaintpronouncednookuler said...

"It seems a bit fishy that the Plan assets "allocated" to LANL are not doing quite so well as the overall Plan assets."

Indeed, this does seem to be a bit strange.
Why are the LANL assets separate from the other UCRS assets?

Are the LANL assets being managed diffenently?
From page 36 of the UCRS Annual Report for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2005:

Note 6—Plan TerminationThe Regents intend and expect to continue the Plan indefinitely, but reserves the right to amend or discontinue the Plan at any time provided that any such action shall not lessen accrued benefits. In the event that the Plan is terminated, its assets shall be applied solely for the benefit of retired, vested or active participants and beneficiaries, until all liabilities of the Plan have been satisfied.

Once all liabilities have been satisfied, any excess assets shall revert to the Regents. The benefits of the Plan are not insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a federal insurance agency established under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
I think somewhere in that 5c.df file it states that UCRP_LANS will be managed by LANSLLC as soon as they can develop a pension plan. To me this says that the funds will not be managed by UCRP, but will be managed by the corporation. If this be the case and the corporations goes belly up, what do you think happens to your retirement? Once UCRP gets permission from DOE to do this they will not give a rat’s ass about any of us at either lab. UCRP at that time will have succeeded in getting you off of their retirement plan and therefore are resolved of all liability. How sweat can it be? Please check out the document and post your own interpretation

For your information there is going to be a question and answer section at this site, but I have a feeling that if we wait for this to come true it will be to late to stop the mayhem. There is however an area where you can post a comment. Who reads it I do not know. Please take advantage of this and request a reply.
Holy cow! So our UCRP (and by association, also UCRP-LANL and probably
the LANL-LLC pension) are not covered by the PBGC? That's just great!
Once those DOE idiots begin monkeying with our pension and sink it into
oblivion, we won't even be able to get 25 cents to the dollar when our
pension investments crash and burn. I think I'll start looking for
some extra sturdy cardboard boxes to hoard. I might just need them to
live in during my "golden years".

BTW, I wonder what pension system the top level management at LANL will
be under. As top level UC executives, my guess is they might be allowed
to stay on with the UCRP. Is that possible?
That which can be separated, will be separated.
That which can be joined together, will be joined together.
And then Darkness will descend upon the Land.
But the Light shall be with some, and not with others.
If I worked or retired from somewhere else in UC other than LLNL or LANL, I would be ecstatic right now.

With contributions likely to be required again in the near future, why would I want to support a bunch of inactive or retired members who worked at a location whose employees are no longer contributing to the Plan? On top of which, most are also likely to be ahead of me in line at the trough?

If I were one of those employees, my preference would be to give LANL and LLNL their prorated share of the assets and liabilities and let them go from there. After all, actuarially speaking, the last dollar should be gone when the last beneficiary dies in UCRP-LANL. If their part of the plan needs money, well then they need to go to DOE.

However, since I do not work at another UC location, this has suddenly pushed Plan 1 to the forefront. Do I want to be the last person in the UCRP-LANL "last man standing" plan , or at the front of the line in the LANS "last man standing" Plan 1?

Anyone care to fill me in on what the grounds for a lawsuit might be?

As I recall, pat, the dog, UC's motto is: "Let There Be Light."
Here are the web sites for emailing comments:

President Dynes:

The Regents:

The web site for the Coalition for LANL Excellence is:
'UC's motto is: "Let There Be Light."' ...and watch the 'roaches flee...

There are known Los Alamos haters on the contract team from the New Mexico contingent of DOE's contract procurement team. There is also demonstrated cronyism amongst present and former DOE contract procurement business agents.

Time for the lawyers to roll. The new LANL management contract is a real four-alarm event.
The reason that LANL (and probably LLNL) are underfunded when separated out from campus employees is that we make more money AND live longer. Pure economics.

Before you panic, I think the jury is out on this move- Is UC going to separate funds to 'dump' LANL obligations on DOE? Or are they going to make a 'separate' pension which meets the rules of the RFP?
Are they hoping to use the new LANS employees to keep funding retirees? Maybe they want to remove the incentive to retire. It could be a good move, but it is not clear.
I think the UC wants you off of their retirement plan because LANL and LLNL employees and retirees are a burden to their riches, which was established to protect their own kind inside UC. It was all of us that were donors to their cause and now they want the funds in full with no parasites on board, namely (us ). We have been taken for fools and now we are getting the bone(r) in more then one way if this can not be stopped by tomorrow.
Ok, now I'm confused.

Don't know who drew the chart as shown in Att ONE at the end of the UCRP.pdf file, or even if it is correct, but it is certainly unclear.

AS DRAWN, it looks like employees who are Vested and "Decline Transfer" remain in the UCRP-LANL plan. Question is, what does "Decline Transfer" mean? Is it those that retire, those that go inactive, or both? The chart apparently does not show, clearly anyway, those choosing inactive status (locking up vested benefits with UC) and going into a new plan with LANS as well.

Might I suggest a much clearer picture for future presentation?
They way I understand this is that the UCRP-LANL plan IS NOT part of the primary UCRP retirement plan that consist of 200,000 employees. This would mean that LANL and LLNL will soon be separate entities by which the UC Regents will be relieved of all liabilities. That is BS to the max and I think illegal.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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