Monday, January 23, 2006

UC-LANL retirement

UC has to do what it is doing, and you would too. The estimated future payouts to present and future UC-LANL campus employees is underfunded by ~$40M this year. This shortage could decrease or increase in coming years. I don't think DOE has agreed to fund the shortage. Do you expect the taxpayers of California to fund a shortage in benefits for mostly NM people? Dynes would be toast. If the contract had not been put up for bid and UC continued to run LANL, DOE would have had to provide increased funding to the plan. After June, I don't think there is an existing mechanism for that to happen. I think UC is telling DOE that there needs to be one. DOE has approved all the past salary and benefit packages and has funding everything. If the retirement plan funding is short, it is a result of DOE decisions and it's a DOE problem, not UC's. If DOE will not assume responsibility for full funding for the UC-LANL plan, do you believe that in the future there will be full funding for the UC-LLNL plan or the LANS plan or whatever? It is in DOE's interest to provide a credible benefits package to attract future LANL employees. Not providing full funding for all the retirement plans means that the promised retirement benefits for all present and future employees is incredible. It is a DOE problem, not UC's. Put the pressure where it belongs. Put it on DOE.

Dick Yactor


Comments:
By extension, why doesn't UC clone a UCRP-RETIREES from the parent UCRP? This group would have no active members, no spokespersons, no recourse, and no options. Do you expect the taxpayers of California to fund a shortage in benefits for mostly old people, who BTW now live in various states including California?
 
UC has to do what it is doing, and you would too. The estimated future payouts to present and future UC-LANL campus employees is underfunded by ~$40M this year.

This is not my fault, but what the IRS needs to do is look into is this. It seems kind of funny that the retirement fund is $350M short, when we hear that it took $200M and two years of time to get this contract done and $100M for administrative fees. Then there is that little matter of perks for the cronies during these last two years, and a salary of $1.3M for Mikey baby and his cland. If I were the IRS I'd request an immediate audit and take what ever action that I needed to against the perpetrators. Can you say misuse of our retirment fund and a stripped suit ?

This shortage could decrease or increase in coming years. I don't think DOE has agreed to fund the shortage.

Do you expect the taxpayers of California to fund a shortage in benefits for mostly NM people? Dynes would be toast.

So what you are saying here is that even thought the employees of LANL in NM are in fact UC empolyees, they are not entitled to the same retirment as those at LLNL because the reside in a different state? Damn good thing you don't run Bechtel .


If the contract had not been put up for bid and UC continued to run LANL, DOE would have had to provide increased funding to the plan.

No so. There is enough money in that primary UCRP fund to take care of everyone. I don't believe that for a micro-second. This is a cop out where the UC Regents is saying, "if corporate America can get away with it, why can't we", BS ploy.

After June, I don't think there is an existing mechanism for that to happen. I think UC is telling DOE that there needs to be one.

DOE doesn't care. As I have said before you have been used, abused and tattoed.

DOE has approved all the past salary and benefit packages and has funding everything. If the retirement plan funding is short, it is a result of DOE decisions and it's a DOE problem, not UC's.

If DOE will not assume responsibility for full funding for the UC-LANL plan, do you believe that in the future there will be full funding for the UC-LLNL plan or the LANS plan or whatever?

This is the point of this blog. That's why a law suite is all that can resolve this. Of course you have to have people with a spine to stand up and fight. To date the messsage from the law firm in Oakland is:

Thank you for your update regarding the retirement program negotiations
between the University of California and Los Alamos National Security,
LLC.

At this time no one has contacted us to file any lawsuit in this matter.
The law firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer is not
presently pursuing a class action suit.

Please be assured that we are keeping abreast of the situation because
of our continuing interest in the matter.

With Regards,
Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer



It is in DOE's interest to provide a credible benefits package to attract future LANL employees. Not providing full funding for all the retirement plans means that the promised retirement benefits for all present and future employees is incredible.

They don't care. For now down-sizing is what they want and it will come at the cost of everyone both current and retired personnel. But there is still hope for intervention from the legal world. hint hint


It is a DOE problem, not UC's. Put the pressure where it belongs. Put it on DOE.

Nope. It is UC's problem. UC manages the UCRP fund and has for over 50 years. Not DOE. It is not DOE's problem..... They are simply fishing for a means to get away clean with no ties or liabilities.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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