Monday, January 23, 2006

UCRS-LANL: What if there's a new contractor?

It seems to me that the really big danger comes if UC doesn't get the next
contract or somehow loses this one early. Those of us now drawing
retirement feel pretty secure with UCRS and I'd have a little bit of
confidence in the proposed UCRP-LANL arrangement with the University
running it but none if LANS were to lose or pull out of the contract. In
that event, its a sure bet UC is no longer going to be managing the
UCRP-LANL plan and who knows whether there'd be any "attempt at
equivalence." I think the plan could then rapidly go defunct. When you
consider this scenario there is no way that the proposed separation of
currently retired people into UCRP-LANL can be considered a plan with
equivalent benefits. Part of benefits is the amount of risk involved. Or
maybe UC would like to give us a guarantee that if they lose or pull out of
the contract they'll transfer us back into UCRS. A lot of recently retired
people are going to outlive this contract.

I think we need to look at the possibility of a class action suit. I'd be
willing to put up a $1000 toward it.

Arvid Lundy

I started at the Lab in '67 and signed a loyalty oath. I was one of those
who had the option of going under social security later (mid-70s?) and did
so. I retired in '98.

Comments:
Arvid,
You have more confidence than I do. After the transfer of funds to LANS, there will be no active members in the UCRP-LANL plan, so it will only be funded by its earnings, while the current UCRP plan may also be funded by employee contributions. In fact, it has been stated that payments into UCRP will have to resume shortly. But this will not be possible with the UCRP-LANL plan, since there will be no active employees in it. I think this is a MAJOR change in the UCRP retirement plan in Los Alamos which cannot be beneficial to inactive or retirees of the plan. If they have a plan that takes this into account, I would like to know.
 
I agree with David. There will be no active contributions into the UCRP-LANL plan and by the time my wife needs it, there will be no funds nor no one who cares...
 
David,

You seem much less pro-UC these days. Could it be that their true nature is becoming more obvious to you? The welfare of LANL employees has not been a top priority with UC for some time now; this move to sever the LANL retirees from the UCRP fund should make that obvious by now, if their actions of 2004 did not.

-Doug
 
As suggested in a previous topic thread:

"... Would it be possible to identify the highest positioned LANL manager for whom the cloned UCRP-LANL should be a concern? And, might that person be persuaded to champion the cause?

# posted by 2L84ME : 1/21/2006 02:57:17 PM"

One response was:

"... My feelings are that the ones who can stop this have their own self interest in mind, ... As you can see they are in position where they have theirs, and to hell with you. If I were them I wouldn't care neither. ...
# posted by b-ohica : 1/21/2006 03:36:28 PM"

But there must be someone, at some level of management, who is a member of UCRP, perhaps without Social Security, for whom the UCRP-LANL cloning should be of major concern, no? Is there nobody out there with a modicum of clout who can offer some respite from total darkness and a constant diet of bull?
 
Does anyone know if Anistasio's pension will be under the new UCRP-LANL plan or will his stay with UC?
 
The Director and all the AD's will have there pensions in their respective parent organizatons. UC, Bechtel, BWXT, WG. They will still be members of the good old boys club.
 
Given that they "... will have there pensions in their respective parent organizatons. UC, ..." how will those whose parent organization is UC avoid the UCRP-LANL trap?
 
All;
I have a growing pile of resources that will help people sort out these issues for themselves.
The most valuable resource is a former CEO who has retired successfully and who has dealt effectively with each of the posted issues and with the unposted ones that are associated with them.
If any reader would like to know more, please contact me (frf42@yahoo.com)

Best regards,
Eric
 
Don't forget that LANS-LLC is a "small business" chartered in the State of Delaware. The LLC's "small business" status that gains federal contractor acquisition favors is only good for five years. The LANS-LLC contract runs seven years...Now if it takes five years to vest in the new LLC's benefits packages, it looks to me the newbies risk losing a lot when a new contractor is negotiated to begin at 4.999999 years.
 
Doug,
I think you have misunderstood my earlier statements. I'm very pro LANL and believe it is critical to the nation. I've never said there wasn't mismanagement, but it is shared by the DOE/NNSA not just (and perhaps not primarily) UC. People just jumping ship because they dislike the management is not in the best interests of the nation and our national defense. It is the staff that has cared the most about this in the past and should continue. Certainly UC is not trying to curry favor with Lab employees at this time.
 
I think I know the answer to the question why top level LANL or LANS managers do not seem too concerned about the UCRP-LANL construct.

In the president's proposal to the Regents at the January meeting, available at:

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/jan06/5c.pdf

item 1.C in the recommendation seeks authority to allow credit accrued under the UC and/or the LLC to be considered (but not double counted) in determining a member's final retirement benefits payable under UCRP and/or the LANS Corporate Plan.

So, it isn't too hard to imagine that service credits, etc., earned by a select few at the top working at the LLC will be transferred back to UCRP proper when UC graciously agrees to bring these folks back to UC for, say, one day of formal UC employment (as a janitor, or whatever). Then, invoking the new proposed rule, these folks could safely retire under the nice, healthy UCRP plan.

Anyone see a flaw in my logic?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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