Tuesday, February 14, 2006

LANS LLC Benfit plans

http://www.doeal.gov/LASO/ContractTransition/default.html

Comments:
With a quick glance here is how I see it.

Unmatched 401k

Can't put away as much money as you did in your 403b

Can't get the same medical insurnace rate offer as does UCRP because there are less people in the system.

Still did not define what system those who wish to retire will be able to retire under. ( Well at least it wasn't clear to me)

LANS is required to consider amending PP1 to be consistent with any changes made by the Board of Regents.. to UCRP ( No what does that imply ) Is this what we are waiting for?

It wasn't a bad package at all
 
It looks like the lump sum cashout option is gone.
 
Pension Plan I. Same vacation, sick leave, holidays. Mirror of UCRP: Matches UC age factors. Some changes to spousal continuance, but it wasn't clear what they were. Seems to eliminate lump-sum cash out. Catch up provision is gone. Lower contribution amounts allowed on 401ks. Might be higher overall fees because
LANS pension account is smaller.

Pension Plan II. Looks like 3.5% per year per employee plus up to 6% voluntary contribution with dollar for dollar matching. Not too bad. Also this plan is portable and belongs to the employee- a big plus.

LANS did ok. However, Sandia is allowed 116% (instead of 105%) of comparitor group- LANS needs to request the same exception.
 
Not clear what, if any medical benefits one receives upon future retirement if you elect inactive vested in UCRP with 20+ years of service which would result in becoming a member of PP2.
 
Also gone are retiree medical benefits under PP2. The "access only" plan is code for "you pay full costs of insurance premiums, but can have access to the plan regardless of age or past medical history." That is, you will only be granted access to the plan. This is what major corporations coming out of bankruptcy have all switched to.
 
If I read it correctly, it looks like those who choose to
go "inactive" and lock-in UCRP will (1) be in the "new-hire"
Pension 2, and thus (2) only be offered "access" to retiree
health care coverage (ie, they will have to pay FULL COST!)

If true, then I see no reason why anyone would want to
go inactive. If you want to lock-in your UCRP and still
get good retiree medical benefits, it looks like you'll
have to retire (which you can't do unless your 50+). This
could be a key issue for much of the older staff. Perhaps
we'll see a surge of retirements between now and June 1st?
 
I am not sure I understand the TCP2 benefits the same way as tm. On page 28 the statement is:
100% match on first 6% of member voluntary pretax contributions.
So fo someone allowed to put in 20K pretax (50+), that would mean 1.2K matching (if I understand this correctly). So if someone would make 100K, the most the employer would hav to put in is 4.7K per year in the first 9 years. I also believe the 7% investment return/year is overly optimistic. I have not seen that in my TIAA-CREF account for a long time.
 
To be honest, I have a strong feeling that Medical will be on the chopping board for the UC system in the next 10 years. From my readings on the difference between Life Insurance actuary reports and Pension actuary reports.. the promised Medical and other payments (COLAS) are too much for even UC to handle in 16 years.
 
So knowing that we will probably get such a notice in the mail in about 10 years wouldn't you say that we should all cash out before June 1st and buy a fixed lifetime annunity?

Who can find out how many people there are at LANL that are of age 50 and above. It would be interesting to see how many of these people actually file papers next month.
 
The new Fed chief, Bernanke, is talking to Congress today. It's
interesting to note that he's saying that "Draconian cuts" will
be necessary in entitlements. Yeah, it's going to get very nasty
once the baby-boomer begin entering their Golden Years. I would
not doubt that UC's generous retirement medical coverage will
soon be gone, or at least drastically rise in cost for future
retirees. Only the elites in America have nothing to worry
about when it comes to pensions, retirement, and medical care.
If you are not at the very top, then reductions in retirement
living standards are probably coming your way. Start saving
what you can to prepare for your future.
 
Do you mean that my preposterous post may not be far from becoming a reality very soon? I feel so bad for being able to think outside the box !!

To whom it may concern:

Due to the overwhelming quantity of people that are going to retire and that are expected to live beyond our expectations we can no longer honor any future current or future liabilities because the UCRP is bankrupt. We're sorry any inconvenience that this may have caused but then again poor planing on your behalf does not constitute an emergency on ours. Thank you for your years of dedication and service. It was greatly was appreciated. Good luck in your next endeavor.

Now lets see what NNSA/ DOE/UC Regents do to those who want to leave before June 1st.
 
Concerning pabloemma1's comment indeed the wording is not clear, but I THINK it means that if you make 100K, and put 10K in to your 401, LANS will put 6% of 100K (6K) in for you. But we need to get a real answer.

Concerning PP2 health costs, does anyone know what such costs might be? (other companies - what do they charge?)
 
According to HR I would have been paying $195.00 a month but with the rising cost of medical coverage this year of 70% my new payment is going to be $331.50. This is for a married couple PPO.
 
Hasn't anyone noticed that section K about current retirees is missing?
 
Presumably, those of us who didn't pay Social Security will now have to do so. This effective reduction in income has not been taken into account.
 
Hasn't anyone noticed that section K about current retirees is missing?
# posted by big-slick : 2/15/2006 12:35:45 PM

When I called LANS HR this morning and asked this question the answer was, " we have nothing to do with that part" You will have to direct your questions to the UC Regents, NNSA and DOE. They did say that they will make the names and e-mail addresses of those who need to be contacted available on their site soon
 
The table of contents is missing a Section I, so that may explain why J corresponds to I and K corresponds to J (in the table of contents). Page 47 is Section J and it is about current retirees.
 
With reference to the poorly constructed "Contents" page 1 (in addition to skipping Section I they also neglected to provide the corresponding page numbers, which most readers expect to see in a table of contents), it illustrates another aspect of potential misuse of "information" appearing on blogs and elsewhere. Not only is there an inclination on the part of a writer (myself included) to be first with a written response, but also on the part of a reader to jump to the wrong conclusion, as in calling HR, itself a fount of misinformation. I can imagine what a typical response might be from a reader of consequence (one who might have a lot to do with how the Transition plays out) upon reading a contribution that hyperventilates.
 
A question to LANS and DOE:

Please answer this question.

On page 42 of the Mercer presentation it shows that a person retiring at age 65 should get 39% of their income from social security, 11% from the 6% that they are to save and the remaining 36% is to come from the pension plan, making it appear as if they are going to do well; but here's reality.

It is highly unlikely that anyone in the low hourly or salary range will be able to save 11% of their income for the duration of their career nor will the 39% that is to come from social security be there when it's time for them to retire. So in reality what that leaves a person to live on is 36% of their base pay with no cost of living allowance to come. When looked at from this point of view it says that one will have to work until they are pushed out the door in order to have sufficient funds to live on.

The question that the troops here are asking is, just what is the actual formula to be used to calculate ones retirement pay? At the current time we use an age X time formula along with the average of the last three years salary to obtain and actual figure and ever that comes out to be less after a visit with an HR retirement counselor.

So please show us the actual formula whereby we can calculate our own retirement where social security and ones saving are not factored into the final figure.
 
Could someone point me to the part of the package where holiday and vacation/sick accrual is addressed?
 
From Lori at LANS on 401(k) matching:

It would be 6% of your annual income up to $15,000.
 
b-ohica,

I have been saving 12% of my income towards retirement since I was making 5.50 an hour. When I have not had immediate family problems, I have done an addition 10% towards needed eqt (car, computer, house). It has meant that I couldn't get a big TV, cable, stereo, or other stuff an average american is supposed to have until I could afford them (usually 1-2 years).. I also worked out of my 5.50 as soon as I could...

The main things I am trying to say is that saving 55c an hour only means 1100 towards retirement and makes life very hard.. but it can be done
 
While this package "seems" to be "not bad" I still interpret it all to being "old" person unfriendly. It still doesn't give that employee that's 50+ who has given 25+ years of service much option. The only option I really see is get out with what you can. This package seems to favor the younger worker that they can "mold" and at a much smaller salary. If you take the normal "old" person at the Lab (50+, 25+ service)they are towards the top of their respective pay scales, be it TSM, SSM, or Tec just due to time in service. If LANS can get all those folks to retire it's saved money. Take a senior TSM @ $140K avg. Don't even figure overhead. If 300 in that category retired that's automatically a $42M savings. Now promote a 40 year old into that position at less salary. Fill the 40 year old's slot with a new grad. You now have a young dude to mold and a 40 year old that got promoted (at less money) and you got rid of a pain in the ass old timer who says they won't change. Do that across the SSM and Tec series and there is probably some serious money involved.

That's how I'm seeing this while still looking down from 50,000 feet. I'm still looking for other thoughts. Seems like everyone is looking to someone else for advise and deciphering. Lawyereze takes a lot of effort.
 
Ignoring "lawyereze" for the moment:

Of course they want to get rid of the older staff, they cost more.

Naturally, the new contract will have a benefits program that encourages the "grey" community to retire now, rather than transfer to the new LLC.

That former cash cow, that previous uncomfortable conglomerate comprised of LANL, UC, and DOE is now officially history. Deal with it, or leave.
 
Butthead, better yet, the lab can bring in new hires to handle all the
old geezer's jobs.

Why even bother sticking a LANL "40-something" into vacant positions
when even cheaper labor is readily available? Beside, no one really
thinks we'll be doing any serious science in the next decade, do they?
Obviously, LANS and DOE don't think so, given the meager benefits
they will now be offering to our future TSM new hires.

It's a race to the bottom of the barrel, and I doubt that NNSA/DOE
or our highly paid bosses at LANS really give a rat's ass. LANL
is simply following a well worn formula that has been playing out all
across America these days. Cheap == Good. Just don't ask too many
questions about the quality of the product that you're being served.
They're tasty, very filling, and loaded with tons of sugar & fat.
What more could you ask for? Bon appetit!
 
I admit to not studying in detail the proposed benefits plan (there are various important work-related deadlines right now at LANL). Could someone
please explain to me and others the answers to these questions:

1) What happens if a 50-ish employee
(a) goes inactive vested and works for LANS, then decides to retire. The inactive vested part can still be lump-sum cashed out or not?
And what are the options for the "new" retirement benefits that were accrued under the LANS plan for the period he/she worked for LANS?
(b) rolls over completely into the LANS plan now, and retires in say 5 years.
What are the retirement options, does it include lump sum cashout out not? If not, it's a monthly draw of some kind? If no lump-sum option, how can that be "substantially euqivalent"?
 
What happens if a UC employee faces dismissal from UC employment against his will without mitigatory measures of relocation to another UC facility, severance payment and such like that usually are required under employment law.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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