Saturday, March 25, 2006

Only required by the RFP for a year

Submitted by Anonymous:
_____________________________

I understand that the LANS contractual commitment for "substantially
equivalent" benefits, i.e., the TCP1 package, is only required by
the RFP for a year.

Is this true? If so, vested LANL employees will be taking a very
large and completely undefined risk in taking TCP1. The age and
service factors could be substantially reduced and/or (eventually)
the defined benefit portion could be deleted entirely. TCP1 could
morph fairly quickly to TCP2.

So, is there a contractual limit on the duration of substantially
equivalent benefits"?

Comments:
"So, is there a contractual limit on the duration of substantially equivalent benefits?"

One year. Which, coincidentally, is when the RIFs are scheduled to commence.
 
Helloooo!!!

Can you say retire, NOW? Once you guys are "at will" employees pinks slips will flow rapidly as "they" wish. No funds, no project, = "no you". Have a good day and welcome to corporate America. That is the new way of the world and has been for a long time. It's just LANL and LLNL turn in the pot. Live your life with no debt what so every and be prepared to pull up stakes on a moments notice and you'll be fine. Live on the edge from pay day to pay day, and the party is over..
 
And for you people who do WFO, it's going to get a whole lot worse in terms of cost and productivity. When the 500 to 1000 directl-funded TSMs and TECs leave in May, most of what will be left will be the overhead people. That, coupled with the increased costs do to the improved management fee, pension costs, NM Gross Reciepts Tax, and additional managment will take our costs out of the realm where the majority of sponsors will be interested. Then, there will be all of the new training and other nonsense.

Indeed it is time to retire.
 
Not to worry darhtman, I suspect many will be coming back.
 
Not to worry, Educated: much of the WFO has left LANL, and more of it will do the same. There are very few WFO sponsors still willing to pay the exorbitant FTE rates, and take the risks associated with sending money to LANL.
 
This site is beginning to read like something from another planet. Wake up all you negative nay-sayers!

1. Nowhere is it written (or has been said) that the RFP working conditions are for one year. There is an express statement that TCP1 pensions will track UCRP.
2. There is no reason to retire now. You can go with "inactive vesting", include your sick leave, and preserve medical benefits to the extent that any retiree will have! There will be no retirements above normal, excepting managers who don't want to deal with a new heirarchy.

The pendulum has swung the other way, and you have been left behind...
 
You are on it as well, llc001. Know several who have changed their plans from retiring to going inactive vested.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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