Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Transition Question

Submitted by Anonymous:
______________________________

Doug,
Please place the following question anonymously. Thanks.

Question:
At the LANL Benefits presentations yesterday I learned from someone in the
audience that you could transfer to LANS as an inactive vested UCRS
employee, then take the lump sum cash out from UCRS after the transfer and
still be able to retire with full medical and dental benefits under LANS.
If so, this represents an improvement over what you're allowed to do under
UCRS, i.e. if you lump out under UCRS you forgo your retirement medical.
Does anyone know if this "loophole" in the LANS tranfer is for real?


Comments:
This is correct and was so stated by Lynn Soderstrom last evening at SF session.



LANS Transition
HR Communications
 
As with anything relating to UC and LANS, you had better get it in writing. Sometimes these people have convenient "memory lapses."
 
According to the 3/30 afternoon presentation, this issue of allowing lump-sum including medical under TCP2 is "under review" by DOE and is not yet decided. Yet another major issue that is not resolved in a timely manner. I need another 60 days to rerun all my options....
 
No it's called closing a loophole for all. After all we can't give you to good of a deal. We'll know more tomorrow one way or the other according to HR LANS.
 
Are you guys seeing that LANS appears to have done a good job--even great job--of preserving the incredibly good retirement package (TCP1) for the historical UCRS-vested LANL employee?

After the cynical and pessimistic predictions given here over many months, that fact ought to be reason for some serious celebration. And given the pride in balance and fairness apparent from Doug-et al, I expect they will want to acknowledge it.

A lot of the credit has to go to NNSA senior management (Linton Brooks) who appears to have taken seriously the impact of a mass exodus of trained staff at LANL. Of course, with the priority set clearly by NNSA, LANS understands which benefits knobs to adjust to minimize turnover. UC, of course, has established and perpetuated the generous retirement plan. NNSA has agreed to funding guarantees that are as close to iron-clad as this world allows.

So before everyone gets too carried away about the minutia of the differences between the UCRS and the LANS plans, the potential for a later breach of faith, and un-met personal preferences, how about a headliner acknowledging that the sky did not fall on the long-time LANL employee with the new contract.

I say "Three Cheers!"
 
Dear "LANL Employee",

I personally have not taken the time to evaluate the various retirement options available under the new contractor, since I am already retired and working full-time for another company, so I cannot judge whether or not any of them are "substantially equivalent".

I have, however, watched with interest UC's attempts to pull my retirement benefits out from under me by removing them from the UC program and placing them in a much smaller, at-risk fund. I do not have much trust nor respect for the managers of the University of California, given their performance during recent years. And, quite frankly, I don't see much to cheer about regarding the contract hand-over, since UC is still a part of the process.

Regardless of how I feel, though, your opinions (anonymously presented though they are), as well as anybody else's, are welcomed here.

--Doug
 
The credit for positive change here goes to the 1,700 people that got off their butts and took the time to voice their concerns one way or the other, not the sheep that sat on their asses and said to themselves," why bother, they are going to do as they want to anyway". I did not find 1,700 people out of eight thousand or so FTE's from LANL and LLNL as very good turn out, but at least we know who the backbone of the organizations are. Hats off to the 1,700 people that stood up for what they believed in. Not much to say about those who just read the blog and did nothing.
 
The loop hole is officially closed on this matter. It will not be allowed....

Question:
At the LANL Benefits presentations yesterday I learned from someone in the
audience that you could transfer to LANS as an inactive vested UCRS
employee, then take the lump sum cash out from UCRS after the transfer and
still be able to retire with full medical and dental benefits under LANS.
If so, this represents an improvement over what you're allowed to do under
UCRS, i.e. if you lump out under UCRS you forgo your retirement medical.
Does anyone know if this "loophole" in the LANS tranfer is for real?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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