Saturday, April 08, 2006

Trust, but verify

Doug/Brad, please post anonymously.

LANS has quietly changed retiree medical eligibilty requirements for TCP2 between their 3/28-30 public sessions and early this week ~04/04.

Clicking on the "Pension Calculational Examples" on the LANS web site will get you to the file LANS_Sample_Retirement_Estimates_for_TCPP1_and_TCP2.pdf . The requirement change is found at the bottom half of page 7, in the first bullet under "If You Elect TCP2". The new requirement now is age 55 with 10 years of service. In LANS's 3/28-30 public sessions, slide 38, it was age 50 with 10 years of service. Someone age 50 with 15 years service and who wants to work another 3 years in TCP2 will not receive retiree medical with the new rule but would have with the old.

If one should compare age 50 with 10 years service to the second bullet (to keeps ages the same), the second bullet would have age 50 with 5 years service and age+service>=75 which is still different from age 50 with 10 years service. The same someone age 50 with 15 years service who wants to work another 3 years wouldn't get retiree medical under this rule either.

It appears that LANS has quietly brewed new age and service concoctions for their new TCP2 retiree medical eligibility requirements.

Note that the "If You Elect TCP1" retiree medical eligibility requirements at the bottom half of page 6 now has the same language as the UCRP Retirement Handbook. I believe this is the first time this language has been used in a LANS public document for TCP1 (anyone knows where else?).

It is probable that NNSA has already reviewed and approved the changes, wittingly or unwittingly, since the no-retiree-medical-with-lump-sum statement also appears at the bottom of page 7. Perhaps an "equal in the aggregate" statement will be used to explain this mess.

An honest person would never expect to find rule changes buried in a "calculational examples" posting and would never even consider looking for any. I've been fortunate enough to serve on a jury in a criminal trial and observed attorneys diligently scanning evidence in real time before allowing them to be entered into permanent court records to ensure something new hadn't been slipped in, even though they had seen it all before during the discovery phase. The lesson here is to read through each new doc thoroughly regardless of file name. Trust, but verify.


Comments:
It's my understanding that NONE of the posted information on the web is contractual - the company is not bound by it.

The REAL contract details are secret - and probably won't be revealed to the massess until it is too late to do anything about it.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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