Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Information from Senator Bingaman's office.

Doug~

Please place on "BLOG"

I was provided this information from Senator Bingaman's office.

We are glad DOE has placed a hold on this Notice. This hopefully recognizes
the value of our National Labs and will be an incentive supporting the
retaining and recruiting of our very brightest and talented people.

UPTE has been supportive of this action and we want to thank Senator
Bingaman for his support.

Thanks,

Manny Trujillo
UPTE-CWA
President


Attachments:

DOE to Sen Bingaman.pdf
AARP Domenici-Reid - EW FY 2007.pdf
Mercer letter on DOE policy.pdf
ERIC letter to appropriators.pdf

Comments:
What are the likely effects of these letters? Do they imply that the TCP 1 and TCP 2 decisions, which caused anguish in many employees, may have to be redone under new rules?

Thanks.
 
I wonder if all of this is going to cause DOE to file Chapter 11 and do to us as we have seen done to United and soon Delta airlines. I mean after all, where is the money to fund these pensions to come from? Are we to tax the next generation for our welfare, leaving them with no hope of ever being able to enjoy the same benefit of retirement? I think I would resolve this by offering no retirement or benefits to all new hires and make it very clear from the beginning that it is up to you to make you own nest egg. That would have gone into affect June 1st, 2006 for all DOE facilities. After all it is the new way and exactly what the private sector offers. Visit this URL and take the time to listen to all four segments, especially segment #4. It is spelled out so very clear.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/view/

Pass this reality along to your children, or they are going to be screwed.
 
TCP1 and TCP2 were created under an RFP contract, and not under
a much weaker DOE Directive. As such, I doubt this new policy
(which is still "under review" by DOE) will have any effect on
new hires at LANL. LANS has already signed off on the TCP2
"no-pension" agreement by taking on the new LANL contract.
And even if a change were possible at this time, it would
create a huge legal mess. Thousands of LANL employees have
already made life-changing decisions based on information given
to us by NNSA and LANS over the last few months. For either party
to now say "never mind" at this late date would be unthinkable.

Perhaps it could have some effect on the future LLNL contract
if the RFP can be re-worded before a winning party signs on the
dotted line. The proof that DOE has really had a change of
heart in this matter will be clear to see when the LLNL RFP
is issued. Don't get your hopes up too high.

And as one poster commented, being a "pioneer" in this whole
matter has put LANL in an unenviable position. It reminds
me of that old saying:

You can always tell who's been a "pioneer". They're the people
with the arrows in their backs.

-
 
Why wouldn't it be more financially sound for LANS to petition to switch to a defined benefits pension? Under TCP2, LANS has to come up with matching funds for the 401(k) in real time. It can't be delayed. But the defined benefits pension will only be paid out when the person retires, and if LANS does not exist, then what?
 
Mr. McGee, please don't give LANS any ideas...
 
...precisely why I went UC-Inactive.
 

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

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

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]