tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post311058381351405205..comments2023-08-27T06:53:36.768-06:00Comments on LANL: The Rest of the Story: You know you're over the target when you start taking flakFrank Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02134775226991383924noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-84689617688662357962009-11-03T15:24:56.341-07:002009-11-03T15:24:56.341-07:00China's Dongfeng-21 missile is the world's...China's Dongfeng-21 missile is the world's first that can take out a large moving target at sea: <br />http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2009/11/dongfeng-21-anti-ship-missile.htmlChina's Dongfeng-21 missile is the world's first that can take out a large moving target at seahttp://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2009/11/dongfeng-21-anti-ship-missile.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-21152681703123297402009-10-20T10:38:30.332-06:002009-10-20T10:38:30.332-06:00"You are so clever; please post your personal..."You are so clever; please post your personal information so that I can meet you for sex."<br /><br />10/19/09 9:31 PM<br /><br /><br />Hey, anytime, 9:31 pm! A person like you is just the type I'm looking for to star in my next big movie, "2 Girls 1 Cup - Act II":<br /><br />en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Girls_1_Cup<br /><br />You'll fit in just fine. Just be sure to bring along a mega-sized mug!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-81225983331008255452009-10-19T21:31:36.627-06:002009-10-19T21:31:36.627-06:00And the sheeple at LANL all said: "baa-baa&qu...And the sheeple at LANL all said: "baa-baa". I'm sure DOE/NNSA find this whole situation hilarious.<br /><br />10/19/09 10:42 AM<br /><br />HaHaHaHa! That "sheeple" thing is still hilarious. You are so clever; please post your personal information so that I can meet you for sex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-89279463180692578792009-10-19T10:42:02.140-06:002009-10-19T10:42:02.140-06:00So, TCP1 has mysteriously grown with the addition ...So, TCP1 has mysteriously grown with the addition of about 40 highly paid Bechtel employees at LANL. And the Bechtelites didn't have to transfer any of their corporate pensions assets into the TCP1 pot or serve the required time to be fully vested?<br /><br />Sounds like Bechtel has finally found an effective means to raid the LANS pension. No wonder employee contributions will soon be required!<br /><br />And the sheeple at LANL all said: "baa-baa". I'm sure DOE/NNSA find this whole situation hilarious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-56576415382689410432009-10-18T15:29:49.378-06:002009-10-18T15:29:49.378-06:00TCP 1 Members
" Here is the text of the TW s...TCP 1 Members<br /><br />" Here is the text of the TW slide on pension contributions:<br /><br />Pension Contributions<br />• The Defined Benefits Program<br />– Closed Program<br />• 5679 Active Participants<br />• 187 Retiree<br />• 725 Terminated/leave<br />– Value on 8/31/09: 1.37B, return in 09 is 12.7%<br />• Liabilities<br />– Service, Age, Salary and COLA<br />• Must increase the Assets<br />– Contribution"<br /><br />If that TW slide is correct that is 6,591 TCP1 members. From the Segal report Feb.2007 (see below) the total UC transfers into TCP1 was 6552. There are 39 new TCP1 members I assume from parent companies. Did they bring funds from parent co. pensions?<br /><br />Here are the numbers from Segal( Feb '07 and the UC documents Mar '07. Also the agreement outlined for UCRP and DOE/NNSA about funding UC retirees and inactives at 100%.<br /><br />Segal valuation report Feb. 2007<br /><br />There were 6,532 active members who elected to transfer to LANS. As described earlier, we have continued<br />to value these members as active UCRP members.<br /><br />There were also 20 members who terminated prior to the valuation date and elected to transfer to the LANS<br />defined benefit plan. These members were valued as either terminated vested or nonvested members in this<br />valuation, depending on each member’s circumstance.<br /><br />UC Regents meeting notes<br />Office of the President<br />TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION:<br />ACTION ITEM<br />For the Meeting of March 15, 2007<br />TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF<br />CALIFORNIA RETIREMENT PLAN (UCRP) TO THE LOS ALAMOS<br />NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN AND<br />AGREEMENT REGARDING THE ONGOING OBLIGATIONS OF THE<br />DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO REIMBURSE THE UNIVERSITY FOR<br />CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UCRP<br /><br />Following the Formula results in a May<br />31, 2006 market value of assets to be transferred (with adjustments as set forth below)<br />from UCRP to the LANS Plan of $1,278,762,851 (“A minus B”). The transfer of assets<br />and liabilities from UCRP to the LANS Plan is proposed to take place on or about April<br />2, 2007. The LANS Plan will then assume the liabilities transferred from UCRP effective<br />as of June 1, 2006.<br /><br />The DOE/NNSA has agreed to a target funded ratio for the LANL Segment within UCRP<br />of 100%. Any year that the segment is underfunded (using UCRP actuarial assumptions),<br />DOE/NNSA will begin seven years of level payments in an amount projected to restore<br />full funding by the end of the seven-year term.<br />Comments? Concerns? Information about these issues?<br />Thank you for reading and posting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-198897410692716612009-10-18T15:17:45.978-06:002009-10-18T15:17:45.978-06:00Great point about probably. I don't know any B...Great point about probably. I don't know any Bechtelians or others to ask if their parent pension transferred any funds. Would the employee know? Would anyone in LANS HR leak that information? TCP1 can't be very "closed system" since the numbers of TCP1 members has increased since June 2006.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-23108571077717018292009-10-18T14:32:58.820-06:002009-10-18T14:32:58.820-06:0011:42 am: "A Bechtel employee probablydid not...11:42 am: "A Bechtel employee probablydid not transfer funds from a Bechtel pension fund into TCP1."<br /><br />Your argument rests entirely on the word "probably" above. If you don't know the answer, someone should be able to enlighten you. I'm not a lawyer, but I strongly suspect the scenario you pose is illegal, since under the LANS/NNSA contract, TCP1 is in fact a "closed fund."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-18806385616456216382009-10-18T11:42:35.128-06:002009-10-18T11:42:35.128-06:00"Yes, parent company employees (e.g., UC) wer..."Yes, parent company employees (e.g., UC) were able to transfer service credit under the contract. So what's the big deal. all you former UC employees?"<br /><br />The big deal is that vested UC employees are the only parent company employees that transferred money into TCP1. It should be a closed fund for UC employees whose contributions and vested valuations funded. A Bechtel employee probablydid not transfer funds from a Bechtel pension fund into TCP1. This means Bechtel employees get a pension funded by UCRP funds calculated from former UC employees. If Bechtel(or other parent company) transfers retire soon enough they can even leave before even a dime of employee contributions are started for TCP1.<br /><br />As an aside, for UC inactives and retirees the UCRP annual report should soon be released showing the market losses and % funded status. This should be the first year to test the UC/DOE agreement memo to calculate the DOE liablities back to UCRP for the LLNL and LANL portions of the UC pension fund. It would be nice to get the % funded numbers from UC for the three groups since they are differentiating LLNL, LANL, and UC.<br />Should be interesting numbers in the UC annual report. UC also seems to be 18 to 24 months more current than the minimal reporting of TCP1. Weird that Terry W. shares select TCP1 info on Vu graphs but there is nothing official or current reported to ALL TCP1 members from benefits or LANS management.<br />Ruthless business. Move Bechtel transfers to retire on the UC funds, keep any Bechtel pensions funds intact, and hide these facts and report only the minimum information as late as legally compliant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-22524857860598365082009-10-18T11:13:40.756-06:002009-10-18T11:13:40.756-06:0010/17 3:46 pm: "Those poor poor "parent ...10/17 3:46 pm: "Those poor poor "parent company" pukes."<br /><br />You mean the ex-UC employees? Like Mikey, and, presumably, you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-29394262039452154842009-10-17T22:01:23.853-06:002009-10-17T22:01:23.853-06:00I nominate 10/17/09 9:27 AM for the comment of the...I nominate 10/17/09 9:27 AM for the comment of the week. Factual, accurate description of LANL under LANS. The rest of the story indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-47715952698288512522009-10-17T15:46:45.938-06:002009-10-17T15:46:45.938-06:00Those poor poor "parent company" pukes. ...Those poor poor "parent company" pukes. Can anyone name a single Bechtel transplant who has accomplished anything of substance since the hostile takeover? Just one? The silence is telling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-89691002821701682342009-10-17T11:42:38.147-06:002009-10-17T11:42:38.147-06:00"This place is as CORRUPT and PUTRID as they ..."This place is as CORRUPT and PUTRID as they get." - 6:05 AM<br /><br />Amen, brother! Keep preaching the word! <br /><br />LANS isn't just inept with their "for profit" management directed largely by Bechtel and Mike's Livermore mafia. That would be bad enough. <br /><br />It's the corruption that is exceptionally egregious to the remaining staff. LANS can issue all the PR they want to the public, but many lab employees know what is really going on inside LANL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-25220130521606127682009-10-17T09:27:18.101-06:002009-10-17T09:27:18.101-06:00"You must recognize when you've asked a m..."You must recognize when you've asked a meaningless question that can have no rational answer. What do you mean by "have anything'? Who will decide whether anything that satisfies the meaningless first question will "improve" LANL? Really, you need to think a little harder before you post.<br /><br />10/16/09 11:44 PM"<br /><br />WTF??? Are you drunk?<br /><br />The question is trivial but I guess you cannot think of a single thing. For fun let us try.<br />(1) Have business practices improved?... No they cannot figure out how much money we have spent.<br />(2) Is the place more cost effective?...No overhead has increased and we where in the hole deep enough to get people to retire.<br />(3) Has paperwork been streamlined?... No, paperwork and bureaucracy have dramatically increased.<br />(4) Has the scientific productivity increased?...No, by all measures it has decreased and more good people have left.<br /><br />(5) Are we better at doing our programs? ... No we are getting worse.<br />(6) Are we safer?...No we got rid of our bottled water and make people drink poisoned water and the same number of big incidents keep happening.<br />(7) Are we more secure?... Hell no, every computer person I know says that the cybersecurity policies are only about giving the appearance of security when in fact they create innumerable security holes.<br /><br />(8) Is the workforce empowered and happy?...No.<br /><br />In short the whole place is now a big con to bilk money out of the government. It is not just the fee, but they do many other tricks as well. So again I ask you the simple question...What has Bechtel done to improve LANL? At this point if may very well be better if we close down LANL and LLNL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-86283688159607186512009-10-17T06:05:39.893-06:002009-10-17T06:05:39.893-06:00I know that the "parent company" employe...I know that the "parent company" employees have been able to transfer their service credit to LANL. For example, I think I saw that Mike Mallory recently had his 30th service anniversary as an LANL employee. Yeah, you heard me right...<br /><br />Mike Mallory. Now there's another worthless "individual" that Mikey hired. Another con artist from the get go; what the hell has Mallory accomplished since he got here? Formed from the same sphincter that Brett Knapp and Bill Reese came from. Mikey has cut these asses "so to speak" loose with their guns blazing on people directing workers to leave their jobs and positions on the spot. Quite frankly, these lame excuses for "managers" nauseate me. So now your telling me these jerks prior service was transferred to LANS regardless of where they worked? This place is as CORRUPT and PUTRID as they get.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-59483489600250282009-10-16T23:44:10.734-06:002009-10-16T23:44:10.734-06:00A better question is whether former
Bechtel employ...A better question is whether former<br />Bechtel employees have anything to improve LANL?<br /><br />10/16/09 9:38 PM<br /><br />You must recognize when you've asked a meaningless question that can have no rational answer. What do you mean by "have anything'? Who will decide whether anything that satisfies the meaningless first question will "improve" LANL? Really, you need to think a little harder before you post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-90590330048289629402009-10-16T21:38:25.075-06:002009-10-16T21:38:25.075-06:00"So former Bechtel employees should be denied..."So former Bechtel employees should be denied rights under the LANS contract that other parent company employees enjoy because you think that Bechtel is a parasite?"<br /><br />A better question is whether former<br />Bechtel employees have anything to improve LANL?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-24367458967631515542009-10-16T11:13:01.524-06:002009-10-16T11:13:01.524-06:00The big deal is that Bechtel is a parasite.
10/16...The big deal is that Bechtel is a parasite.<br /><br />10/16/09 6:30 AM<br /><br />So former Bechtel employees should be denied rights under the LANS contract that other parent company employees enjoy because you think that Bechtel is a parasite? Just out of curiosity, even if that were true, why would anyone with integrity choose to work for a parasite?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-46434542014549985702009-10-16T06:30:21.850-06:002009-10-16T06:30:21.850-06:00The big deal is that Bechtel is a parasite.The big deal is that Bechtel is a parasite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-1653536059495419932009-10-15T20:23:24.096-06:002009-10-15T20:23:24.096-06:00I know that the "parent company" employe...I know that the "parent company" employees have been able to transfer their service credit to LANL.<br /><br />10/15/09 4:42 PM<br /><br />Wow. That is criminal that some worthless Bechtelian scum can obtain service credit on LANL property. Disgusting.<br /><br />10/15/09 6:30 PM<br /><br />Yes, parent company employees (e.g., UC) were able to transfer service credit under the contract. So what's the big deal. all you former UC employees?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-33402524491623024822009-10-15T16:42:27.656-06:002009-10-15T16:42:27.656-06:00I know that the "parent company" employe...I know that the "parent company" employees have been able to transfer their service credit to LANL. For example, I think I saw that Mike Mallory recently had his 30th service anniversary as an LANL employee. Yeah, you heard me right...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-20923733660384125352009-10-15T11:25:33.088-06:002009-10-15T11:25:33.088-06:00"All your bases are belong to us!"
en.w..."All your bases are belong to us!"<br /><br />en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<br />All_your_base_are_belong_to_us<br /><br />- RILEY BECHTELAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-34880163333730117042009-10-15T08:24:28.752-06:002009-10-15T08:24:28.752-06:00"I have heard Bechtel managers openly braggin..."I have heard Bechtel managers openly bragging about their sweet LANL retirement plan. Apparently, Bechtel managers are brought here, work two years, then retire in the the TCP1 program, which is better than their Bechtel plan. "<br /><br />I have heard the exact same thing<br />and it may be legal but very sleazy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-19150232878350194602009-10-14T21:54:02.796-06:002009-10-14T21:54:02.796-06:00Can anyone else verify 11:58 AM's claim regard...Can anyone else verify 11:58 AM's claim regarding Bechtel's pillaging of the TCP1 pension with their own employees? <br /><br />In particular, is it true that the incoming Bechtel implants are able to get into the TCP1 pension after only 2 years of service at LANL?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-55384407177381274902009-10-14T11:58:08.884-06:002009-10-14T11:58:08.884-06:00It is interesting to note all of the comments on B...It is interesting to note all of the comments on Bechtel-ization, TCP1 shortfalls, and the increase in management (ie overhead). Hmmm...perhaps, there could be a link? I have heard Bechtel managers openly bragging about their sweet LANL retirement plan. Apparently, Bechtel managers are brought here, work two years, then retire in the the TCP1 program, which is better than their Bechtel plan. This reduces the burden on the Bechtel pension fund, while draining the LANL pension fund. This of course is coupled with LANS management pressuring long time LANL employees to leave, thus reducing their "service credit" for<br />calculating their TCP1 payout. It seems to me that the GAO should be talking a look into this. I'm sure it legal; however, I'm sure Congress did not intend to subsidize Bechtel's pension fund.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-16662936857278044172009-10-12T11:01:59.350-06:002009-10-12T11:01:59.350-06:00Feel better now that you've had your chance to...Feel better now that you've had your chance to raged like a two year old, 6:23 am? <br /><br />Too bad your infantile post doesn't have a single thing to add to this blogs discussions. Keep up the intense anger, 6:23, and it will eventually end up killing you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com