Possible Impediment to Pension Improvements
I've had a couple of comments regarding Frank Munger's blog articles (which you can easily accrss by scrolling down the right side of this page).
This past Tuesday, Frank published a chart of new hires at Y-12. A couple of weeks ago, he published the same type chart for new hires at ORNL. A CORRE member noted that ORNL has hired over 2000 new employees since 2001 and Y-12 has hired over 2500 new employees since the year 2000. Perhaps not all these are full-time and perhaps not all are eligible for a pension (though I don't know why they wouldn't). But one could reasonably assume that well more than half, say 2500 to 3000, have come to work expecting to have a pension when they retire.
Is it possible that DOE and its contractors realize that without the pension fund surplus they would need to immediately begin contributing to the pension fund to account for these new employees? Or is it possible they are thinking the pension fund surplus will take care of these people as long as they don't use part of the surplus to improve the pensions of current retirees.
What do you think?
March 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The DOE is getting a free ride on paying costs for the defined benefit plans of new employees of DOE contractors in Tennessee. The reason the DOE and the contractors can do this is that there is a huge surplus in the Multi-contractor pension fund, especially so since DOE and the contractors refuse to grant adjustments to retirees for the ravages of inflation. This represents blatant discrimination by the government and the contractors against Tennesseans. DOE is paying up to 10 percent of salaries per year for pension funds at many other sites annually. How is it fair for DOE to not pay anything for pensions in Tennessee since 1984 and to pay for pensions every year in New Mexico, Illinois, California, New York, and other states? The DOE discriminates against others sites, as well. The government obviously believes in the favored and the unfavored. It is time the Congressmen of the unfavored got together and demanded some changes from the Bush Administration.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Oh- I forgot to mention how the behavior of the Administration (read Secretary Bodman as the executor to the Administration policy) on this issue makes a joke of the term “compassionate conservatism.” There are other names for it.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:27 am
Not only Yes but Hell Yes!!
Bias against the older retirees has been an explanation for many of DOE pension actions.
Further this administration including DOE has openly stated their intent to minimize and eliminate contractor-defined pension plans.
I am reminded of the statement of the Indian elder who said, ” The white man has made many promises to the Indians but has kept only one. He promised to take away our land and this he has done”.
I hope we are as smart as the Indians.
I know how difficult it is to believe you are betrayed by your government but that is the reality of the DOE contractor pensions. I would welcome an explanation in which I could feel I was being treated equitably. Put it on this blog.
More on http://home.comcast.net/~brooks50/InformerIndex.htm
Al Brooks