CORRE Blog

Larry Long writes: Today, DOE announced that the planned increase in the cost of Pre-Age 65  Bechtel Jacobs Retiree medical benefits  has been put on hold. Getting a reprieve is certainly welcome news, but we really need Bechtel Jacobs and DOE to step up and fix the total problem. There were 547 retirees that would have been severely impacted by the now deferred change. However, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 grandfathered employees, scattered across Oak Ridge, Paducah and Portsmouth, impacted by the segregation of retirement benefits from the other Oak Ridge facilities.

Retiree Charlie Price writes: 

CORRE, and hopefully Senator Alexander's office, is trying to get us a COLA out of the money that was set aside 23 years ago, but why is this the main issue?  The fact that neither DOE nor its Oak Ridge contractors have added anything to benefits for OR contractor retirees since 1984 is another sad issue.  Where does DOE get its money for DOE retiree COLAs?  Out of new tax money, I bet.  Why can't new money be used for contractor retiree benefits?

Several comments on this blog deal with the effect of the new Pension Protection Act (PPA) and whether there is sufficient funds for adjustments for retirees.  CORRE is working with the Congressional offices to get clarified the costs of the requests of CORRE, the effects of the PPA, and the relative adequacy of the surplus to grant the requests.  The companies have supplied info on the costs of the CORRE requests, which was basically the info calculated in 2005.  CORRE has suspected these are not correct.  Senator Alexander's office is taking the lead on this, and is focusing on getting the numbers correct at the present time.  CORRE officers, based on their own advice from counsel familiar with the PPA, and based on their own knowledge of costs of what it is requesting on behalf of retirees, firmly believe that there are sufficient funds for the adjustments. CORRE officers are working with the Congressional offices to establish these facts.

Pete Lotts

In the off chance that anyone really did follow through with the truck idea and travel outside of Oak Ridge, it would be nice to get some video of it parked in front of some prominent campaign billboards, the Capital, the White House, DOE-HQ, etc. and post it on U Tube.  Maybe 60 minutes or Dateline or some other media would pick it up.  

Charlie Price, retired from MMES in 1992 says: 

Ron Leinius' idea about a derelict truck is good.  I have the truck — a 1981 GMC with plenty of rust, dents, scratches, cracked glass and faded paint. Only problem is I use it daily and couldn't do without it.  How about some bumper stickers?  "I CAN'T AFFORD A BETTER TRUCK BECAUSE DOE IS CHEATING ME ON MY PENSION BENEFITS."

Lynn Edd Story, retired from BJC, says: 

I spent 29 years and 6 months of my employment for DOE at Y-12 under Union Carbide, Martin Marietta, and Lockheed Martin. In April 1998, I was transitioned to Bechtel Jacobs, where I spent 6 months before retiring in November, 1998. Therefore, I am considered a Bechtel Jacobs retiree and receive my pension from them.

I was reading the Oak Ridger Edition for Thursday, September 27^th and noticed that CORRE may be trying to include Wackenhut and Bechtel Jacobs in their dealings for pension adjustments. If this is the case, will CORRE include Bechtel Jacobs retirees in their business dealings? If so, I want to be a part of CORRE. Let me know if Bechtel Jacobs retirees will be included.

President Reichle responds:

Retiring when he did makes him a "grandfathered" employee.  Meaning that the B-J Trust Fund, established with liability transfers from the MEPP, covers him. 

CORRE is not trying to, it does represent him in all business dealings.  It says so right at the top of our 2007 Position Paper. Tell Lynn Edd to look for our recent correspondence and meeting with B-J managers.

Lynn Edd needs to join CORRE.

Sandra Adkins, a BWXT Y-12 retiree asks:

How much of the $750 million pension fund surplus would the CORRE proposals for improved benefits consume?

Bob Worrell, a CORRE Board member, answers:

Towers Perrin, the plan actuary, priced the 2% spouse reduction at $51.3M as of 1-1-06. It would cost less now since it applies to a diminishing population. The reduction was approved for all active employees in July, 2004, so anyone retiring after that date is already getting the benefit. Towers Perrin also priced the general increase, as of 1-1-06, at $95.4M, but we believe that understates our actual request. We believe a more realistic number would be about $150M, but would obviously depend on how the Company structured the increase. I think you could reasonably estimate a total cost of $200M , but be sure to note that the number is a rough estimate.

Incidentally, I just yesterday got an updated total plan asset value which raises the surplus to about $800 million