 |
| Domenici & Wilson: Enhance Retirement Program |
April 12, 2000 |
| |
Want DOE to Reverse Decision Denying Retirement Enhancements
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici and Congresswoman Heather Wilson today sought the reversal of an Energy Department decision to oppose enhancing the retirement program for Sandia National Laboratories employees, charging that disparities in Sandia’s retirement program inhibits worker recruitment and retention.
Domenici and Wilson today sent a letter to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson asking him to review a Department of Energy decision that deemed recently proposed enhancements to the retirement system as unacceptable. The lawmakers, who report numerous constituent concerns about the Sandia system, endorse efforts by Sandia contractor, Lockheed-Martin Corp., to expand the lab’s retirement system to reach more “equity” with other DOE laboratories
Currently, the Sandia system provides fewer retirement benefits than the Los Alamos National Laboratory/University of California system, which includes a cost-of-living adjustment. Retirement benefit improvements for Sandia employees and retirees would not adversely affect the program, which Domenici and Wilson say is “well-funded.”
“I worry that our DOE nuclear labs are being hindered in recruiting a new generation of scientists to maintain the United States’ nuclear superiority. Inadequacies in the Sandia retirement system add to those recruitment and retention stumbling blocks, particularly in an era where the private sector can offer more,” Domenici said. “Secretary Richardson should get the DOE to accept the upgrades to the Sandia system. It will help recruitment, and be good for current employees and those who have served our nation by working at Sandia.”
“We need to make sure pay and benefits at Sandia are kept up-to-date,” Wilson said, “and that the retirement benefits have cost-of-living adjustments. I’ve heard from constituents about Sandia`s retirement system. If DOE has other concerns with the proposed changes, they should be worked out, not just disapproved.”
The lawmakers wrote to Richardson that:
“While we understand that these retirement systems are specific to individual contractors, it should be in the Department’s interest to strive for excellent programs with significant lab-to-lab equity.
“The retirement program at Sandia has been funded by the past and current contractors and employees. As long as the program maintains a safe actuarial position, we see no rationale for rejecting a Sandia request for program enhancements.
“The lower benefits of the Sandia system serve as a recruiting barrier when prospective new hires view it against the Los Alamos system. The recent Chiles’ Commission highlighted the importance of both recruitment and retention of high quality staff, on which the nation’s security programs depend. The retirement system of a contractor is a significant contributor to the overall employment climate that underpins a strong staff.
“We have also been contacted by many retirees from Sandia. They are seriously impacted both by the lower benefits of the Sandia system and the absence of cost-of-living adjustments in their program, again in contrast to the University of California system. Many of these retirees are having immense financial difficulty in their retirement years. We understand that Sandia’s proposal would have significantly impacted some of these cases.”
--30-- |
|
|
|