[dragnet2]

Taxpayers for years have been covering private contractors' retiree costs for things like pensions and health care, even though these workers are not on the federal payroll.

The private sector is being gang raped by government.

[pepsionice]

These must be awful “special” contractors. I worked eleven years as a contractor for the Air Force and got nothing like that. Oh yeah, they paid my company X amount of money, which a small part went to a hospitalization plan as long as I worked, and my company matched three percent of my salary to a 401K plan. Otherwise, I didn’t get this kind of deal they suggest.

If some government idiots rigged up a great contract for their buddies....then it ought to be investigated and laid out. The guys who signed for the government...should be let go or never allowed to participate in contracts again.

[TwoSwords]

It’s hard to believe we’re being driven into the ground by a group that’s so crude. But the nazi’s were surprised they ever gained power.

[napscoordinator]

The lion’s share of the DOE’s workforce is private contractors, most of whom work in the nuclear energy sector.

Well the choice is either get rid of all nuclear plants. That would save a bunch of money or pay these contractors a bit of money through medical benefits so they don’t go to the private sector where they will make a ton of money. You choice folks!

[PieterCasparzen]

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sten]

i worked for DOE in the forrestal building as a contractor with SAIC from 1993-1995.

there was nothing like these benefits even mentioned. just standard rates, which were good but nothing compared to the west coast at the time.

then again, i was sub contracting to SAIC. this article could mean the direct contractor, in my case SAIC, and their employee benefits package.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

DOE bears the responsibility, according to its contracts, for reimbursing contractors for retiree benefits for an estimated 200,000 people, including 100,000 current and former contractor employees, and 100,000 beneficiaries of those employees, such as spouses.... In fiscal 2008 to 2009, such costs more than doubled, the GAO adds, because of a drop in the interest rate used to calculate contractors’ pension plan liabilities, and because the pension assets plunged in value as the overall market dropped due to the financial crisis.... As is the case across the board, volatile investment returns can drastically impact pension contributions for government contractors, and in turn taxpayer costs to cover them. "As a result, DOE ultimately bears the investment risk incurred by the contractor sponsoring the plan," the GAO said in its report. So the DOE, in order to reduce immediate contract costs, decided to take on the risk of interest rate fluctuations in pension plans. Not for 401k's, the employee keeps that risk, but in pensions. Most contractors would never notice this provision in their company's contract even if they ever got to read it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

People are hired to do a job, and they are given a contract, and the contract pays them for the job, in various ways.

I work for a company. They hired me to do a job. In return, they pay me. They pay me a salary, they give me holidays, they give me vacation. They pay for most of my health benefits. They have a defined benefit retirement plan. They put money into my 401K. All of these are ways I am compensated for the work I do on their behalf.

When I am retired, the company will still be paying me my retirement benefits. I guess at that time someone can complain that the company took on the market risk of the cost of the benefits they provided me. Which they did — but if they didn’t, I’d have wanted more money to pay for those risks.

Or if no companies did that, there would be businesses that would spring up that would offer a defined benefit payout for premiums, kind of like whole life insurance. And then THAT company would assume the risk, and they would charge me what they thought that risk was.

So, apparently the government hires some long-term contractors, probably through contracting companies. It sounds like those companies get a contract, and the government as part of that contract assumed pension liability for the workers. Now that looks stupid because of the increased costs recently of the benefits; at other times it looks like a good deal.

If the government didn’t take that risk, the contracting company would have charged whatever they thought it would cost to assume that risk, just as I assume every defense contractor builds medical and pension overhead costs into the rates they charge government, and just as every car the government buys includes a cost the car companies think is necessary to pay their employee benefits, and every ream of paper, and every computer. I’m sure every building company that the government hires does the same.

It bothers me when people start talking about earned pension benefits as if they are government handouts. It happened a lot in the Wisconsin discussion. I’m all for getting the government to set more reasonable obligation limits in their contracting, but the contracts that already exist were agreed to with people for work those people performed, and they are not “handouts”, any more than any of your companies are giving you handouts when they let you take a vacation day, or pay your pension.