Shows & Panels
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- The Big Data Dilemma
- Carrying On with Continuity of Operations
- Connected Government
- Constituent Servicing
- Continuous Monitoring: Tools and Techniques for Trustworthy Government IT
- The Cyber Imperative
- Cyber Solutions for 2013 and Beyond
- The Data Privacy Imperative: Safeguarding Sensitive Data
- Expert Voices
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal IT Challenge
- Federal Tech Talk
- Mission-critical Apps in the Cloud
- The Modern Federal Threat Landscape
- The Path from Legacy Systems
- The Real Deal on Digital Government
- The Reality of Continuous Monitoring... Is Your Agency Secure?
- Veterans in Private Sector: Making the Transition
Shows & Panels
Companies stick agencies with retirement bill
Tuesday - 2/21/2012, 12:30pm EST
Tom Schatz, the group's president, shared his recommendations Tuesday on The Federal Drive with Tom Temin,
He said the practice of the government paying for private employees' retirements has been a legitimate business expense for years under cost-accounting standards.
"The problem is not necessarily covering those post-retirement benefits," Schatz said. "It's the defined benefits plans in particular that have caused a lot of increased liability and payment over the last several years and vastly increased payments over the next 10 years, according to a Government Accountability Office report from last April."
That report revealed the Department of Energy, with approximately 90 percent of its work provided through contractors, could be on the hook for as much as $37 billion in pensions, in particular defined-benefit liabilities, over the next 10 years.
Schatz recommended federal agencies do what lot of state and local governments — and many companys — are already doing to avoid the liablity &mdash transition from defined benefits plans to defined contribution plans.
"Unfortunately, many of the larger contractors have not done it," Schatz said. "It could be a number of reasons, but one might be because the government is reimbursing them for the shortfall in their benefit plans."