Anonymously contributed in the LANL BLOG:
OK, it's understood that retiree medical benefits are not vested or guaranteed. But nobody has answered these questions:
Why, having retired under UCRP as a UC employee who worked at the Lab for 30 years, are my retiree medical benefits substantially different (worse) than those being provided to UC retirees from other campuses? They are paying less, and getting more services (and choices), than we are. Why must we be subjected to the whims of LANS and LLNS, companies we never worked for, companies that didn't even exist when we were employed by UC? We were sold on the concept that we were UC employees, that the Labs were basically like UC research "campuses". Heck, we were all UC, all the way, all the time. That is, until it came time to deliver our retiree medical benefits. Then the rules changed, and we became "second-class" UC retirees. Again, it's understood that retiree medical benefits could be reduced or even eliminated (and they probably will), BUT HOW CAN THEY LEGALLY TREAT US DIFFERENTLY THAN RETIREES IN UCRP FROM OTHER CAMPUSES?" It's discrimination, I tell you. If retirees from Berkeley, Davis, UCLA, Irvine, Riverside, Santa Cruz, Merced, UCSF, and Santa Barbara were in the same boat as us and were getting the same reduction in benefits at increased cost, I'd still complain, but at least I'd understand. But as it is, with the UC retirees from the Labs being singled out and screwed over by DOE/NNSA through LANS/LLNS with apparent UC concurrence, it seems unfair and the obvious ripe fruit for a class action lawsuit. Sign me up.
6 comments:
How can they legally treat us different from other UC empolyees?
Simple - we really were not UC employees. We were run by a University that was running a contract for the government. It looked like we were UC employees, but in reality, our paycheck came from the federal government funds, not the state of California. That also included the medical in retirement.
DOE / NNSA paid UC the money for the medical plans in retirement. When UC was no longer the contractor they were no longer obligated nor were they getting the money from DOE/NNSA to pay for the retirement medical. LLNS was getting that money.
Now throw in the mix that Congress thought we were overly compensated, mix in a dash of NNSA lapdogs willing and eager to listen to Congress (on this issue) and voila - NNSA says cut the benefits. Them boys at NNSA have bean counters who can go back to Congress and say "we made it less expensive to do business with those overpriced labbers."
If you want medical for life, get elected to congress. They do not feel your pain.
Do I feel betrayed - yes. I understand the logic of what has happened and I do not like it one bit.
Where the money came from is irrelevant. We WERE UC employees. That's who hired us, that's what it said on all the paperwork. Not DOE. We were NOT feds, were not part of civil service, were not classified in the GS system. Saying we didn't work for UC is like saying employees working at Boeing making planes for a federal government contract don't work for Boeing, they work for the government. Wrongo. If UC took money from the federal government to pay us, fine, that's contract work. But the employees belong to the employer, to UC, and they know it. We paid into their retirement system, retired under it, and STILL get pension money from it. So they know that we did work for them, that they do have an ongoing obligation to us. The medical thing is clearly a DOE/NNSA sanctioned UC copout that I expect will be turned over in court.
Perhaps LLNS should start handing out these nifty RectoRotor devices to help employees and retirees prepare for the future...
www.cracked.com/article_17399_p2.html
No...you were not UC employees. You were managed under a contract to UC. Your pay and retirement were substantially higher than UC standards and that was the primary benefit.
I feel for you, but I don't expect dragging this point out in court is going change anything.
July 22 9:54
I totally agree with you. We received our money from DOE, however, OUR benefits were UC benefits. This was told to every employee when hired and is on all hire package paperwork. It's a cop out of UC and they should be held accountable!!!!
"We paid into their retirement system, retired under it, and STILL get pension money from it."
Makes sense to me. If retirees are retired under the UC system, receiving benefits through that system, then they must have been UC employees, and should receive medical benefits under the same retirement system. If they were not UC employees, then why did any labbies have an option to "freeze" benefits in the UC system? They should have been offered a transfer to TCP1 and that's that. The fact that retirees are retired under UC is a clear admission that they were UC employees and are UC retirees. I'm no lawyer, but seems to me that the retiree's demands are anything but frivolous.
Post a Comment