Friday, January 17, 2014
Did management lie?
I went to the meetings in 2007 when the new LLNS management promised that UC retirees, all of whom were having their health care switched to LLNS, would receive "substantially equivalent" benefits compared to what UC offered. In 2014 UC is offering some of its retirees (out of state, medicare eligible) an HRA plan that is identical to what the Lab offers its medicare-eligible retirees - except, UC puts 25% more cash into the HRA.
Is 25% the new "substantially equivalent"? or did management simply lie?
When asked about this at last Fall's health care meeting, the Lab rep just said, "Well, it's a tough budget year". She didn't mention that one of the first things the new management did was to cut their own health care costs. I guess that's okay, since you can always make the retirees pay more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
"substantially equivalent" was always a lie. Whatever UC had or has represents the absolute upper bound to what we get. It's the point from which LLNS starts cutting.
LLNS has routinely welshed on the deal with retirees, and I find that particularly despicable. It's one thing to change the deal for new hires, who can evaluate the deal and decide to go somewhere else. Quite another thing to stiff people who worked for many years under written promises that are now being broken.
LLNS and its officers should be ashamed. I am.
Reputation and trust are easy to lose and difficult to gain.
I guess LLNS doesn't care about their reputation, or their "working employees", as long as the bonuses come rolling in.
Time for a new management company.
In short: Yes
In the long, it was also NNSA and their idiots who lied and did not realize what a disaster they are creating.
Even Linton Brooks today admits that this did not go the way the were thinking.
A new management won't change things: Same tree different monkey.
No, the lab have to go back to not for profit status, get rid of NNSA
and go away from the corporate culture of Bechtel and Co.
But sadly, it won't happen.
They have been treating the retirees very poorly.
And they welshed on their commitment (made verbally and on slides) with the current employees to contribute to the pension...while forcing the current employees to contribute via a 14% pay cut.
Very disappointing.
Yes, LANS management lied. Worse still, they continue to lie. Worse still, they are being rewarded for their dishonesty.
"...and did not realize what a disaster they are creating"
January 17, 2014 at 5:29 PM
Sorry January 17, they fully realized the impact of their deceipt. DOE/NNSA hacks have been taking every opportunity to sock it to the "labbies" for as long as anyone can remember. It is hard for anyone who hasn't been there to understand the intensity of the jealousy of the feds. The glee in the Forrestal when privitization was mandated was pathetic. Congress stil doesn't seem to understand that no one in the Forestall can design a nuclear weapon; no one in the Forestall can certify a nuclear weapon; and no one in the Forestall can test a surrogate of a nuclear weapon. They (Forestall hacks) are as useless as tits on a boar (sorry Scooby, it is what it is).
If anyone in Congress were really interested in defending this nation by supporting its nuclear strike forces, they would clean house in DOE/NNSA, restore the sovereignty of the design labs, and publicly recognize the service to the country of their employees.
January 17, 2014 at 8:14 PM:
Are the Forrestal hacks as useless as NIF seems to be? At least they don't cost as much.
"substantially equivalent" has continued to erode since LLNS took over in October 2007.
Take a good look at the November 2012 policy updates. We are losing benefits and FTE protections with each employment policy update. Yes we should question retirement and active employee benefits.
Don't assume if LLNS goes away our benefits will return. If and when a new LLC takes over (LLNS 2.0, LAWNS, LOOPS, etc.) the new company at a minimum will likely use a snapshot of our benefits at that moment as the new "baseline", not anything reassembling 2007 "substantially equivalent" to UC.
In other words, collectively speak up now or see our benefits ratcheted away into non-existence...
..." when the new LLNS management promised"
Right there is the mistake. Promises meaning nothing to LANS/LLNS.
Did you look at the UC HSA plan before making this post? They are essentially equivalent, at least the employee plan. (Might be different for retirees.) In the employee plan, there is a higher deductible that is compensated by the larger amount in the plan. And at higher salary levels, UC employees pay more. I don't see a significant difference in the plans between LLNS and UC.
So UC employees make post tax contributions? Why no difference at all.
OK, here's a fair comparison. UC just started up the same system for out of state retirees that LLNL retirees have everywhere. The difference? UC gives its retirees $300/month to buy medicare supplements (PPO plus part D), but LLNL gives its retirees $200/month.
Substantially non-equivalent...
The $200/month exactly covers Kaiser's Medicare advantage plan for the Lab retiree (or spouse), but then Medicare charges an additional $239/person per month for parts A, B & D. If you're spouse is not working and your retirement is not so much then the Medicare part might be reduced to $139/person.
UC gives its retirees $300/month to buy medicare supplements (PPO plus part D), but LLNL gives its retirees $200/month.
Substantially non-equivalent...
January 20, 2014 at 7:22 PM
Interesting, since LANS also gives $300 per month, whether the retiree chooses a EPO, a PPO, or "National Medicare Supplement" (i.e., Medigap).
The $200/month exactly covers Kaiser's Medicare advantage plan for the Lab retiree (or spouse), but then Medicare charges an additional $239/person per month for parts A, B & D.
January 20, 2014 at 10:22 PM
Check again. Medicare Part A is free to everyone. Part D is only available through private insurance companies. For Part D, Medicare only charges directly for any additional premium payment you owe based on income over $85,000. Advantage plans that cover prescriptions include the basic Plan D premium. So your monthly cost is the Medicare Advantage premium, which includes drugs, plus the Part B premium ($104 up, depending on income) paid to the government, plus any Part D adjustment based on your income, also paid to the government.
When DOE bureaucrats came to town years ago and sang their sweet songs about how nothing much would really change with the new for-profit LLCs running the labs and gave you their promise that benefits for NNSA lab employees would remain "substantially equivalent" with UC... you believed them? Really?
you believed them? Really?
January 21, 2014 at 8:18 PM
And what besides your cynicism would have led you to disbelieve? Because it wasn't in writing? It was. Remember all the feel-good promises and good-intentions gestures LLNS (and LANS) made during the competition? Were you actually there? If so and you stuck with the new contractor, then shut up. If you weren't there, shut up. If you were there and left before the new contract because you didn't believe it, good for you. Now shut up and go away.
"Check again. Medicare Part A is free to everyone. Part D is only available through private insurance companies."
Not true. From one of our recent Medicare bills for one retiree:
1.) current amount due for Part A and/or Part B = $209.80
2.) current amount due for IRMAA Part D = $31.10
total = $240.90
This is in addition to the $200/month for Kaiser Medicare Advantage per person.
So for one retiree, the health bill per month is = $439.70
For non-Medicare retirees the Kaiser plan costs $113/month (including spouse), which of course is a fantastic deal.
The LLNS retirement supplement is $2400/retiree and another $2400 per spouse, per year, so at least they cover the Kaiser bill.
The problem is that Medicare uses you tax return prior to retirement, so this will be "jacked up" by vacation payouts, and a UC payout of up to $50K. That pushes your Medicare premiums up.
Lesson, don't retire after you turn 65, retire at 60 if you can !
"Check again. Medicare Part A is free to everyone. Part D is only available through private insurance companies."
Not true. From one of our recent Medicare bills for one retiree:
1.) current amount due for Part A and/or Part B = $209.80
2.) current amount due for IRMAA Part D = $31.10
total = $240.90
This is in addition to the $200/month for Kaiser Medicare Advantage per person.
So for one retiree, the health bill per month is = $439.70
January 21, 2014 at 9:05 PM
It appears January 21, 2014 at 2:59 PM was indeed correct. Your numbers show a premium of $209.80 for Part B (not Part A which is free), and an adjusted premium increase of $31.10 for Part D, over the base premium. These must be paid to Medicare directly in addition to the Advantage premium paid to the insurer. This is completely consistent with January 21, 2014 at 2:59 PM and indicates that the income of the recipient (for 2012 as used by Medicare) was $107k - $160k.
Sounds like that person can easily afford the health care costs. The correct comparison is not to employee costs but to private insurance costs, which would be around $1000 per month for similar coverage.
"For non-Medicare retirees the Kaiser plan costs $113/month (including spouse)"
For Medicare retirees, the health bill per month is = $439.70 + another $439.70 for the spouse = $879.40"
So where is it that Medicare retirees (those 65 and older under LLNS) are not being screwed ?
So where is it that Medicare retirees (those 65 and older under LLNS) are not being screwed ?
January 25, 2014 at 8:00 PM
If as a retiree you didn't get Medicare but had to buy private insurance, you would know what "being screwed" means. Uncle Sugar is taking care of you. No employer owes you lifetime medical insurance.
There is "equivalent" and "substantially equivalent".
The first term means something.
The second term doesn't.
Tyler Pryzbylek is a liar. He deserves judgement.
So where do I look this stuff up? I currently have LLNL Blue Cross retiree family coverage for $822 per mo. tho I have thought about Kaiser @ about $150 per month.
In a few years, I will go on medicade, and I would prefer a similar plan where I retain control and am not "managed" by Kaiser. What will I pay for me for similar full coverage? Sounds like its about $450 minus the $200.
I believe my wife and kids will continue coverage under LLNL family Blue Cross for about $500 per month.
So in summary, will the total family expense and coverage be about the same as a non-medicare and medicare covered retiree?
Thanks in advance.
January 27, 2014 at 11:09 PM
I assume you meant Medicare, not Medicaid. Try medicare.gov. Be patient and read everything, then use their plan finder.
Post a Comment