BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Suggest new topics here

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE

Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Lawsuit Possible to Regain UC Health Care

Lawsuit Possible to Regain UC Health Care"

"Those who were hired at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before 1990 appear to have a “viable claim” to be reinstated to University of California health programs, according to attorneys for the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Retiree Group."

Many UC/LLNL employees were hired well before 1990, and had 20 years or more service credit with UC/LLNL before LLNS took over. If these lab employees retired after 2007, they too were placed into the more expensive LLNS health programs. Have these lab retirees reached out to the UCLRG attorneys to possibly join forces? 

http://llnlretiree.com/news_articles/09_12_17_independent.htm

8 comments:

Anonymous said...


Those who were hired prior to Jan. 1 1990 at LLNL and LANL only had to be in the UC system for 10 YEARS to be eligible for FULL 100% retiree medical benefits. The 20 year requirement was implemented AFTER Jan. 1 1990. There are PLENTY of non-lab UC system employees hired prior to Jan 1. 1990 who can confirm that. LLNL and LANL retirees hired prior to Jan 1. 1990 are being held to a different standard than all other UC employees in the same status. LLNL and LANL had all the same benefits as all other UC employee campus employees....This is a discriminatory act that should be adjudicated by a court. Plain and Simple...Oh and by the way, at transition, most of the Directors and deputy directors negotiated individual contracts that made them UC employees that entitled them to free and clear health benefits as UC retirees. Just ask Tarter, Miller and Anastasio. look here for those nice salaries of former lab Directors.

https://transparentcalifornia.com/

Merry Christmas everyone.



Anonymous said...

There's a bigger "train wreck" coming for LANS/LLNS TCP-1 retirees. If you haven't been paying attention, the Funding Target Attainment Percentage at LANS (and LLNS) has been on a negative slope since these LLCs took over. As private entities LANS/LLNS are using this target to eventually divest themselves (aka abandon) from TCP-1. From 2015 to 2017 the LANS percentage has gone from 119% to 106%, and these decreases have occurred during stable and positive stock market return years. 2018 will be a greater negative increment with the abysmal stock market performance this year. At this negative slope, the LANS pension (as a private entity) will be turned over to the U.S. Government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) in at least 6-years (when the funding target is below 85%) where you will receive no more than 50% of your pension from the government, at best. In addition, the recent TCP-1 contract, in clear legal wording, indicates that LANS/LLNS "only owes you monies that you contribute to the pension and nothing more", suggesting they can severe your pension at any time following the return of your contributions. The bottom-line is that LANS/LLNS, as private entities, are planning to divest themselves from TCP-1 through the PBGC, have no long-term vested interest to maintain the viability of these pensions, and are doing a poor job of managing investments in TCP-1. TCP-1 is not substantially equivalent to the UC Pension. Not even in the aggregate. We need to start gearing up for this too.

Anonymous said...

Like Pryzbylek said" substantially equivalent in the aggregate"... . Hahaha.

Anonymous said...

"Those who were hired prior to Jan. 1 1990 at LLNL and LANL only had to be in the UC system for 10 YEARS to be eligible for FULL 100% retiree medical benefits. The 20 year requirement was implemented AFTER Jan. 1 1990. There are PLENTY of non-lab UC system employees hired prior to Jan 1. 1990 who can confirm that. LLNL and LANL retirees hired prior to Jan 1. 1990 are being held to a different standard than all other UC employees in the same status. LLNL and LANL had all the same benefits as all other UC employee campus employees....This is a discriminatory act that should be adjudicated by a court. Plain and Simple...Oh and by the way, at transition, most of the Directors and deputy directors negotiated individual contracts that made them UC employees that entitled them to free and clear health benefits as UC retirees. Just ask Tarter, Miller and Anastasio. look here for those nice salaries of former lab Directors."

All good points, but it takes money to cover attorney costs and expenses especially in an extended court challenge. Therefore, as the post asked, should we "join forces"? Now one might say it is premature to "join forces". However, if UC/LANL retirees and UC/LLNL retirees fail in court or aren't adequately funded, all LANS and LLNS retirees that were fully UC vested for medical benefits as you describe, will also continue to be rooked. The exception being, a few Directors and Deputy Directors that cleared a UC path for themselves while selling the virtues of LANS and LLNS to lab employees.

Anonymous said...

Not sure why this is here. This is basically a restatement of the case as of eight years ago. This post is misleading and contains nothing new.

Anonymous said...

7:33 PM is repeating the same falsehoods as before. Under ERISA rules, when a pension falls below 85% of being fully funded the pension DOES NOT get turned over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 85% is the trip point for coming up with a plan to make the pension whole. The troll also claims that when the pension hits 85% of being fully funded then the PBGC will pay 50% or less of the full payout. Obviously false.

Pensions only go to the PBGC if they are terminated by the employer UNDER DURESS. To qualify for under duress termination, the employer must show at least one of the following a) The employer faces liquidation under bankruptcy proceedings - this cannot happen to the M&O contractor, b) Costs of continuing the pension will make the business fail - can't happen under the M&O contract as the Government has agreed to pay all allowable costs, or c) costs of continuing the pension are unreasonably burdensome solely because of a decline in the workforce - not going to happen anytime soon.



Anonymous said...

December 9, 2018 at 7:33 PM

Very interesting, the question is when does the train actually wreck? So at 85% it gets turned over to the Feds. We are at 106% now,
probably going down to 102% this year. So my guess would be when the next recession hits it will be done. Sounds about right. Who knows how bad the next recession will be but it will come just as they always do. What I would like to know is why was it managed so incredibly badly, what did they do or not do. Also the rumors have been that all the top level managers have deals with UC not LLNS or LANS so they never believed the substantially equivalent bs either.

Anonymous said...

The pension does not get turned over to the Feds at 85%. That is simply not true.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days