Isn't it GREAT to no longer be employed by UC?????
As a UC retiree we have also been told that even though UC is now offering Vision Service Plans to their retirees as of 4/1/08, the LLNL and LLNS UC retirees will not get this because LLNS has said "no". Also, LLNL and LANL UC retirees will have to get the okay from DOE in order to get an ad hoc COLA. In another word, we will never get an AD HOC COLA. What an AD HOC COLA is - it's another much higher COLA provided about every 10 yrs or so that UC gives to its retirees to catch them up with actual inflation if the annual 2% has not done that. With inflation on the increase, this is going to happen here sometime soon and DOE will say "nope" to the LLNL and LANL UC retirees getting this. Its all total crap and a rotten deal that we got because of this contract change. Its one of the worst decisions I've ever seen made by our government.
22 comments:
This needs clarification. Does this apply to those that retired prior to that date or all LLNL employees? And is this relevant to TCP1 vs TCP2?
NO retiree's VSP ... Should worry more about retiree's medical ...wait till they start reducing the retiree's medical benefits ... remember it's not guarantee !!
Any ideas on what we can do about it?
If anyone is planning on working more than a few years from now, I would seriously recommend that he/she look elsewhere for a job.
March 2, 2008 4:44 PM
It's for all employees no matter when you retired even if that was 20 years ago. Remember that LLNS controls your life. I say it's time for a class action suit by ALL people, old retirees, new retirees and even those who are going to retire under UCRP at a later date.
March 2, 2008 8:32 PM
Anyone have the names and address of those lawyers in the bay area that were posted once before on the blog but are now missing?
You mean this firm:
Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer
1999 HARRISON ST.
SUITE 1600
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
94612
510-832-5411
510-832-1918 FAX
E-MAIL:
webinfo@GICCB.com
Now the question is, who is going to move forward on this.
I notice that a group of vultures have taken up residence on the roof top of 111, every morning they take off and circle the lab looking for the discarted and dead; I thought to my self it is true what they say birds of a feather flock together!!!!!
You can try. The government is broke so good luck. All that is left now is the printing presses.
The government, by definition can never be broke. And as a matter of record the US has been in far worse shape than this in the past.
In regards to who would lead such an effort, one would assume our erstwhile demi-semi-kinda union.
Less doom and gloom, more positive action!
"I say it's time for a class action suit by ALL people"
What is the lawsuit all about? Is it breach of contract? What is the basis for this suit?
How about this for a basis:
I never worked for LLNS. I worked for UC at LLNL for more than 30 years and retired from UC before LLNS ever existed. Now, some of my retirement benefits are being doled out at the whim of LLNS and DOE, neither of which I ever worked for. Doesn't seem fair, or legal, to me.
Plantiffs: Anyone who ever worked for UC at LLNL, and particularly those who worked their entire careers at UC-LLNL (never working for LLNS) or retired from UC-LLNL right at the transition (maybe then beginning with LLNS under TCP2).
Defendants: DOE, NNSA, LLNL, LLNS, UC, UCRP and perhaps individuals to be named later.
Why should previous UC employment and retirement be held against you when you start up with LLNS? It should have been treated like any other pre-LLNS employer. If you worked at UC, and retired from UC, why isn't UC providing your retirement benefits? And why does DOE get to determine the logic? They hired UC to run the Lab. UC hired you to work there. You NEVER worked for DOE. If it was a private company, would DOE get to tell them where their workers retirement benefits would come from?
I've wondered why a similar group from UC-LANL didn't already pursue this......
We at least owe it to ourselfs to find out if we have a case. I just find it hard to believe you can work 20 or 30 years for UC, change contracts and throw everything you worked so hard for at the beckon call of a new contractor?? Something is terribly wrong with this picture!!
March 3, 2008 7:43 PM
"I've wondered why a similar group from UC-LANL didn't already pursue this......"
Discussions with attoney's indicated that there was insufficient basis for a suit. We may not like it, but it appears to be legal.
DOE/NNSA to the weapon labs...
"XXXX" you all!. We don't really need you any longer."
Dropping VSP is just the beginning of this downward spiral in benefit cuts that DOE/NNSA has planned. They can do this because there is nothing to stop them from doing it. They could care less if you decide to leave the lab. In fact, they probably want you to leave. It will save them lots of money on severance.
Next comes medical coverage for all retirees. Oh but wait a minute. You need to work until you're 62 anyway with the new 401K program and that means within 3 years from departure of LLNS they don't pay a dime anyway. You'll be on medicare. The grand plan as I have away said is to work you until you're dead so THEY don't have to pay a dime.It basically slavery. They dangle the carrot, you keep striving for a goal that may or may not ever be obtainable. Good life hah? Remember. It's all about them, the rich corporations, not you. You are to be used and abused. In the end all they give you the interest off the funds you saved for your entire life. In the end they still have you accumulated pot of money to feed the rich even more.
Lawsuit would be good idea. So would a general strike. After all, we're in the corporate world now. The blade cuts both ways.
"Lawsuit would be good idea."
What lawsuit? There is no basis AT ALL for a lawsuit. This sort of mindless blathering about a lawsuit is the very reason this country needs tort reform.
Yeah that's right. Let the employer screw you anway they can for a buck. That's why this country needs a strong mofia.
Tort reform
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Personal injuries, like this person's leg, are the focus of moves towards reforming tort lawTort reform refers to the idea of changing the rules applicable to the law of tort. Tort deals with compensation for wrongs and harm done by one party to another's person, property or other protected interests (e.g. reputation, under libel and slander laws). The most contentious area of tort, and the area on which tort reform advocates focus is personal injury. The levels of compensation for accidents vary greatly between different jurisdictions, but there has been a general upward trend in the awards for compensation. The ideas for reform vary greatly between different jurisdictions also, and inevitably depend on the rules and practices of the country.
In the United States, where a jury decides cases and punitive damages are routinely available, tort reform has become a contentious political issue, in particular because the high costs of compensation awards are thought by some to have increased the cost of health care. US reform advocates have proposed, among other things, limiting the number of claims, and capping the awards of damages. In Commonwealth countries, the tort reform debate has taken a very different track. In 1972 New Zealand introduced the first universal no-fault insurance scheme for all accident victims. This is based on the principle that anyone suffering personal injury, regardless of whether they can point to a negligent party who caused their loss, may receive state benefits from the government run Accident Compensation Corporation. The goal is to achieve full equality in compensation, while reducing costs by removing the process from courts where litigation is hugely expensive. In the 1970s Australia and the United Kingdom drew up similar proposals for similar no-fault schemes.[1] But the efforts and recommendations amounted to little, and with changes of government the reform agenda were abandoned.
7:51 (GM?) sez...
What lawsuit? There is no basis AT ALL for a lawsuit. This sort of mindless blathering about a lawsuit is the very reason this country needs tort reform.
If you want mindless, check Building 111 for brain donors. Should take just a couple seconds to find one.
I'd prefer to use the law to solve the problems of injustice. Much more civilized than a re-enactment of the storming of the Bastille.
Ideally I'd prefer criminal charges of misconduct, negligence, fraud, and treason - maximum penalties sought. But a lawsuit is just fine.
"Ideally I'd prefer criminal charges of misconduct, negligence, fraud, and treason - maximum penalties sought. But a lawsuit is just fine"
What criminal misconduct? What criminal negligence? What criminal fraud? Treason!? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Can you give us the specifics please? And the lawsuit is based on...?
What criminal misconduct? What criminal negligence? What criminal fraud? Treason!? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Can you give us the specifics please? And the lawsuit is based on...?
1. Understating the cost of transition even after the experience at LANS.
2. Reassuring employees about job security and then just 2 weeks later, the 2nd day in charge, announcing cutbacks due to "unforseen costs". They knew and they lied.
3. EBA lists were drawn up largely based on employee age.
4. Physical and environmental safety are greatly reduced by the cuts in funding and manpower.
5. The ability for the lab to perform it's core mission is being destroyed. That purposeful action is aiding the enemies of the US.
Post a Comment