Anonymously contributed:
Found out today that my LLNL/LLNS Anthem Blue Cross EPO coverage for LLNL/UC retirees premium is going up 25% to over $500 per month. "Official" UC retirees have a host of plans to choose from, none with a cost over $400, and several at much lower cost. Thanks, LLNS. Thanks, DOE. Thanks for abandoning us, UC. Hope the lawsuit succeeds.
Found out today that my LLNL/LLNS Anthem Blue Cross EPO coverage for LLNL/UC retirees premium is going up 25% to over $500 per month. "Official" UC retirees have a host of plans to choose from, none with a cost over $400, and several at much lower cost. Thanks, LLNS. Thanks, DOE. Thanks for abandoning us, UC. Hope the lawsuit succeeds.
Comments
As a dollar amount, if the retired folks are getting hit for over $500, well I guess my golden years in retirement won't be with gold in my pockets.
2011 Non-Medicare Pre-65 Retiree Medical Monthly Contributions/EPO
Retiree + Spouse + Children
$610.00
My premium essentially went from $177/mo to $610/mo since LLNS took over in 2007 ... Yup, my 2% cola should be able to cover the increase.... Not.
I believe "official" UC retirees refer to UC, nonLLNL (and nonLANL) retirees. LLNL/LLNS retiree's Medical have nothing to do with UC anymore ... except that they were once (Oct 1, 2007) 'substantially equivalent'(?) ...
At that presentation, the HR rep stated that that had always been the case, that the medical benefits were provided by the campus and was reimbursed by the government. Our campuses changed ownership and LANS/LLNLS became the provider.
The issue is that since the letter head said UC, that the retirement was UC and the medical was provide by UC, we thought we were UC employees. We never were. We were the hired help.
Since we left the larger population of UC employees our group purchasing power decreased and the discount give to UC was not provided by the insurance carriers to the labs. That combined with the increase of insurance created the double whammy that was part of the financial hole that in turn created layoffs.
Just be glad no politician has the guts to point out that all the employer contributions should probably be considered taxable income.
Those who retired from UC campuses and those who retired from either of the labs retired in a single retirement plan are now treated differently to detriment of one, and the benefit of the trustee.
Looks like we'll need to switch out of (retiree) Anthem Blue Cross. Just waaay too expensive, for family w/kids.
Cut and Paste from LLNS chart:
2011 Non-Medicare Pre-65 Retiree Medical Monthly Contributions/EPO
Retiree + Spouse + Children
$610.00
"What lawsuit?"
See the website http://llnlretiree.com/
To find out, note that this has been developing for some time now and is the result of a lot of work by many who have cared enough to pay attention.
Just wait until they suddenly announce without warning that they are getting rid of retiree medical for all current retirees. It's probably coming sooner rather than later. It's what "for profit" companies like to refer to as "cost containment".
I am not a lawyer, but I think the defense will be that "the plan" constituted the pension benefit. I heard multiple times at transition that the retiree health care benefit was not a defined benefit accrued in advance.
Retiree + Spouse + Children
$610.00
October 26, 2010 10:13 AM
Wow, just outrageous. Twice the premium ex-LANL employees of the same category are being asked to pay, for essentially the same coverage. Is this a California problem? (In which case, either vote Republican or suck it up. Or a LLNS problem (in which case get a class-action lawsuit citing LANS' supposedly "substantially equivalent" premiums of 1/2 that of LLNS). How can California residents stand and tolerate this kind of ridiculous robbery of their benefits??
George is a self-centered scientist.
They enjoy screwing people.
We'll be better off when he is gone.
Thank you for the link to see what is really going on! May your hard work and diligence prevail!!!!
That "vote Republican" comment MUST be a joke since it was the Republicans who privatized the management of LLNL and specified the terms of the contract.
By the way, the Republicans also gave us the unfunded Medicare Part D Drug Benefit with a large donut hole (from $2830 to $4500).
From wikipedia: "By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, pays 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.[24] For example, Medicare pays $785 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin), while the VA pays $520.
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[25][26] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage."
Those guys? Republicans. No, I wouldn't vote for them or their Tea Party friends.
October 30, 2010 8:21 PM
You forget that both parties voted to go to war in Iraq, and Obama called the war in Afghanistan "the right war." These are not and were not "Republican wars." sorry to burst your bubble, and your attempt at rewriting history.
So manipulation of intelligence data to convince congress to approve the invasion of Iraq never happened is what you're saying? Now that's rewriting history. I can see Afghanistan. After all that's where Osama was and still is hiding. I get a chuckle from those who still cling to the belief that Saddam had something to do with the 9-11 attack (which then morphed into "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" and finally "Saddam is just a bad man") . How much money has been spent and how many lives have been lost prosecuting the Irag war?
Bush, the Republican, deceived this country into going to war to get Saddam; because "that man threatened my daddy" End of story. (Except for the thousands of Americans slain for that cause!)
November 1, 2010 6:50 PM
Don't you hate it when you are a caricature? Who deceived the French, the Germans, the Canadians, the British, and the Australians? Who deceived Bill Clinton when he bombed Baghdad? How exactly does a President "deceive" Congress?? Are you saying the entire US military and intel community lied to multiple congressional committees just to provide an excuse to Bush to avenge the plot against his father? You are truly delusional.
YEs YES and YES
How's that for an example of the private world honoring their technical staff!
At least you know up front what you are getting into (or not), and can plan for it. You weren't told one thing, sold a bill of goods regarding working for UC and promised its "great" retirement as part of your compensation, only to have the Labs, DOE, and UC renege on it after the fact......
The new "for-profit" LLCs have being doing their very best to slowly wear down the staff. They see great benefits and accolades from NNSA by getting the current high benefit staff to leave and replacing them with lower salary, low-benefit workers.
Nobody promised medical benefits. You would be completely wrong about that.
November 11, 2010 7:15 AM
Yeah, I would, if I had actually said that. Read my post again: I didn't. Maybe your need to express your little bit of knowledge outweighed your intelligence. I was referring to any employers' benefit "promises", medical or whatever, and the folly of expecting them to hold up over time. A "promise" is in the ears of the beholder, and is not binding unless written. End of point.
Hmm.Here is what you wrote November 11, 2010 9:31 PM.
"The days when one could count on a future benefit to be available as promised"
UC never promised medical benefits, ever. Your premise is flawed so your entire line of reasoning (what ever it is) is flawed. Does that help?
Your point, if there is one, would have been expressed more efficiently by simply asserting the truth: UC never "promised" medical benefits so you all should suck it up and move on.
Not sure where you dredged up the notion that UC promised, implied or otherwise, that there would always be a medical insurance benefit. I defy you to show where UC even suggested that.
Does that help?
UC provides lower cost medical insurance for its non-Lab retirees than LANS and LLNS does for the UC retirees who retired from LANL and LLNL. In my opinion, and soon, I hope, the courts, LLNL and LANL employees who worked for UC and RETIRED as UC employees should be afforded THE SAME retiree medical benefits as those who retired under UC from other campuses. The coverage and cost should be THE SAME, the treatment of these LAB UC RETIREES should be THE SAME (and please, don't get me started on "substantially equivalent"). If UC pulls the retirement medical benefits from ALL UC RETIREES, then I agree, we've got nothing to complain about. But in the MEANTIME, why should we UC RETIREES be treated as second-class? Heck, most of us never even worked one day for LANS or LLNS........
Bravo. Maybe all the carpers who say UC never "promised" health care are either envious that they don't qualify or think a lawyer's definition of "promise" is the right one. I seem to remember "has every intention"...
LANS LLC just announced at the November 18th All-Hands meeting that they are going to need 8% salary contributions by spring of 2012 from everyone in TCP1 to make it solvent (current salary contributions are about 3%).
Losses are now projected to be about $150 million per year over the next couple of years. The 8% salary contributions will only partially cover the projected pension shortfalls with the rest to be made up by "other means". The projections of pension shortfalls for TCP1 at LANL continue to grow ever greater with time.
In addition to this, the Director announced that it is very likely that medical costs will be going up next year for employees and that they are reviewing medical coverage for current staff and retirees (whatever that means; possible cancelation or significant reductions of retiree medical coverage at some future point?).
The biggest news that Anastasio mentioned at the All-Hands was that DOE/NNSA really doesn't seem to like the TCP1 pension as it now stands and wanted to force LANL to convert to the greatly reduced pension payout system which SNL recently established for their long time employees.
To put it bluntly, the promise of "substantially equivalent" appears to be null and void as far as DOE/NNSA is concerned. LANS fought to keep the TCP1 pension benefits at current levels by selling DOE/NNSA on the idea of the greatly increased 8% salary contributions plus the use of additional lab money that LANS thinks can be rounded up from various lab accounts.
It is becoming clear that DOE/NNSA lied when they told LANL employee back in 2006 that they would strongly defend a "substantial equivalent" benefit policy which would match benefits offered by UC for all the pre-LLC employees. DOE has a long history of telling lies, so I'm not that surprised. Their promises mean absolutely nothing.
November 19, 2010 6:43 PM
Thank you Tom D'Agostino. Sounds like Pete Nanos has been offering management behavioral classes in D.C.
I'm still cool with being TCP-1. An employee contribution will kick in at LLNL at some point. They promised us an equivalent benefit, I'm not sure what representation was made as to cost thereof.
The UC was self-indulgent in taking such a long holiday from contributions by itself and employees. On the other hand, I can also appreciate that organizations can get in trouble for having their pension fund too well funded.
In some respect, almost undoubtedly. For example, I don't know that cost-of-living adjustments are a mandatory benefit. Start scaling those back, when we have inflation again, and over the course of a decade it can make a real difference to a plan and its liabilities.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that upper management and the Bechtel Boys must be laughing at the scam they have been able to pulled off in support of the DOE/NNSA. With the new 8% contributions and the much higher medical costs, most of the staff at LANL will be quickly falling backwards in lifestyle. When you consider that the salary contributions are being done after-tax, not pre-tax, and that almost all other lab benefits have gone up wildly in terms of salary contributions, your average lab staff member will soon be seeing close to a 15% decline in their take-home pay. The financial pain is real and growing!
Meaningful raises for the non-management TSMs? Fuggitaboutit! It's all down-hill from here unless your a member of the LLC management team.
to 4/6% then to 6/8% in April 2012.
This is not because of pension losses, but due to increasing normal costs of the plan.( The annual increase in liability due to age,salary and service increases) and the continuing low interest rates that must be used to calculate the needed additional funding.
The TCP1 plan at both LANS and LLNL continues to be one of the richest pension plans around. To have to pay in 6% just makes us equal to TCP2 folks who have to contribute 6% to get the maximum benefit.
By the way, pension benefits can generally only be changed prospectively. Should a change in HAPC definition occur, your pension to the change date will be based on the old formula and pension from the date of change forward will be calculated under the new formula.
Im in TCP1 and I'm still loving it.
* The terms and conditions of the plans may change at any time.
* The plans may be terminated or amended at any time.
* The U.S. federal government may change terms under which the Social Security system provides
retirement income or the laws (including tax laws) applicable to employer-sponsored retirement plans.
* Your employment relationship may be voluntarily or involuntarily changed or terminated before the
date used in this statement.
Great post. Greater if you had provided a citation.
>Great post. Greater if you had provided a citation.
www.llnsllc.com/file/LLNSBenefitsSummary.pdf
Bottom of page 17.
"as long as UC retirees from other campuses get different (and better) treatment than do we, it remains unfair and should be the subject of class action litigation."
I agree. Who are you waiting for to do something about this??
http://llnlretiree.com/.