Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Retirees benefits under a new contractor
Doesn't the UC Retirees Group have a valid concern? Will a new contractor "with no ties to past employees" offer little or no healthcare support to retirees? If a LANS or LLNS employee activates his or her pension within 120 days of retirement to maintain funded medical coverage by the contractor, and medical coverage in retirement is subsequently dropped by any current or subsequent contractor, wouldn't that be a breach of contract?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
A very confusing post, not clear what you're talking about? Please clarify.
The topic is related to the recent blog post below:
"A Critical Audit of Los Alamos Finds Echoes in Livermore"
http://www.independentnews.com/news/a-critical-audit-of-los-alamos-finds-echoes-in-livermore/article_c19e060a-e63a-11e5-ad0f-d757be83e00a.html
I think the message here is to be situationally aware of current or trending retirement benefits from LANL or LLNL contractors if you want to keep the benefits you have now or improve them.
The original post is confusing two distinctly different circumstances. The lawsuit that is being adjudicated now states that under UC, it was heavily implied that the medical benefits in retirement were like the retirement plan - something to be provided by UC. During the transition it was boldly stated by the lab before the transition was complete that non-retirement benefits were site specific, whomever was running the lab was the entity that decided the benefits in retirement. Up until that time many, including myself thought that benefits were provided by UC.
Those that had retired before the transition were never given such direction and that is the basis of their lawsuit. For all of us that had not retired before the transition the rules have been stated boldly and since we accepted employment under the new regime, we have accepted the new rules.
So, LLNL guys and gals, do a great job (as always !) and keep the current LLNS management team so we retirees can keep our health care coverage !!!
There are many facets to this topic including lab employees that were 100% UCRP vested and didn't or couldn't retire before the UC/LANL and UC/LLNL transitions to LANS send LLNS respectively. It is well worth a meaningful dialogue.
The lawsuit that is being adjudicated now states that under UC, it was heavily implied that the medical benefits in retirement were like the retirement plan - something to be provided by UC.
March 17, 2016 at 11:47 AM
No so much. I have at least two UC Retirement Handbooks from well before the transition that clearly state that while UC "fully intends" to continue to provide retiree medical care, it is not a guarantee and should not be confused with other retirement benefits like the pension plan.
Right like UC will screw their retirees like Bechtel is about to!! BOHICA!! UCRP will remain the same, LLNS medical benefits will wither and drift away with the wind.
I posted a factual statement and you decided to deride it. Good for you.
I worked at LLNL for 35 years and I never was under the impression that retiree medical insurance was guaranteed for life. I knew that from day one. How is it so many people come up with a different interpretation?
You may include an Alameda County Judge among the "so many people" with an interpretation that differs from yours.
It doesn't require an "interpretation." The UC written and published statements were very clear. This is just another jerk wanting something for nothing: "Oh, I didn't read the details, so I shouldn't be bound by them." Of course, California judges will side with anyone who rejects personal responsibility in favor of government handouts. "Tilt the country to the left, and all the loose marbles roll into California."
Clear, clear as mud. There was no talk about culling the herd from UC until the final moment before Bechtel took over. Prediction - UC benefits will remain for UC folks, Bechtel/LNNS will be culled from the medical coverage herd and be sent to the house where the culled ultimately end up.
Maybe 7:50 AM can enlighten everyone on just who these "UC folks" are.
Folks that retired prior to the contract change?
Because there have not been any of them since.
March 17 at 7:41 misses the point. It is true that UC never guaranteed health care coverage in retirement for perpetuity. What you miss is that LLNL retirees were never told they would be treated differently than other UC employees (eg. campus)in this regard. While I am a UC retiree for collecting retirement benefits (I am not sure how that happened, maybe politicians intervened on our behalf), I am not a UC retiree for a health benefit. Also, language in the contract in effect when I worked (ENG 7408 or something like that) in an appendix (g or h, look it up) described what would happen to existing retirees if there was a contract change. I read that language and took it to mean that health benefits would continue under UC, as well as retirement income, following a change in contract.
People like me worked in good faith, we expect the UC to do the same.
It was made perfectly clear to all UC retirees (past or future) at the labs that your retiree health benefits would be managed by the new contractor (i.e., LANS or LLNS) after the transition. No one can claim not to have known this at the time, unless they were asleep, or, as usual for clueless scientists, were thinking, "I don't have to worry about or try to understand this because it can't possibly affect me personally. I have a grant application to finish which is much more important." There were numerous employee and retiree meetings and advisory memos and notices that announced this change, and I remember many acquaintances who had retired from UC years earlier expressing dismay and anger at this, but no one can claim they wee never told.
Being "told" doesn't make it consistent with UCRP vested benefits, lab employee expectations, or lawful. It just makes it a transparent bait and switch.
Two words. "substantially equivalent".
"in the aggregate"
First of all, every supplemental labor prrson should use every hour of sick leave. None is transferred across contacts. USE IT OR LOSE IT.
2ndly. Get other offers in hand. Be rsdy to leave, probably 10 % will be forced out. It is considered good management nowsdays by nNNSA to sppear to be tough.
I am another 40 year retiree. One who happens to listen closely, reads everything for details and has a great memory for detail. The UCRS documents given at hire, and reiterated regularly and clearly stated that medical, etc benefits were not vested or guaranteed, but merely offered during thst period. They are not guaranteed in retirement, but may be provided at the dicretion of the employer. I understood this from my first day.
A reflection on recent history predicts that most employees will be hurt seriously by another contact cycle. Figure a 10% real loss in total compensation. Plan accordingly.
The claim of parity with other UC retirees for those that retired in PERS or UCRS seems valid. Hope the judge rules your way.
It must be shitty to be NNSA.
Policy or benefit departures from the UC/LANL and UC/LLNL days have a NNSA stamp of approval in support of the contractor long before employees are informed. By the time employees are informed, the changes are baked in the cake. Plan accordingly. Situational awareness folks.
Policy or benefit departures from the UC/LANL and UC/LLNL days have a NNSA stamp of approval in support of the contractor long before employees are informed.
March 19, 2016 at 5:14 PM
Specific examples, please.
March 18, 2016 at 8:21 PM
The problem with your statement is that if the benefit isn't guaranteed for life (and you seem to understand that), then it is pretty obvious that it can change in any way at any time whether or not it is through UC or LLNS. If you had UC retiree health benee's and they were canceled or changed by UC you would have no problem with that? That is most definitely a possibility. Right after we shifted to LLNS provided health benefits UC, shortly thereafter, started charging quite a bit of money for their health insurance benefit. You would have been crying rape then if you still had your UC benefits. Watch out for what you wish for.
Federalize the Labs and fix the retirement problems all in one single action. If all Lab retirees have the same benefits as other federal employees, then everyone is the same and there is no reason to complain.
Well said.
"Tilt the country to the left, and all the loose marbles roll into California."
or...
Tilt the country to the right and loose all of your marbles.
Loose meaning "release"
No, "loose" meaning the poster has no education.
" If all Lab retirees have the same benefits as other federal employees, then everyone is the same and there is no reason to complain."
My wife is a Federal Employee and the health benefits are very expensive for what they are, considering that Federal salaries are 60 to 80% of Lab salaries. Fed Gov't doesn't bid for best prices. Wife counted on my benefits otherwise it would have cost us at least $500 more per month - while I was working at LLNL.
Be happy with your LLNL or LANL benefits, they're great !
Is viagra still provided?
Stupid questions on every thread about drugs? Get a life, jerk.
Ah. Reconsider the post, in light of the date it was posted.
This a great thread, and golf clap to the April Fools Day comment about viagra and the one about “loose” betokening a cognitive deficit.
For those who are LANS readers of this blog, it is fascinating for us to reconsider that even if we exit the door before 30 September 2018, there’s no guarantee we won’t get screwed, regardless of what the as-yet “mystery” new LANL contract holder will be enacting. Probably the solution is to stay in the harness forever, yielding a completely split age demographic. As it is now, experienced Q-cleared retirees are gushing out the door, while time to clearance remains months past a year, even for many previously cleared who are past 2 years on their reinvestigations. We shall see whether our masters have wisdom or merely 30-something MBAs running the show.
Post a Comment