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?
Comments
"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.
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.
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.
Folks that retired prior to the contract change?
Because there have not been any of them since.
People like me worked in good faith, we expect the UC to do the same.
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.
It must be shitty to be NNSA.
March 19, 2016 at 5:14 PM
Specific examples, please.
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.
or...
Tilt the country to the right and loose all of your marbles.
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 !
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.