Are our benefits going to take a hit with the new M&O contracts for LANL, LLNL, and SNL? Specifically, it seems to DOE is protecting pensioners, but screwing the younger crowd (seed corn) by clarifying that medical benefits can be more easily cut by the M&O to "be inline with market rates".
For example, Honeywell is leading the nation in terms of crappy health benefits. Already, the out of pocket cost to the employee there are $8,000/yr + $550/mo = $14,600/yr. Oh, and if you smoke or have high blood pressure in the annual company exam, they ding you another $2,000. I'm guessing these are the "market rates" that the DOE wants the new M&Os to emulate.
19 comments:
Nothing has improved at the Labs and don't expect benefits to suddenly improve. The new company that runs that Labs will also "follow the money".
True that.
Benefits will probably improve. After the recession, normal tech companies have increased benefits to keep good workers, especially adding vacation days. There also might be a (smaller) pension reinstated- as young people just don't stay very long. And the best new PHDs leave pretty quickly after working just a few years.
LANS could attempt to slash benefits knowing they are on the way out if it increases profits, or helps the next for-profit contractor appear equally attractive. Other than that, I do not expect a sharp drop in benefits during the contract bidding or the honeymoon phase to follow.
Ok its the weekend again so it is time for the for next round of the pathetic bitter troll to start hating on LANL again. Close down the cowboy cesspool filled with arrogance and culture that will never admit to being wrong! Cowwwbooysss.....ahh. We know the drill.
Only LANL is writing another M7O contract, slated for 2019 according to other posts here.
If retention of critical young staff is an issue, pensions are one viable strategy.
You would not want your benefits to be too generous, due to the upcoming changes to the health care plan. You may end up being taxed heavily for benefits that you do not use.
..by taxed, I meant the cadillac tax. But good news, it looks like that has been delayed by Congress until 2020.
Benefits would be taxed in California now if the politicians could figure out a scheme to do it. Medical, dental, vision, sick leave, vacation, tuition assistance, and even retirement matches could be fair game. That way all parts of compensation could be taxed and not just the wages part. Just leave it to the California tax takers to come up with a way and it will happen.
Don't look now, but that's a feature of "tax reform" that both parties are looking at in Washington. Historically, non-taxable benefits became widespread when wages were controlled during WWII, as one of the ways to create competition for new employees. It seems to me to make perfect sense that all compensation, earned or not, should be taxed. Benefits that keep you from having to spend more money are the same as wage income.
I don't agree that "Benefits that keep you from having to spend more money are the same as wage income." For example pension benefits get taxed later when you get the pension and keep you from ending up getting public assistance when you get older. They are a benefit to society as well as the individual and should be encouraged by being tax free, besides if you die the day after you retire you didn't get any benefit from your pension so you shouldn't be taxed while you are still working as if these benefits have been received.
You seem confused: pension benefits are not "tax free" and never have been. No one has proposed taxing pension benefits before they are received. After pension benefits start, you receive a 1099R from which you owe taxes just like from a W-2 when you are working. 401k employer matches are a different thing entirely. The issues as mentioned by May 23, 2016 at 10:00 AM are "medical, dental, vision, sick leave, vacation, tuition assistance, and even retirement matches." Those are in fact forms of compensation and should be taxed, IMO.
If Klotz and Pryzbylek are involved yes. The idea is to make you stay and to cost less.
May 23, 2016 at 11:22 PM,
I'm not sure how they plan to make me stay. I already got a considerably higher paying R&D job offer in a much better location. Plan to give them my two weeks and get out of here in about a month.
I'm not sure how they plan to make me stay. I already got a considerably higher paying R&D job offer in a much better location. Plan to give them my two weeks and get out of here in about a month.
May 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM
Sounds great, there is somewhere out there is desperate for your job, we can pay them less and tell them not to complain and they will not complain. What is the downside?
Sounds great, there is somewhere out there is desperate for your job, we can pay them less and tell them not to complain and they will not complain. What is the downside?
May 28, 2016 at 8:54 AM
---
Of course, such a candidate must be superior to somebody who can get a higher paying, better job somewhere else! Makes perfect sense to the NNSA.
Sheepishly asking "Are our benefits going to take a hit?" is like someone sitting before a mad crowd at the guillotine and asking the executioner "Is this going to mess up my hair?"
Let them eat walnuts.
Post a Comment