Lawsuit Possible to Regain UC Health Care"
"Those who were hired at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before 1990 appear to have a “viable claim” to be reinstated to University of California health programs, according to attorneys for the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Retiree Group."
Many UC/LLNL employees were hired well before 1990, and had 20 years or more service credit with UC/LLNL before LLNS took over. If these lab employees retired after 2007, they too were placed into the more expensive LLNS health programs. Have these lab retirees reached out to the UCLRG attorneys to possibly join forces?
http://llnlretiree.com/news_articles/09_12_17_independent.htm
"Those who were hired at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before 1990 appear to have a “viable claim” to be reinstated to University of California health programs, according to attorneys for the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Retiree Group."
Many UC/LLNL employees were hired well before 1990, and had 20 years or more service credit with UC/LLNL before LLNS took over. If these lab employees retired after 2007, they too were placed into the more expensive LLNS health programs. Have these lab retirees reached out to the UCLRG attorneys to possibly join forces?
http://llnlretiree.com/news_articles/09_12_17_independent.htm
Comments
Those who were hired prior to Jan. 1 1990 at LLNL and LANL only had to be in the UC system for 10 YEARS to be eligible for FULL 100% retiree medical benefits. The 20 year requirement was implemented AFTER Jan. 1 1990. There are PLENTY of non-lab UC system employees hired prior to Jan 1. 1990 who can confirm that. LLNL and LANL retirees hired prior to Jan 1. 1990 are being held to a different standard than all other UC employees in the same status. LLNL and LANL had all the same benefits as all other UC employee campus employees....This is a discriminatory act that should be adjudicated by a court. Plain and Simple...Oh and by the way, at transition, most of the Directors and deputy directors negotiated individual contracts that made them UC employees that entitled them to free and clear health benefits as UC retirees. Just ask Tarter, Miller and Anastasio. look here for those nice salaries of former lab Directors.
https://transparentcalifornia.com/
Merry Christmas everyone.
All good points, but it takes money to cover attorney costs and expenses especially in an extended court challenge. Therefore, as the post asked, should we "join forces"? Now one might say it is premature to "join forces". However, if UC/LANL retirees and UC/LLNL retirees fail in court or aren't adequately funded, all LANS and LLNS retirees that were fully UC vested for medical benefits as you describe, will also continue to be rooked. The exception being, a few Directors and Deputy Directors that cleared a UC path for themselves while selling the virtues of LANS and LLNS to lab employees.
Pensions only go to the PBGC if they are terminated by the employer UNDER DURESS. To qualify for under duress termination, the employer must show at least one of the following a) The employer faces liquidation under bankruptcy proceedings - this cannot happen to the M&O contractor, b) Costs of continuing the pension will make the business fail - can't happen under the M&O contract as the Government has agreed to pay all allowable costs, or c) costs of continuing the pension are unreasonably burdensome solely because of a decline in the workforce - not going to happen anytime soon.
Very interesting, the question is when does the train actually wreck? So at 85% it gets turned over to the Feds. We are at 106% now,
probably going down to 102% this year. So my guess would be when the next recession hits it will be done. Sounds about right. Who knows how bad the next recession will be but it will come just as they always do. What I would like to know is why was it managed so incredibly badly, what did they do or not do. Also the rumors have been that all the top level managers have deals with UC not LLNS or LANS so they never believed the substantially equivalent bs either.