LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
Comments
I was working at a federal lab, and I had ten years in the Civil Service system when a manager from LLNL called to say that some of his people had read my papers and would I be interested in an interview? During my interview with HR I asked about pension and health care benefits and I was told that they were guaranteed and that they were better than those of the Feds. Stupid me! I believed it.
I am sorry that I ever heard of LLNL!
You can disagree all you want. I'm telling you my current status as a LANL (UC) retiree. I know what UC always said about no guarantee on retiree health care. I also know that it was always clear that after age 65, ALL retirees would be forced onto Medicare, with several options as to the version they could choose (Medicare Part B plus a Medicare Supplement plan or Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage)) You may be confused about your own current status.
UC never guaranteed that. It said that after 20 year's service,retiree medical was paid at 100% up to age 65, not that there would be any "lifetime" benefit. No health benefits were or are, available to retirees except Medicare and/or a Lab-sponsored and paid Part C or Supplement plan. Why is understanding this so difficult?
The implications of an implied contract are for the court to decide. UC would gladly claim they intended no contract but the court has said otherwise. Also, there are definitely LLNL (and UC) retirees who are over 65 and who receive LLNL (or UC) non-Medicare group health coverage. These are largely pre-'76 hires who did not choose to coordinate with SS/Medicare and who did not become Medicare eligible through other work or spousal work.
What happens when you are going onto medicare, your UC (or any other insurance) becomes your secondary insurance.
Your secondary insurance picks up costs that medicare doesn't cover, helps pay for leftover costs from medicare (for instance in medicare pays for 80%, secondary insurance may pick up the rest/portion of the cost), and very importantly help with the cost of drugs. This is very important if you get cancer, need surgery, or have expensive drugs.
Depending on your secondary insurance, you may have dental (which is not covered by medicare), and a better vision plan.
Healthcare and its insurance gets pretty complex after 65. I've found that helping my elderly parents have opened my eyes on insurance needs after 65.
These employees are using their UC insurance as a secondary insurance, and looking at the cost & coverage or the expense and lack of coverage to what they were promised.
and esp. for the video.
Hope to see the results of future court actions.
It appears that the Retirees website is dormant. Please guys post the progress!
Don't throw rocks at those pursuing the lawsuit if you are not fully informed of the history.