Livermore, California – December 12, 2019 – After ten years of hard fought litigation and two victories at the California Court of Appeal, University of California retirees who worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) have reached an $84.5 million settlement with The Regents of the University of California over the termination of their University-sponsored health care benefits.
Comments
-Doug
Seems plausible. After all, DOE/NNSA reimbursed LLNS about 23 million for litigation expenses to fight the 2008 130 or so laid off LLNS employees that filed a class action lawsuit. Why then wouldn't UC, another DOE/NNSA contractor, request that DOE/NNSA reimburse them for litigation expenses related to UC's decision(?) to push the medical coverage of UC/LLNL retirees to LLNS?
The decision to push UC/LLNL retiree employee medical coverage to LLNS, a company they never worked for, was not likely made without an unequivocal thumbs up from DOE/NNSA and LLNS beforehand.
12/18/2019 8:01 PM
Changes like that have to be approved by the DOE. Likely all the way to HQ.
DOE Contractors make substantial profits to manage the labs and are practically guaranteed litigation reimbursements from DOE to fight employees as needed. Treating the lab workforce like a disposable commodity isn't in strategic alignment with the substantial recruiting goals at the doorstep of the DOE/NNSA. In terms of accomplishing DOE mission objectives, this is a race to the bottom.
12/21/2019 5:33 PM"
Ah, let me rephrase for the proper context:
It is a shame that no one remembers the role Pete Domenici played in screwing me personally. Oh and UC screwed me, the people of LANL screwed me, science in general screwed me and reality itself screwed me. I am not bitter, I am honest and will always give the context to may statements, I never generalize my personal situation to all of reality because only I exist and I am right. Let me reiterate I AM NOT BITTER.
I have felt that LLNL, Bechtel, and DOE all had a part in shafting the retirees by reneging on our health-care benefits. It was a promise made to us, given in text and verbally to us all with enough clarity and widespread repetition that we expected that promise to be upheld. UC could have grandfathered us into their program, but turned their backs on us. Bechtel could have included us in their corporate umbrella, but chose not to. DOE could have objected to this mistreatment, but remained silent.
Having endured the hell that is today's Social Security with it's mind-numbing bureaucracy I can honestly say I am bitter. But those feelings are being channeled towards making things better, including supporting the LLNL retiree lawsuit. It's turning a bad situation into something we all can find some benefit in.
12/23/2019 11:57 PM
This is hard for me to understand. As a LLNL retiree, you have a decent pension, and probably a 403b, and also qualify for Social Security as well (unless you opted out in the early - mid 70's, bad mistake). So what is the problem with SS? I signed up just this year sine I turned 70 and had no further reason to delay, I found no problems at all with SS if you are willing to do a bit of your own homework.
I am absolutely no fan of Clinton, but he did not end nuclear testing by the U.S. That was done in 1992 under Bush. If you want to blame Clinton for something almost as bad if not worse - Hazel O'Leary.
What is the problem with SS? Let's both agree first on what we are talking about. The health care arm of Social Security being Medicare. The other part, ordinary Social Security I have no quibble with. Besides, I have sufficient income outside TCP1 funds. Doing your homework helps in dealing with Medicare, but only so far.
Firstly there is the donut hole. Have enough prescriptions and you'll learn all about how this so-called insurance will fail you simply because you're not yet poverty-stricken. So you have to add further coverage on your own dime - all instead of what our UC-promised coverage would have provided.
Try calling Medicare about getting something approved or changed. Every time you do your wife will need to hand the phone off for you "prove" your identity and give permission for her to interact on your behalf. No record kept of my approval, so every damn time the same idiotic questions.
Then when at the doctor's office listen carefully to how they make decisions on treatment based on what Medicare will pay for. Not what is best for you but what some government type has declared worthy. Try calling to get an alternative approved, usually it's a battle royal.
In short, expect to be treated like you are some lowly peasant, not like a client.
12/25/2019 2:11 PM
Bush only unilaterally paused testing. Clinton formally ended it with the (yet to be ratified) CTBT.
(and the resulting cost to retirees) is not necessarily the same as LLNL. The appropriate cost metric is how much class members pay in comparison with UC retirees. Additionally there is a large issue of security. LLNL retiree health (and LANL) is governed by PERS. LLNL could easily drop all retiree and employee health support. UC is not governed by PERS and could not.
You are ill-informed on several counts. LANL retiree health is governed by the DOE/Triad contract and administered by Triad. Your continued use of the term "class members" indicates you view everything through the litigation lens instead of the reality lens. PERS has absolutely nothing to do with LANL/TRIAD retiree health. LANL/Triad retiree health is governed by contract requirements with DOE, not any NM State agency.
Again, you are ignoring the requirements of the DOE/NNSA contracts signed by both LLNS and Triad. Those contractual requirements for retiree health care are legally binding on both contractors.
When the UC coordinated with Social Security RETIREMENT plan was introduced and offered to people with UC only (and possibly PERS) I distinctly remember that the person from HR stating that unless you had credit already accrued with Social Security and you were close to retirement, it was not a good thing to switch over. No mention of the HEALTH benefits was made. They pointed out this was for RETIREMENT and the health benefits were from UC. This type of statement and the other implied statements made by HR and UC gave the appearance that medical benefits in retirement were UC and only when the contract change came in 2007 was the "definitive" statement of medical benefits are provided by the contractor - a shock to all of us.
I was too young to retire at the contract change and when the change came, I was forced to pay into Social Security from the start of the contract change. I was fortunate that I had hours credited to Social Secutiry before I started my career at the lab and I did qualify for Medicare. Had I not, I would have been in a real bad situation since I would not have qualified for the lawsuit.
Were we hoping that we'd get more money? YES. And HR told us that unless we were close to retirement and could garner more money with coordination - we'd be better off sticking with UC only. Maybe you're viewing this with 2019 eyeglasses, I am telling you what I heard and what I "Knew" in 1976.
Don't assume what is now is the same as what was then. For me, if I elected to coordinate I would have deserved a brain transplant. I would have continued to contribute to UCRS, but at a lower rate, and my retirement benefit would have reduced by the amount of any SS benefit. There was no discussion of health care, if Medicare existed then it was invisible. Coordination made sense if an older employee had other SS coverage and was planning to retire within 10 years.
What rules are you referring to? I infer that you are also 5.13. The only person at fault is UC for not delivering what it promised.
1/08/2020 11:49 AM
What adult believes "promises?"