Sunday, January 26, 2020
UC/LLNL retirees settlement
UC/LLNL retirees have reached a settlement with the University of California to compensate the UC/LLNL retirees for health care benefit premium increases. What chance do LLNS employees have of acquiring similar retirement health care premium compensation from UC if they too were 100% vested UC/LLNL employees before the 2007 transition to LLNS?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
My guess is somewhere between slim and none. Those that had retired before the contract change had been led to believe that the UC medical would be provided in retirement, which is why the retirees were able to prevail in the lawsuit.
At the time of the contract change the lab made it abundantly clear that the retirement medical was provided by the contractor and whomever that was, that was the medical you got. That knowledge provided by the Lab / UC / LLNS made it clear that you were not going to be on UC medical in any form and if you agreed to further employment with the new entity, you accepted the new rules.
I applaud the result of the lawsuit but know that it didn't benefit me.
Anonymous @ 1/27/2020 9:49 PM wrote “ At the time of the contract change the lab made it abundantly clear that the retirement medical was provided by the contractor and whomever that was, that was the medical you got.”
Really? Was that true for both TCP1 and TCP2?
The health care benefits of 100% vested working UC/LLNL employees got screwed over when LLNS took over. The question: Is there a supportable legal basis for UC to exclude 100% vested UC/LLNL employees from their earned UC health care benefits? It's sounds like a breach of contract matter.
Was it true for both TCP1 and TCP2 - Yes, but there were differences.
Let's set the stage at what happened at the transition between UC/LLNS as far as benefits were concerned.
1. You're eligible for TCP1 and take it. You get a retirement medical plan that's more expensive and possibly not as good as the UC medical plan.
2. You are not eligible for TCP1 and must take TCP2. The retirement medical plan for TCP2 is eligibility to a reduced cost pool plan, not the plan given to TCP1.
3. You are eligible for TCP1 but freeze with UC - your retirement is UC and however much you can squirrel away into TCP2 - but you are given the TCP1 medical plan.
At contractor change over, HR makes it clear that the medical plans - both as you are employed and after you retire - are under the contractor operating the lab. This was news to all of us who had been there for decades. We thought our retirement and medical retirement were going to be UC. This was implied by UC and HR and this was why the retiree lawsuit prevailed. But like any class action lawsuit, you had to be a member of the class that had suffered damages. In this case you had to be retired and receiving medical in retirement from UC at the time it was taken away.
You can give LLNS and NNSA some credit. They gave employees who were vested a defined benefit plan - TCP1, and were given a decent retirement medical plan. You can argue that neither may have been as good as UC offerings, but it was something.
Now the TCP2 folks are in a different situation. They get their 401k and a discount ticket for some nebulous retirement medical. Both are less expensive to the Lab and NNSA and that's what NNSA wants and gets.
So LLNS as the contractor offered different retirement plans and different retirement medical plans, all of which is based on whether or not you were vested at the lab with a minimum of 5 years of service. If you had less that 5 years or were a new hire, no choice - it was TCP2 retirement and the low cost pool access medical.
Thanks Anonymous @ 1/28/2020 4:34 PM for all of the information. Much appreciated.
-Doug
According to the details of the settlement, in order to be part of the Class to receive the benefits, you have to have retired prior to Oct 1, 2007, and received UC-sponsored health plan coverage after retiring.
Those employees who retired when the UC contracted ended and continued with LLNS, have a retirement date of Oct 1, 2007, and never received UC health care coverage after retirement. Therefore, even though they are UC retirees, they do not appear to meet the criteria to be a Class Member.
I am a class member. So what does this exactly mean and when and if changes are made?
The checks were supposedly mailed out in July, yet we have not received ours despite returning the forms as requested. Archer keeps saying that they have our forms, and that payment is "in progress." They have been saying so for months. What should we do?
Post a Comment