The End of Lab Associates Erodes Both Institutional Expertise and Individual Benefits

From SPSE/UPTE July monthly memo:

The End of Lab Associates Erodes Both Institutional Expertise and Individual Benefits  

Rather than bring recently shrunken retiree medical benefits into compliance with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) management eliminated an entire job classification: the Lab Associates. Lab Associates are Lab retirees, many with decades of expertise, who work less than 1000 hours per year and are paid by the hour. They neither get regular employee health benefits nor earn sick or vacation leave.

The Lab’s lawyers have determined that for purposes of compliance with the ACA, Lab Associates are Lab employees, but their employer-provided health care benefit, the retiree health care benefit, does not meet the requirements of the ACA. Instead of fixing the retiree health care plan to bring it into compliance with the ACA, Lab management decided instead to terminate all the Lab Associates. Every one of them --- we think some 200 in all --- received letters terminating their employment with the Lab. Some fraction of them --- and we have been unable to determine that fraction --- will continue in their current assignments, but as Akima employees --- subcontractors --- rather than as Lab employees, at approximately twice the cost to the programs at the Lab that benefit from the experience and expertise that Lab Associates bring.

The loss of Lab Associates is but the latest consequence of a steady erosion of pay and retirement benefits since the privatization of the Lab in 2007. This erosion in pay and benefits is consistent with a national trend toward increasing income inequality (see April 2014 monthly memo).  LLNS management has proven unwilling and unable to buck this national trend. Consequently, many SPSE-UPTE members now face financial hardships, and a few face financial disasters, such as eviction or foreclosure and consequent loss of their home.

The erosion of retirement benefits has hit both active employees and retirees hard. The erosion began with the elimination of the Defined Benefit Plan (pension) available to employees hired after the transition from UC management to LLNS management. Then, those transitioning employees who opted to roll over their UC pension funds into the new company’s pension plan (TCP-1) were hit with a big increase in employee contributions that were not offset by pay increases. Then, Lab retirees were thrown off the old retiree medical plans, and instead given a fixed sum (either $1200 per year for a single retiree or $2400 per year for a retiree with a dependent spouse) with which to purchase supplemental health insurance on the open market. For many, if not most, retirees this change meant a huge increase in out-of-pocket costs for health insurance.

SPSE-UPTE’s fix for the loss of Lab Associates is medical benefits for all retirees that comply with the standards of the ACA. SPSE-UPTE’s fix would retain institutional access to capabilities possessed by all Lab Associates, rather than a subset hired through a subcontractor.

We welcome your comments to spse@spse.org, or to any SPSE-Board member, including President-Elect William Smith at Smith324@llnl.gov. We also solicit your help in advocating for all Lab employees and retirees by joining SPSE-UPTE if you are not already a member.

Another waste scandal brewing for LANL?

Independent Oversight Review of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Transuranic Waste Facility Safety Basis and Design Development
July 2014


7.0 FINDINGS
Findings indicate significant deficiencies or safety issues that warrant a high level of attention from management. If left uncorrected, findings could adversely affect the DOE mission, the environment, the safety or health of workers and the public, or national security. Findings may identify aspects of a program that do not meet the intent of DOE policy, DOE orders, or Federal regulation. Corrective action plans must be developed and implemented for Independent Oversight appraisal findings. Cognizant DOE managers must use site- and program-specific issues management processes and systems developed in accordance with DOE Order 227.1 to manage these corrective action plans and track them to completion.


Los Alamos National Laboratory
Finding F-LANL-1: Several engineering calculations contained technical errors and failed to identify and track assumptions used in the calculation, and some calculations were not independently verified, as required

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f18/2014_Review_of_the_LANL_TWF_Safety_Basis_and_Design_Development_-_July_2014.pdf

Obama Favoring Atomic-Arsenal Spending Over Nuclear Security: Report

Global Security Newswire

Obama Favoring Atomic-Arsenal Spending Over Nuclear Security: Report
July 30, 2014


The White House last year rejected a proposal to speed up nuclear-security work, opting instead to spend more money on modernizing nuclear arms.

The Energy Department, in a secret May 2013 report, laid out a plan to ramp up efforts to finish securing and disposing of vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear material around the planet by December 2016. However, the White House in its fiscal 2015 budget plan ultimately decided to cut back its nuclear nonproliferation spending in order to make certain enough monies were available to update the U.S. nuclear stockpile, the Center for Public Integrity reported on Tuesday.

The 12-page report, obtained by the center, was produced by Global Threat Reduction Initiative staff in the National Nuclear Security Administration. The report said that in excess of two tons of movable, weapons-suitable uranium continues to be held in scores of atomic research reactors around the world. At the same time, global reactors are generating more plutonium, enough to fuel some 740 warheads annually, according to the proposal.

The NNSA report said that despite the Obama administration's high-profile, multi-year effort to secure vulnerable nuclear material, there were "still serious threats that require urgent attention."

During internal administration negotiations, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz campaigned for more money for both nuclear security and arsenal modernization from the Defense Department's share of the budget, according to the CPI investigation. The Pentagon objected to this on the grounds that it had already given billions of dollars in the last four years to Energy Department weapons activities, which were not progressing as quickly as the military wanted.

Ultimately, a deal was worked out in a Cabinet-level meeting to cut nonproliferation spending while protecting the weapons budget. An unidentified ex-White House official said there was internal agreement that it was okay to dial back nuclear-security efforts because of progress made in the last four years.

"They had basically achieved their goals. The stuff that was left was the stuff that was hard to do," the official said.

The budget that the Obama administration submitted to Congress earlier this year reduced spending on Energy Department nuclear nonproliferation efforts by $399 million while increasing by $534 million funding for atomic-arms programs, concludes a new study by Harvard University's Project on Managing the Atom.

Laura Holgate, National Security Council senior director for combating weapons-of-mass-destruction terrorism, said that cuts in nuclear security spending were appropriate because of how much progress had been made on that front.

"The president's nonproliferation and nuclear security priorities were protected," Holgate said in an email to the investigative news organization. "The decreased budget reflects natural and predictable declines based on project completion."

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/obama-turned-down-plan-speed-nuke-security-work-favor-modernizing-arsenal/

LBGT at Sandia

LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia?

I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia. Is it really that bad there? Can anyone else provide any more info on what is going wrong there? Is it some sort of toxic bleed-over from Lockheed?

July 26, 2014 at 4:39 AM

 

 Anonymous said...

An certain senior manager in Security & Reliability at Sandia National Laboratories Livermore (you can use Google to find his identity) made several disapproving comments about the LGBT lifestyle to his staff when he was (and still is) a manager. These comments are well known to his staff, and he should be fired for making these comments to his staff.

July 26, 2014 at 5:11 PM

 

 Anonymous said...

Some of the glass door comments are scathing. Too bad for Sandia that they are true. They use workplace bullying and discriminatory practices to protect their own. Sandia is the worst of the three labs when it comes to issues regarding minorities and LGBT.

July 26, 2014 at 5:57 PM

 

 Anonymous said...

I can confirm the 2nd post on July 26, 2014 at 5:11 PM.

The individual referenced used to be a manager in Org. 8200. A better Google search is: "Security & Reliability" at Sandia National Laboratories Livermore linkedin (don't forget to use quotation marks)

I can also confirm the disparaging comments he publicly made to staff that expressed his disapproval of those in the LGBT community.

22 LANL people RIFed yesterday?

Does anybody have any scoop on the 22 LANL people RIFed yesterday?

July 25, 2014 at 7:14 AM

One possible clue is that about two months ago our Maintenance Manager at TA-55 indicated that they had a severe shortfall in funding, were ending some Code (e.g. NFPA) required maintenance, and were going to RIF folks. Maintenance folks are always the first RIFed, management (i.e. Essential Personnel) are pardoned.

UC borrows $2.7 billion to Fund Pension Debt

UC borrows $2.7 billion to Fund Pension Debt

UC regents last week approved borrowing another $700 million internally to help close a pension funding gap, bringing the total borrowed to $2.7 billion in a pension bond-like strategy with risks or rewards, depending on investment earnings.

Too many chiefs?

What is the mission value added to have a LLNS engineering Senior Superintendent, chief electronics engineer, or chief mechanical engineer?

July 23, 2014 at 4:33 PM

 

 Anonymous said...

Good question.

And how about the Chief Engineers for each and every one of the GS divisions.

July 23, 2014 at 11:59 PM

 

 Anonymous said...

These highly compensated managers, shielded from reorganization in any negative way, do provide power point salary presentations for engineering once a year.