Anonymous said...
A post on the LANL blog says that there will be 3% salary package this year with non-retroactive raises coming in January.
May 4, 2009 5:08 PM
Saturday, May 9, 2009
NIF is dumping people
Anonymous said...
NIF is dumping people. Unknown why but rumor has it that they are getting rid of dead wood.
May 4, 2009 5:06 PM
NIF is dumping people. Unknown why but rumor has it that they are getting rid of dead wood.
May 4, 2009 5:06 PM
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Complete the UPTE-CWA health and safety survey today!
From: UPTE-CWA
Reply-To: info@upte-cwa.org
Important Notice: Complete the UPTE-CWA health and safety survey today!
UPTE-CWA E-Bulletin: May 05, 2009
Contents:
(1) TX/RX Strike Threat Forces Bargaining to Start, But UC Trumps Up Dismissal of UPTE Negotiator and Continues Unilateral Changes
(2) Complete Health and Safety Survey Today to Support Contract Demands
(3) UC/Bechtel Eliminates Retiree Health Benefits For Livermore, Who’s Next?
(4) Educate Yourself About May 19 Special Election Ballot Initiatives
(1) Berkeley TX/RX Strike Forces Bargaining to Start, But UC Trumps Up Dismissal of UPTE Negotiator and Continues Unilateral Changes
We have good news and bad news. The good news is that after 13 months of bargaining, UC has finally put a proposal on the table that is more than 0%. UC is offering 1% for each of the three years of the contract, plus a step increase in the third year. All increases in the last year depend on the state budget. So with a poor state budget, this offer really adds up to 2% spread over 3 years. While UC packaged this wage offer as part of a comprehensive settlement, none of the other articles were different than what they had previously presented. In an effort to get bargaining moving, the UPTE team immediately made counter offers on wages and health and safety issues, leaving the ball in UC’s court.
The bad news is that UC continues to implement parking and health benefit cost increases instead of bargaining them as they are legally obligated to do. UC also continues to refuse to provide critical information regarding the pension plan that we requested 2 years ago.
Worse news yet, UC has brought its union-busting campaign of our bargaining team to a new low. On transparently trumped up charges, the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has told UPTE bargainer Victor Dorsett that they intend to dismiss him. Dorsett (he goes by his last name) was already being forced by management to follow additional procedures and have different quality standards because of his union activity. Now UC has used these exceptional standards and procedures to set him up for dismissal. Every one of the UPTE’s bargainers has been negatively impacted at their jobs because of their union activity. UC human resources have refused to take responsibility, giving union-busting managers the green light to break the law.
As long as UC continues to unilaterally implement changes and harass our bargainers, the bargaining process remains broken. We have demanded the immediate rescission of the intent to dismiss Victor Dorsett (see letter to John Cammidge, UC’s associate vice president for human resources).
We are compelled to proceed with the strike of our Berkeley local unless UC fulfils these demands prior to Wednesday, May 6.
On all other campuses, we call on members to attend support actions and also to fill out a strike pledge card today. If UC continues its illegal bargaining practices, we must have a strong statewide strike threat to force them to negotiate fairly.
(2) Complete Health and Safety Survey Today to Support Contract Demands
If you have not done so yet, fill out the UPTE Health and Safety Survey today. The survey is in memoriam for Sheri Sangji who died on January 16, 2009 as a result of laboratory accident at UC Los Angeles.
(3) UC/Bechtel Eliminate Retiree Health Benefits for Livermore, Who’s Next?
In a stunning setback, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab has replaced retiree health benefits with an annual check of $2400. This applies to those who retired when the lab was still run by UC as well as all current employees. LLNL is now run by a private limited liability corporation of which UC is a 50% owner.
This blow to those who can least afford it is a grim reminder that all our current retiree health benefits are not guaranteed. We are bargaining to have these benefits locked into our contract.
UPTE-CWA retirees and activists will be working with Livermore retirees to restore retiree health benefits.
(4) Educate Yourself About May 19 Special Ballot Initiatives
The initiatives on the May 19 Special Election ballot are complex and could have a great impact on all of us. UPTE-CWA has not taken a position on the initiatives, but strongly encourages you to review the State of California Vote Information Guide and remember to vote.
The UPTE E-Bulletin is prepared by UPTE-CWA President Jelger Kalmijn for all members.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to write him at
president@upte-cwa.org
_____________________________________________________________________________
[]
UPTE-CWA 9119 | P.O. Box 4443, Berkeley, CA 94704 | 510.704.8783 | info@upte-cwa.org
-------------------------------------------
For corrections, add and removal requests,
send email to info@upte-cwa.org
--------------------------------------------
Reply-To: info@upte-cwa.org
Important Notice: Complete the UPTE-CWA health and safety survey today!
UPTE-CWA E-Bulletin: May 05, 2009
Contents:
(1) TX/RX Strike Threat Forces Bargaining to Start, But UC Trumps Up Dismissal of UPTE Negotiator and Continues Unilateral Changes
(2) Complete Health and Safety Survey Today to Support Contract Demands
(3) UC/Bechtel Eliminates Retiree Health Benefits For Livermore, Who’s Next?
(4) Educate Yourself About May 19 Special Election Ballot Initiatives
(1) Berkeley TX/RX Strike Forces Bargaining to Start, But UC Trumps Up Dismissal of UPTE Negotiator and Continues Unilateral Changes
We have good news and bad news. The good news is that after 13 months of bargaining, UC has finally put a proposal on the table that is more than 0%. UC is offering 1% for each of the three years of the contract, plus a step increase in the third year. All increases in the last year depend on the state budget. So with a poor state budget, this offer really adds up to 2% spread over 3 years. While UC packaged this wage offer as part of a comprehensive settlement, none of the other articles were different than what they had previously presented. In an effort to get bargaining moving, the UPTE team immediately made counter offers on wages and health and safety issues, leaving the ball in UC’s court.
The bad news is that UC continues to implement parking and health benefit cost increases instead of bargaining them as they are legally obligated to do. UC also continues to refuse to provide critical information regarding the pension plan that we requested 2 years ago.
Worse news yet, UC has brought its union-busting campaign of our bargaining team to a new low. On transparently trumped up charges, the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has told UPTE bargainer Victor Dorsett that they intend to dismiss him. Dorsett (he goes by his last name) was already being forced by management to follow additional procedures and have different quality standards because of his union activity. Now UC has used these exceptional standards and procedures to set him up for dismissal. Every one of the UPTE’s bargainers has been negatively impacted at their jobs because of their union activity. UC human resources have refused to take responsibility, giving union-busting managers the green light to break the law.
As long as UC continues to unilaterally implement changes and harass our bargainers, the bargaining process remains broken. We have demanded the immediate rescission of the intent to dismiss Victor Dorsett (see letter to John Cammidge, UC’s associate vice president for human resources).
We are compelled to proceed with the strike of our Berkeley local unless UC fulfils these demands prior to Wednesday, May 6.
On all other campuses, we call on members to attend support actions and also to fill out a strike pledge card today. If UC continues its illegal bargaining practices, we must have a strong statewide strike threat to force them to negotiate fairly.
(2) Complete Health and Safety Survey Today to Support Contract Demands
If you have not done so yet, fill out the UPTE Health and Safety Survey today. The survey is in memoriam for Sheri Sangji who died on January 16, 2009 as a result of laboratory accident at UC Los Angeles.
(3) UC/Bechtel Eliminate Retiree Health Benefits for Livermore, Who’s Next?
In a stunning setback, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab has replaced retiree health benefits with an annual check of $2400. This applies to those who retired when the lab was still run by UC as well as all current employees. LLNL is now run by a private limited liability corporation of which UC is a 50% owner.
This blow to those who can least afford it is a grim reminder that all our current retiree health benefits are not guaranteed. We are bargaining to have these benefits locked into our contract.
UPTE-CWA retirees and activists will be working with Livermore retirees to restore retiree health benefits.
(4) Educate Yourself About May 19 Special Ballot Initiatives
The initiatives on the May 19 Special Election ballot are complex and could have a great impact on all of us. UPTE-CWA has not taken a position on the initiatives, but strongly encourages you to review the State of California Vote Information Guide and remember to vote.
The UPTE E-Bulletin is prepared by UPTE-CWA President Jelger Kalmijn for all members.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to write him at
president@upte-cwa.org
_____________________________________________________________________________
[]
UPTE-CWA 9119 | P.O. Box 4443, Berkeley, CA 94704 | 510.704.8783 | info@upte-cwa.org
-------------------------------------------
For corrections, add and removal requests,
send email to info@upte-cwa.org
--------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
"US unemployment rate" chart looks parabolic
Anonymous said...
"US unemployment rate" chart looks parabolic: Unemployment
Not a good time to be looking for a job.
"US unemployment rate" chart looks parabolic: Unemployment
Not a good time to be looking for a job.
I received from LLNS my TCP1 (Defined Benefit Pension) summary notice
Anonymous said...
I received from LLNS my TCP1 (Defined Benefit Pension) summary notice as required by the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Since the plan has only been around for a year and half there's limited information and its from Jan 1, 2008. As of that date there were 3927 in the plan - 3915 active and 12 retired/separated but not getting benefits yet. Based on what was in the "Funding Target Attainment Percentage" table the plan was at 209.62% of its funding target - $1.65 Billion in assets and $790 Million in liabilities. 109% more than what is required to pay lifetime pensions to all the participants in TCP1.
There was another section in the summary text called "Fair Market Value of Assets" and it was said to offer a "clearer picture of a plan's funded status as of a given point in time." This was as of Dec 31, 2008 - $1.3 Billion in assets and $882 Million in liabilities. My calculation puts TCP1 at 147.91% of necessary funding or 47% overfunded.
Am I understanding this information correctly? how does this compare to current UCRP numbers?
May 4, 2009 6:59 AM
I received from LLNS my TCP1 (Defined Benefit Pension) summary notice as required by the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Since the plan has only been around for a year and half there's limited information and its from Jan 1, 2008. As of that date there were 3927 in the plan - 3915 active and 12 retired/separated but not getting benefits yet. Based on what was in the "Funding Target Attainment Percentage" table the plan was at 209.62% of its funding target - $1.65 Billion in assets and $790 Million in liabilities. 109% more than what is required to pay lifetime pensions to all the participants in TCP1.
There was another section in the summary text called "Fair Market Value of Assets" and it was said to offer a "clearer picture of a plan's funded status as of a given point in time." This was as of Dec 31, 2008 - $1.3 Billion in assets and $882 Million in liabilities. My calculation puts TCP1 at 147.91% of necessary funding or 47% overfunded.
Am I understanding this information correctly? how does this compare to current UCRP numbers?
May 4, 2009 6:59 AM
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Kaiser co payment now double or triple!
Anonymous said...
Just went to renew my meds, and contrary to what I was told, the copayments are double or triple. I am a retiree- took the buyout, and glad I did! Before, meds were a 90 day supply for one copayment. We were told that the 2009 copayment would only cover 30 days of meds, unless we used Kaiser's mail program, in which case it would cover 90 days, like before. But Kaiser now charges 2 copayments, even if you use the mail. Now $10 for generics, and $25 for non.
NOTE: You gotta fight Kaiser for everything?
At this rate many generics cost less if you forget about your coverage, and just pay the cost of the meds, at Kaisers' member rate. Also ask for a whole bottle. Atenolol costs $10 for 50 pills, (100 days), or $10.50 for 100. Others are similar.
Q. Have others had this problem? How can they possibly say this is "substantially equivalent?" What can we do?
Thanks.
May 2, 2009 10:56 AM
Just went to renew my meds, and contrary to what I was told, the copayments are double or triple. I am a retiree- took the buyout, and glad I did! Before, meds were a 90 day supply for one copayment. We were told that the 2009 copayment would only cover 30 days of meds, unless we used Kaiser's mail program, in which case it would cover 90 days, like before. But Kaiser now charges 2 copayments, even if you use the mail. Now $10 for generics, and $25 for non.
NOTE: You gotta fight Kaiser for everything?
At this rate many generics cost less if you forget about your coverage, and just pay the cost of the meds, at Kaisers' member rate. Also ask for a whole bottle. Atenolol costs $10 for 50 pills, (100 days), or $10.50 for 100. Others are similar.
Q. Have others had this problem? How can they possibly say this is "substantially equivalent?" What can we do?
Thanks.
May 2, 2009 10:56 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Physics Today has an article about what went wrong with the LANL/LLNL contract. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstod...
-
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will have a huge negative effect on the ...
-
Global Security Newswire U.S. Nuclear Weapons Agency to Delay Work on Interoperable Warhead By Global Security Newswire Staff February 18, ...
