|
 |
Second Round Fund DriveTarget = $150,000 |
 |
To LLNL Retirees
Receiving Medical Benefits from LLNS
From Joe Requa
Subject UCRS Retiree Benefits
I
believe moving retiree medical benefits to LLNS, for those of us who retired
from LLNL before LLNS was created is illegal. I would like to know if you agree
with me. DOE has tacitly agreed that they are responsible for paying for our
medical benefits since they are paying for them through LLNS. They should
choose the fair and legal method of providing them by paying through UC so we
get the retiree medical benefits UC has promised us.
If you agree with me tell me yes.. If you
disagree with me tell me
no.. If you do not fit the retiree criteria tell me Just Visiting .
Joe Requa
563 Brookfield Dr.
Livermore, CA 94551
(925)443-0120
jrequa@comcast.net
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
Retiree Dilemma
Background
UC, DOE and LLNS Relationships
When The Department of Energy (DOE) wrote the Request for Proposal to replace the University of California (UC) as the manager of LLNL, it specified that the new manager, which turned out to be Lawrence Livermore National Security LCC (LLNS), would assume responsibility for retiree medical benefits for LLNL retirees. UC has taken the position that the requirement absolved them of any responsibility for retiree medical benefits. That position is incorrect.
LLNL retirees are in fact UC retirees. UC promises that UC retirees will continue to receive UC medical benefits if they were receiving them immediately prior to retirement. Neither UC nor LLNL retirees are party to the contract between DOE and LLNS so the contract has no effect on their legal relationship. That did not stop UC from terminating retirement benefits for employees that worked at the Livermore campus.
UC gave control of our benefits to an LLC that did not exist when we retired, had no legal or other relationship with us prior to 10/1/07, has disavowed any fiduciary responsibility for us and is offering us reduced benefits compared to other UC retirees. This is not the treatment UC promised us.
LLNS claims the right to modify or terminate our benefits at any time. UC also claims that right. Both leave unstated the fact that they can only do so if they do the same for all their active employees. UC is and will remain a premier educational institution with a vested interest in fairly treating its retirees. LLNS is in the process of converting LLNL from a premier scientific laboratory to a commercial laboratory with no interest, other than satisfying their contract, in UC retirees.
LLNS can't provide the same incentives to attract and retain top quality employees that UC can. LLNS medical insurance is already being cut by LLNS, as directed by DOE directive N 351.1, while UC continues to provide high quality coverage. Employees that transferred from UC to LLNS employment gave up UC medical benefits in doing so. Those of us who retired from UC did not transfer and did not give up our medical benefits.
UC, DOE Management Contract
Contract No.: W-7405-ENG-48
between UC and DOE had a termination section that, among other things,
stated that UC would retain responsibility for pensioners and DOE would be
liable for any un-reimbursed costs that occurred as a result of contract
termination. The statement on pensioners was unequivocal and hence covered all
aspects of the UC retiree relationship including medical benefits. DOE and UC
are in breach of that contract for not implementing those clauses with respect
to retiree medical benefits. Any challenge to the joint actions of UC and DOE
would have to be heard in the Court of Federal Claims, which can only address issues
specifically delegated by Congress. It is not empowered to entertain third
party claims against federal contracts, so LLNL retirees have no recourse.
LLNS Actions
In late 2007, LLNS held an open enrolment period for LLNL
retirees and LLNS employees that offered essentially the same costs and medical
providers as UC. In late 2008 LLNS presented a plan to greatly increase the
cost to retirees for LLNL retiree benefits. The plan affects about 5000
retirees and their spouses.
LLNL retirees are divided into two groups, those who are
Medical eligible and those who are not. The existence of non-Medicare eligible
retirees was caused by a UC policy, established in the 1966 time frame, where
employees were given the choice of whether or not to coordinate with Social
Security. Medicare was a few years old and not an issue at that time. The
coordination was presented as a way to let employees exceed the 80% of highest
salary cap on pensions in effect at that time. Those of us that did not expect to be affected by the cap
chose not to co-ordinate. Each Medicare eligible retiree is provided a
supplement to the base Medicare coverage. Each a non-eligible retiree starts
with zero coverage making coverage much more expensive for the same protection
as Medical eligible retirees receive.
LLNS plans to eliminate group insurance coverage, where each
member pays the same rate, in favor of individual policies, with age based
costs that increase on every birthday. LLNS plans to provide a fixed amount to
help pay for each insurance policy. This amount will not increase either
because of increases in cost of living or increases in medical costs. For
retirees who already have a declining real income this is an unbearable burden,
which will probably lead to complete loss of medical coverage for those without
Medicare and loss of extended coverage for retirees with Medicare.
The Current Situation
LLNL Retiree Action
There is no existing organization, akin to the Los Alamos Laboratory Retiree Group, that proactively pursues the interests of LLNL retirees. The only formal LLNL retiree organization has a charter they believe prevents them from any political action. To fill the vacuum, I am organizing an ad hoc group to try to restore the medical benefits we are legally entitled to. Since I have never had rabble-rouser listed in my resume, I am flying blind so any help would be appreciated.
I currently communicate with a group of about 70 interested
individuals and am working to contact more. We are pursuing a two pronged attack.
We are trying to convince parties to the problem to reconsider their stance
using public and political appeals as our preferred solution. We are also
evaluating our legal options in case that solution does not achieve our goal.
Firefighting
At the present time there is some urgent firefighting
needed. LLNS and UC seem to have abandoned retirees and ExtendHealth does not
seem able to provide the needed help. I am hearing of cases where people have
to pay covered medical costs without any means of requesting
reimbursement. There are out of
area people not getting information and relying on friends to help. There are
people in rest homes incapable of dealing with the changes with nobody to act
on their behalf. There is even one retiree in the Czech
Republic (Czechoslovakia) who has to pay his Medicare Part B, which UC
previously paid, to keep his Medicare coverage active for his planned return to
the US, even though he gets no benefits where he is. Neither I nor the people I
am in contact with know how to help retirees with these sorts of problems. Some
of us canÕt even help ourselves. I am open to any suggestions for sources of
help.
Political Action
Political action is possible but the initial plans, driven
by DOE and agreed to by UC and LLNS, will be hard to dislodge. DOE Directive N
351.1 aimed at cutting DOE retirement costs was planned to go into effect in
early 2007 but delayed to 2008. It is likely the delay was to allow DOE and
LLNS to put together a plan that promised UC employees transferring to LLNS a
pay and benefits package equal to that they were receiving from UC. The promise
was only valid at the date of transition with LLNS given a free hand on pay and
benefit cuts thereafter. As soon
as the management transition occurred, LLNS began plans to implement the
directive. While the constitution
prohibits ex post facto laws, it apparently does not extend to DOE directives
being applied retroactively.
The political system is one where amateurs are allowed to
try their luck. We have targeted the UC Board of Regents, The UC
president, DOE, the Governor,
Assemblywoman Tausher, and Senator Feinstein. We have had feedback from the
Board of Regents, Assemblywoman Tausher and Senator Feinstein. The Regents
basically ducked the issue by extolling the status quo that we are trying to
change. Assemblywoman Tausher is monitoring the situation but has not committed
to any action. Senator Feinstein pointed out that we were following the wrong
input path and informed us the correct path to try. Now that there is a new
administration, we will try again. Having a Secretary of DOE who was previously
Director of LBNL may help our cause. Ideally, our issue can be resolved without
resorting to the legal system saving all parties time and expense.
Legal Action
The legal system is set up such that if you canÕt find legal
help you have no access to the system and you loose whether you are right or
wrong. Our legal issues are esoteric enough that there is only a small pool of
attorneys with the expertise necessary to even evaluate the situation. At this
point I have one attorney who is considering helping me. I am trying to get in
touch with one more attorney. That will have exhausted the list I have
discovered or have had recommended to me. If you are a lawyer with the right
credentials or know one, please get in touch with me.
Legal action against UC is probably possible if legal
representation can be found but will probably be too costly for retirees to
support. UC does not provide a full retiree pension cost of living escalation
clause to maintain spending power for retirees. Many retirees are at the limit of their purchasing power and
will not be able to contribute to the cost of legal council. It is unlikely any
lawyer would take the case on a contingency basis because fixing the problem
before significant damages occur will prevent actual and punitive damages large
enough to fund the legal action.