Thursday, January 20, 2005
Jan. 19, 2005
Response to UCRP and DOE
The clause to which Mr. Streit refers, in the draft request for proposal, appears in: "H-37 Pension Plan, (e) Contract termination and selection of a successor contractor, (2) Contract service assets in the event there is a successor pension plan, (iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph (e), the parties further agree to consider the desirability of covering pensioners, survivors, UCRP disability recipients, and terminated vested and nonvested members under a successor plan."
However, this language in the draft RFP refers to the next contract, and transitions out of the next contract. It is, therefore, irrelevant to the transition, which is soon to take place between the current contract and the next contract.
Alas, in the current contract, language identical to the above occurs in: H-008, (f), (2), (ii); i.e., the so called "double ii" clause. This language, in the current contract, is legally binding on the parties, who are DOE, UC and [the Lab]. Retirees and employees are not parties to the current contract, and have no rights under this contract.
Now, this past Sunday Tyler Przybylek, chairman of the DOE's Source Evaluation Board, said publicly that he has no intention of invoking this clause, during the upcoming negotiation for the new contract. But, he also said very clearly that he cannot speak for UC in this important matter. When asked specifically if DOE would refuse to allow this clause to be invoked, in the event that UC would find this to be advantageous, Przybylek said that he "could not do this" because it might "compromise the interests of current employees." He also admitted, however, that he was quite unsure as to the purpose of this clause in the current contract. He thought somehow that it "might be there to protect the interests of current employees."
Finally, Przybylek also said that, generally, he "did not think that government should be attempting to decide important issues relating to the upcoming contract negotiation for employees." Rather, he believed "that employees should be deciding these important issues for themselves."
Does all of this give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, Mr. Streit? Go figure!