Monday, January 17, 2005

Request For UC Contract Extension?

I got the following note from a co-worker:

I just got home from LA. A LANL Retirees association hosted a meeting at the LAHS auditorium and invited Tyler what's-his-name, the head of the contract SEB, and Robert Archuleta, his side-kick.

They are planning to fix several of the issues that I have been worried about:

1) They have asked the LANL Contract Administrator to extend the UC contract by 3 months so that,

2) They will give 60 days for those employees who are eligible for retirement to evaluate the compensation package offered by the new contractor, and to make an informed decision about whether to:

3) a) Roll over all of their pension, service credit, etc, into the new plan,
b) terminate from UC, become inactive in UCRP (waiting to retire until some later date), and to become new employees of the new contractor, or
c) terminate AND retire from UC. Rehire with the new contractor (double dipping) WILL be allowed.
Downside of b or c is that the new contractor has the option of NOT hiring you back.

4) They assured us that their intention is that anyone who terminates from UC prior to the conversion date will retain their retirement funds in UCRP. But that is actually up to UC. If UC chooses to negotiate with the new contractor, anything could happen.

5) Retiree health care will be covered by the new contractor, not UC.

The presentation was taped by PAC-8, for repeat broadcasts in the near future. You should look for it and see if you hear the same things I did.

Comments:
Downside of b or c is that the new contractor has the option of NOT hiring you back.

How could they not hire you back? Look at it from this angle :

1. They will need "skilled" people who know what they are doing to keep things running. That is people skilled in the way things run now, how to grease the wheels and play the pathetic power games that are rampant.

2. Who would they replace them with? To quote Dilbert, the lab has become " The Resume' Stain ". Who wants to come all the way into nowhere for overpriced substandard housing, a culture of meth, drinking, and not much else for the younger generation ... all for the chance to work at a place that plays slight of hand with their employees & contractors! Who would willingly want that ?

3. How long will replacements last when they go up against the silly bottlenecks, self important fools, and generic stupidity that the internal business model projects? There are diamonds in the rough, for sure, but there are so few diamonds per acre of rough.

4. Even if they offer more money, any salary increase will be eaten alive by the various and sundry overpriced basic needs available to those who don't wish to drive down the hill. The one exception to this rule oddly enough is gas prices. Still....

5. If they don't hire back , and can't get anyone new to move in what are they left with? The local folks who can easily fill some jobs, but not all of them. " you ain't from around here, are ya mister " doesn't translate well into a large scale business model.

Nah, not much choice but to allow the double dippers to do their thing. You knwo what, I don't blame them one bit. After being treated as most people are at the lab for so many years, they deserve everything they can get.
 
Here is what we feel we are in for at LLNL after reading the presentation distributed by LANL

CONTACTS

UCDC-Washington, DC

Congressman , Senator, University of California Regents

NNSA-DOE,






Abolishing Academia at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Contract FY 2007

To whom it may concern,

For the first time in my twenty-two years as an employee of LLNL I can honestly say that the plan to establish a corporation to manage Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory employees is an absolute brilliant venture, if the mission is to restructure the system without fear of law suites.

For me, my only question to the University of California and to DOE is; just how kind will they be to their loyal employees after twenty to thirty years of service when in fact it was their dedication to duty during the cold war era that kept this country free.

For many of us it is imperative that the answer to this question be delivered on time and without procrastination by April of 2007. After all, you are playing with people’s livelihood where vital decisions must be made with extreme precaution.

For my final input to the success or demise of LLNL I am going to leave DOE, NNSA and the UC with this fact. As of today the July 29th 2005 I have not talked to a single person who was at age fifty that says they are going to stay at LLNL if and when the UC loses the contract. I would venture to say that you will lose at least 50-60% of LLNL's FTE’s on the day before the new contractor takes control. I am one of those, especially after reading the LANL presentation attached below.

So with that said I am going tell you what the employees of LLNL believe they are in for. This is what they are anticipating and quite frankly I don’t believe that their worries are far from being the truth.

Fears of the new contractor and rumors taken as facts:

Cut medical coverage – should be retained



Termination of UC Retirement and 403b – Shameful to say the least



Evade any possible law suites – good idea



Employ the step system for pay and salary – absolutely necessary



Reduce manpower to reasonable levels – not a bad idea



Freeze wages at their current levels – not good



Cut middle management by at least 50% - 75% -great idea



Abolish employees between assignments - issue pink slips- not a bad idea



Allow all support facilities to be contracted out – not a bad idea



All employees including PhD’s to become contract labor- equal rights



Give the employer an easy path for employee dismissal – not a bad idea



Reduce the population by at least 50% - promote early retirement



Moth-ball NIF – not a bad idea and great saving to all



Transfer the Pu facility to NTS – a great idea



Make LLNL and Institute not an R&D facility - cost effective

I cannot say that all of the above bullets are a bad idea. It is true; the labs need to be restructured. If that means a RIF or the termination and closure of large projects such as NIF and the Pu facility then so be it. But please give the people who are fifty year old with twenty years of service a golden handshake before Sept 29th 2007, and above all retain the medial benefits for all. The medical benefits are the MOST important benefit one can have.

In conclusion I will say this to all I am leaving behind in 2007. Be happy that you were not working for United Airlines, Enron or General Motor’s.

LANL Contract Proposal Pay close attention to page 15-second paragraph and page 16.



This is a personal webpage that was designed for the sole purpose to get LLNL and LANL employees actively involved in their future.
By no means does this web site express the opinions or the desires of its management or regents.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?