Wednesday, January 18, 2006
ROGER SNODGRASS, email@example.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
Recently retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Bill Stanbro was not alone in expressing concern about the pension item on the tomorrow agenda for the University of California Board of Regents.
"It's not clear what they're up to there," he said this morning.
Late last week, a number of retirees sounded an alarm about UC's plans to set up a separate pension plan for LANL under a proposal submitted by UC President Robert C. Dynes.
Please address this item. I see no reason in the world why it can not be this way. If they need funds to get their pension going, that to me is LANSLLC problem. It should not be done at our expense.
The class must automatically include all current LANL/UC retirees, the surviving spouses of LANL/UC retirees who are drawing the spousal share of the LANL/UC employees' retirement, the spouses of current LANL/UC retirees who might draw the spousal share, and current LANL/UC employees who are eligible to retire and their spouses. It also must include divorced spouses for whom part of the LANL/UC retirement was included in the divorce settlement. Anyone not wanting to be included would have to opt out.
This does not affect just a few people, folks.
Once again, we see the consequences of a VERY BAD IDEA--the privatization of LANL.
I believe that Oaths of Loyalty to
the State of California were still required at least until the mid/late-90's. Any relatively "new" hires out there that can comment on whether or not this is still required?
Think "Social Contract."
It almost doesn't matter, because the number of employees who did sign such an oath, plus retirees, is much larger than the number of recent hirees who may or may not have signed such an oath.
GICCB was made aware of the meeting that took place in San Diego and what was to be discussed. Please do not let this stop each and everyone of you from contacting GICCB and express your concerns on just how you feel about this breech of contract on University of California’s behalf. Your message needs to come through load and clear, however it will not unless we can get all 16,000 current employees and all of its retirees involved. Remember that it isn’t over until the fat lady sings. Please do not accept defeat.
I can only assume that SPSE has asked for the names and addresses of every retiree from both LANL and LLNL from HR and requested that be notified by mail; informing them of what is going on. It is my hopes that someone has taken this for action. Any further delays may cost all of us what we are truly entitled too.
For all the LLNL employees I have one thing to say; "YOU ARE NEXT". I would encourage all of you to save your retirement by partaking in this endeavor. Please take the time contact http://www.lawyers.com/giccb/ContactUs.jsp and just say no. NOT NOW & NOT EVER
A paragraph from the UC PDF that all LLNL employees should take to heart:
...a similar model further refined by the LANL experience could be used
when the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory management contract is
put out for bid, which the DOE/NNSA have indicated will occur in
2006 or 2007.
They can be contacted at
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, California 94612-3528
Fax: 510-832-1918 URL:
I was converted to UC from Comforce just a few months ago. And yes, I had to "Swear to the Bear" an oath of loyalty to the State of California.
It seems to me that the really big danger comes if LANS doesn't get the next contract or somehow loses this one early. Those of us now drawing retirement feel pretty secure with UCRS and I'd have a little bit of confidence in the proposed UCRP-LANL arrangement with the University running it but none if LANS were to lose or pull out of the contract. In that event, its a sure bet UC is no longer going to be managing the UCRP-LANL plan and who knows whether there'd be any "attempt at equivalence." I think the plan could then rapidly go defunct. When you consider this scenario there is no way that the proposed moving of currently retired people into UCRP-LANL can be considered a plan with equivalent benefits. Part of benefits is the amount of risk involved. Or maybe UC would like to give us a guarantee that if they lose or pull out of the contract they'll transfer us back into UCRS. A lot of recently retired people are going to outlive this contract.
I think we need to look at the possibility of a class action suit. I'd be willing to put up a $1000 toward it.
PS: I started at the Lab in '67 and signed a loyalty oath. I was one of those who had the option of going under social security later (mid-70s?) and did so. I retired in '98.