Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Brook's letter to Dynes

UPTE

STATEMENT


Let's not continue going down the path that will negatively impact LANL employees by doing things in a vacuum, let's truly promote accountability and transparency rather than paying lip service. What has been rhetoric in the past can dramatically be changed if accountability and transparency is promoted and enforced at a higher level of oversight. I say this because I believe that if this commitment to quality is not passionately held by our Congressional Delegation, UC and LANL management the change in "UC Culture" will never occur and as a result is very likely at the heart of many of the issues and predicaments we find ourselves in today.

Although, community and employee input will be provided at three planned community meetings and whether or not the input provided will be valued and accepted to create change is yet to be seen.

We don't have much time and if discussions are occurring at all levels with different people making decisions unilaterally (UC) as indicated by Mr. Brooks, in order to meet a specific deadline, it is conceivable that a meaningful and positive out come will not be forthcoming. If rash and dubious decisions such as the "Pension Plan Spin Off" are made in meeting a critical deadline, if ultimately affected stakeholders aren't fully informed and have no time and opportunity for meaningful input, it is the dedicated and loyal employees, past and present, who stand to have their livelihoods negatively impacted.




Manny Trujillo
UPTE/LANL
President

Comments:
On the off chance I might have interpreted the diplomatic Brooks letter to Dynes as favorable to the interests of LANL retirees, I urge a certain hyphenated acronym to stay away from his lubricant and chill along with a bottle of his favorite merlot.
 
That's you, BendOver. It is being suggested that you try to cut back. Limit the number of comments you make to any given post to 20 - 30 per day.

Breath deeply; drink deeply. Post more infrequently.
 
... interpreted *correctly* ...
 
I have read both of the presentations on the web today and have acquired all of the information I need to know. It clearly told me that I would not want to be a LANS employee unless of course I was very young and had nothing else to go to.

I have already submitted my questions and concerns to DOE , Brooks and Daynes directly. Now I want to see what they are going to do. Lets hope that UPTE will take the bull by the horns.

So there you go, "the certain hyphenated acronym may stay away from his lubricant and chill along with a bottle of his favorite wine"- until such time they do something stupid. Then I will be back in full force giving my input directly to the lawyers.

Having talked to a UC representative back in Washington, DC it was made very clear that there will be no further delay in getting LLNL out for bid and it will remain on schedule for being under new contractor by Sept 2007.

I do belive this statement is absolutely correct. "In order to meet a specific deadline, it is conceivable that a meaningful and positive out come will not be forthcoming". I also believe that ultimately if UC makes the wrong choice it will end up in court. Well see. Just maybe some one of importance has been reading the blog and understands what and what not is of importance to the people. Wether they care or not is my concern.

You all have a good time and good luck. I have plans to make and will be standing by for UC/ DOE final word on what they are to do with those who want to retire.
 
Being 55 with 22 years of service TCP1 is not an option at this point. Pretty much too young to retire now. I need to work for another 5-10 years. My preffered option is to select inactive vested in UCRP and star anew with TCP2. The only thing that is not clear is would I and others in the same class receive Medical benfefits upon future retirement.
 
As another current LLNL employee (20 yrs) looking through all this information, it seems clear that DOE has been successful in its mission to destroy LANL, and take firm control of how the benefits/compensation program is run at the Lab.

DOE is not charged with looking out for the wellbeing of LANL employees, only in cutting cost to the DOE budget. How hard do you all think DOE feds will fight to get contractor employees better benefits than feds are getting. When Brooks is having his million dollar home built out in retirement land, do you really think he cares what the construction contractor is paying the laborers or if they have a nice retirement plan.

NNSA caused this mess with their poorly constructed RFP that hamstrung the bidders approach to providing retirement plans for employees.

Fortunately for this country, DOE/Office of Science has not followed the NNSA in the RFPs for its labs (LBNL, Anrgonne, Fermi, etc). It looks like these labs will remain independently minded Federally Funded R&D Centers (FFRDCs) and not be turned into bodyshops ostensibly run by DOE through LLC front companies.
 
Let me see if I understand this. We've been struggling to get someone with any clout to beat down the UCRP-LANL outrage; along comes someone with clout and apparently takes a swing at it; and then we assert that he is insensitive to the retirement plight of construction workers. And this is supposed to help us how?

As I recall, that VRIP was not such a bad deal.
 
When UC offered a VRIP in the 1990, DOE forced UC to change the initial UC package so that it was 2 tiered, where lab employees would not get the same offer as campus employees. Campus employees got a 5+5 and lab employees a 3+3. The original UCOP proposal had lab and campus employees getting the same 5+5 offer.

The change came about because other DOE contractor companies complained that they could not match UC's offer. As I recall there was a lawsuit filed by UC lab employees and they lost.

So no... I do not trust DOE to give a rats about the employee benefits/retirement of contract employees at DOE sites. Why would should they?

If there are any LLNL, LANL, or LBNL retirees that remember this please chime in if I got it wrong.
 
Let me see if I understand this now.

We've been struggling to get someone with any clout to beat down the UCRP-LANL outrage; along comes someone with clout and apparently takes a swing at it; and then you assert that he is insensitive to the retirement plight of construction workers. Moreover, you state that you "do not trust DOE to give a rats about the employee benefits/retirement of contract employees at DOE sites."

And this is supposed to help us how?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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