Comments on: Letter to Congress Members http://blog.corre.info/2007/11/22/letter-to-congress-members/ --discussing pensions and benefits of Oak Ridge retired employees Fri, 16 May 2008 13:42:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Al Brooks http://blog.corre.info/2007/11/22/letter-to-congress-members/#comment-73 Al Brooks Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:37:52 +0000 http://blog.corre.info/2007/11/22/letter-to-congress-members/#comment-73 Sorry for the double comment but I realized I had not Googled *BenVal* for a while. The following make interesting reading: http://www.towersperrin.com/hrservices/tpdata/benval.asp http://lanl-the-rest-of-the-story.blogspot.com/2007/09/retiree-benefits-open-enrollment.html Apparently I was lied to, BenVal customers have to request a list of corporations for comparasion, they also have evaluated LANL and possiblely LLNL. The results of Googling *BenVal DOE* also make interesting reading. Apparently DOE uses BenVal as a management tool for contractor salaries (READ: means of reducing.) and other benefits. It is also apparent the LANL employees/retirees know more about BenVal methodology than I do. Where did they learn it? Take your mean pills before you write abot DOE. Al Brooks Sorry for the double comment but I realized I had not Googled *BenVal* for a while. The following make interesting reading:

http://www.towersperrin.com/hrservices/tpdata/benval.asp

http://lanl-the-rest-of-the-story.blogspot.com/2007/09/retiree-benefit s-open-enrollment.html

Apparently I was lied to, BenVal customers have to request a list of corporations for comparasion, they also have evaluated LANL and possiblely LLNL.

The results of Googling *BenVal DOE* also make interesting reading. Apparently DOE uses BenVal as a management tool for contractor salaries (READ: means of reducing.) and other benefits. It is also apparent the LANL employees/retirees know more about BenVal methodology than I do. Where did they learn it?

Take your mean pills before you write abot DOE.

Al Brooks

]]> By: Al Brooks http://blog.corre.info/2007/11/22/letter-to-congress-members/#comment-72 Al Brooks Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:58:22 +0000 http://blog.corre.info/2007/11/22/letter-to-congress-members/#comment-72 Kenny Cook has asked, "Who were the 'DOE approved competitors' that were benchmarked?" And well he should. About a year ago I tried to find out the same information with little success. My purpose was to obtain comment on the obvious computational error in the report and clarification of the other terms used. Here is what I learned: 1) A letter to Dave Reichle/CORRE from Don Erbschloe/DOE compared ORNL and Y-12 to about 30 unidentified corporations. According to several contractor sources and one DOE source, the names are unknown and proprietary; the property of the consulting firm that does the comparisons for DOE. I was told that DOE approved the list selected by the consultants and it did not contain the western DOE sites. 2) It was also stated that report was requested by DOE/HQ so the local contractors did not know how it was prepared nor could they comment on the error as they did not understand its preparation. and that DOE/HQ probably did not know either. 3) A FIO request was refused in part and the remaining part still lies in DOE's cavernous halls. 4) I suspect that the BenVal people are the only ones who can answer our questions. 5) There are more details on the web site: http://home.comcast.net/~brooks50/InformerIndex.htm For these and other reasons, I consider the BenVal Report relatively worthless for benefits management. If any one finds more answers I would appreciate being informed I believe the only way to combat such nonsense is to amass political power by writing open letters to the legislators. Addresses on the web site Kenny Cook has asked, “Who were the ‘DOE approved competitors’ that were benchmarked?” And well he should. About a year ago I tried to find out the same information with little success. My purpose was to obtain comment on the obvious computational error in the report and clarification of the other terms used. Here is what I learned:

1) A letter to Dave Reichle/CORRE from Don Erbschloe/DOE compared ORNL and Y-12 to about 30 unidentified corporations. According to several contractor sources and one DOE source, the names are unknown and proprietary; the property of the consulting firm that does the comparisons for DOE. I was told that DOE approved the list selected by the consultants and it did not contain the western DOE sites.

2) It was also stated that report was requested by DOE/HQ so the local contractors did not know how it was prepared nor could they comment on the error as they did not understand its preparation. and that DOE/HQ probably did not know either.

3) A FIO request was refused in part and the remaining part still lies in DOE’s cavernous halls.

4) I suspect that the BenVal people are the only ones who can answer our questions.

5) There are more details on the web site:
http://home.comcast.net/~brooks50/InformerIndex.htm

For these and other reasons, I consider the BenVal Report relatively worthless for benefits management.

If any one finds more answers I would appreciate being informed

I believe the only way to combat such nonsense is to amass political power by writing open letters to the legislators. Addresses on the web site

]]> By: Nancy Owens http://blog.corre.info/2007/11/22/letter-to-congress-members/#comment-65 Nancy Owens Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:06:09 +0000 http://blog.corre.info/2007/11/22/letter-to-congress-members/#comment-65 Nice letter Ken - Larry Long had great comments as well. I suspect that the impending letter will reverse the increase in cost sharing back to 25%/75%. I also suspect that whoever signed off on the increase in DOE has had enough time to carefully reconsider if that was a good decision to make during an election period even though the number of voters adversely impacted might not have been viewed as signifcant. Regardless, it has ignited the retiree population in a way that was probably not intended - DOE must not have considered the consequences is all I can figure. As a result, DOE is going to get more help with managing benefits then they ever imagined due to this mistake in judgement (and it looks like they need it based on the wisdom of this decision). Nice letter Ken - Larry Long had great comments as well. I suspect that the impending letter will reverse the increase in cost sharing back to 25%/75%. I also suspect that whoever signed off on the increase in DOE has had enough time to carefully reconsider if that was a good decision to make during an election period even though the number of voters adversely impacted might not have been viewed as signifcant. Regardless, it has ignited the retiree population in a way that was probably not intended - DOE must not have considered the consequences is all I can figure. As a result, DOE is going to get more help with managing benefits then they ever imagined due to this mistake in judgement (and it looks like they need it based on the wisdom of this decision).

]]>