MULGREW'S THEORY THAT THE LUMP SUM PAYMENTS ARE TOO LARGE TO GET IN FULL RIGHT NOW DEBUNKED

The following question was asked at the May Delegate Assembly to UFT President Michael Mulgrew.

From our report:
Question: City has surplus. Can we get lump sum payments early? (payments we will be getting in October of 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 for work we did from 2009-2011 that other unions received in those years)
Mulgrew Answer: Other unions had to pay to get lump sum payments on time. Ours is too large. We can't get it early.

This is how NYC Educator recorded the same question and answer:

CL--City has surplus--can we get lump sum payments early?
[Mulgrew]: Issue is our lump sum payment is so large, other unions were much smaller, city made them pay to get in on time. Some unions gave up Welfare Fund payments. Sorry, can't be early.

Is Mulgrew accurate that our payments are too huge. One of our readers asked an expert at the city's Independent Budget Office. The expert's answer was posted here on December 23. I will repeat it fully below to invalidate Mulgrew's statement that the payment is too large. The cost to the city was estimated at a maximum of $560 million according to the IBO expert but would actually be less because those who resign or are terminated do not get the payments.

The FY 2018 NYC Executive Budget is $84.86 Billion according to the city's Budget Summary. Our $560 million (less because of attrition) would cost the city a little over a half of one percent (.00656% to be a little more precise) of its budget if we were paid back in full this fiscal year. We would not put the city in bankruptcy but the UFT won't even ask for what is rightfully ours.

We have already ascertained that negotiating is not one of Michael Mulgrew's chief talents. I think we can safely conclude that math is not one of his major skills either. Then again, 75% of teachers and 77% of UFT members trusted the union that this was the best we can do and voted for the contract. People like me were not able to convince the masses to vote no. I only got a near unanimous no vote at Jamaica (one abstention from someone who was about to retire).

December 23, 2016 ICE Blog Posting:

I sometimes can still be a little surprised by the extent to which the UFT was taken to the cleaners by the city and the Department of Education in the last contract in 2014. A reader wrote to the Independent Budget Office to find out how much our lump sum payments would cost the city.

This is the money we worked for between 2009 and 2011 that we essentially loaned to the city. NYC is paying us back with no interest in installments. The first payment was in 2015. We get nothing this year but the remainder of the loan will be paid back in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

How much will this cost the city?

The IBO expert estimated the maximum our loan will cost the city is $560 million but said it would be less because of all the UFT members who will resign or be terminated by 2020 and so won't be paid back in full.

Overall, the city is planning to spend $82 billion in this fiscal year. Paying back our loan will not even cost the city anywhere close to 1% of the budget. Add the large reserves the city has and there is little doubt that we are being ripped off big time by the 2014 contract.

I do not expect the city to feel sorry for us and give us our money back early but how could teachers not be angry about being ripped off so badly compared to other city employees who had this money years ago? We still only have half of the salary increases other city employees received from 2008-2010 added to our regular checks. The full amount won't be added until May 2018. 

From the Independent Budget Office:

I am replying to your email sent to Ronnie Lowenstein regarding the “bonus” payments to be made to members of the UFT as per the collective bargaining agreement of 2014.  I assume in referring to bonus payments you are in fact referring to the retroactive lump sums to be paid out on October 1^st of 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

While IBO does not have an exact cost for how large these retroactive lump sums will be, because they are directly linked to the number of union members who will be employed on the days the payments are scheduled to be made, we can estimate the maximum cost of these lump sums based upon the total PS costs for pedagogical employees in 2009-2011.  Based upon the total PS costs from those years we estimate that the entire lump sum payment would be a maximum of $560 million if every member were to remain employed by the DOE through 10/1/20. 

This total would translate to a maximum of $70 million paid out in 2017 and $140 million paid out in 2018 – 2020.  These funds, if not already accounted for in DOE’s financial plan, would increase the city-funds portion of DOE’s budget by less than one percent in 2017 and around one percent in each subsequent year.   

IBO has not made any estimates about what the final cost of this portion of UFT’s collective bargaining agreement would be although we assume, as a result of attrition and other separations, that it will somewhat less than the $560 million.   

While I can’t say for certain, and I am looking into it further, I do believe that these costs are included in DOE’s financial plan.  As you surmised there likely is no breakdown of PS funding which would allow you to see the budget for regular salary segregated from these lump sums.  If I am able to find any more clarity on this issue I will keep you informed.

Thank you for reaching out, if you have any furthers questions or concerns feel free to contact me.

CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN THE TRS LETTER TO RECENT RETIREES?

I do not pretend to be a pension expert. UFT New York City Teachers Retirement System members who retired after July 1, 2014 have received two letters: one from the Teachers Retirement System and one from the Department of Education.

They are copied below and also posted on the TRS website.

Can anyone out there explain these letters to our readers?

These are the two of the most interesting paragraphs for me:

During the summer of 2016, the DOE is expected to provide TRS with updated salary information related to the two 4% pay increases. If TRS has not yet received your updated salary information from the DOE when we begin calculating your retirement allowance, we will initially finalize your retirement allowance based on available information, and then revise your retirement allowance to reflect the full pay increases due under your collective bargaining agreement.

If you have additional pensionable earnings such as per session and class coverage, please note that the DOE is expected to send that salary information to TRS after sending the information related to the two 4% pay increases. TRS will then determine whether you are eligible for a retirement allowance revision based on the additional pensionable earnings. 

This contract was settled over two years ago. Why is the DOE waiting until the summer of 2016 to send "updated salary information?"

Is this the pension calculations the way the UFT told us they would originally be done as if we had gotten the 4% + 4% raises back in 2009-2011 so our pensions will be calculated as if we received the increases all along?

OR

Is something else going on here?

Please someone help me out so we can understand this better.

DOE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER (For Retiring UFT Members Only) 

T01-DOE INSTRUCTIONS (7/16) INSTRUCTIONS

 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY PAGE 1 

Members who are represented by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) must sign the attached acknowledgement letter from the Department of Education (DOE) and file it with their retirement application. Members who are not represented by the UFT should disregard this information and should not file the attached letter. The Department of Education (DOE) has directed TRS to provide UFT members the attached letter. The letter explains how TRS will calculate your retirement allowance to reflect provisions of the 2014 UFT collective bargaining agreement.

How to Complete Your Acknowledgement Letter Please carefully read the acknowledgement letter (code T01-DOE) and sign and date it in the spaces provided. In the space labeled “Pension No. /Last Four Digits of Social,” write your TRS Membership Number instead. Then, include the signed letter with the retirement application that you file with TRS. 

How TRS Will Calculate Your Retirement Allowance TRS will base your retirement calculation on the best Final Average Salary (FAS) period that results after factoring in the two 4% pay increases from 2009 and 2010 that are due you (but not fully paid to you by the DOE), as well as the two 1% pay increases that the DOE has already paid to you under your collective bargaining agreement.

During the summer of 2016, the DOE is expected to provide TRS with updated salary information related to the two 4% pay increases. If TRS has not yet received your updated salary information from the DOE when we begin calculating your retirement allowance, we will initially finalize your retirement allowance based on available information, and then revise your retirement allowance to reflect the full pay increases due under your collective bargaining agreement.

If you have additional pensionable earnings such as per session and class coverage, please note that the DOE is expected to send that salary information to TRS after sending the information related to the two 4% pay increases. TRS will then determine whether you are eligible for a retirement allowance revision based on the additional pensionable earnings. 

Additional Information TRS will send you a Benefits Letter about a week before you receive your first retirement allowance payment. The Benefits Letter will detail your retirement allowance calculation, including the Final Average Salary used. If you have questions after receiving your Benefits Letter, you may call TRS at 1 (888) 8-NYC-TRS, or the UFT Retiree Pension Department at (212) 598-9536. 

Please note that TRS is administering your retirement allowance revision in accordance with the agreements between the UFT and the DOE, but keep in mind that TRS and our Member Services Representatives are not experts about the specific terms of the agreements. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 T01-DOE INSTRUCTIONS (7/16) PAGE 2 CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 This page intentionally left blank. Carmen Farina Chancellor

Dear Applicant for Retirement,

In the Spring of 2014, the United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”) and the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (known as the “Department of Education” or “DOE”) negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement (the “Agreement”) covering November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2018.

As part of Section 3(B) of the Agreement, the UFT and DOE agreed that two 4% increases from 2009 and 2010 that were part of the pattern for the 2009-2011 round of bargaining would be phased in to employees’ paychecks as 2% on May 1, 2015, another 2% on May 1, 2016, another 2% on May 1, 2017 and, finally, another 2% on May 1, 2018.

At the same time, Section 3(E) of the Agreement provides for a series of lump sum payments which are paid on October 1, 2015, October 1, 2017, October 1, 2018, October 1, 2019 and October 1, 2020 (or for those on approved leave, upon return). Lump sum payments are also made on those dates to those individuals who retired after June 30, 2014. The wage rate increases and lump sum payments occur at different points in time, but they both represent, in different forms, the same increases from the 2009-2011 round of bargaining.

To make sure your pension does not include less or more than it would if you received a 4% increase on November 1, 2009 and a 4% increase on November 1, 2010, the UFT and DOE agreed that employee pensions would be calculated using the phased in wage rate increases.

In order to ensure that all UFT-represented employees are equally made whole and receive neither less nor more than the full value of the 2009-2011 pattern increases in their pensions, this letter has been added to your application for retirement to ensure that you understand that your pension will be calculated by applying a 4% increase in 2009 and a 4% increase in 2010 when calculating your final average salary. 

Because your pension will be calculated in this way, you understand that the lump sum payments will not be separately pensionable. 

You also agree that you will not challenge the exclusion of your lump sum payments from your final average salary calculation since you have been credited for this amount in your final average salary. 

Such challenge will result in your becoming legally obligated to return all the lump sum payments you received to the DOE. If you bring such a challenge and do not return the lump sum payments, the DOE will have a right to take legal action against you to secure the return of the payments and, if successful, will have a right to recover legal fees associated with that legal action.

Notwithstanding this acknowledgement, it is understood that you do reserve your right to otherwise challenge the correctness of your pension calculation without giving up the lump sum payments, including, but not limited to, challenging any potential incorrect application of the increases in Section 3(B) of the collective bargaining agreement to 2009 and 2010.

Date: _____________________ ____________________________ __ ____

UFT-Represented Employee/Retiree

Lawrence E. Becker Human Resources

 New York City Department of Education 

 ______________________________

 Pension No. / Last four digits of Social

NEW UFT CONTRACT: RETRO DELAYED = RETRO DENIED WHILE ABSENT TEACHER RESERVES HAVE TENURE WEAKENED

Four members of the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) sat through a propaganda love fest this afternoon as UFT Chief Financial Officer Dave Hickey, Staff Director Leroy Barr and then President Michael Mulgrew explained our new contract to rousing applause from the Unity/New Action faithful on the negotiating committee. Now that the contract is done there is no need to be confidential.

I asked the President to show us a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement but there was none.  However, the UFT machine is spinning faster than any Wascomat washing machine.

UFT members in the new contract will get the 4 % + 4% salary increases that other city workers unions received back in 2009 and 2010, but we won't see the money until 2015-2020.

For the seven years from 2011 to 2018, where the UFT will set the pattern for raises that other city unions will now follow, we will be getting a total of 10% in raises for seven years plus a $1,000 signing bonus.  That works out to less than 1.5% per year.

Specifically, this is how the CFO crunched the numbers:

2009-2010 = 4% raise
2010-2011 = 4% raise
2011-2012 = 0% raise but we will get a $1,000 signing bonus if we ratify the contract.
Nov 2012- April 2013 = 0% raise
May 1, 2013 = 1% raise
May 1, 2014 = 1% raise
May 1, 2015 = 1% raise
May 1, 2016 = 1.5% raise
May 1, 2017 = 2.5% raise
May 1, 2018 = 3.0% raise *Update February 14, 2015-This final 3% raise will be deferred to June 16, 2018 to help pay for retiree lump sum payments.*
Total: 18% (compounded it will be a little more)

For those of you expecting to go back in the fall and at least have the 4%+4% added to your pay, forget it.

The 4 % + 4% that other unions received in 2009-10 will not be added to our pay until the increases kick in one year at a time starting in 2015.  Here is how the 8% will be added in:

May 1, 2015 = 2%
May 1, 2016 = 2%
May 1, 2017 = 2%
May 1, 2018 = 2%

All we get added to our salaries now if we ratify is 1% for 2013 followed by 1% for 2014 and the $1,000 bonus.

The 8% won't be added to our salaries fully until 2018 and the retroactive money the city owes us since 2009 won't be coming soon either.  Here is the schedule for the retroactive payments:

October 1, 2015- 12.5% lump sum
October 1, 2016 - Nothing
October 1, 2017 - 12.5% lump sum
October 1, 2018 - 25% lump sum
October 1, 2019 - 25% lump sum
October 1, 2020 - 25% lump sum

We will not be made "whole" for Bloomberg denying us the raises that other city unions got 5 years ago until 2020. 

Thanks to inflation, Retro delayed is really Retro denied!

UPDATE-Anyone who Retires Before July 1, 2014 Wins Big
The winners in this deal are anyone who retired from 2009 through now and anyone else who retires prior to July 1, 2014.  They will get all of their retro pay calculated and get it at once.  People who already retired will have their pensions recalculated as well as receiving retro payments for the time they worked. 

At the Negotiating Committee they said retirees up to June 30, 2015 get retroactive upon retirement, but this is what is on the UFT website now.

Retroactive money for the 4 percent raises in 2009 and 2010: Those who retire on or before June 30, 2014 will receive full retroactive pay for time worked in a lump sum. Those who retire after June 30, 2014 and employees who have been continuously employed and are in active service as of the date of the payout will receive retroactive pay in five lump-sum payments of roughly 12.5 percent in October 2015, 12.5 percent in October 2017, 25 percent in October 2018, 25 percent in October 2019 and 25 percent in October 2020.

Anyone who retires July 1, 2014 or after will get the deferred payments the same way as active personnel and will be waiting until 2020 to be made "whole".

Only people who resigned or were terminated won't get retro.

Top salary now $100,049 will crawl up to $119,565 by May (updated to June) of 2018.

President Mulgrew arrived at around 5:20 pm after hanging around at the mayor's press conference and here are some of the other details he let out.

Some union had to settle first and it was us.

Here is a breakdown of some of the non-economic issues.

Evaluations:
We will go down from being rated on 22 Danielson components to 8.  (No word on the number of observations.)  Artifacts are out.

On Measures of Students Learning if we want, we will only be graded based on students we teach.

Paperwork:
The DOE and UFT agreed to set up (yet another) Committee on excessive paperwork.  This one will be half UFT and half DOE with a mediator.  Cases can also be taken to arbitration.

Extended Time
No additional time added to the day. The extended time, faculty, grade/department conferences, open school night time will be reconfigured.  We will work two extra open school evenings which will go from 2.5 to 3 hours.

There will be a default schedule on how to use the extended time each week and preapproved School Based Options.

Multi session, District 75 and 79 schools will keep their current time schedules.

Curriculum
Each core subject will have a curriculum that we must use.  Unit plans will be no longer than a page.

Merit Pay
There will be a career ladder i.e. merit pay.
Ambassador teachers will earn $7,500 more to visit other schools.
Model teachers will earn $7,500 more to be model teachers at their own schools.
Master teachers will earn $20,000 to help other teachers.

PROSE Innovative Schools
Schools can opt in with a 65% vote to cancel major parts of the contract.  This can be up to 200 schools.

ATRs
Absent Teacher Reserves must show up for interviews.  ATRs will be sent to vacancies in schools.  There will be no termination for time in the ATR pool but there is an offer of a severance package.

If two principals document unprofessional behavior, the documentation can be used for a special 3020A process just for ATRS.  This will not be for performance and it will be a one day hearing which could lead to termination.

Schools will be forgiven for ATR salaries.

Bonus
$5,000 will go to teachers who go to a hard to staff school.

Healthcare
There is a healthcare cost savings plan from the Municipal Labor Committee that must be approved. (We don't know how the cost savings will be achieved but we will keep our basic plans for free.)

Validators
For teachers rated ineffective, the validators sent in the second year to validate an ineffective rating will now be educators: teachers and administrators.

Where is the Memorandum of Agreement?
I asked the president when we would be seeing the full Memorandum of Agreement in writing.  He said he didn't know but Staff Director Leroy Barr said it would be out soon.  Mulgrew asked for a motion to recommend the contract for approval.  I abstained as I would never vote on something I haven't seen.  The Unity faithful followed their caucus obligatons and all voted in the affirmative while the New Action people went along with Unity too.  The other MORE members abstained silently during the vote but I screamed out for my abstention to be counted.


VERY BRIEF ANALYSIS
I leave it to you to decide what we should do.  I tried to keep the adjectives to a minimum in this piece and just report what was said.

We couldn't lose on the 4% + 4% because of pattern bargaining (one city union settles on a percentage salary increase and all the unions follow that pattern) but allowing the city stretch it out so that money we were owed since 2009 won't be fully paid back until 2020 really lets the city off the hook.

As for setting the pattern of 10% over 7 years, this is an abysmally low pattern to establish (we did better monetarily under the anti union Mayors Bloomberg and Guilliani).  I can understand why other labor unions in the city are angry with Mulgrew, particularly when it is considered how much surplus revenue the city has.  We should have been able to achieve non monetary gains for loaning the city our money and setting a very low pattern but instead we surrendered as usual. 

The devil will be in the details on the ATR agreement but I see this contract as a real missed opportunity.  Here's hoping the members will ignore the Unity spin cycle and see through it.

ARBITRATION DEAL TO GIVE US HALF RETRO AT THE END OF OCTOBER, HALF IN JULY AND NO LAYOFFS

There is an arbitration agreement between the UFT and the City that was reached today. Arbitrators don't rule in a few hours.

Jeff Kaufman and I are calling BS on this being a ruling (see Michael Mulgrew email below). Since when does the city "pledge" and "guarantee " in a ruling from an arbitrator? Mulgrew must think we are beyond stupid. This is obviously an agreement.

The details:

• 50% of the Lump Sum payments we should have received by Contract on October 1 will be distributed at the end of October 2020
• 50% of the lump sum payments we should have received by Contract on October 1 will be distributed in July 2021
• The city has agreed to no layoffs in the 2020-2021 school year
• The 3% raise scheduled for next May is guaranteed.

This is a little too cute and way too fast to leave me more than a little bit suspicious.

I am told by informed sources that the only reason it took so long to announce the deal is that the UFT had to figure out how to spin that getting the city to agree to delay giving us what we already were contractually entitled to is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

As for no layoffs being a huge gain in this agreement, it is way too late in the school term to lay teachers off. Positions must be abolished within the first five days of a school term. Please read this part of Section 2588 of NYS Education law closely.

 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no classroom teaching position may be abolished after the fifth school day of the fall school term or after the fifth school day of the spring school term and all transfers or personnel changes resulting from such abolitions which would cause the displacement of a classroom teacher shall be completed prior to the fifteenth school day of such terms, provided that the chancellor, after counsulting with any affected community school board, may waive the aforesaid limitations in a specific instance because of emergency conditions or for reasons of special hardship.

The burden of proof is on the Department of Education-City to prove there is an emergency or special hardship. I have a definition of an emergency from Circular 6R, a Board of Ed, now Department of Education, document from 1998.

It says on page 10, "An emergency is not only an unforseen condition but one which is beyond the reasonable powers of the Board to foresee and to prevent." Since school budgets are now annualized and were finalized last summer, I would like our chances in court if the City-DOE tried layoffs in the middle of the school year, particularly if Joe Biden wins the presidential election and the dollars start to come flowing back to the states and cities. 

Teacher layoffs are what the Mayor said he would be compelled to do if we didn't postpone the lump sum payments. Listen to the mayor's appearance on today's Brian Lehrer show carefully if you want more evidence that this agreement is just a little more than a bit suspicious.

Dear James,

An independent arbitrator has overturned the city’s attempt to avoid paying the final lump-sum payments for wages you earned going back to 2009 and 2010.

The arbitrator has ordered the city to pay half of the money owed now and the other half next July. The arbitrator also awarded a no-layoff pledge for the rest of the school year and a guarantee that the city will not challenge our 3% contractual wage increase coming next May.

Here are the highlights:

●Eligible UFT-represented employees will receive 50% of their final lump-sum payment by Oct. 31, 2020.

●They will receive the remaining 50% by the end of July 2021.

●Anyone eligible on Oct. 1, 2020, for the final lump-sum payment will receive the July payment regardless of any change in employment status.

●The city guarantees that UFT-represented employees will receive the 3% contractual wage increase due to take effect on May 14, 2021.

●The city pledges that no UFT-represented employee will be laid off for the rest of this school year.

This is far from a perfect solution for our members who are still owed deferred wages going back as far as 10 years. The decision recognizes the city's dire financial straits because of the pandemic, but makes clear that the city must meet its financial obligations to our members.

Sincerely,

Michael Mulgrew

UFT President

MULGREW'S EMAIL TO MEMBERS TROTS OUT THE SAME OLD TIRED LINES

While UFT members are waiting an extra fifteen days to see money that is contractually owed to us on October 1, 2015, our union president is pulling out the oldies but goodies as he explains the delay in the retro payments in his latest email to the members (see below).

First, President Michael Mulgrew pulls former Mayor Bloomberg out of his hat by saying, "Michael Bloomberg set aside no money in the city budget to pay for the two 4% increases for 2009 and 2010 that other city workers received." What President Mulgrew neglects to mention is that while the labor reserve was left empty by our former Mayor, the actual city budget has been in great shape.  In fact, the city recently ended the 2015 fiscal year with a $5.9 billion surplus.  Moving that money over to pay us what we are owed based on pattern bargaining would have been easy.  By yet again bringing up the implication that the city was broke and couldn't afford to pay us the money they owed us from 2009 and 2010 right now, our union President really thinks we are not that bright.

Mulgrew then states: "All active UFT members who worked for the Department of Education between 2009 and 2015 (plus those who retired after June 30, 2014) will receive a lump-sum payment of 12.5%, representing one-eighth of the amount they have accrued between 2009 and 2015. The payment, which will be added to a regularly scheduled paycheck, will be the first of five lump-sum payments between this October and 2020."  We understand that we have to wait until 2017 for the next payout and then the bulk of the money will come in 2018 and then in 2019 and 2020.  Half of the money is scheduled to come after the contract has already expired.  Mulgrew then once again shows he is working more for Mayor Bill de Blasio than for us.

The contract says in Paragraph 1E, "Lump sum payments stemming from the 2009-2011 Round and schedule for actives for those continuously employed as of the day of the payout.
i. 10/1/15 - 12.5%
ii. 10/1/17 - 12.5%
iii. 10/1/18 - 25%
iv. 10/1/19 - 25%
v. 10/1/20 - 25%"

Now I am not a lawyer but it says pretty clearly that the date of the payout is October 1, 2015 so any reasonable interpretation of that language would mean that the money should be deposited in our accounts on October 1, 2015 but that is not how Mulgrew reads this language.

Instead, he tells us, "For active teachers, paraprofessionals and other pedagogues, the money will be part of your Oct.15 check, the first regular paycheck after Oct. 1.  For nurses, therapists and other members who are paid on the H-Bank, the money will be in your Oct.23 check.  If you are on leave this October, you will receive your money on the date of the next scheduled payment that you are back on payroll.  Per session and F-status will be paid on Nov. 2."

The contract doesn't say the money will be paid on the first regular paycheck after October 1 Mr. President.  It says the date of the payout is October 1.  I wonder if the city will accrue interest by holding our money for two more weeks or three more weeks or over a month in the case of per session?

If I was the UFT President, I would be holding the city to the letter of the law and demanding two days pay in fines for every day they are late in paying us our money.  This is a breach of contract. The city would have no qualms about fining us two days pay for every day we are out on strike.

As for employees on leave having to wait until 2017 for any retroactive money, it says in the contract that members are owed money if they are "continuously employed as of the date of the payout."  Why does going on a leave mean that someone is no longer continuously employed?  Those on a leave have not resigned.

The city took us for such a ride with this inadequate contract where the UFT set the pattern of 10% over seven years (extended to 7 years, 1 month by an arbitrator to pay the lump sum retroactive money to retirees who left before July 1, 2014) that other city workers have had to swallow.  (Other city employees received their 2009-11 money in those years.  They aren't waiting until 2020.)  Why can't the city throw the UFT a little bone and pay people who are out on a child care, medical or other unpaid leave now?  How much would it cost?  I would have hoped the UFT would fight for these members, many who are the most in need of the money.

Mulgrew then tells us the calculations could be complicated and then truly insults us by saying we have a piggy bank that we can make our first withdrawal from on October 15. Let me tell you something Mr. President: having the city hold our money until 2020 while the city budget is producing whopping surpluses is crazy.  In addition, the Mulgrew piggy bank pays us 0% interest so inflation eats away at that money.

What is truly baffling is why anyone would be happy with this deal and how Mulgrew and his Unity Caucus can stand for reelection in 2016 based on it.



Dear James,

Our previous mayor tried to make it impossible for the next administration to give educators the raises they deserve. He failed in that mission. This October, you will receive the first lump-sum payment associated with those raises in your paycheck.

Michael Bloomberg set aside no money in the city budget to pay for the two 4 percent increases for 2009 and 2010 that other city workers received. Despite the virtually empty labor reserve that Mayor de Blasio inherited, we figured out a way in the 2014 contract to make our members whole.

All active UFT members who worked for the Department of Education between 2009 and 2015 (plus those who retired after June 30, 2014) will receive a lump-sum payment of 12. 5 percent, representing one-eighth of the amount they have accrued between 2009 and 2015. That payment, which will be added to a regularly scheduled paycheck, will be the first of five lump-sum payments between this October and 2020.

For active teachers, paraprofessionals and other pedagogues, the money will be part of your Oct. 15 check, the first regular paycheck after Oct. 1. For nurses, therapists and other members who are paid on the H-Bank, the money will be in your Oct. 23 check.  If you are on leave this October, you will receive your money on the date of the next scheduled payment that you are back on payroll. Per-session and F-status will be paid on Nov. 2.

You don’t need to have been on the job in 2009 or 2010 to be eligible for this payout. Every UFT member who has been continually employed by the DOE at any time between Nov. 1, 2009, and Oct. 1, 2015 and is active on Oct. 1 will receive a lump-sum payment in October. Teachers who have been on top salary for that entire time will receive a gross payment of between $5,000 and $6,000.

Your TDA will be updated, along with all other payroll contributions and deductions.
While the calculations can be complicated, the truth is simple: You deserve this money.

For every check you have received since late 2009 until today, lump-sum money has accrued representing the difference between what you would have been paid if your paycheck had reflected those two 4 percent increases in 2009–10 and what you were actually paid.

Think of it as a large piggybank. If you have been continually employed, you have been depositing money in this piggybank since Nov. 1, 2009 and will continue to deposit money until the two 4 percent increases are fully phased in in 2018. This October, you’ll make your first withdrawal.

Check the special Contract 2014 section of the UFT website for more information about the pay increases in the contract. If you have questions about your lump-sum payment, we encourage you to speak to a salary rep at your borough office. For issues that cannot be resolved in this way, you can file a Lump Sum Inquiry Form.

Thank you for everything that you do.

Sincerely,

Michael Mulgrew

FINAL MOA CONFIRMS: NO INTEREST ON OUR LOAN TO CITY; RETIREES MOVE TO HEAD OF PAYBACK LINE; CITY HAS FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO GET RID OF US; HEALTHCARE STILL A MYSTERY

In bold below is much of the first two pages of the final Memorandum of Agreement between the UFT and the City/Department of Education that is finally online.  Everything else has been available already but I have several specific concerns after reading the finished document.

It is clear from the MOA that retirees and those who will retire in June are jumping to the head of the line in terms of getting their full 2009-11 pay immediately while active people have to wait up until 2020. This flies in the face of union solidarity.  All should be treated equally.

Active people staying beyond June have to settle for 2%, + a $1,000 bonus and an IOU from the city for 2009-2011. Our loan to the city will be paid back without interest in five installments between 2015 and 2020. On our salary scale, we are looking at four years of 0% increases from May 2009-May 2013.

Keeping this in mind, the new contract seems to provide the city with a financial incentive to get rid of as many of us as possible before we can retire to keep from having to pay off on those significant IOU's. Those who resign before the payout dates get nothing. In the past, we didn't worry because of fairly strong tenure laws but the loan terms and the contract's weaker due process provisions (burden of proof is now on teachers after two ineffective ratings and Absent Teacher Reserves face one day dismissal hearings) are worrisome. 

For newer people, there is also an incentive for the city to throw probationary UFT members overboard so as not to have to pay off the IOU's.  You think it's tough getting tenure now?  Just wait.  Their replacements get a pittance or nothing depending on when they are hired.

Unfortunately, some of those Bloomberg era Leadership Academy principals will know what to do to save the city some real cash.

Also, the healthcare agreement asks us to trust the UFT to make unspecified savings in healthcare costs or we could end up with a new healthcare agreement as part of this contract that costs us more money and/or cuts benefits.

Some of the actual language of the MOA in bold:

B. 2009-2011 Round – Salaries and rates of pay as customarily done:

 i. 5/1/15: 2%

 ii. 5/1/16: 2%

 iii. 5/1/17: 2%

iv. 5/1/18: 2%

 

C. Structured Retiree Claims Settlement Fund

Upon ratification, the City shall establish a Structured Retiree Claims Settlement Fund in the total amount of $180 million to settle all claims by retirees who have retired between Novem- ber 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014 concerning wage increases arising out of the 2009-2011 round of bargaining. The Fund will be distributed based upon an agreed upon formula.

 

D. Retirements after 6/30/14 shall receive lump sum payments based on the same schedule as actives as set forth below in paragraph E.

 

E. Lump Sum Payments stemming from the 2009- 2011 Round and schedule for actives for those continuously employed as of the day of payout.

i. 10/1/15 – 12.5%

ii. 10/1/17 – 12.5%

iii. 10/1/18 – 25%

iv. 10/1/19 – 25%

v. 10/1/20 – 25%

 

F. General Wage Increases Salaries and rates of pay as customarily done:

i. 5/1/13: 1%

ii. 5/1/14: 1%

iii. 5/1/15: 1%

iv. 5/1/16: 1.5%

v. 5/1/17: 2.5%

 

vi. 5/1/18: 3%

Here are some possible questions to ask your friendly Union salesperson in the next two days before most people vote. I Highly doubt most of these questions will make it to Michael Mulgrew's video webcast on Monday, particularly question 5.

1-Since there is no payout of money from 2009-11 for people who resign or are terminated, doesn't that give the city a financial incentive to terminate or force as many of us as they can to resign before the full payouts are made?

• Won't this financial incentive to not keep people from 2018-2020, when the bulk of the 2009-11 payments are made, make getting tenure even harder than it is now?
• Isn't there also a financial incentive for the city to use the weakened due process provisions (one day hearings based on undefined "problematic behavior) to terminate as many Absent Teacher Reserves as possible before we can retire so as not to have to pay us the 2009-11 money or pay us full pensions? 

2-People who retired in the last four years get full back pay now for work done from between November 2009 and the time they retired.

People retiring in June 2014 get full back pay (10%) and a thousand dollar bonus (pensionable).

Those who can't retire now get 2%, a thousand dollars and an IOU from the city.  (If one can't retire in the next three years, the bonus won't matter when counting final average salary for pension.)

Why are June 2014 retirees and those who have retired since November 1, 2009 moving to the head of the line in terms of getting their full arrears from 2009-2011 now? 

3-How is the payout schedule equitable for active members compared to retirees?

4-Didn't the city just move $725 million to the current year's budget to pay for this settlement while the cost to pay off the retirees is only $181 million according to the MOA?  Why aren't all of us getting more than 2% and a $1,000 bonus now? (Even Bloomberg left some money in the labor reserve fund.)

5-Since, retirees are the most loyal constituency for the Unity Caucus (Michael' Mulgrew's political party), could that be why retirees or those leaving in June jump to the head of the payout line?

6-Why is there no interest on our loan to the city?  (In 1976 and 1991 when UFT members lent the city money, they paid us back with interest.)

7-What happens if someone takes a Leave of Absence during this contract?  In section 3E it says, "Lump Sum Payments (notice they don't call it retroactive pay) for actives for those continuously employed as of the day of payout."  I hope someone who takes a childcare leave, for example, still receives the full payouts. This one should be easily answered.

8-Look closely at 3D where it states: "Retirements after 6/30/14 shall receive lump sum payments based on the same schedule as actives as set forth below in paragraph E." Does that mean these retirees would get everything they are owed or only the payments as of the date they retire?  For example if someone retires in 2015, do they only get a lump sum payment for 2015 or are they paid for the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 payments for their past work?  UFT has assured us, both orally and in writing, we would get the full payments for 2009-2011 if we retire after this June but why doesn't it explicitly say that in the MOA?

9-Why are other unions like the SBA and TWU Local 100 criticizing this deal as subpar?

H. Healthcare Savings

 

a.  The UFT and the City/DOE agree the UFT will exercise its best efforts to have the MLC agree to the following:

 i. for fiscal year 2015 (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015), there shall be $400 million in savings on a city- wide basis in health care costs in the NYC health care program.

ii.  for fiscal year 2016 (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016), there shall be $700 million in savings on a citywide basis in health care costs in the NYC health care program.

iii.  for fiscal year 2017 (July 1, 2016-June 30, 2017), there shall be $1 billion in savings on a citywide basis in health care costs in the NYC health care program.

iv.  for fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018), there shall be $1.3 billion in savings on a citywide basis in health care costs in the NYC health care program.

v.  for every fiscal year thereafter, the savings on a citywide basis in health care costs shall continue on a recurring basis.

vi. The parties agree that the above savings to be achieved on a Citywide basis are a material term of this agreement.

vii.  In the event the MLC does not agree to the above citywide targets, the arbitrator shall determine the UFT’s proportional share of the savings tar get and, absent an agreement by these parties, shall implement the process for the satisfaction of these savings targets.

viii.  Stabilization Fund: (1) Effective July 1, 2014, the Stabilization Fund shall convey $1 billion to the City of New York to be used in support of the pro rata funding of this agreement.

(2) Commencing on July 1, 2014, $200 million from the Stabilization Fund shall be made available per year to pay for ongoing programs (such as $65 welfare fund contribution, PICA payments, budget relief). In the event the MLC does not agree to provide the funds specified in this paragraph, the arbitrator shall determine the UFT’s proportional share of the Stabilization Fund monies required to be paid under this paragraph.

 

 I. Dispute resolution regarding paragraph H.

a.  In the event of any dispute, the parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the par- ties cannot resolve the dispute, such dispute shall be referred to Arbitrator Martin F. Scheinman for resolution.

b.  Such dispute shall be resolved within 90 days.

c.  The arbitrator shall have the authority to impose interim relief that is consistent with the parties’ intent.

d.  The arbitrator shall have the authority to meet with the parties at such times as the arbitrator determines is appropriate to enforce the terms of this agreement.

e.  The parties shall meet and confer to select and retain an impartial health care actuary. If the parties are unable to agree, the arbitrator shall select the impar- tial health care actuary to be retained by the parties.

f.  The parties shall share the costs for the arbitrator and the actuary the arbitrator selects.

10-What are the unspecified healthcare savings we have to come up with?

11-What are the consequences if we don't meet the savings targets?

12-Will the savings mean cuts in benefits at some point?

13-Aren't we leaving too much up in the air here?

14-Why won't the leadership allow open debate on the contract? 

15-Why are you telling Chapter Leaders to push the contract when they are running the vote?  In the current weekly Chapter Leader Update there is a section called "The chapter leader's role in the contract ratification process."  Here are the last two sentences: "As a chapter leader, you represent the voice of the UFT in schools. Please share the message with your members that this contract is a victory not only for UFT members but also for the students and the communities we serve." Shouldn't Chapter Leaders be neutral concerning the vote?  I will do my best not to push a no vote when people are voting. It's their decision.

IBO EXPERT ESTIMATES WHAT OUR LUMP SUM PAYMENTS WILL COST CITY

I sometimes can still be a little surprised by the extent to which the UFT was taken to the cleaners by the city and the Department of Education in the last contract in 2014. A reader wrote to the Independent Budget Office to find out how much our lump sum payments would cost the city.

This is the money we worked for between 2009 and 2011 that we essentially loaned to the city. NYC is paying us back with no interest in installments. The first payment was on 2015. We get nothing this year but the remainder of the loan will be paid back in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

How much will this cost the city?

The IBO expert estimated the maximum our loan will cost the city is $560 million but said it would be less because of all the UFT members who will resign or be terminated by 2020 and so won't be paid back in full.

Overall, the city is planning to spend $82 billion in this fiscal year. Paying back our loan will not even cost the city anywhere close to 1% of the budget. Add the large reserves the city has and there is little doubt that we are being ripped off big time by the 2014 contract.

I do not expect the city to feel sorry for us and give us our money back early but how could teachers not be angry about being ripped off so badly compared to other city employees who had this money years ago? We still only have half of the salary increases other city employees received from 2008-2010 added to our regular checks. The full amount won't be added until May 2018. 

From the Independent Budget Office:

I am replying to your email sent to Ronnie Lowenstein regarding the “bonus” payments to be made to members of the UFT as per the collective bargaining agreement of 2014.  I assume in referring to bonus payments you are in fact referring to the retroactive lump sums to be paid out on October 1^st of 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

While IBO does not have an exact cost for how large these retroactive lump sums will be, because they are directly linked to the number of union members who will be employed on the days the payments are scheduled to be made, we can estimate the maximum cost of these lump sums based upon the total PS costs for pedagogical employees in 2009-2011.  Based upon the total PS costs from those years we estimate that the entire lump sum payment would be a maximum of $560 million if every member were to remain employed by the DOE through 10/1/20. 

This total would translate to a maximum of $70 million paid out in 2017 and $140 million paid out in 2018 – 2020.  These funds, if not already accounted for in DOE’s financial plan, would increase the city-funds portion of DOE’s budget by less than one percent in 2017 and around one percent in each subsequent year.   

IBO has not made any estimates about what the final cost of this portion of UFT’s collective bargaining agreement would be although we assume, as a result of attrition and other separations, that it will somewhat less than the $560 million.   

While I can’t say for certain, and I am looking into it further, I do believe that these costs are included in DOE’s financial plan.  As you surmised there likely is no breakdown of PS funding which would allow you to see the budget for regular salary segregated from these lump sums.  If I am able to find any more clarity on this issue I will keep you informed.

Thank you for reaching out, if you have any furthers questions or concerns feel free to contact me.


Enjoy the vacation everyone. We earned it for sure.

EMAIL INBOX REVEALS SAME OLD UFT LEADERSHIP ACTING IN SAME OLD WAY

UFT President Michael Mulgrew sent out two emails to members within two hours of each other on Thursday. Mulgrew claims another great UFT success because next month the city will pay us 12.5% of the money they have owed us since 2009 but without any interest. In his second email, Mulgrew warns us about the danger that lies ahead because the US Supreme Court is hearing a case that may soon make union dues in the public sector optional. He urges us to be unified.

Keeping Mulgrew's advice in mind, I read with more than a little irony High School Executive Board member Arthur Goldstein's email to three UFT officers requesting office help and space at UFT Headquarters so the High School Executive Board members can properly carry out their duties. Arthur sent a copy to me. 

These emails reveal a UFT whose leadership talks about being together and then does everything they can to surppress anything and anyone that dares to question anything they do.

In one of Mulgrew's emails he warns us of the Supreme Court case called Janus v AFSCME. If the unions lose (the most likely result) non-union members will no longer have to pay fair share (agency) fees and can ride for free. We don't know how the decision will be written. It might be that people will have to opt in to the union or maybe they will have to opt out. Many will probably choose not to pay dues to a union that seems almost completely detached from its rank and file.

Mulgrew reminds us to remember "that all of us together are the union." True but his Unity caucus that controls the UFT, and has for over half a century, is unaccountable. They run the UFT as a top-down organiztion that rarely seeks input from the rank and file.  Since it is virtually impossible to get to almost 200,000 members to win a UFT election, Mulgrew's invitation only group knows they can't lose and act as if the rest of us and our ideas are not important.

If you want the most recent example of UFT's lack of democracy, just look at the resolution they passed on Monday at the Executive Board stating that Executive Board members who want to present a resolution must have it copied for the entire Executive Board and available at least a half hour before the meeting starts. Unity leadership does not work in the schools. Their resolution does not impact them.

Since the meetings begin at 6:00 P.M. and High School Executive Board members work all day in schools as teachers, the Union leadership is making it more difficult for high school people to raise something at the Executive Board. The high schools not coincidentally are the only part of the UFT that voted against Unity in the 2016 UFT election.

Resolutions require five signatures to be introduced at the Executive Board. The seven high school people (the only ones on the 102 member Executive Board opposed to Unity Caucus) are coming from all over the city to get to 52 Broadway for meetings after school and now must get there earlier to present a resolution to the Board.

This is just another anti-democratic rule put in place to stifle opposition to Unity. It is especially not needed now when the union as we know it is being threatened  by the Supreme Court.

Arthur Goldstein sent what is a funny but sad email requesting office space and assistance from the UFT leaders. I can't wait to see if there is an answer. 

Arthur's email is copied below and under that are the two from Mulgrew: one on Janus and the other gloating about the UFT's triumph of managing to get the city to pay a loan paid back to us without interest.

The people Arthur wrote to are Staff Director Leroy Barr, VP High Schools Janella Hinds and UFT Secretary Howard Schoor. I was sent a copy.

Dear LeRoy, Janella, and Howard,

Since you’ve decided to not allow us to bring resolutions without distributing them 30 minutes beforehand, we are at somewhat of a loss. Unlike you, we all teach full time. We are able to meet at the lobby at 52, but since we all teach we are often unable to get together earlier than 5 or 5:30. Furthermore, we are not allowed into the actual building until at or very close to 5:30.

Unlike all of you, we have no staff. We have no one to make copies.

Therefore I’m certain that you’ll have no issue giving us an office in which to meet whenever we need to, along with a copying machine. I’m certain you’ll have no issue granting us the use of staff to distribute whatever resolutions we come up with.

Thank you so much for your kind consideration.

Very sincerely,

Arthur Goldstein 

Dear James,

It’s official. The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear the anti-union Janus vs. AFSCME case in its current term.

The Janus case is the new Friedrichs case. It is paid for and brought to us by people who want to destroy unions so your benefits and rights can be taken away. They want public-sector unions to be barred from requiring non-members to pay fair-share or agency fees to cover their portion of costs associated with collective bargaining and union services.

The court will hear oral arguments, and a decision will be rendered no later than June.

As we brace for this challenge ahead, remember that all of us together are the union. Because we have stuck together, we have pensions, employer-paid health insurance, job security, due process rights, a grievance process and a voice in how our schools are run. Because we have a strong union, UFT members are receiving SESIS compensation and lump-sum payments this fall.

We must continue to stand strong and united since so many invaluable rights and benefits hang in the balance.

Sincerely,

Michael Mulgrew
UFT President

Dear James,

Because you have a union that fights for you, you are entitled to be compensated for the two 4 percent raises that Michael Bloomberg gave to members of some municipal unions in 2009 and 2010 but refused to give to public school educators and other city employees at the time.

When Bill de Blasio became mayor, he agreed to pay the money owed but said the city could not afford to pay it all at one time so we negotiated a contract in 2014 that ensured that UFT members were made whole by 2020.

I am pleased to remind you that all UFT members now on payroll who worked for the Department of Education between 2009 and 2017 (plus those who retired after June 30, 2014) will receive a lump-sum payment of 12.5 percent of the money they are owed in their October paychecks.

This payment comes on the heels of a 4.5 percent rate increase that all DOE-employed UFT members received this past May and in advance of a 5 percent rate increase coming in the spring of 2018.

The 2017 lump-sum payment, which will be added to a regularly scheduled paycheck, is the second of five lump-sum payments between 2015 and 2020 (see “The payment schedule” graphic).

For in-service teachers, other pedagogues and paraprofessionals, the money will be part of your Oct. 16 check. For nurses, therapists and other members who are paid on the H-Bank payroll, the money will be in your Oct. 20 check. Per-diem and per-session payments will be issued on Nov. 2. If you are on leave this October, you will receive your money on the date of the next scheduled payment that you are back on payroll.

Even if you weren’t working for the DOE in 2010 but are on payroll now, you will be receiving a lump-sum payment since the 8 percent rate increase all members should have received then is being phased in.

Your TDA will be updated, along with all other payroll contributions and deductions.

While the calculations can be complicated, the truth is simple: You deserve this money.

For every check you have received since late 2009 until today, lump-sum money has accrued representing the difference between what you would have been paid if your paycheck had reflected those two 4 percent increases in 2009–10 and what you were actually paid.

Think of it as a savings account. If you have been continually employed, you have been depositing money in this account since Nov. 1, 2009. This October, you’ll make your second withdrawal.

See this handy chart to learn more about the salary increases and lump-sum payments you will receive as a result of the 2014 UFT-DOE contract.

Thank you for everything that you do.

Sincerely,

Michael Mulgrew

MAY DA REPORT (unedited)

President's Report

Federal

When I arrived, President Michael Mulgrew was talking about the James Comey firing by Trump. He then talked about Betsy DeVos and the difficult federal situation. Kansas, Arizona and New Mexico bleak public school situation. Public School Proud campaign gaining support but in difficult environment. Illinois has budget problem with pensions.

Mulgrew then played a video criticizing DeVos.

Paul Ryan visited one of Eva's schools.

State

Great Regents meeting. Had to explain to State Ed Department that grading schools based on tests has flaws. We need a multiple measure system, not the Bloomberg system. ESSA regs will be used to identify struggling schools. Must look at growth. When looking at growth, NYC does well. CTE schools did well with Regents meeting too.

Preliminary new standards out. Special Ed, English Language Learners and early childhood need work.

Governor signed two bills. He went to a NYC public school with Mulgrew to sign bill and thanked teachers and unions. He then did a bill signing in a union hall saying union dues on state taxes are deductable.

City

Parking permits coming back as a result of arbitration. Need more spots. Certain administrators not collegial. Now if we get there early, we can park in principal's spot.

Told mayor we do not support his version of mayoral control. Albany has this issue heating up.

We did joint training with DOE on professional Conciliation (article 24). 

Told DOE we may be picketing certain Superintendent's offices. Superintendents in charge of principals. Festering anger in teachers to show who is boss is not positve. If they support principals who don't support teachers, they will hear from us loudly. We must hold DOE accountable for collaboration.

Reverend Barber coming to speak at Spring Conference Saturday.

Women in Need. 70% of homeless in NYC are women with children. Christine Quinn runs program. We are helping kids with schoolwork and now helping with prom dresses.

4.5% raise on May 15 check.

Lump sum in October.

5.5% raise next May.

3 lump sum payments after that.

Thanked members.

Staff Director's Report
Leroy Barr gave some dates of recent events and upcoming events. May 15 immigration forum at UFT HQ. 3000 prom related dresses and suits being given out May 28. Next DA is June 14.

Question Period
Question: When will DeVos visit a school?
Mulgrew Answer: We will talk to her. Met with student and teacher in Ohio where she visited and she did not say much. Do we try to protest her or do a photo op with some kids?

Q March resolution on grading Regents in our own schools. Any movement?
A No movement but it takes DOE time to do this. Current year already set up. Should be better treatment at grading sights as DOE is angry about our reso.

Q Sesis or childcare leave update?
A people told not to do SESIS beyond school day. This is impossible. Trying to work something out. Talked to Office of Labor Relations on family leave. They are stalling. No union yet has this benefit. Mayor wanted this for two years but no city union has the benefit.

Q Why don't we report number of Delegates here?
A We can do that and will do it next month.

Q City has surplus. Can we get lump sum payments early?
A Other unions had to pay to get lump sum payments on time. Ours is too large. We can't get it early.

Motion Period
Motion for next month  from Brooklyn Tech that talks about anti communist history and then calls for school based activism on behalf of teachers and students and getting mass support. Attack on Park Slope Collegiate for anti communism wrong. Activists need to be highlighted and defended. Almost anything can be construed as political and teachers can be subject to OSI investigation. Segregation a big problem in NYC.

Sterling Roberson spoke against. We didn't engage Park Slope Collegiate. Contract does not give us an attorney with OSI. Line between free speech and political speech has been addressed. We speak against racism and other problems of society.

Motion was defeated soundly.

Mulgrew did state that the eay OSI is being used is something we have to be concerned about.

Special Orders of Business
Motion on agency fees. Janus case coming. Ensure fair share fees. 40 year Abood precedent. Motivated by Janelle Hinds

Peter Lamphere tried to amend resolution to add resolved clauses including one to do a campaign to have UFT members in schools make presentations to have people pledge to remain union members and pay dues. Need a campaign starting in September.

Leroy Barr put through a series of amendments to strike some of the Lamphere amendment including striking taking on abusive administrators. We do that already. Public school proud has to be our focus.

Leroy cutting the amendment passed as did the original resolution. The original amendment was never voted on.

There were a bunch of city council and borough president endorsements. They carried.

Townsend Harris Chapter Leader spoke next and criticized former IA principal Jahoda and thanked UFT leadership for their help for having Jahoda removed. Used students, parents, alumni and politicians. Mulgrew will visit. Thanked CL for job he did keeping staff united.

INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE PROJECTS 2019 CITY SURPLUS WILL BE CLOSE TO $4 BIILLION

Maybe I should just forget it when our budget expert Harris Lirtzman sends me new information showing that NYC's finances have never been better. I don't know why something inside just compels me to expose the reality about how the UFT and other city unions have not gotten us a fair share of the city's unprecedented prosperity over the last decade.

Ronnie Lowenstein is the Director of the Independent Budget Office. She testified at the City Council Finance Committee earlier today. Here are some highlights:

IBO projects the city will end the current year with a $3.9 billion surplus, $375 million more than estimated by the Mayor’s budget office.

We anticipate the city will end fiscal year 2020 with a surplus of $675 million, which would reduce the projected budget gap for 2021 to $1.7 billion—an amount largely covered by the reserves already built into the budget.

Lowenstein projects slower job growth but continues:

Likewise, we expect slower but continued growth in city tax collections. IBO projects that tax revenue growth will average 3.7 percent annually from 2018 through 2023

Are UFT salary increases under the current contract equaling the city's projected 3.7% increase in tax revenues?

Year   Salary Increase
2019- 2%
2020-2.5%
2021-3%
2022-0% through September 13th.
2023-To be determined

As for waiting until 2020 for half of the back pay (lump sum payments) from 2009-2011 that UFT President Michael Mulgrew said the city couldn't afford to give us back in 2014 because the city's cupboard was bare and he repeated this in 2017 because he said the costs were too large, IBO  told one of our readers back in 2016 what those costs would be to the city.

While IBO does not have an exact cost for how large these retroactive lump sums will be, because they are directly linked to the number of union members who will be employed on the days the payments are scheduled to be made, we can estimate the maximum cost of these lump sums based upon the total PS costs for pedagogical employees in 2009-2011.  Based upon the total PS costs from those years we estimate that the entire lump sum payment would be a maximum of $560 million if every member were to remain employed by the DOE through 10/1/20.

This total would translate to a maximum of $70 million paid out in 2017 and $140 million paid out in 2018 – 2020.  These funds, if not already accounted for in DOE’s financial plan, would increase the city-funds portion of DOE’s budget by less than one percent in 2017 and around one percent in each subsequent year. 

IBO has not made any estimates about what the final cost of this portion of UFT’s collective bargaining agreement would be although we assume, as a result of attrition and other separations, that it will be somewhat less than the $560 million.  

A maximum cost to the city of $140 million for 2019 and the same for 2020 (it is less because of the UFT members who resigned or were terminated since the 2014 contract was signed and won't get the remaining lump sum payments). The city could afford to give us that money today and it would not make an even tiny dent in their huge $3.9 billion surplus. 

I don't expect the city to even entertain the thought of giving us the money now or both the 2019 and 2020 payments combined this year (some would complain about the higher tax bracket) but the point is to say that other than UFT incompetence or the UFT lying in bed with the city, there was absolutely no reason for us to have to wait ten years for money we earned back from 2009-2011. We should have been paid in full years ago.

IBO SAYS NYC CURRENTLY HAS THE FUNDS BUDGETED FOR EMPLOYEE RAISES AND LUMP SUM PAYMENTS (RETRO)

Today, the city's Independent Budget Office released a report examining the Mayor's April Executive Budget. While the city is facing some major fiscal challenges due to "tumbling tax revenues, shrinking reserves, growing budget gaps" caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the money to pay municipal employee raises, including lump sum payments owed to us from the past (retro), is in the budget.

From page 22 of the IBO report:

Labor Costs. Currently, approximately 80 percent of all city employees are working under the terms of labor agreements for the 2017-2021 round of bargaining, with the rest still being negotiated or in a formal arbitration process. The Mayor’s financial plan includes funding for the estimated cost of settling the remaining outstanding labor contracts following the already-established civilian and uniformed patterns for the current round of collective bargaining. Funding for those remaining contracts is included in a centrally managed labor reserve fund; it is not allocated to the budgets of the affected agencies until contracts are signed. The April plan includes approximately $864 million in the current year and $1.9 billion in 2021 in the labor reserve, of which over 96 percent is expected to be used to pay for the cost of unsettled contracts in the current round of bargaining at the existing wage pattern plus lump sum payments owed under past contracts that remain to be paid out. (bold added by me)

Don't believe anyone who tells you the city can't afford to pay us for work that was done from 2009-2011. We are still waiting until October of this year to receive 25% of what we are owed.

As for the next round of collective bargaining in these difficult times:

The current financial plan also includes funding sufficient to cover the cost of 1.0 percent annual salary increases in each year of the next contract cycle, which would begin in 2022. In past years most annual salary increases have exceeded 1.0 percent, but given the current economic uncertainty it is likely that the city will take a hard line on negotiating larger increases. Conversely, many unions will likely push for higher remuneration for their members, particularly in light of the grave sacrifices that many of their members are making on the frontlines of the battle against the Covid-19 pandemic. 

What would additional increases above 1 percent cost the city for the next round of bargaining?

We estimate that for new contracts signed in 2021, each additional percentage point increase above the currently budgeted annual raises of 1.0 percent would cost the city $44 million, with subsequent year costing $258.2 million, $551.6 million, and $869.3 million in 2022, 2023, and 2024 respectively.

All I can add is municipal unions please don't let Michael Mulgrew or the DC 37 leader go into negotiate first and set the pattern for city contractual raises that all other city unions will receive. Teachers and everyone else will get that one percent and not much more if the UFT goes first, no matter what the city's financial picture looks like at that time. Union elections matter. 

I know, I know, the retirees control UFT elections but if the majority of the active teachers ever voted out Mulgrew/Unity, it could be a different world. If all the people reading this and a few thousand more organized instead of complaining or dropping out of the union, you could really change the teaching profession in NYC. The IBO in prognosticating the future beyond COVID-19 sees the national economy coming back and eventually the city too.

This is on page 7:

There will be no bounce back from the recession, however, until there is a vaccine or an effective treatment that would greatly reduce or eliminate fear of contracting the virus. Our forecast assumes that the pandemic will be resolved sometime in 2021. Based on this assumption, IBO projects that growth will gradually accelerate in 2021, with real GDP rising 2.3 percent for the year as a whole, followed by much stronger growth of 6.8 percent in 2022.

Pent up demand will matter in the long run. Patience is priceless.