Capital NY covered remarks made by the city's Chief Labor Negotiator Robert Linn who said the city would not be increasing the fund which set aside money to pay retroactive increases owed to UFT retirees.
Our contract has been reopened on this issue and UFT President Michael Mulgrew said he expects it to be resolved by Thanksgiving.
The city and UFT agreed that only $180 million would be needed to pay retroactive increases under our new contract in one lump sum payment for those who retired up through June 30, 2014. However, neither the city or the UFT expected so many UFT members to retire in an astounding bungle. They were caught off guard that so many teachers chose to retire in June instead of waiting until 2020 to get the new contract's full back pay.
Here are Linn's exact words:
"The limit of the fund is $180 million. The fund is a fund certain. The issue then is how to make payments, but the fund is $180 million," he said. "I'm not saying how it's going to be resolved. I'm saying the fund is $180 million. The fund will not change."
It is estimated they are about $50 million short.
Anyone want to guess how this gets resolved?
The retirees get screwed. I am no accountant, but how did they come up with the $180 million figure. I see a lawsuit in my crystal ball.
ReplyDeleteI agree u
ReplyDeleteI feel we are being lied to a pension official said 1900 more teachers retired than expected yet capital ny listed it as 600 maybe my calculation are off but I see about 9000 teachers retired since 2009 with around $20,000 retro which is pretty close to 180 million?
Since I have mastered the art of sleeping with my eyes open: I recently had a nightmare during a Monday PD session. This news reminds me of it: This is the 1st test. No money for retirees. The Post will publish the average salary of a retired teacher and the expected payout over a life time. UFT files lawsuit. If UFT loses suit no one cares; if UFT wins – they still lose because now the taxpaying public hates teachers and pensions even more.
ReplyDelete2nd Test - Next, Healthcare – increased deductibles, fewer physician choices, longer wait times in physician’s office causes teachers to take more sick days – overall decline in healthcare will lead to an earlier death – goal is to kill off pensioners before withdrawals reach 500,000 creating over all savings under 25/55. Of course under the new tiers most will never acquire a pension. Great success.
3rd Test 2018-2020 - No money for retro. Who will care? Certainly, not the public, since cellphones are now allowed in classrooms, thousands of you tube videos surface showing ineffective teachers in classrooms across the 5 boroughs. Teachers are continuously portrayed as public enemy #1
Finally: DiBlasio lose to Moskowitz in 2017. No payout. The end. (Bloomberg tweets LOL from outer space)
Mulgrew will say his the usual UFT statement-- "don't believe what you read in the papers and we don't discuss negotiations in public". But the retirees certainly did believe what he said back in May and June along with guided decisions about retiree retro pay at those boro-wide special clinics. There is a UFT luncheon Nov. 25 (2 days before Thanksgiving)for the most recent retirees. It will be interesting to see what Mulgrew or his spokespeople have to report in front of a lot of angry people.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all UFT accountants had to know numbers of retirees up to 2013 and at best with additional 2000 that only comes to a few million that's why city is sticking to 180 million it's UFT that's screwing us they they'll have to start re calculating pensions at the least because they'll have a war on their hands otherwise and then retro or city will embarrass Mulgrew
ReplyDeleteBoo Hoo. The people getting screwed by this are those who screwed the rest of us by voting for this sham contract. Greedy pigs who focused only on $$ for themselves instead of what was right for the whole union. I have tears, but only from laughter. Who else will be 'shocked' that the city will shortchange us?
ReplyDeleteTo ATR 25/55
ReplyDeleteI would think that an educator would know not to generalize. Are you aware that retirees are not allowed to vote on the contract? In addition, the number of new retirees is nothing close to amount of votes that were needed to pass the contract. So how could you possible think your comment made enough sense to post.
It is so sad to see ignorant comments by supposedly educated people.
Wise comment many of us retired years ago and are waiting to be made whole. I blame no one but the union for sitting on this for 5 years and never putting up a fight. My husband worked for 1199 in the 70 and they never went without a contract. Mulgrew and the rest of us forgot how to fight and this is the payback We need to wait and see what he produces by Thanksgiving because he can't sit on $180,000,000 and if he dosnt produce the whole contract is in danger
ReplyDelete.
It will be worked out and retirees will wait. People will be angry and do nothing but complain.
ReplyDeleteLet's not pretend that the UFT and the city were not aware of the approximate number of members eligible to retire in June. This contract held out the carrot to get the highest number of those eligible to walk out the door. Now they reneg on a done deal? Surprise, surprise! The city and Mulgrew are full of crap!
ReplyDeleteFor those that retired in June, and did vote on the contract, you were sold a lie. A planned lie.
Looking like a class action suit is in order.
what else would you expect from mulgscrew
ReplyDeleteHow is any of this a surprise?! One of the main problems with this contract was (is) the ambiguity, undefined and overall purposefully veiled wording of the contract. Add to that the outrageous provisions for ATRs, more professional development nonsense, more deserted parent-teacher evenings, a minuscule raise, no interest, small monetary amounts stretched out over years, years skipped, and whole groups of members excluded. You would have to be a damn fool to have voted for this contract. And now people complain! The UFT ,in presenting this contract, told all of us to go f--k ourselves and when this contract was passed we did.
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy but the last comment is on right on target.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with anon 10:07 and 6:55. However, there was no ambiguity from the mouth of Mulgrew back in May and June. He has clearly stated publicly via pension clinics, webcasts, emails, mailings etc.--that there would be a one-time lump payment retro for the June 30 or before retirees sometime in the fall and different payment provisions for post June 30 retirees. These are words he has to honor-and not just blame delays on the city due to a shortage of funds(180 Million dollars ???)caused by an unexpected number of retirees or whatever the excuse of the day that is being used-that could result in payment delays. The reputation, trust, power and future of Mulgrew's UFT (whatever is left of it) is clearly on the line as he has created his own pressure to deliver on his promises that should be resolved by around Thanksgiving.
ReplyDeleteDream on. We won't see the money and Mulgrew will get reelected. Who you gonna vote for: MORE? I would vote MORE but nobody has heard of them.
Deletethere should be a lawsuit
ReplyDeleteall we ever get is the stick and no carrot
A lawsuit will go nowhere sadly.
ReplyDeleteto atr 55/25 Just wanted to put it out there that my last act of solidarity to my fellow teachers was to vote no on this contract and urged them to do the same. Then I took the deal when my fellow educators voted to screw themselves.
ReplyDeleteI will say that of all the people at the UFT Sandra March is the only one who called me back and earned my respect. I asked her about Linn and her response was that Mulgrew as noted in his letter expected to settle this and attain lump sum retro for all retired teachers I will wait and hold her and Mulgrew to their word
ReplyDeleteIf you trust Sandra March, I have a bridge to sell you really cheap.
DeleteI hope you and March are right.
DeleteThe UFT special pension clinics back in the spring -kept saying expect retro pay and retirement recalculations to happen -sometime in the fall. The last day of fall is Dec.20. I also will hold Mulgrew/March or any other UFT executive to their word. Mulgrew claims there will be a resolution around Thanksgiving-which would be very positive-however, it doesn't mean payments at that time. Something tells me Mulgrew is preparing to give one of his good news/bad news excuses involving retiree retro around December 1.
ReplyDeleteThe fall semester ends at the end of January. That is more realistic.
DeleteIt is estimated they are about $50 million short. Anyone want to guess how this gets resolved?
ReplyDeleteA possible alternative- if there is not enough in fund to pay retro lump sum to eligible retirees before end of year: Let the city pay out the retro on a monthly basis from Jan-Dec 2015 plus 5% interest.(I believe TRS pays 5% interest for any delayed final retirement money). Perhaps- Stringer can find the shortage in funds they claim-- out of the 2015-16 budget starting July 1, 2015.
I would rather they pay out the money that they have in the fund now. If my math is correct they could give us in a lump sum approximately 78% of what they owe us in a lump sum and then work out the rest. They also should release the updated salary figures to TRS so our pensions could be updated. They too are going to owe use retro. I know they won't happen because it makes sense
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous post .I sincerely hope the UFT sets up this plan it's logical and would definitely benefit all retirees involved.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we accept %78 your figures are off only 700 more teachers retired then the previous year and after Mulgrew just sold another group of teachers out at boys high the mayor should give him something to bail out their incompetence
ReplyDeleteRelax everyone. This will get worked out with some accounting trick. You will get a down payment and the rest will be paid out over time.
ReplyDeleteBad enough we're getting screwed with the retro but has anyone heard anything about when we will receive the increase in our monthly pension check. Once you retired your forgotten about by the Dept of Ed!
ReplyDeleteI retired in 2011. Could not vote on an in-service contract. However, there will come a time for the retiree vote. I have a long memory and hopefully others will too.
ReplyDelete90% of you will vote for Mulgrew-Unity. You always do.
DeleteEditorial that appeared in the Staten Island Advance concerning The contract and the retro pay that is due. Guess Grimm is also on the editorial staff.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.silive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/11/the_high_cost_of_the_mayors_ge.html
Since there were records of those who retired from 2009-2013 ,why didn't the DOE inform 2014 retirees once they reached the 180 million allotment?What are the legal rights of retirees in this matter. I would think 5 months interest on 180 million and money saved in salaries and medical coverage of retirees should help cover the error made by not informing 2014 retirees there was a problem before they accepted their retirement applications.
ReplyDeleteDream, dream, dream.... to cite the Everly Brothers. Thanksgiving is 12 days away. Money will be here much later.
DeleteWhy do you think they are stretching this out. They wanted these numbers of retirees so along with dumping every ATR they could knock off every $100,000 salary
ReplyDeleteIt's 10 days before Thanksgiving has anyone heard any new news on promised retro for retirees .I hope at least the UFT distributes the 180 million so that all retirees can receive part of what was promised while a plan to pay the balance owed is negotiated.
ReplyDeletethis just tweeted by NYChalkbeat.org
ReplyDeleteCity teachers who retired after 2009 are entitled to full back payments, arbitrator decides. $60M to be shifted from elsewhere in agreement
Thanks for the info.
ReplyDeleteThis was a real victory for us but certainly one that never should have happened had our union been competent.
ReplyDeleteI am grateful to our union .Perhaps if they asked for more than the 180 million initially retirees from 2009 might not have been included. As a 2012 retiree, I really appreciate that Mr Mulgrew included fellow earlier retirees like myself.
ReplyDeletePeople like the last commenter are difficult to understand. They think only that they will get some money. What about all the people shut out?
ReplyDelete