Amidst the rancour of the debate over extra days, Circular 6 and letters in files a possible huge improvement in the pension system is being ignored.. The possibility of returning to a 25/55-pension system, the ability to retire at age 55 after twenty-five years of service, would be a boon to our newer members.
Many members enter teaching after working in other jobs, not fresh from college. Under the current Tier 4 pension system a member must be 55 years of age and have thirty years of service to retire without penalty.
In the proposed Agreement the Mayor agrees to support legislation to create a 25/55-pension system. How is it possible that we could make significant pension improvements under a Mayor who seems in such conflict with the union?
A history lesson: prior to 1970 teachers had to work to age sixty-five in order to retire and had to have accumulated their own savings in order to survive in retirement. Ironically, it was after two bitter strikes, in 1967 and 1968, that we were able to negotiate Tier 1 of the pension system – a 25/55 system. In spite of the bitterness between John Lindsay, the union and teachers, for politicians, elections come first. Lindsay agreed to a dramatic change in the pension system in the face of a potentially difficult fight for re-election.
The NYS Constitution guarantees that pension benefits for public employees may not be reduced. The legislature can create new Tiers of the pension system for future employees. Pension improvements, however, require the cooperation of the Mayor and the support of the State legislature and the Governor. Members who rail against our support of Republicans as well as Democrats are shortsighted. One party does not pass legislation. If we can take advantage of a political climate to create significant pension improvements we should seize the moment.
When the Tier 1 legislation became law I was a new teacher: who ever thought of retirement? The Mets had won the World Series and the Jets the Super Bowl – ah those halcyon days … After the signing ceremony Dave Wittes, one of the prime creators of Tier 1 and a founder of the union whispered to my wife, “you have no idea what we have just created…” And, tens of thousands of our members have been able to retire and live wonderful lives because Al Shanker and John Lindsay, bitter enemies, made a political “deal.”
Windows to make significant retirement changes are rare. For our younger members the possibility to return to a 25/55-pension system is a huge gain that, if lost, may not resurface again for decades. Extra days, Circular 6 and letters in files have always been adjusted in contracts, improvements in the pension system are extremely difficult to achieve and to a generation of members will improve their lives.
50 Comments:
1 Kombiz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Please keep comments here on topic about the 25/55 portion of the MOA.
2 outraged
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:15 pm
If a teacher started at age 40 and has 17 years of teaching, how would it help? AT 65 they would have 25 years service. What if they only wanted to go for 20 years. I know the salaries are skewed to the lower levels,and the union is pushing for new blood, and the tier 1 and 2 teachers have a 2year additional service credit, so whats in it for a 57 year old with 17 years of service? Don’t say they got theirs when the 3% was stopped after 10 years. I see nothing about refunding that money, in light of the fact tiers 1&2 never paid in and the new people with have enhanced benefits greater then the one described above.
Please respond with real numbers or percentages.
3 Bklynteacher
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:18 pm
This does not effect me because I am 2 years from having my 30 years in. However, I have to say, that I don’t believe for a minute that this will pass. As the life expectancy is increasing, the prospect of having to pay pensions five years earlier than necessary is something I very much doubt the State will approve.
4 firefly
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:30 pm
I think this 22/55 looks good on paper but I really wonder how many new teachers are intending to stay in the nyc public school system or even in the profession for that long. Research points to the fact that Americans in general are opting for life changes in their 30″s and 40’s that include second careers and that many people don’t expect to be involved in only one profession in their lives. 22 years is a long time to give to one job in light of that information.
I wonder? If you polled 1000 new teachers, how many would say “Yes, I will remain a teacher AND remain in the nyc public school system for 22 years? My guess would be about 10, tops.
5 firefly
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:31 pm
sorry..I meant 25 years in the above post.
6 Jackie Bennett
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Mr. Goodman, thanks for this post on the pensions. As a member said at our school wide meeting on Friday, if this change passes, it will be “huge, huge, huge.” We’ve been trying to get mayors to sign on to pension changes for years, and the fact that Randi and the negotiating team were able to get that kind of language in this kind of year is almost mind-boggling. Pensions are not even part of the contract.
For years, I have gone to union meetings where the first question was always, “When are we going to get a better deal for Tier 4?” Of course, over the years, Tier 4 has improved immeasurably because of the union’s work in Albany and on the local level. One of the biggest gains this union got us was the end of pension deductions after 10 years.
Still, what the members really meant when they asked for a better Tier IV was the 55/25 formula.
And now, it’s in sight. My understanding has always been that it has been mayors, not legislatures, that have been our greatest obstacle. With the mayor’s support written into our proposed contract, it isn’t just the youngest members who stand to gain, but those of us in the middle, too, especially those of us who arrived to teaching late.
But I’m no pension expert. If we do get this change, how, if at all, will the benefit affect the members in my school who have taken time for childcare?
7 Jeff Kaufman
· Oct 9, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Your kidding, right?
The text of the agreement is:
Article 4C of the Teachers Agreement and the relevant sections of the other Agreements in which it appears will be replaced as follows:
A Labor-Management Pension Committee will be established to investigate legislation allowing all current and future members of the TRS Tier II, III and IV to retire without a reduction of benefits due to early retirement upon age 55 with at least 25 years of service, as well as other relevant pension issues.
The Committee will analyze the actual costs and additional contribution rates required to provide this benefit (including any additional health insurance benefit costs) without any cost to the City.
Upon MUTUAL ACCEPTANCE of the Committee’s recommendations, including plan design and COSTS, the parties agree to jointly support the legislation necessary to implement the benefit changes.
The City and the Union have agreed to ask our State legislators to change the law. Since this does not require the City to pay for the change its likelihood of passage is NEAR IMPOSSIBLE. There are no new benefits under this provision in the proposed contract.
8 outraged
· Oct 9, 2005 at 4:23 pm
jeff
why would bloomberg look to spend money when he wouldn’t agressively pursue the cfe funds?
9 Peter Goodman
· Oct 9, 2005 at 5:52 pm
Jeff Kaufman sees every glass as “half empty,” we have tried to get support from Mayors for 25/55 for many contracts w/o success - we now have language in a proposed Agreement - a very significant first step. I am confident that the UFT experts, including a former NYC Budget Director,can resolve the technical issues.
As long as we remain a powerful, united union we can negotiate the complexities of Albany politics … it won’t happen tomorrow …
Optimism is an essential element of teaching. At the beginning of each school year we always feel that our kids can “make it.” For many of us the glass is half full.
10 Schoolgal
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Dear Peter,
First I would love a 25/55 pension. But this contract doesn’t guarantee it.
Do we really need it stated in the contract that we seek “to investigate” 25/55 pension? All these years of contributing to COPE was supposed to do that. Whenever someone from the UFT came to speak about the pension, they always said our COPE contributions were being used to lobby for better pension rights.
Then when something finally came to pass, our governor vetoed it.
Having those words in the contract is not the same as getting it. And, where is the timetable on this becoming a reality? An “ivestigation” can take years.
If that was the clause that was supposed to get me to vote YES, and not care about the rest of the agreement, well, sorry, but I am not biting.
And Yes to Miso and CitySue, I read the MOA.
11 steadyeddieg
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Mr. Goodman-This is Unity Caucus propaganda at its worst, to get the membership to vote for this contract.
What makes you think that the state legislature would go for this? As long as Pataki is governor, (and the UFT foolishly endorsed him in 2002)forget it. He has been vetoing all kinds of pension goodies.
The Bloomberg-Klein team are well aware of this. They’re not letting anyone leave any earlier. After this nightmare of a contract passes, people will start leaving in an exodus compared to the Hebrews leaving Egypt.
Stop looking to justify a miserable contract.
Weren’t you the District Rep for former District 22? When was the last time that you were actually in the classroom?
It is becoming apparent that the Weingarten UFT Administration is using the cronies to ram an outrageous contract down the throats of colleagues.
As a former District Rep., you certainly remember the late District Rep. Herb Yules, who was my shop teacher at Lefferts JHS 61 in the late 1950s. He was so happy when we lost cafeteria duty. …And now, we’re being herded like sheep back to this nonsense.
Resignations of Unity hierarchy are in order. Please submit them now, or get back into a classroom and away from a life of holding coffee-clotch conferences!
12 redhog
· Oct 9, 2005 at 7:32 pm
The UFT, by its brilliant political action, has achieved victories that are mind-blogging. Thanks to our union, our TDA, for example, has a guaranteed return of 8 and 1/4 per cent. In today’s economy is that not stupendous? Considering that many of us have amassed accounts worth hundreds of thousands, that means that we can skim a partially tax-exempt interest that, added to our salary, gives us parity with some of the most prestigious and lucrative professions.
And “Steadyeddie”: stop talking “resignation.” Wanna know what’s murderously rough? Being “resigned” to your huffing and puffing.
13 realitybasededucator
· Oct 9, 2005 at 7:59 pm
We’re going to hold an INVESTIGATION into the 25/55 pension change?
That’s the best you can do, Mr. Goodman?
An INVESTIGATION?
You may be confident union “experts” can work out the technical details with the state, but judging the unions’ track record on working most things out, I wouldn’t bet your, uh, pension on the outcome.
NYC Educator is right. The Edwize spin is growing increasingly desperate. You really are scrapping bottom for this stuff.
The tentative contract agreement does not guarantee change to the pension system. In fact, given the current environment where corporations and federal, state, and municipal governments are all looking to GET OUT from under pension guarantees, the likelihood you will get this pension legislation passed by the state is slim to nil.
This 25/55 provision is more UNITY bamboozlement to make it seem like Randi got something in return for giving away seniority transfers, days, time, a sixth class, grievance rights, and Circular 6R changes.
If you get out of your union office, by the way, and come out to a real school with working teachers who slog through 5 periods and mark papers and write lesson plans, you will find out just how many teachers despise this contract and the leadership who negotiated it.
14 R. Skibins
· Oct 9, 2005 at 9:20 pm
Even if we had a 25/55 deal, we can’t collect full Social Security until we are well into our 60’s. Besides, it is just lip service, because after those approaching their 50’s are hoodwinked into voting for this abomination of a contract, NOTHING will be done to create 25/55. Mark my words.
Also NOTHING is worth giving up time, the right to grieve letters in the file, seniority transfer, or any other givebacks.
15 R. Skibins
· Oct 9, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Redhog,
I thought that the TDA was set up during the tenure or our only good union president, Al Shanker. Besides, the fixed amount is set by the state legislature, which probably will try to lower it.
16 The Bellman
· Oct 9, 2005 at 11:51 pm
The labor blogging week that was
This week’s featured post is from Future of the Union. The post I’ve chosen is just one of a number of important entries they’ve put up over the last week. I picked it because I’ve sometimes struggled to figure out what they were up to over there…
17 firebrand
· Oct 10, 2005 at 2:47 am
hmmm I also wonder how many teachers, new or those like me who are in the middle of their careers, plan to stay 25 years.
I can only speak for myself. I am 36 years old and have 15 years in the system. If we keep having crappy tentative contracts…like this one…I will definitely not be putting 25 years in the system. I have already paid for my
LSAT exams. I am taking on on December 3rd and another in February. THAT is what this last contract negotiation inspired me to do. I love teaching…but I won’t be treated like this…nope…chances are way better than average I won’t be doing 25 years in the system if this tentative agreement is ratified.
18 redhog
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:20 am
To R. Skibins: There is no reason to believe that the Legislature will try to change our established pension rights. That is due in large part to the UFT’s activism and political savvy. We have also beaten back all attempts to have a Constitutional Convention, which could have opened the door for such machinations.By law,our UFT dues cannot be used for such political action. That is why is is so vital that members contribute to COPE, which exists for the purpose of such economically life-saving lobbying.
19 a-realist
· Oct 10, 2005 at 6:15 am
WOW! So many negative thinking teachers.
Actually, there was legislation for the 25/55 retirement that was already sitting up in Albany. New York City teachers should check the site for New York State teachers every so often. The site has a special section for NY legislation affecting teachers/public employees.There was to be a vote on the bill in June, 2005. The vote did not take place, however. I don’t think the bill had enough support. Anyway, this new proposal is only the first step. Everything involving politics takes time in small step progression. This part of our proposed contaractual settlement is a big first step in the right direction. If we can garner the support of THE big city Mayor for a 25/55 Bill, the odds of this happening greatly improves. Since this legislation could easily take 1-2 years to reach a vote, it is quite possible there could be a friendlier governor in Albany at that time.
________________________________________
NOTHING DIFFICULT IS EVER EASY, BUT IT IS OFTEN WORTHWHILE.
20 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:12 am
Please check the Sunday NYC Times metro section. The fiscal watchdogs are against it. That mean wall street is against it. The Bond rating is more important than the teachers. Wake up!
21 NYC Educator
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:14 am
I, too, think the detractors are getting a bit negative. Under this contract, UFT members may be able to retire at 55 with 25 years service.
Furthermore, under this contract, UFT members may win the lottery, and have millions of extra dollars available to them. If they vote “no,” they may not win that lottery!
Feel free to use this argument on the front page of Edwize.
22 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:26 am
What lottery is that?
23 NYC Educator
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:55 am
I’m disappointed in you, outraged. Like so many of the Doubting Thomases here, you’re taking the negative approach.
With just one of the dollars you’ll receive under this contract, you can enter any lottery of your choice, and you may win. Now are any of those naysayers at ICE offering you a deal like that?
If you want to read about all the much neglected bendfits of this contract, click here:
http://nyceducator.blogspot.com/2005/10/unity-visists-your.html
24 Journalist
· Oct 10, 2005 at 10:44 am
Attention–Teachers….
I am a journalist working on a story about how rank and file teachers fell about the new contract, particularly teachers who live or work on Staten Island. If you want to get your views out there please contact me ASAP
25 xkaydet65
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:09 am
As one who spent 13 years teaching in Catholic Schools and who is now reaching 20 in NYC this helps me not one bit. It would be great for younger teachers, BUT it requires NYC specific legislation from Albany and that is not going to happen. NYC teachers are not going to get a perk the rest of the state doesn’t get, AND this could never be applied to the rest of the state as local districts and school taxpayers will never go for the cost involved. Hell, the local districts oppose allowing former parochial school teachers the right to buy back their time because of the long term costs involved, so that legislation dies in committee. As much as the UFT spins this, it’s not going to happen. I’m still waiting for my bi-weekly paycheck.
26 TeacherTeacher
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:24 am
Five less years under tyranny is not a compelling argument to support this contract proposal. A union should never bargain away job security. A guaranteed position as a substitute teacher in my district is not job security. A union should never bargain away the right to a paycheck for someone accused but not convicted. A union should never bargain away a teacher’s right to grieve inaccurate or unfair letters placed in a file. No matter how you try to sugar coat this deal - IT IS INEDIBLE!
27 Marc Korashan
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:00 pm
The dialogue on this contract is getting shrill. Our actuaries will find a way to meet the conditions in the agreement and the Mayor will be bound to lobbyt for the provision and to urge the Governor to sign it. The alternative is what has been happening; pension legislation that dies because the local authority is opposed to it. If Wall Street and the Bond traders think its a bad idea (as they do any pension for working people), the City will be bound by its committment in this contract to support it anyway. Tier equalization has been the rpimary legislative goal of this Union for as long as I can remember and this is the first real opportunity to get it.
Should we throw that opportunity away?
28 SOC ST TEACHER
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Lord, what a bunch of endless blowhards NYC Educator, R. Skibins and Reality Based Educator are. Do you guys just live to post here fifty times a day, or is Klein paying you to do it? You will be the first ones to grab 55-25, after denouncing it as unreal.
29 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:10 pm
It is sad to see ignornance posing as an argument. The only way that pension improvements are ever approved is through state legislation, since it is state legislation which established the TRS. The impediment we have in the way of such improvements is the city — if it lobbies against a bill, on the basis that it is too costly, the Governor invariably vetoes it, even when we get it through both houses. When the city is bound to support legislation, as a ratified contract will require, then we have eliminated the only real obstacle in the way of improvement.
It is one thing to not know how the pension system is improved and how the legislative process works; it is quite another thing to parade your ignorance as some sort of argument that it can’t happen, as Jeff Kaufman and friends do.
30 HS_ teacher
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:56 pm
It is amazing to see how many of us want to believe everything we read in the newspaper, especially from the Daily News.
It is interesting to see how those opposed to the contract proposal blindly see the political reality in NYC while using bullying, lies (see ICE website of false Q& A by Jeff Kaufman that was e-mailed) and name calling tactics.
If we vote down the contract proposal on Tues. at the DA what makes you think the city will want to negotiate now for a “better” deal for us? 2 ½ years and an 8-page insult isn’t enough of a sign of what they care or don’t care about? Why should the public support us after making a hard negotiated deal, which has problems, but still protects us in many ways (because Klein doesn’t know how his own dept works)?
Rumor has it that those who oppose it plan to not allow a vote at the DA. How insulting is this for a democratic body. I know why don’t we shout out people from debating or make motions of delay to not allow anything to occur. It wouldn’t be the first time.
If we wait 7 ½ years for a better deal how desperate do you think our members are going to be then? What will we beg for then just to get a “better” deal? No, those who oppose it suggest THEN we go on strike. Isn’t that what is being said? If we vote down this proposal either at the DA or at the membership level, what other choice do we have but a strike? Perhaps not the day after but at some point.
Let the members at the DA and at the schools vote!
31 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Marc K
If pension equalization was the goal, then why does it extend the 2year service credit for tier 1 & 2 in the contract and just a big maybe all others?
Who will guarantee the results of legislation. How long will it take? If it doesn’t happen then what? Will you guarantee it?
And if you think the bond market and interest rate increase won’t effect future contracts and pensions, then explain why, with a 3 billion dollar surplus you could not get a better contract?
Furthermore, why would Bloomberg lobby for the pensions when he didnt lobby for the CFE money? The pension would cost the city and the cfe money would be availiable for the schools with no or little cost to the city.
GET REAL
32 northbrooklyn
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Two and half years of negotiations has produced a vague, disorganized document; the provisions of which are already in dispute due the objections that the State Ed. Dept. has raised regarding the 37 1/2
minutes of study for struggling students.
The use of p.d. on Mondays, the professional period in the week, the longer school day are the responsibility of the principal of the building. It is obvious to anyone who teaching that management is unable to use this time productively. Adding more time will simply mean more time will be misused.
Since the DOE didn’t inform the State of the contract, they can hardly be expected to prepare the parents for a longer school year. Few parents will understand that acceptance of this contract will lay the foundation for a school year that begins in August. We are the primary advocates for the parents; if we vote yes on this contract they and their families will lose.
Under the best of circumstances a lead teacher position sound like a lousy job. But this addition to our low performing schools adds another opportunity for management to avoid the difficult work of solving problems and simply dictating that the lead teacher be responsible for containing them.
When all else fails, management can move to LIF. Without the check the union greivance process provides; LIF will become another tool to browbeat the faculty. The struggle to insure workers rights begins in the school with the greivance process.
While I welcome the return of the 55/25 retirement provision; it is instructive that management had to be prodded into this by the UFT. Rather than having the humanity to insure that after 25 years @ the age of 55 a teacher could retire shows management to be nothing more than the descendants of those who once held the contracts of indentured servants.
While there are many more points I could make regarding this contract I do not believe I have enough detailed information to adequately debate it on it’s merits.
The UFT and the DOE need to return to the bargaining table and negotiate a clear, precise contract that gives us a raise, protects us from the excesses of 21st century management philosophy, and provides us with a peaceful environment that allows us to teach.
33 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:47 pm
If anyone thinks the contract will keep pace with inflation should tune in to Bloomberg news and hear what the Inflation rate for September 2005 is. October 14, friday, between 8 and 9 am the figures will be released. YOu should be seated.
34 NYC Educator
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Please share them with us, outraged, in case we forget.
Though I must express a little trepidation about the source!
35 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 3:27 pm
NYC Educator
I would be happly to.
36 Teacher31231
· Oct 10, 2005 at 4:05 pm
25/55 sucks. I started teaching when I was 20-years old. I have to work until I am 55-years old to collect. I would tell what they could do with their 55/25, but then this messege wouldn’t be up for long.
I have to work for 35 years until I can retire. Thanks for nothing Randi. Oh, and thanks for nothing includes the fact that the state could care less that the city is seeking 25/55. It wont happen anyway.
37 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Oct 10, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Oh, yes, Teacher31231, it would be far better for you to have to wait until 62, with forty years of experience, to retire. In line with other realistic proposals fought forwardby your friends in ICE here, why not demand retirement at 40 with 20 years of experience. That will go over really well on the front page of the NY Post.
38 gratemgl
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:20 pm
25/55 Would be great. Although, as it has been said - it is NOT in the contract. There is simply language that equates to nothing. A foot in the door? The contract is not worth the paper its written on. I really wish that the spinning of this garbage would end.
Back to the table with the executive board. Be a little more prepared in terms of entering into a strike too. UFT caught with its eggs in one basket (arbitration) and its pants down (Not being prepared for strike). What a shame.
39 hypatiaNYC
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:45 pm
gratemgl-
There is no back to the bargaining table if this measure fails at the Delegate Assembly or with the membership in the schools. The UFT has gone as far as it can legally go to get us a deal, and like it or not, this is it. Bloomberg/Klein had to be forced politically to the bargaining table to get this offer, do you really think they will return with a better deal once the election is over? If this offer goes down, then our only choices will be to wait for a new mayor or hit the streets in a strike. Are you willing to wait another 4 1/2, 5 years for a raise? By then gas might be $8 a gallon. Or, are you willing to strike? If you are, be prepared to bring 80,000 of your closest friends with you into the streets because we’ll need to shut down every school in the city to be successful. Our colleagues may not like this deal, but I’m betting they like the thought of waiting an indefinite amount of time or paying Taylor Law penalties less.
40 gratemgl
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:55 pm
I think we should have had a plan to strike. The UFT from what I know does not have one in place to call a strike. This should have been prepared for all along. It wasn’t. Why? Why was there not a planning committee for a strike all along? Why? I have some possible answers.
I would wait. I’m willing to wait it out and willing to strike. I have a long way to go and there are thousands like me. The contract is insulting. That picture of Klien being smug is insulting. Fortunately, insults don’t directly effect me - the terms of this contract would.
What are you willing to do? Give back till there are no summers off? Work an 8 period day? Tuck kids into bed everynight?
The 25/55 language in this proposed contract gets a foot in the door. But guess what, the City has its foot in our door since the last contract. Soon, there might not be a proverbial door at all. Don’t have the attitude that this is the best we’ll get. Its mediocre - do you except that in the classroom? I don’t. I won’t except it for my life and career either.
Your mileage may vary.
41 Teacher31231
· Oct 10, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Listen HS SHOP TEACHER I can retire at 50 years old. I just can’t collect till 55. Under the current system I can retire with no penalty at 55. Since I will have worked more than 30 years at 55 I can retire. I guess you can’t.
Oh and is should go over well that teachers should be able to retire after a defined amount of years and not an age. Garbage men, police, fire fighters, and corrections officers all retire after 20-years.
42 R. Skibins
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Soc St teacher:
In typical Unity fashion, you cannot disprove what your detractors have said, so you start in with the personal attacks. You sound very Republican to me. The fact is, the contract is a lousy piece of garbage. There is not one thing that is good about it. As far as the “political climate,” it is the fault of lousy union leadership which led to this, beginning with Nixon golfing with the head of the AFL-CIO, and continuing with Randi Weingarten cozying up with Mayor Bloomberg at the Yankees game!
As far as the 8-page contract proposal is concerned, give it up. That is not the arguement. We should have demanded more in the factfinding. We should have asked for the elimination of all extended time. We should have asked to shorten our school year to match the amount of days in the suburbs. We should have asked for 20 sick days, like in some Long Island districts.
We should have demanded the right to choose curricuums, rather than some lawyer chancellor who awarded the math curriculum contract to the firm which employed his deputy chancellor’s husband!
But NO You decide to ask for nothing. Then instead of a decent factfinding report, we got a load of horsecrap. Even though it was non-binding, you chose to accept most of it, except for the additional coverages in the high schools, which you removed in order to bribe them. How much was our union leader bribed?
43 devils_advocate
· Oct 11, 2005 at 11:58 am
Teacher31231:
Poor baby. You have to work till you are 55, while the majority pf people can’t retire until they are 67.
Being able to retire after 25 years of service is a good thing. Wow, that would be between 47-50 for the average person. Most people would be thrilled if they could stop working so young!
44 Teacher31231
· Oct 11, 2005 at 4:13 pm
The truth is that this retirement conversation is silly, though I often talk about silly things. It’s me
It just doesn’t matter to this contract. I think this article is out of place. The 25/55 is being put in as a distraction. This article is a silly distraction from all the other negatives in the proposed contract. Working an extra 37 1/2 minute period will ensure many of us will be dead long before we can ever retire.
45 Bklynteacher
· Oct 11, 2005 at 4:25 pm
The NYPD can retire after 20 years regardless of age with 50% of their final salary (plue overtime and night differential). They get other nice “goodies” too. They also get full health benefits.
Check their site:
http://www.nypd2.org/html/recruit/salary.html
Do you still think our contract is fair?
46 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 12, 2005 at 12:19 am
Everyone talks strike if contract is voted down. Why? That didn’t happen in l995. I have a real fun idea. With all other unions without a contact. particularly firepeople, administrators, and nurses, why don’t we picket stores during Christmas telling tourists to support us by not shopping and paying sales tax in the city? We can encourage thme to shop in areas that have settled teachers’ contracts. This would be fun, embarrasing to Kleinberg and not in violation of the Taylor Law.
47 everyman2
· Oct 12, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Almost the exact same language about 25/55 was in the LAST contract–take a look.
You would have to be at least 55 AND have at least 25 years of service completed under this proposal.
It’s what Tier I teachers have.
48 former ed. eval.
· Oct 13, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Dear Marc,
I am amazed that you, the (former) chapter leader of the (former) ed. evals., can have ANY confidence, faith, or trust in this mayor. How many hundreds of us, (those who were unable to retire), are still working for the DOE? How many of us work as IEP teachers, a position that is as good or as bad as the principal that we work for? When we have a problem, who helps us? The union reps in the schools and the district don’t have a clue, and the special ed. chapter is not easy to access. Where are you, Marc? Weren’t you supposed to be our “special rep.”?
I am 57 years old in my 25th year; I would retire tomorrow if it weren’t for the tremendous financial penalty. I would vote for this contract if I believed that 55/25 was a done deal, but it’s not and may never be. Based on previous experience, I have no reason to trust this mayor or this union leadership.
49 Teacher31231
· Oct 17, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Randi is a dummy and the contract is bad. If you didn’t think so before just look in the post and see that she is already talking about renegotiating the “letter” part of it, before we even pass it because it will be a major point of abuse. She will “review” this after the contract is signed, so we have to suffer, and she knows this NOW!
God how bad will this thing have to get for our members to wake up!
50 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 25, 2005 at 8:00 pm
speak truth to power vote no