Mulgrew owes the city 600 million dollars because he, the MLC and DeBlasio allowed them to raid the Health Stabilization Fund for the contractual raises the teachers got. The Fund was only to be used for health hence the name of the fund. This is why Mulgrew is on the hook. He hid it from the rank and file. Personally I feel the whole MLC should be charged for misappropriation of funds. I am sickened by the UFT. Oh and he and the rest of Unity are already looking to diminish active healthcare. Actives better start reading contracts and asking a lot of questions before voting on any contract. Givebacks makes your raises null and void.
Nick, I’m considering pulling my UFT dues. Thoughts? We’re being sold down the river by a neo-Liberal leadership group who cares more about their own relationships with gov, than with us.
I understand the sentiment, but it's better to channel that energy into opposition unionism. When we leave the union, we can't vote for different leadership in the union. And if enough people leave, there's no infrastructure left beyond dispersed anarchic grassroots actions when things come up. During the beginning of Covid, districts without unions were much worse off than we were. Our union has value, but it could be much better. We just have to fight for that.
I’ve been reading Burns’ Class Struggle Unionism…and his focus on shop floor activism. I believe in that, but I think too many of us are complacent. I know I was when I was younger and things weren’t so hard bc of a crumbling economy. Our jobs on their own take too much out of us, I find it hard to think putting more in would do anything but make our lives harder. I’m so frustrated. I’m not represented. My day to day living expenses are astronomically higher now and I feel I’m being asked to work 3X harder to make up for bureaucratic mistakes from 3/2020-9/2021…it’s just not sustainable and I’m at the end of my rope…:(
I agree. I've also been meaning to read that book. It's been making quite an impact on opposition unionists. There is still hope in grassroots organizing. Sometimes when we do it, we influence leadership to do the right thing. Other times, we beat them against all odds. And organizing in grassroots groups is closer to unionism in the traditional sense. I agree though, it's hard to find the time and energy. Many unionists I know, myself included, sacrifice so much time that they essentially trade all other interests to do union work. It's not sustainable, but the hope is that if enough people start to rise up and work together - we can become influential enough to make a difference in our pay, working conditions, and decision-making. The end goal, in other words, is sustainability.
1) Why did the MLC agree in 2018 to 600 million dollars of health care savings per year without a term limit i.e. in perpetuity?
2) Why not give retirees the choice between premium free GHI Senior Care and the premium free Aetna plan. If retirees believe,as does the MLC and UFT,that the Aetna plan is better, they will voluntarily enroll in the Aetna plan rather than being forced to join.
I agree on question 1 in particular. That's a good question for a future exec board meeting, DA, or other function with a public question period. I encourage readers to ask it, and may ask it myself if the opportunity presents. On question 2, we already know the answer. When the City Council declined to change 12-126, the City/MLC had two choices: keep traditional Medicare (GHI Senior Care) or force all retirees onto a MAP plan. Keeping both was no longer a choice. They should have gone with option A, but decided to go with B.
12-126 does not prevent the City from offering GHI Senior Care, it prevents the City from imposing a premium because the premium is under the HIP rate.
If the City offered both, the City would not realize the 600 million dollars in savings because so many retirees would choose GHI and the savings to the City is based on the number of retirees in the Aetna plan.
When the retirees were offered GHI at $191 per month, so many retirees enrolled that EmblemHealth/Empire withdrew.
The MLC committed to 600 million dollars in savings and the Aetna plan provides that savings (at the expense of the retirees who were sold out).
Ah, yes. I agree, that would have been an ideal start. Both plans could absolutely be given as premium free plans under 12-126. We could see then if the 'perks' were enough to sway retirees over on their own merits. My guess is probably not. Of course, to your point, the entire reason they're doing this is for the savings they promised. If UFT fought back on that, they'd likely have no reason to offer the Aetna plan. And if they weren't fighting back on that, they'd have no reason to offer both premium free. The debt is so overdue, that based on the anti-worker and anti-retiree stance they took, this is their only way forward absent a change in the code.
Mulgrew owes the city 600 million dollars because he, the MLC and DeBlasio allowed them to raid the Health Stabilization Fund for the contractual raises the teachers got. The Fund was only to be used for health hence the name of the fund. This is why Mulgrew is on the hook. He hid it from the rank and file. Personally I feel the whole MLC should be charged for misappropriation of funds. I am sickened by the UFT. Oh and he and the rest of Unity are already looking to diminish active healthcare. Actives better start reading contracts and asking a lot of questions before voting on any contract. Givebacks makes your raises null and void.
Nick, I’m considering pulling my UFT dues. Thoughts? We’re being sold down the river by a neo-Liberal leadership group who cares more about their own relationships with gov, than with us.
I understand the sentiment, but it's better to channel that energy into opposition unionism. When we leave the union, we can't vote for different leadership in the union. And if enough people leave, there's no infrastructure left beyond dispersed anarchic grassroots actions when things come up. During the beginning of Covid, districts without unions were much worse off than we were. Our union has value, but it could be much better. We just have to fight for that.
I’ve been reading Burns’ Class Struggle Unionism…and his focus on shop floor activism. I believe in that, but I think too many of us are complacent. I know I was when I was younger and things weren’t so hard bc of a crumbling economy. Our jobs on their own take too much out of us, I find it hard to think putting more in would do anything but make our lives harder. I’m so frustrated. I’m not represented. My day to day living expenses are astronomically higher now and I feel I’m being asked to work 3X harder to make up for bureaucratic mistakes from 3/2020-9/2021…it’s just not sustainable and I’m at the end of my rope…:(
I agree. I've also been meaning to read that book. It's been making quite an impact on opposition unionists. There is still hope in grassroots organizing. Sometimes when we do it, we influence leadership to do the right thing. Other times, we beat them against all odds. And organizing in grassroots groups is closer to unionism in the traditional sense. I agree though, it's hard to find the time and energy. Many unionists I know, myself included, sacrifice so much time that they essentially trade all other interests to do union work. It's not sustainable, but the hope is that if enough people start to rise up and work together - we can become influential enough to make a difference in our pay, working conditions, and decision-making. The end goal, in other words, is sustainability.
We need to ask Mulgrew two things:
1) Why did the MLC agree in 2018 to 600 million dollars of health care savings per year without a term limit i.e. in perpetuity?
2) Why not give retirees the choice between premium free GHI Senior Care and the premium free Aetna plan. If retirees believe,as does the MLC and UFT,that the Aetna plan is better, they will voluntarily enroll in the Aetna plan rather than being forced to join.
I agree on question 1 in particular. That's a good question for a future exec board meeting, DA, or other function with a public question period. I encourage readers to ask it, and may ask it myself if the opportunity presents. On question 2, we already know the answer. When the City Council declined to change 12-126, the City/MLC had two choices: keep traditional Medicare (GHI Senior Care) or force all retirees onto a MAP plan. Keeping both was no longer a choice. They should have gone with option A, but decided to go with B.
12-126 does not prevent the City from offering GHI Senior Care, it prevents the City from imposing a premium because the premium is under the HIP rate.
If the City offered both, the City would not realize the 600 million dollars in savings because so many retirees would choose GHI and the savings to the City is based on the number of retirees in the Aetna plan.
When the retirees were offered GHI at $191 per month, so many retirees enrolled that EmblemHealth/Empire withdrew.
The MLC committed to 600 million dollars in savings and the Aetna plan provides that savings (at the expense of the retirees who were sold out).
Ah, yes. I agree, that would have been an ideal start. Both plans could absolutely be given as premium free plans under 12-126. We could see then if the 'perks' were enough to sway retirees over on their own merits. My guess is probably not. Of course, to your point, the entire reason they're doing this is for the savings they promised. If UFT fought back on that, they'd likely have no reason to offer the Aetna plan. And if they weren't fighting back on that, they'd have no reason to offer both premium free. The debt is so overdue, that based on the anti-worker and anti-retiree stance they took, this is their only way forward absent a change in the code.