Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category



Tier 6 and the Extension of ‘Working Lifetimes’

Today is December 11, 2022. In exactly 28 years, 8 months, and 29 days, I will be able to retire under Tier 6 without penalty. The date will be September 9, 2051. I’ll be 63 years old and will have worked for the DOE and contributed to my pension for about 35 years. I will have taught public education in NYC for roughly 40 years if you count my time at CUNY (which, somehow didn’t get me into the pension system, or I’d be in Tier 4, but I digress).

Don’t get me wrong. I love teaching. But, thirty-five years is a heck-of-a-long time to teach just to qualify to retire for a full pension. Had I started teaching for the DOE just a few years earlier, or had my time at CUNY been pensionable, I’d be Tier 4. That would mean better benefits, a much fairer vesting schedule, a lower and capped contribution rate, and much more. Effectively, two teachers at the same salary step/differential but in different tiers are compensated at wildly different rates because of (a) how much is taken out of each person’s check and for how long, (b) when they can retire on a full pension, and (c) how much they will collect once retired. But this blog post isn’t about compensation. It’s about time. Because Tier 4 members also got the chance at something Tier 6 members can only dream of – a 25-55 option. Had I gotten into Tier 6, I’d have taken that option, and been allowed to retire 8 years earlier, although still with a commendable 27 years of service. Because I cannot do this, my working life is effectively 8 years longer than my similar-aged peers in Tier 4, even though my benefits/compensation is lower.

There have been some mild reforms to Tier 6 over the last year or so, primarily in reducing the vesting period from ten years to five. (While the ‘malcontent’ in me does wonder if even this improvement has a sinister motive–namely, cutting the likelihood that departing teachers will take their money out of TRS, and thus keeping more money in the pension system should it face any financial roadblocks–I am glad to be vested). But there have been no changes to contribution rate, contribution period, benefits, and–most importantly–retirement age. There is a resolution likely to be presented at the next DA that commits to ‘continuing’ advocacy for such reforms, but I’m skeptical that our current union administration, currently hell-bent on reducing healthcare benefits for both in-service and retired members, will do anything to convince New York State to actually bring Tier 6 to the level of Tier 4 where it counts. I hope I’m wrong on that.

Tier 6 teachers of today not only have to work much longer careers than their peers; they also have to do this while dealing with other parts of the job that are much harder or time-consuming than that of Tier 4ers or their predecessors. For instance:

  • All Tier 6 teachers started working after the extension of the workday, which means from Day 1 to the end of their careers, they have to deal with endless PD Mondays and OPW Tuesdays. One has to wonder if UFTers (then only up to Tier 4) would have voted to make this exchange (longer working days for one-time raises that didn’t keep up with inflation), had they also faced reduced retirement benefits and an effectively mandatory retirement age of 63. Tier 6, with its longer working ‘lifetime’, hit after we’d already committed to longer working days in that contract.
  • Almost all Tier 6 teachers are now or on their way to being professionally certified. That’s true also of many teachers in Tier 4, but many Tier 4ers are permanently certified. Permanently certified teachers only have to re-register for certification. Professionally certified teachers, such as the majority of Tier 6, have to commit to 100 hours of professional development, with specific sub-requirements, every five years in order to stay certified. That means that Tier 6ers not only work longer hours during the work week and for many years longer than their peers in Tier 4; they also lose weekends, nights, and vacation days to mind-numbing and expensive PD sessions.
  • Tier 6 is unique in that almost all of its members had or have to deal with tenure requirements unseen in previous tiers. We have a four year minimum before consideration (rather than three), are extended at a roughly 50% rate, and must commit to remarkable amounts of paperwork – specifically, expansive portfolios that were never required previously. 
  • Paperwork and OPW requirements have gotten out of hand over the last decade (i.e. Tier 6). Extra-contractual responsibilities, often given so administrators or central employees can justify their own jobs, constantly interfere with our actual teaching requirements – nearly ensuring that work must be taken home every night or weekend.

Our severe teacher shortage is impacted by the fact that our working conditions are getting worse and our benefits are deteriorating. Current and potential teachers are freaked out enough about our encroaching loss of traditional Medicare, and maybe even HIP/GHI. Improving Tier 6 could help us attract educators to the profession, including in hard to staff areas. Moreover, Tier 6 hires now make up a large percentage of in-service UFT members. All of our students who become teachers after graduating will be Tier 6, if not worse, unless we are aggressive with a campaign to reverse what was lost. Therefore, it’s high time that we make pension reform a priority. We must do whatever it takes to convince NYS that all educators deserve Tier 4 pension benefits at an absolute minimum.

UFT Leadership’s Dangerous 2018 Giveback has put us all at Risk

In 2018, Michael Mulgrew rushed out a contract with dangerous givebacks, lying to members that there weren’t any. The most dangerous giveback? That somehow, in a time of record healthcare inflation, we would find a way to save $600 million annually on healthcare. The main way Mulgrew sought to do this was through a Medicare Advantage program, and we all know the story there: retirees fought, and at least temporarily won back premium-free traditional Medicare on the basis of Administrative Code 12-126. But they didn’t fix the issue of our debt, and the UFT is in big trouble there.

That trouble–the trouble of Mulgrew’s 2018 debt commitment–is why we’ve seen so much misdirection from UFT leadership. It’s why we’ve seen a policy set, without any democratic mandate, to convince in-service members to ‘amend the code.’ And it’s why we’ve seen threats sent out to membership, likely coordinated between Mulgrew and the very people with whom he’s supposed to be bargaining. It’s also why we’ve seen Mulgrew’s big lie – that somehow, on the basis of Administrative Code 12-126, we’ve lost our right to collectively bargain on healthcare. That’s nonsense, as I showed in an article earlier this week. Indeed, much in Lyle Frank’s decision substantiates our right (via the MLC) to collectively bargain with the City over healthcare.

There’s only one source which gives any credence to the idea that we might lose collective bargaining rights over healthcare plans. That source is Martin Scheinman’s letter suggesting what he might do if Administrative Code 12-126 isn’t amended. Read this letter carefully. While Scheinman notes that the City is only obligated to provide one health plan, he doesn’t say anything about collective bargaining rights being taken away in Frank’s decision. Rather, he notes that [if the administrative code isn’t amended] he would “determine the City and MLC shall eliminate Senior Care as an option.” What would give him the right to intervene in this way? As he notes early on, it’s the 2018 Contract and our (unmet) promise for healthcare savings. UFT Leadership always leaves out the 2018 contract when it discusses healthcare. It turns out that contract, which UFT leadership tricked members into ratifying, is the entire source of the problem.

Whether or not Scheinman’s decision would stand, one major finding needs restating here. No judge decided we could lose collective bargaining rights over healthcare. Contracts have consequences, and one is arbitration when there’s a question of one party not meeting their obligations. UFT Leadership is unable to meet their obligations of healthcare savings from the 2018 contract. Our arbitrator, Martin Scheinman said he would intervene and enforce MAP as the only healthcare option for retirees (in order to get the City its savings). That’s not the end of collective bargaining, it’s a consequence of collective bargaining. Therefore, if you have anyone to thank for ‘losing our collective bargaining rights’ over healthcare, it’s UFT leadership. It is they, not retirees or opposition activists, who negotiated a secret deal and couldn’t keep their end.

Why is UFT Leadership misleading us about Precedent RE Administrative Code 12-126?

Any UFT member who has tuned into an executive board meeting, DA, town hall, or simply checked their non-DOE email, has heard/seen the propaganda. ‘If we don’t organize to amend City Administrative Code 12-126,’ they say, ‘we will lose both (a) our premium-free healthcare and (b) our right to ‘collectively bargain’ (particularly for more expensive ‘pay up plans’).’ There’s been a lot written about how this is misinformation already – and not just from your usual UFT bloggers, but also from the many official unions, such as PSC, who disagree with Mulgrew’s narrative.

Point A (premiums) is likely the most outlandish argument, given the code literally protects us from paying premiums up to the HIP benchmark. Point B–that somehow Lyle Frank’s original decision took away decades of collective bargaining rights from the UFT–has been a stranger, more nebulous argument to debunk because it’s so out of left field. To be clear, it is not true. I can point to various passages, but one of my favorite is here: “The respondent was well within its right to work with the Municipal Labor Council to change how retirees get their health insurance. As the municipal labor unions are the entities that enter into collective bargaining agreements, those unions, through the umbrella Municipal Labor Council may amend those agreements….” Call me crazy, but I’m just not seeing the judge taking away collective bargaining rights here. Indeed, a 1992 agreement not even directly referenced in this case, sets in stone that the City and MLC must negotiate all healthcare changes.

So, why is UFT leadership announcing to the world–and therefore to the City–that they believe the City can do whatever it wants with our healthcare? Something tells me it has something to do with the $600 million in annual healthcare savings that UFT leadership tricked us into ratifying in our last ‘no giveback’ contract. We ostensibly can’t pay the debt without changing the administrative code and ushering in healthcare givebacks. And since the City Council likely won’t do that and betray municipal workers and retirees, the UFT needs a plan B to pay up. Telling the City they believe there is now a legal precedent that they can do whatever they want with our healthcare is one way of doing that. This move scapegoats the City (and opposition) for the healthcare changes, and obscures the reality that the MLC is signing off on the givebacks. However, some of these changes–such as issuing premiums to in-service workers–would likely fail in court on the basis of City Administrative Code 12-126, so a bit more analysis is needed, specifically on these two final questions:

(1) Why would the UFT let the City force retires onto MAP without the option of paying to opt back into traditional Medicare?

Spite doesn’t seem like a good enough answer here. If the City/MLC actually go through with this, my best bet is it has something to do with anxiety over their MAP plan failing if too many retirees opt out. If all municipal retirees were on the same MAP plan, they might think it less likely that doctors choose to opt out of taking it. After all, Mulgrew is always saying that our biggest strength is the sheer number of people in our contract. ‘What healthcare provider doesn’t want the city workers contract?’ Under that logic, if too many retirees opt out of MAP, it weakens Mulgrew’s ‘bargaining’ ability. Would the MLC completely kill traditional Medicare for this reason? It remains to be seen, but that’s the only reason why I can see Mulgrew making the threat.

(2) How could the City give in-service employees health-care premiums, when we’re protected from them up to the HIP benchmark?

The answer to this question is trickier, in part because a lawsuit filed by grassroots ‘in-service’ advocates, would surely prevail here —- unless something big changed. Our benchmark protects us up to the HIP rate. But what if there was no HIP? If something big were to happen over at Emblem, the administrative code could theoretically become moot. This possibility must be considered, especially in the midst of a new RFP for in-service healthcare (which could be construed as a signal by the MLC that they plan on hiring someone other than Emblem). The course of events required is hopefully unlikely, especially in the short term, but the results for our healthcare (both in-service and retired) could be catastrophic.


Learn more about

our UFT Caucus

Content Policy

Content of signed articles and comments represents the opinions of their authors. The views expressed in signed articles are not necessarily the views of New Action/UFT.
Follow New Action – UFT on WordPress.com
January 2026
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 402,734 hits