First, why start the merit pay incentive before the passing of the pension legislation?
Secondly, how is 27/55 an improvement?? The police and fire union can still retire with 20 years.
Also, will there be a difference in the way pension benefits are calculated? If I qualify and put in @$2,000 (salary on max starting in May) and retire the next year; and someone else pays the $2,000 for 3 additional years until they can retire, is my pension reduced since I qualified earlier and paid less into the new system?
I would still like to see the fine print on this pension situation. Why have an "opt in" unless there is a difference in the benefits. Would it pay for Tier 2 to stay on the old system if they have a few years more to go to reach 30/55 and not contribute the $2,000 of their own money??
As for the health issue that "Annon the Unity Hack" brought up:
We all knew our 2% raise would go towards something to make it no raise at all--and we were correct!!
I would also like to see the fine print on how the "Group of 4" reach
a decision on the merit pay. What if the principals and 2 teachers disagree?
Until Leo decides to post the fine print on these plans, I feel I just got a Nigerian email telling me I won the lottery.
If anyone knows these answers, please post here.
Great points Schoolgal. Haven't you seen the DOE rule book. A pair of AP's always trumps a pair of teachers, no matter what our unions says. The AP's with directions from their Principals will dictate who gets what. Given the lousy contract and give away of protections what teacher would really speak up against what an AP says? And besides, do you really think any teacher can join the 4? My guess, hand picked puppets who will just rubber stamp what the AP's want. You know like New Action.
Unitymustgo!
Just commented on EdLize, but since Leo has always refused to answer my questions I will post what I wrote here.
"Make an informed choice” means there are big differences in the pension plans. Can you explain what some might be?
And what if the Merit Pay Committee disagree on how to divide the spoils?
How does that get resolved?
Nice to know that our raises are always a part of any give-backs.
Good point. I agree the APs and principals will decide what's what and ignore staff input, just like they do on C6.
No one at my school even knows about this, let alone cares. They'll never last 25 years anyway.
PS
I really believe that Randi would not be talking pension reform if the votes were not there. According to EdLize, the union is already setting up pension meetings and giving everyone a 6-month window to opt-in.
That tells me this is a done deal.
Sounds like CPAs are going to be kept busy to determine just how good a deal this really is. People who are on Tiers 3 and higher and who started teaching late in their career will never reach the 25 year mark at age 55. Will they be able to get a full pension at age 55?
Her buddy Elliot is a lot less likely to veto it than the UFT-endorsed Pataki. This may explain in part why she was so enthusiastic over his decidedly mediocre education proposals.
Go to the ice blog where they have analyzed the deal fully. It's a de-facto tier V pension system.
Hell must have frozen over because Leo answered the merit pay question.
However, he did not really get into specifics about the pension plan except to say "teachers must be informed" which leads me to believe that this deal has many aspects that don't make it viable for some teachers.
Many teachers live paycheck to paycheck. Some put the extra money into TDA to get both savings and a tax break. And, sadly to say, some can't afford to even up their contributions. So now they may be forced to make a choice of where to invest their income.
I'm still amazed that Randi wasn't run out of town after the 2005 contract. What a piece of crap. It looks like young teachers will vote for anyone and anything and that's very sad. How could people with such poor judgment get merit pay?
I read the ICE post and really feel sorry for new teachers. But I still have more questions for Jeff.
While I think many teachers would love to leave after 25 years, I would imagine that the pension benefit is not the same. Would it be higher if I pay in than I would get under Tier 2 now?? I am sure the union already knows the answer to this question.
This however might be a better plan for those on the worst tiers.
For those near 25/55 who are not Tier 2, it may be a God send!
Many of my friends are in their 50's but are no way near 25 years of service. What does this new plan do for them?
Also, if a new teacher starts at age 22, they will have to work 33 years before they are 55. And they will be forced to pay for this pension all those years. Or, does the "forced" contribution stop after the 25th year??
The 55/25 was intended for those, like myself, who came to the NYC system after a stay in some other system or occupation. For me it was 13 years teaching for Holy Mother Church.
For a person coming out of school, intending to make this a career the retirement age was 55, at which you could have as many as 33 years. The first Tieriii/iv people are only now coming due as they started in after 77.
I think the paramount question for people who are approaching 55/25 is how much they will have to pay. The papers talk about people who have ten or fifteen years to go, but I am wondering what my friends who can go next year will have to put in. Only the 1.85% for each year they have left, or 1.85% for a longer period, say the difference between 55 and 62 or 7 years. None of this is clear.
As to the merit pay, the Post in its editorial is already praising Klein for getting the camel's nose into the tent. They know what the next step wlll be. And one further point. the school committee that decides how to divvy up the loot is 2 admin and 2 teachers. If they are adamantly opposed and can't resolve the differences it appears the school loses the money. I'm sure those two teachers will be well received when they report that, for principle, they sacrificed other people's money.
As I said on the earlier thread, Diane Ravitch was nuts when she said The UFT ate Bloomklein's lunch. They made us eat our liver. Hope we all enjoy the taste.
This is what the NY Daily News had to say:
Now, a new era has begun, thanks to enlightened leadership by United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten
YES! Randi is enlightened. She knows what to do to curry favor with Bloomberg and screw her members. Thanks Randi for another give back. You rock!
Here's a link to the News editorial:
http://www.nydailynews.com/
opini...chers_earn.html
And here's a link to the Post editorial:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/
1018...ious_reform.htm
And you know if the Post and the News both like it, it must be great for teachers, just like the 05 contract was.
Right Edwize? Right Ms. Weingarten?
Rod Paige will be thrilled.
Although I don't like it or trust it, I probably will opt in (since I'm convinced this is a done deal)- after I do a pension consult (which will probably spin it as fantabulous) and see a financial advisor.
This is my thoughts: I have 15 more years, at which point I'll be 62 (will I make it that long? That's another story). If I contribute almost 2% of my gross over the years, I'm figuring that comes out to about $20,000 of my own money. If I invest that privately (or kick up my TDA), I think I might come out better with the full pension. Do I know this for sure? Do I even understand this? Who knows? I would like to see what the penalty would be if you go after 20 years.
Thanks Randi.
Randi lied/distorted the truth when she said at the DA that Tier I paid 5% in pension. First of all, that was an option people used to increase their pensions - called Increased take home pay (ITHP). Most people did not take this option ( I did for many years.) And 5% was the top number according to one of my pension sources, varying according to your age. What it did was give people who came into teaching in later years an opportunity to catch up by paying more into the system. Randy left the idea on the table of - "see, you are doing better than them."
If you did not take it you got 40% of your final year salary after 20 years or 50% of you did take it. Each additional year after that added (I think) 1.75% to the total.
If you started after age 25 and before age 37 and worked straight through without a leave for say maternity, then this deal works and the closer you are to retirement, the greater are your gains if you want to get out fast. I would say to consider opting in if you are in this category.
The only other people who would benefit as far as I can see are people who started before 25 but took a long unpaid leave so they won't have the thirty years to retire without penalty at 55.
My wife had a great line about the pension "improvement". In the past senior teachers were given buy outs to add to their pensions. Now with Randi we've been given a buy in.
Commenting by HaloScan
