Is The UFT Going To Sell Us Out On Retroactive Raises?

I am very disturbed by the Reuters article published by the ICEUFT blog that the union is trying to convince the State that bonuses negotiated in a contract can be stretched over multiple years.  The Bloomberg Administration takes the opposite view that all bonuses must be "booked" in the year the contract is negotiated in and must be included in that year's budget, making full retroactive raises a dead issue.  While at first glance, the union's position appears most reasonable since it allows for a flexible approach to finalizing a long-delayed contract.  However, I then recalled an article by long-term union member and close friend to the leadership,  the retired Peter Goodman in his "Ed the Apple" blog that actually mentioned bonuses as an alternative to retroactive raises.  Is there a connection and that the union is negotiating for a bonus rather than retroactive raises?  The Ed the Apple article can be found Here.  In his blog Peter stated the following:

"Both the unions and the mayor want to remove a sharp thorn that will press deeply in the flesh until it is removed. How do you find a path to both a percentage increase, four years of retroactive dollars, sharply accelerating city health plan costs and the myriad details of contracts? While I have absolutely no participation in the negotiations in the past retroactive dollars were paid as “non-pensionable” cash payouts and spread out over a couple of budgets". 

Furthermore, here is how Peter responded to my objections about non-pensionable raises.

1. chaz | November 4, 2013 at 8:47 pm | Reply

   
   

   I must object to one of your suggestions, especially the non-pensionable retroactive raises. While its true this has happened in the past under Randi Weingarten, she is no longer in charge to sell us out. I hope Michael Mulgrew insists on pensionable retroactive raises that Michael Bloomberg refused to give us.
   
   
2. 
   

   Ed in the Apple | November 5, 2013 at 12:52 pm | Reply

   
   

   Chaz
   Whether the retroactive rate is 2, 3 or4% the retro dollars could range from 4-8 billion, a sum well beyond the cities ability to pay in a single budget. With de Blasio attackers accusing him of bankrupting the city even before he is sworn in retro pay will require a nimble solution. Employee health plans costs are increasing at more than 10% a year – I believe Mulgrew has a narrow window to negotiate key non-fiscal matters for some creative solutions to fiscal issues.
   
   If I am putting Peter Goodman's blog and his response to my comments together with the Reuters article on the ICEUFT blog, I am extremely worried that our union will be negotiating bonuses rather than retroactive raises.   Here is why replacing retroactive raises with bonuses its unfair to the members.
   
   

   1. Bonuses are not pensionable.
   2. Salary schedule remains unchanged rather than adjusted like other unions.
   3. Ignores the "City pattern" and sets a precedent for further abuses in the future..
   4. Mayor Bloomberg can claim victory as UFT members are shortchanged with a grossly inferior contract and a loss of substaintial salary going forward.

   
   

   While I can understand that our union must show some flexibility and spreading out the retroactive raises through a two or even a three year period is understandable, there is no way our union can capitulate by getting an inferior contract that further harms the members.  According to Ronnie Lowenstein of the Independent Budget Office who has hinted that the "balanced budget" that Mayor Bloomberg is using is based on under reporting revenues and that her office will be issuing a report showing a surplus which means that the de Blasio Administration  will have more funds to pay the long delayed retroactive raises.

   To me there is no reason for our union to settle for less than the "City pattern".
   .

   .