Friday, August 15, 2014

Bad News! No Retroactive Per Session Pay After All.


 Despite assurances from UFT President Michael Mulgrew that all the members will get back every dollar owed to them, it now appears that the City and UFT have worked out an agreement that there will be no retroactive increases for per session pay for the 2009-14 time period.  Why do I believe this is the case? It turns out the new per session pay rate has increased by only 2%, (instead of the 2.12% when the 2013-14 retro is included) from $41.98 to $42.82 starting this summer, that's why.  The per session increase of 2% does not include any retro payments from 2009 to 2014, as promised by Michael Mulgrew.  Had these retro payments been included, the new per session rate would be much higher. 

While I understand that calling Michael Mulgrew's claims of getting all our retro payments into question may cause him to place me on his list of trying to punch me in the face, I stand by my analysis that his claims appears to be false.  In fact, this is another example of a group of his members being screwed by the union leadership and the City.  Now it seems that all the members who put in for per session activities between 2009 and 2014 will not be getting any more money after all.  Had all the retroactive raises been incorporated in the new per session rate, the per session rate would be $46.18 not $42.82.  This tells me that the City has no intention of paying members any more per session money, based upon the new per session rate and the union has apparently allowed it to happen.

To all the members who were assured by our union representatives that all the retros will be paid, here is another example of our union not telling us the truth. The real truth is that the DOE agreed not to adjust the per session pay of $41.98 that was paid out between November of 2009 and June 2014 for the new per session rate.  That's the only answer why the new per session rate is only $42.82 and not much higher. Therefore, don't expect any additional checks coming to the members who were looking for a payday of $1,000 or more owed to them for their per session work for the 2009-14 time period.

It seems as the contract terms become clearer, the long list of members being screwed just grows.  The ATRs, ex members who resigned or were terminated, newly minted administrators, members who died in service, went on disability or unpaid leave, and now added to the list are the members who worked per session.  The list continues to grow with the new contract.  I hate to think who's next to be screwed by the contract down the road. Hopefully its not you.

Remember the chart the UFT put out?  It shows that we should have received  the 2013 and 2014 retro raises, Here.

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Chaz thanks again for writing about the travesty of the contract. Based on your article I would think that pack pay on coverages is not forthcoming either. All of this dishonesty is disgusting and screws teachers once again.

Bronx ATR said...

Surprising? Not at all. As you become aware of Mulgrew, his modus operandi becomes crystal clear. I used to make about $5000 a year in per session before becoming an ATR. All those opportunities are now closed because I'm not in a school. (CTE teachers cannot apply for summer school because those classes aren't offered.) This has never been addressed by the union. But all of this is minor in light of the blatant discrimination that the union has allowed.

JR said...

Maybe the per session retro will be part of the lump sum payments in 2015, 17, 18, 19 20.

Chaz said...

Anon 9:55

Wishful thinking. If that was true, the union would have said it but since the new rate indicates that the rate is based upon a 2% raise and no other adjustment.

Dr_Dru said...

Chaz,

Where are you getting this info? I would love to have an actual copy of the new contract, not the MOA.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

The Union doesn't belong to Mulgrew and Weingarten, it belongs to the members. Why doesn't some insider call the DA to investigate racketeering?

Anonymous said...

I see nothing here that is different from the MOA. Why should the per session rate be different from the salary rate which is also up 2% and will be adjusted from 2015-18? How can you be sure per session isn't going up like everything else?

Chaz said...

If retro payments were included we would have seen the 2013-14 retro in the new per session rate since the UFT claimed we will be seeing it included in our fall paychecks. Instead it went up a simple 2% with no retro adjustment.

That leads me to believe that the per session rates will not include any retro payments. Not now, not later, not ever.

Anonymous said...

Chaz,
From the DOE website FAQ's dealing with the contract(May 16)
Q:Will the retroactive rate increase be applied to per session?
A: Yes-the retroactive will be applied to per session pay.

These are serious accusations against Mulgrew/UFT if what you are saying is true.

Anonymous said...

Chaz,
I am no big fan of Mulgrew or the union---but where are you getting these facts from pertaining to retroactive per session pay. You are using words like 'I believe' and sort of speculating that the city and union have reached a deal with retro per session.

Chaz said...

Anon 2:42

If so then why didn't the 2013-14 retroactivity show up in the new per session rates????

I can only go with the fact that $42.82/$41.98 = 2%! not 2.12% with retro included.

Anonymous said...

They keep saying the new pay for the fall is 2 percent. Shouldn't it be 1 percent and the another 1 percent on top of that. That is NOT 2 percent.

I heard that those retro checks would be in the September 15 paychecks .

Still trying to get a definitive answer on what number they will be using to figure out average salary if you retire soon. Originally union said all the raises woukd be incorporated ~~ then they said it might take up to toe years ~~ now they are back peddling and saying they don't know.

Anonymous said...

The union and the contract are full of it.
Angry Nog

Anonymous said...

I spoke to a high union person who insists there will be retro per session payments. However, when I asked him about why the new rate did not include the 2013 and 2014 retros he said he didn't know.

He did say the new per session rate should have reflected the 2013 and 2014 retro payment and was confused on why the DOE did not include it.

Anonymous said...

The union is now confused?! They sold a pack of lies and now some of it is coming to light. Why not publicly write a letter to Mulgrew and ask for an explanation? For me, I don't give a shit.

Anonymous said...

chaz, great piece. I also was curious why the per session rate was only 2% higher. Your post seems to make the reason why clear. I hope your wrong and its just DOE incompetence and the union will take action to give us the money we deserve. lol.

Anonymous said...

Your pay is only 2% higher too. This post is pure speculation.

Anonymous said...

Mulgrew was not honest about other things either. During the previous school year at the delegate assembly meetings Mulgrew mentioned MANY LAWSUITS the union had against the city. These lawsuits I believe related to abuses under Bloomberg. Back in January of this year Mulgrew said at the delegate meeting that he would sit down with the new administration and settle these cases. I am sure some of these lawsuits involved abuses in the school system (like SESIS). Sounds like Mulgrew drop these lawsuits as a favor to DeBlasio like the contract.

Anonymous said...

I went to ICEUFT to read the delegate assembly report from earlier this year (February 2014). If you look under the contracts section of the article Mulgrew said we have already earned the money that Bloomberg should have given us years ago. This begs the question Mr. Mulgrew. Why did you back load the 4% and 4% and lump sum payments so far into the future if you felt that way in February? Sounds like to me that lawsuit by the ex members has a real good chance of winning. They should read what Mulgrew said earlier in the year.

Chaz said...

Anon 11:34

If you remember, the UFT chart sent to the members showed that the 2% raise will include the 2013 and 2014 retro payments. What changed?

Bronx ATR said...

I just read that "our" union is backing a Sharpton anti-police rally and march. Did anyone ask the members their opinion? Want to stop tragedies in the street? Start by truly educating the poor. How about marching for that? Instead the DOE/UFT put totally inexperienced bodies in front of a class, while experienced teachers are forced to babysit.

Anonymous said...

Nobody got those retro payments yet. I really like your blog but you might have to walk this one back a little in the end.

Anonymous said...

Chaz, you did a great job in pointing this out. Like the ratings sheets being bungled in June I hope this gets worked out in the members favor.

Chaz said...

Anon 11:03

If I see the retros are incorporated in the paycheck then and only then will I walk it back. So far, I see no retros and the per session pay rate should have incorporated the 2013 and 2014 retros but they didn't.

Anonymous said...

Wait a min. The new per session rate increased 84 cents to 42.82?

Anonymous said...

I worked July 1-31 and got the 42.82 amount. However, I also worked per session on June 27 and 30-and it had the old 41.98 amount. I have a feeling the city will mail all retro per session payments owed from May 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013 at the 42.40 rate and 42.82 amount from May 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014. No retro per session from '09 to April 30 2013.

Anonymous said...

Good work Chaz in reminding the members of that chart which says every dollar will be paid by 2020. I hope this can be used in a future lawsuit against the union and city. Misrepresenting back pay is atrocious. At the time a red flag was not releasing the MOA until the day before the delegate assembly vote. I hope members look back in hindsight and realize they should have voted NO to this poorly negotiated contract. We support you Chaz and I truly hope your hard work and our comments will make a difference against dishonest behavior by the union and city.

Anonymous said...

Chaz do not forget members who have done coverages during the same five year period. You may want to add them to your list of members Mulgrew shortchanged. I have many coverage slips during this period of time and if the per session barely went up then the coverage rate would most likely not go up much either. Thank you UFT for screwing middle class workers.

Jerome'smom said...

What about retro pay for Per Diems?
We pay union dues twice; once for pension pymt's and then as subs... At least now I know that the per session work that I did before retiring is something that I won't get.

Anonymous said...

Chaz, Greetings!

Per Session rate calculations

2013 - 41.98 times 1.01 = 42.40
2014 - 42.40 times 1.01 = 42.82

42.82 is the new rate.
42.82/41.98 = 1.020100

Based on contact information the
salary rate and per session rate should increase at the same time
at rate increases shown on the contract timeline for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Are you suggesting that the 8%
retroactive rate should have been
included in the current rate for
per session? How is that consistent with the contract rate increase time line.

B. said...

I don't understand how a retro payment can be incorporated into a later hourly rate. It can only be paid out as a lump sum, otherwise those who don't work per session this coming year wouldn't get any retro pay at all. So why would one expect to see the hourly per session rate increase more than the 1%+1%?

Chaz said...

B:

How do you figure that? If you look at the chart the 2013-14 retro should be paid upfront. To me that means it should be included in the summer per session pay or as a separate adjustment check.


Moreover, how about the non-retro portion of the two 4% raises.

B. said...

Chaz,

Sorry if I was unclear, but I was agreeing that the 2013-2014 retro payments have to be paid out as adjustment checks, either as a lump sum or over time (e.g. over the summer, like you suggest). What I don't understand is how any retro payment (not a retro _raise_) could be incorporated into a higher hourly pay rate, which you seem to be claiming it should have been. Then the amount of retro payment you receive would depend on how many per session hours you work in the coming years, not on how much you worked during the period that the retro pay is intended to cover.

Chaz said...

n 7:54
I understand what your saying. Regardless the per session rate should have increased to reflect the 10%. Furthermore, the lack of a supplemental check for previous 2013-14 retro payments for per session pay shows how the City is not abiding by the contract.

B. said...

Chaz,

Yes, I do share the frustration about not seeing any adjustment checks for the 2013-2014 retro payments yet. (They haven't been issued for teacher salary either, as far as I know...)

History Tunes said...

I have a questions separate from the per session issue. When and how will teachers receive the 1% from 2013 and the 1% from 2014 retro lump sums? I see very few mention of this anywhere and I am afraid it will be forgotten about!

jd2718.org said...

Top pay increases in the same period from 100049 to 102060, exactly the same percentage.

Per session sees the same 18% (actually 19.4% compounded) that every other payment on the schedules sees.

The retro lump sums are irrelevant to this (more here). The "retro increases" come later in the contract, as with the salary increases.

I know the leadership has been confusing on this. It's tough to follow. But there's nothing about per session that's different from any other part of the monetary settlement.

Jonathan

Chaz said...

JD2718

What happen to the money owed us for 2013-14? Still no check for the retro.

Anonymous said...

Retro checks for salary will be in sept 30 check and per session retro are being sent out October third. This is all info coming from citywide UFT Meetings today and also expect your rating in an email on Tuesday.... Get ready for the fun to begin lol

BENAZZI said...

Where's that October 3rd check?? I haven't seen or heard anything about it? Do we know how far back they are going? I did a ton of per session in 2011, and was hoping to get some more back from that. I also subbed in 2010 for a few months, and since I have been a teacher for 5 years now in the city, they promised money back for that as well, just as long as you are still employed, PT or FT. Anyone know anything? Thanks!!!!!

Anonymous said...

This turned out to be false propaganda hmmm... but it is still here