Thursday, December 12, 2013
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.