As I Predicted The UFT Is Insatiable

Not content with gutting the schools to pay for teachers with seniority to retire at age 55 instead of 62 without contributing an extra dime under a 2008 deal, the UFT now demands that teachers be allowed to retire earlier. Age 50? Age 45? Needless to say, the UFT doesn't specify the age. They claim yet another early retirement "incentive" will save the city money. Previously, they had claimed that allowing teachers to retire seven years earlier under the 2008 deal, and providing retirement health care ten years before Medicare picked up some of the cost rather than three, would cost nothing. It was, and is, a lie.

What they mean by save money is borrow money. Earlier retirement means more money to to the retired and less in the classroom — for decades. Larger class sizes, lower pay, particulary for new teachers, at higher tax rates. But as part of these deals, the massive extra cost is generally put off a few years. That is what they are offering. Even though in a moment of crisis, we are still paying for the past "retirement incentives" that have been done over and over.

Per the UFT "such an incentive has been used effectively in prior budget crises. In 1991, with major budget problems looming, the city and the Board of Education offered an incentive that led to nearly 6,000 retirements in the Teachers Retirement System – well over double the amount of the prior year. In 1995 and 1996, thanks to another incentive, the TRS had 9,200 retirements, about as many as occurred in total over the next five years."

What savings? For years money has been diverted to ever higher pension contributions for early retirement, and other retroactive deals such as those passed in 2000. I'll say it again — some of the severe cuts in actual education we are facing now are the result of those "sell out the future and flee to Florida" deals years ago. Your taxes will be higher, and your child will be denied a quality education, because some teachers go to retire five or ten years early 15 or 20 years ago. Because it wasn't paid for then, as part of the deal. It is still being paid for now.

We have yet to begin to really pay for the 2008 deal. The cost will be catastrophic. The UFT has already agreed to cut the take home pay of future teachers by 5 percent throughout their careers to pay for it, which won't help recruitment, but also won't save money for years, because the city will not be hiring teachers. But still they want more.

And if the incredible cost of paying thousands additional years to do nothing was actually paid for up front, with honest assumptions about the expected rate of return, the cost would be many times the purported savings. This is fraud, Evil with a capital E, and it happens over and over.

Perhaps an honest assessment could claim that it no longer matters how sweet a deal those cashing in and moving out get. Because the schools are doomed anyway. I just wish Bloomberg would tell the truth about the 2008 deal even though he was in on it.

Uncategorized