I was wrong on pension yesterday
Yesterday I asked if 25/55 was agreed to in 2005. I thought the answer was yes. I was wrong. The answer is, no.
Although in 2005 Leo Casey wrote:
WHAT DID WE GAIN? … An agreement from New York City to seek a change in state pension law would allow all UFT members to retire without penalty at age 55 with a minimum of 25 years of service.
… this was not really true.
The actual contract said something quite different (from Memo of Agreement, scroll down for item 6):
- A Labor-Management Pension Committee will be established to investigate legislation allowing all current and future members of the TRS Tier II, III and IV to retire without a reduction of benefits due to early retirement upon age 55 with at least 25 years of service, as well as other relevant pension issues.
- The Committee will analyze the actual costs and additional contribution rates required to provide this benefit (including any additional health insurance benefit costs) without any cost to the City.
- Upon mutual acceptance of the Committee’s recommendations, including plan design and costs, the parties agree to jointly support the legislation necessary to implement the benefit changes.
Had I reread the contract, had I gone to the source, I would have understood that 25/55 was not agreed to in 2005. Instead, we agreed to set up a joint labor management committee to study 25/55 and make recommendations, and if they were accepted, to jointly recommend them to Albany.
I left my previous post, with a flag directing readers here.
Typical Leo Casey double-talk. Is he really capable of telling the truth?