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):

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.