Dental Improvements? Not Today
Why did I so easily believe the rumors that Mulgrew would be announcing improvements to dental today? We could just call me a sucker and call it a day. But nah. Let’s dive in.
I said it. I repeated it. Unity was poised to announce dental improvements. The announcements would likely come at Town Hall (today – and I wasn’t there because retirees were not invited – don’t know why) and at tomorrow’s Chapter Leader meeting. And the meeting came. Mulgrew gave a long presentation. Didn’t mention dental. Someone asked. He said they’d started an RFP (Request for Proposal). That’s it. That’s nothing. No dental improvements. Not today.
I heard rumors, starting late August. I heard they might be improving dental. It made sense to me. So much so that I believed the rumors without digging deeper. Why did it make sense?
The UFT Welfare Fund has significant assets. Surplus has been growing year after year. A year ago they were sitting on $866 Million. That’s a huge amount of money. About two-and-a-half years’ worth of expenses. Big, very big reserve. And growing. It’s certainly over $900 Million today, maybe pushing towards $1 Billion. And five years earlier it was $384 Million. They’ve been squirreling away quite a bit of loot.
The UFT Welfare Fund has had a positive balance sheet year after year for over a decade. The $58 Million they netted in 2023 is the SMALLEST amount they have made (it’s not called profit, but it feels a lot like it) in the last six filings. They averaged an $89 Million annual surplus (can’t call it profit) over that period.
Everyone knows that UFT’s dental plan has issues. Even their supporters say it. My dentist is quite clear about the reimbursements being way too low; that other unions have better plans. Other UFTers have compared, and found that PSC has significantly better coverage. No implants. Low reimbursements. Our teeth matter! Come on!
It’s been 8 years since UFT dental reimbursements increased. Eight years. What hasn’t gone up in eight years (that we care about)?
Delegates tried to raise this last April. Unity and Mulgrew did not want this on the agenda, and they got their way – but by 3 votes! Know what happened in June? The Retirees (including me) beat Mulgrew and Unity: they lost 300 delegates, we gained 300 delegates. In that new reality, dental was going to come up sooner or later.
In my mind, it all made sense:
- They have a huge and growing pile of cash
- Everyone knows their plan is inadequate, even their strongest supporters
- There have been no increases in 8 years
- They barely kept this off the agenda in April (by 3 votes). It is likely to come up, and they are very likely to lose when it does.
Easiest thing for Mulgrew and Unity to do? Get out in front of it – make some moderate improvements – cut off the opposition. When I heard the rumor – it fit. Unity was finally going to get something right.
But today Mulgrew talked about drug prices and Ozempic and a request for proposal and family leave. Go negotiate better dental coverage for members? Nope – Unity wants to instead negotiate a lower price for the Welfare Fund (a major source of patronage jobs). Couldn’t they do both? Get more service while lowering prices? And here’s the real answer – you lead with what matters. Going the request for proposal route – they are looking at price cutting.
So, dear readers, my apologies. I got your hopes up. I thought we would get something without a fight. I got this wrong.
But I promise you this. Retirees will find a way to put dental back on the agenda. We will find a way to get the Welfare Fund to take some of the money they have collected to provide benefits, and actually use that cash to provide benefits. Our dental benefits cannot be an afterthought. For those who are putting the bottom line first – no. Our members, their working conditions, their salaries, their benefits, we come first.


Will the UFT Welfare Fund Trustees (Mulgrew is one) release the actuarial studies in support of the current reserves? Will they retain an independent auditor to review the books for expenses and expenditures?
If not, why not?