9/12
I did not want to write about 9/11 on 9/11.
I was in Christopher Columbus High School. Teaching Math. My AP showed me the news, but I assumed that it was a puff of smoke, and not much damage. I remembered the 1993 attack.
In the wake of 9/11 the United States launched two wars – leading to death and suffering – and leading to big profits for Lockheed and Blackwater and their ilk. And those wars? They were not waged against people who had attacked the Trade Towers.
This is MY city. I wasn’t born here, but I’ve lived here almost 40 years. The attacks on the Twin Towers were personal; they hurt.
Tourist on the E Train asks – “is this the right way to 9/11?” – A New Yorker responds “This train goes to the World Trade Center – that’s where you want to go” – “No,” says the tourist, ” I want to go to 9/11!” – and continues “You New Yorkers are so rude!”
Every time I have to take off my frigging shoes at the airport – I’m reminded of 9/11.
Everyone treats first responders like heroes when they are responding. And we sanctify the names of those who perished. But after? Firefighters and others – digging through that disaster zone – breathing that poison – developing serious illness down the road? Why don’t we think of them FIRST on the anniversary?
Not to make too much of it – but those towers were pretty ugly.
Our elections are not the fairest in the world. They are rigged against regular people. Corporations and the rich, and in NYC especially, big real estate, wield crazy influence. But at least we have elections, and count on them. Except that one time Rudy Giuliani almost got away with canceling ours – because of 9/11.
That stink, it crept over all of New York City. I was at the grad center, 34th Street, weeks later, and it hung in the air.
In this morning’s The Morning, the Times discusses separating the coup in Chile that overturned the elected government from the terror and torture that came after. The neutral statement of the possibility is disgusting. There’s no mention of CIA involvement, nor any of war criminal Henry Kissinger. Those of you who read the Times and call it “news” – you should really think about that a little more. Oh, and the Times doesn’t bother mentioning the date of the coup – It was in September 1973 – the 11th.
I didn’t know the little electronic shops that the WTC wiped out – but we had “redevelopment” in New Haven where I’m from – and no one I knew ever said anything good about wiping out small businesses. Why did city governments do that? Here’s “Radio Row”, left, and after it was razed, right.
“A noun, a verb, and 9/11” – I’m no Joe Biden fan. And he’s not much of a speaker. But gotta give it to him on that one. Summed up Giuliani pretty completely.
I’m not much for patriotism. It’s usually a screen for the government to build support for war, or corporate profits, or both. But in the fall of 2001, regular folks looking for survivors, helping us dig out, recover – I don’t know what to call it, but I felt pride in my city and in my fellow New Yorkers.
There used to be limits on government surveillance. We lost a lot of those limits in the aftermath of 9/11. The terrorists scared us, attacked us in our home. But it was our government, the US government, and Homeland Security, not the hijackers, that stole our liberty.
NYC Newcomers: Manufactured Crisis
Mayor Eric Adams is threatening budget cuts. That could have been a headline four months ago. Or a year before that.
This is what Adams tries to do – give more money to big real estate interests, give more money to the police force, give 6-figure jobs to friends/relatives/donors – and cut everywhere else.
“Migrant Crisis” is just a new opportunity for Mayor Adams. It’s just another chance to misdirect municipal dollars.
On one thing he’s almost right: there may be great harm done to New York City. But it’s his response to the arrival of migrants that will do the harm. There’s the cuts – his choice. But there’s also the nature of his response – all temporary, interim measures. No actual solutions. Short term stopgaps with long term costs. And can’t blame that entirely on Eric Adams – we need permanent dwellings – not “tent cities” – but where are the voices for real housing?
There’s nothing in the pipeline. Kathy Hochul (remember, New York State has a governor) botched an under-ambitious housing proposal this past winter/spring. And not all her fault either – suburbs went ballistic and stopped any housing from getting through the state budget. I guess you might say that some suburbanites are anti-housing – but we’d be closer to the mark by calling out their racism.
There’s another aspect of New York State response – distributing newcomers in a way that makes sense. New York City is the logical municipality to host most immigrants – but most is not the same as all. New York State has other major cities (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany). And the NYC metropolitan area extends beyond the five boroughs – Westchester, Rockland, Nassau and Suffolk should be involved. That does not mean even distribution across the state – a few migrants in every county – rural areas and small towns will not have social services that can be ramped up – and will have far too few opportunities for new New Yorkers.
Immigrants are coming to the United States – not specifically to New York. DeSantis sent migrants to NYC to make a point, and to increase pressure on NY. He demonstrated at Guantamo callous disregard for people’s lives, and he displays it again here.
The United States government should have responsibility for migrants to the United States – pushing problems, including funding problems, onto the states reveals fundamental issues with federalism. The lack of meaningful assistance from Biden… the media says he’s unpopular – I just think he’s useless.
Much has been made of immigrants not having the right to work. I think migrants should be able to work – but I don’t know if there is legislation, or what the other implications are. I do know that NYPD probably has better things to do then take away migrants’ property.
This manufactured crisis is an opportunity for those with a racist agenda in New York. We are just removed from Lee Zeldin’s racist campaign for governor – that over-performed on Long Island, parts of Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. And perhaps more troubling, the New York Times hasn’t stopped it’s liberal hand-wringing over “crime.” And the Post. Jeez. Over the summer there was an incident involving a migrant (person unknown). The Post ran a story about the crime – with a photo of ordinary migrants – people – plain people. When a white person does something wrong – the Post does not run a photo of random white people.
Do we need to find $12billion? I don’t know the number. But there will be a cost of helping newly arrived people with food and shelter. Restrictions on work have to be thoughtfully removed. And solutions need to be permanent – not quick fixes. A fairer national funding system needs to be in place – including restoring taxes on the wealthy and large corporations – and we should not be considering cuts to schools or sanitation or transportation – or on a federal level to social security or Medicaid or Medicare.
New York City has ever been a city of immigrants. We have welcomed newcomers – or at least provided opportunity. Rather than being a burden or causing a crisis, migrants from other countries have built New York – both physically – and contributed to the rich diverse culture we have here.
New York City today must continue this tradition. People are coming here for a better life – and we should eagerly allow them to build that life here.
What is Math? (Questions, not answers)
It seems obvious, right? We all know what math is. But let me try to ask some tricky questions.
Numbers/Arithmetic
First, anything with numbers is math, right? Counting? I think so. Adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing? Good. Exponents. Fractions! What about the theory that describes these numbers? Probably, right?
Geometry? Surveying? Construction? Drafting?
Then there’s geometry. The word comes from roots which mean “earth measuring”. That’s not really counting or adding. But not surveying – that’s something different? Seems like a fine line (haha) to be drawing. And construction of figures with pencil and straightedge counts – but drafting does not? That’s a little arbitrary. Really, why would any of it get grouped with arithmetic? And if some of it, why not all of it?
Algebra
Algebra seems an easier fit. It’s like arithmetic, but with a symbol taking the place of a number. And then there’s the stuff that flows out of and beyond algebra… functions, trigonometry, graphing, even calculus.
Other Stuff
What about logic? Some logic is math? And some is not? But none has numbers or anything like them? And Set Theory? And Graph Theory? And Knot Theory?
I’ve heard that Game Theory is more Economics than Math. I’m not sure.
Programming?
Programming and coding are often taught in math departments. I guess they have numbers in them, but is that enough to make them math? Sometimes math teachers teach them, right? But is that enough?
Physics
Clearly Physics is a science, and not math. But a lot of math and a lot of physics look a lot alike. Math is physics without things? And physics is math with things added? How close do circuits come to the line between them? How is there a field called Mathematical Physics?
Statistics?
Is statistics a branch of mathematics? Or a science that studies data (and makes use of a lot of math)?
I should end by giving credit to a book – Jacqueline Stedall’s The History of Mathematics – A Very Short Introduction which poses and answers some of these questions.
It turns out that there is some logic (no pun) to what we include and what we don’t include in mathematics today.
There’s also a lot of history, and tradition. Stedall discusses topics that USED to be part of mathematics – including artillery and astrology (not a typo). Her book is really worth a read (and just 100 pages)
Learning Loss
I’ve got no problem with you reading anti-public school propaganda – as long as you know that’s what you’re reading.
You want to say you read The NY Times for the crossword? Ok, I guess. Sports? Don’t pretend. News? Come on. It’s not news. It’s consistent hard centrist propaganda. Including when it comes to schools.
Best option? Stop reading it. There’s better news sources. But if you insist, at least identify the anti-progressive propaganda. and that includes the anti-public school slant. Like them pretending “learning loss” is a thing. Like that hack David Leonhardt did, again, this morning.
Learning loss, right? Most of you reading this are teachers, or were teachers. Think about it. A kid comes into your class in September, and they leave in June. And during the time they are with you, they “lose learning.” What’s that? They know less in June then they did in September. Seriously? They actually “lose learning”? I know that doesn’t happen. You know that doesn’t happen, except in some rare, pathological conditions. everyone knows that doesn’t happen.
A kid sits in your class for 10 months and knows less coming out than they did coming in. They “lost learning”. Has that happened to any of your students? Not mine.
And over the summer? The kids forget things over the summer? Sure. But those are generally not things that the kids really knew. I mean, they forget some stuff, but they are more likely to forget test prep material that they never really knew than things that they had actually learned. And when schools closed during the pandemic, did this happen? Sure. But not so much. And that’s not what the Times means by “learning loss.”
No, the New York Times writes “learning loss,” and they mean that a fourth grader in June during the 2020-21 pandemic year knew less than a fourth grader – not the same kid, they’re comparing him to some other kid – that he knew less than some other fourth grader from the previous year did at the end of the previous year.
The kid didn’t “lose learning” – he learned less than a kid who went to school when there was no COVID.
And actually, that’s not what the Times is saying. We – I assume you, dear reader, are a teacher – know that kids learned less during the shutdowns and remote instruction. But the Times did not ask us, would not trust us. The Times thinks that test scores (or their equivalent) fell. The Times thinks learning (at least for poor peoples kids) is equivalent to test scores.
This dialogue which would not make any sense to anyone with half a brain: “What did you learn in school today, dear little son of mine?” “Nothing – we didn’t have a test today” – this nonsense dialogue would make perfect sense to the Times editorial board.
They write “ there has been learning loss“ but they mean “the test scores in fourth grade this year are lower than the test scores were for the previous group of fourth graders.“
The ideas – the core of the Times propaganda in this instance – is not drawn from education. The “loss of potential or predicted learning” does not come from the vocabulary that includes “ level of cognitive development” or “reasoning ability”. Rather, it is economics imposed on education, profit and loss, expected earnings, Emily Oster, monetization of each child’s “value,” scores, units, commodities.
“Learning loss” isn’t a thing. Lower test scores might be. But the Times knows drama. They know propaganda. They lead with the lie that grabs attention.
UFT High School Vice Presidents
George Altomare, who just passed, was the first United Federation of Teachers HS Vice President. The list of those who came after is not too long…
Let’s start with the list. The high schools have ever been a rowdy division, and the heart of the non-Unity votes in the UFT. That’s worth some digging, some discussion, finding and recovering some of our own history. But for now, the list:
UFT HS VPs
| George Altomare | 1960-1985 | |
| Michael Shulman | 1985-1987 | Only New Action (non-Unity) top elected position in all UFT history |
| John Soldini | 1987-1989 | Last HS VP elected directly by members in the high schools |
Michael Shulman represented an opposition caucus – New Action. In 1985 he beat George Altomare head to head for HS VP, fair and square. But the union’s leadership grouping, called Unity, sued to overturn the election (that they had conducted!) A second election was held. Shulman won again. George retired the day the result was confirmed. Shulman is the only Vice President in the UFT’s history not to come from Unity Caucus. More on that below. Shulman served one term, and was narrowly defeated by John Soldini. Mike returned to the classroom, I believe at Fort Hamilton High School.
UFT VPs at large for High Schools
John Soldini (Unity), Shulman and Altomare were the only three HS VPs to be elected directly by the members in the high schools. Unity, desperate never again to lose the position, converted all the VPs to Vice Presidents at Large. Up to that point, high school teachers elected the high school vice president. After two amendments, all UFT members – teachers, paras, secretaries, retirees – from high school, from middle school, from elementary school, from everywhere else the UFT represents people – all of them voted for the “Vice President at Large for High Schools.”
| John Soldini | 1989-2003 | In most elections the majority of high school members voted for New Action – but as this was converted to an at-large (not just high school) election, Soldini retained the position. |
| Frank Volpicella | 2003-2007 | |
| Leo Casey | 2007-2012 | |
| Janella Hinds | 2012-2023 | Won the majority of high school votes in 2013 and 2019, but not in 2016 or 2022. In 2016 James Eterno (MORE/New Action) won high school votes 51-46%, and in 2022 I won high school votes 56-44%. See the note next to John Soldini, above. |
The Battle Over Medicare Advantage is Not Over
United Federation of Teachers retirees this week received an email from Retired Teachers Chapter Chapter Leader Tom Murphy. The email warned retirees that a City Council bill was actually an attack on collective bargaining rights.
The bill in question is Charles Barron’s intro 1099:
There has been a struggle going on for over two years in New York City – the City administration and the municipal unions want to move retirees off of traditional Medicare onto Medicare Advantage, and groups of retirees have been resisting. The Federal Government rewards municipalities (with cash) for making this move, but many do not want an Advantage plan – they cite doctors who won’t take it – and prior authorizations. The courts have stopped the latest iteration from being enacted. We are at a pause.
In this moment the City is preparing to appeal the court decision. The retirees are for their part pushing this City Council legislation, which would prevent the City from using the Medicare Advantage option in the future. The bill looked stalled, but just picked up a few new sponsors; they are up to 17 – but need 26.
In reaction to the letter signed by Tom Murphy, UFT retirees who generally oppose were furious: “Dreadful email from Tom Murphy,” “this is a betrayal,” etc.
Let’s step back for a second.
Not Personal
I don’t think the letter is personal. I doubt that Tom Murphy himself wrote it (he is certainly capable of writing an actual letter, but this has the tone of the anonymous hive that runs the 14th floor at 52 Broadway). This is a political battle between forces that are opposed. An individual’s name below an email does not change that.
Unity has not given up
There is a court decision. Medicare Advantage won’t be imposed September 1. We are done? Nope.
Unity, in sending this email, is reminding its troops that they are still fighting. They will struggle to defeat the Charles Barron bill. They will back the City appeal of Judge Frank’s ruling. They will continue to scheme up new ways to get our retirees into Medicare Advantage.
Unity’s message when Judge Frank’s decision came down was a neutral-tone “there will be no change as of September 1.” Seasoned Unity leaders probably realized that this was a pause, not a surrender. But other Unity members may not have. This message may be for them.
This fight is about Medicare Advantage
Opposition folks can write about “betrayal” and Unity can pretend this is about collective bargaining. In fact, we’ve been in a fight for over two years, and it really has not changed. Unity wants the City to collect the money the Feds will provide for moving retirees to Medicare Advantage. The City has made funding the Stabilization Fund partially dependent on the UFT (as part of the MLC) delivering a Medicare Advantage deal.
Every showdown in this fight has taken some odd form – Administrative Code 12-126, Intro 1099, the copays case, arguing about “rollout,” the City making it confusing to “opt out.” All of these details are important. But fundamentally all of this has actually been about whether or not our retirees were going to be moved into Medicare Advantage.
Unity Might be Concerned About 1099
There are now 17 sponsors, and other City Council Members may be thinking about signing on. Perhaps Unity is worried that its ability to get some Medicare Advantage plan adopted in the future – an MA plan that forces many retirees out of traditional Medicare – is being endangered by the bill.
I don’t know about that. 17 sponsors. 51 council members. Need 9 more. Not so easy. But maybe Unity knows more than me. Or maybe they know less – and not having a good handle on city politics, including the City Council – are getting nervous?
Unity not Confident Retirees Would Lobby Against 1099
I think this is clear. They got massively out mobilized last winter on 12-126. They were not going to embarrass themselves by going head to head with retirees on phone calls to city council. The letter does not include a call to action – that’s not an oversight.
Enough
I have written enough. The letter is unremarkable.
- It’s just about Medicare Advantage, no matter what it claims
- It’s from Unity – even if one guy’s name is at the bottom
- They might be worried about the Baron bill
- They might be reminding their folks that they have not given up
Neither Retired Fish nor Retired Fowl
What exactly IS the Retired Teachers Chapter (UFT)?
Let’s start here: I joined the RTC the day I retired. I think it is good to join – I encourage others to. I’m not asking my questions to undermine the existence of the RTC. Join the RTC when you are eligible – it’s the right thing to do, and it’ll be good for you.
But what is it? It’s certainly part of the United Federation of Teachers – but it’s different from the other parts.
The UFT is a union, with several chapters. And you can see that, right in the name of RTC – Retired Teachers Chapter – the word “Chapter” – but is it actually a chapter?
Some things the RTC does, some of the ways it is structured, would make you think yes.
- UFT members pay dues, from every chapter, including the RTC.
- UFT chapters have a Chapter Leader, including the RTC.
- UFT functional chapters have exec boards, including the RTC.
- UFT chapters vote in general UFT elections, including the RTC.
Here’s an odd note though: the RTC votes are “capped” – there is a maximum number of retiree votes allowed, and if the total goes over that cap, then each vote still counts, but for a part of a vote. I think in 2022 the cap was 23,500 and each retiree vote counted for 0.86 of a vote.
But there are ways the RTC looks different from all the other chapters:
- The UFT is a union. It is the sole bargaining agent for each of its chapters. Except the RTC.
- Each chapter has a contract (or a section of a contract). Except the RTC.
- In each chapter, when the contract is violated, the member files a grievance. Except the RTC.
- All of our chapters have regularly scheduled consultation with the principal (or administrator in charge) – except the RTC.
Here’s an exception – the DoE was late paying me my termination pay (CAR days, vacation days) – so me, retiree, filed a grievance for the interest owed – but that was based on a violation of the Teachers Contract at my transition to my new status. In fact, and this is interesting, my ability to file that grievance had nothing to do with being in the RTC. If I never joined the RTC (but I did, and you should), still, if I never joined, I still could have filed that grievance.
So Which Is It?
Is the RTC really a UFT chapter? Or is it something else? I included one iffy argument on each side. Let’s dig in to each a little more.
I wrote that the UFT does not bargain for the RTC. But everyone knows that Mulgrew has been bargaining our retirees’ health care, right? Actually, no. I normally don’t advocate paying attention to the details of what he says (partly because when he speaks he generally doesn’t use sentences, transcribe him once, and you’ll see. Painful.) – but you can look in writing. The MLC, not the UFT, is in charge of the health care negotiations – and that’s not really a union negotiation at all. Many of the people they are negotiating for (or against, if you think the move to privatize Medicare is a bad move) are not members of any union. The UFT has an RTC – most city unions do not have the equivalent. And the MLC is negotiating for (or against) managerial retirees, who were never in a union. This MLC Medicare thing is a special case.
I pointed out that retirees vote in UFT elections. Which is true. But the conduct of a union election is not core to the mission of a union, the way filing grievances and negotiating contracts is. In fact, retirees voting in the UFT is a result of them being a loyal bloc of votes for the leadership – Unity which is willing to cheat to win – is certainly willing to make some unusual rules that are not cheating to hold onto power – and letting the retirees vote was such a move. Of course, if Unity starts losing the retiree vote, or even if it gets really close, they could amend the constitution and remove retirees’ right to vote.
Membership
In schools and in the regular chapters, when you got your job/assignment, years ago, you joined the union (or could pay an “agency fee” which was essentially a penalty for not joining the union – but in fact was the amount of service the free-loader was getting). Today, post-Janus, it is easier not to join, but we are doing a good job of getting most people into the Union.
It never worked that way among retirees. You get pitched the RTC at retirement, and at that point you join, or you don’t. That simple. Janus did not change things in the RTC (except retirees working hard while the case was being heard to try to get a better outcome. Alas.)
So, What Is It?
The United Federation of Teachers Retired Teachers Chapter is an “auxiliary organization” – which organizes people who are not part of a bargaining unit, but previously were. It collects dues, supports the UFT’s political projects, provides services – but it is not a chapter. It has no contract. There is no contract enforcement. There is no consultation. There is no bargaining over a contract.
Auxilliaries are good. They enable a union to keep active allies nearby, and informed. In our case, the auxilliary provides those who pay to join some valuable services. But it’s not the same as being in an actual union chapter.
And finally, so what? Not much – just nice to understand what things actually are – especially since RTC has the word chapter, misleadingly, right in the middle of its name.
A Different Auxiliary
not a good song – but hey – Woody Guthrie – and almost on topic
Fallible Friends
Years ago on the Compuserve SciMat SIG, Bertie Taylor used to publish puzzles. One was “fallible friends” and I loved it. And as a teacher I made some of my own. This summer I taught in a math camp, and I made up some of my own Fallible Friends Puzzles.
These are logic puzzles. Look at each pair of statements about the secret number – one statement is true, one is false, but you don’t which is which. And it is your job to figure out what the secret number is.
Give these a try:
Cat and Dog
I ask two friends about a number. Each friend shares two facts – but each friend gets one “fact” right and one wrong.
Cat: The number is 1-digit.
Cat: The number is a perfect square.
Dog: The number is less than 50.
Dog: The number is less than 40.
Can you find the number?
Koala, Lemur and Meerkat
I have three fallible friends who get one thing right and one thing wrong. They see a number…
Koala says: “The number is odd. And it is a 2-digit number.”
Lemur says: “The number does not contain a 6. It does contain a 2.”
Meerkat says: “It is a power of 2. It is one more than a power of 3.”
What is the number?
Fox, Goat and Horse
[clumsy edit Fox/Goat/Horse permit multiple answers. So I’ve changed the question from “Help me figure out what the number is.” to “Help me figure out what the number might be (more than one possible answer.)”]
So I have 3 friends – each gets one thing right and one thing wrong. They see a number:
Fox : It is a 3-digit number
It is a multiple of 3.
Goat: It is a 1-digit number
It is 1 more than a 5th power
Horse: It is a multiple of 6.
It is a 2-digit number.
Help me figure out what the number might be (more than one possible answer.)
Writing
In retirement I wanted to walk more.
And now I’m walking at the same level as a few years ago.
And more each month.
In retirement I wanted to take classes.
I took Point Set Topology in the spring
I’m registered for Number Systems and Functions of Real Variables for this term.
In the future the classes may not be math classes – but there will be classes.
In retirement I wanted to read more – or kind of restart reading.
Not super impressive, but I’ve read a few books this year. Metabolical: The Lure and Lies of Processed Food, Nutrition, and Modern Medicine. The Battle Nearer to Home; The Persistence of School Segregation in New York City. The King of Fish – The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon. Child Prisoner in American Concentration Camps, The History of Mathematics – a Very Short Introduction. A Brighter Choice – Building a Just School in an Unequal City. Draft #4 – on the Writing Process. The Last Witnesses – An Oral History of the Children of World War II. I’ve also read parts of The Counterrevolution of 1776. Up in the Old Hotel. Math Girls. Hitler’s Empire. Postwar. I’m probably missing a few. And I’m 3/4s done with The Tarim Mummies.
This is becoming once again a habit…
In retirement I wanted to get involved with Retiree Advocate.
So I did.
And I’ll keep it up.
In retirement I wanted to hike more.
Big hikes have been steady, maybe rose a little. Foot problems in the fall slowed me, but I’m trying to put some distance between me and tendinitis. And little hikes… I’ve now been to both Van Cortlandt Park and the NY Botanical Gardens a gajillion times each as a retiree.
And I will keep that up.
In retirement I wanted to travel.
It’s been more road trips (Maine, Virginia, North Country of New York) than airplane things (plus two cruises. Seriously). But it’s a start.
And it’s definitely increasing.
In retirement I wanted to continue to do math with kids.
I just finished a math summer camp (Yay!) with rising 7th graders (Yay! Exhausting! Yay!) –
And I have a line on once a week work for the fall. I’ll keep this going.
In retirement I wanted to get healthier.
Hiking and walking I mentioned. BP down. Weight, too. Eating much better.
Definitely going to keep this up.
But…
But if I have enough control to make this set of adjustments and changes, why can’t I write more regularly on this blog? Fred just kind of asked me this… And I ask myself constantly. And Fred also answered for himself. Each morning he goes downstairs to his studio, makes some art, and bangs out a post. Why can’t I do the same thing?
And I am not. I am inconsistent. And July I only posted once.
I do have material, and I have some wide-ranging choices. I do mostly NYC schools/ and union. I do teaching. Math puzzles. Some of my personal stuff. Some politics. So if one area gets jammed up, instead of not writing, I should just switch to another.
So here goes. Regular posts. Starting today.
I just started.
I will commit to keeping it up.
Notes on Ruling on Medicare Advantage
The switch was going to happen September 1. Now it is on hold. As of today, no NYC retirees are being switched from Medicare (Senior Care) to Medicare Advantage.
Judge Frank came down on the side of the retirees, and against the City/Office of Labor Relations. The decision is at the bottom of this post.
“Waive City Benefits” – on hold (nothing for you to do)
Retirees who filed to “waive city benefits” – those forms are not being processed – nothing extra for you to do at this time.
New Medigap Plan? You’ll need to call
Retirees who arranged for a medigap plan to start on September 1 – you do have work to do. I don’t know how to do this, but Marianne wrote: “If you already signed up for a new medigap plan to begin September 1, you need to call the company to find out how to withdraw your application or pause it.” In a better world you would be able to call the union for help – you waived city benefits – you did not waive union membership – but today, I don’t know if they will be in a mood to help
Not a Temporary Restraining Order – Better
There’s something that was going around, I’ll post it at the bottom of this section. It points out the decision is a preliminary injunction. The author claims this is much tougher to overturn than a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). You can read, and evaluate for yourself:
The Court issued a preliminary injunction (not a much weaker temporary restraining order) preventing the City from moving its retirees to an Aetna Medicare Advantage plan (with the only option being to waive all City health benefits). He ruled that the plaintiffs — the retirees — had a strong case that they were promised cost-free coverage under Medicare, and that reneging on that promise would be likely to cause “irreparable harm”. The injunction can be lifted, but only if the City can show there will not be irreparable harm. (That won’t be easy, since there are many retirees across the country who are currently in treatment with physicians who do not take any Medicare Advantage plan.)”
Favorable Language in the Ruling
The judge seems to agree with the plaintiffs (retirees) and disagree with the City (and the MLC, Aetna, and the UFT) on every single point.
NYC/MLC/Aetna/UFT?
It does seem like our union leaders and the insurance company and City officials are in VERYCLOSECOLLABORATION. Just before the decision, Aetna and the MLC tried to get themselves added to the case. And while I wrote “MLC” since the UFT and DC37 combined control over half the votes, I am writing “MLC” but meaning “MLC with UFT leading the charge, or at least concurring.” Oh, the judge refused to add MLC/Aetna to the case.
Next?
Since this is a preliminary injunction, the UFT leadership will not have an easy time finding a path to overturn it. But they will try something. They want the extra cash into the stabilization fund, and will fight hard for it, and will not quit.
An interesting, while unrelated, note
Mulgrew and his associates are behind closed doors, probably brainstorming ways to overturn this decision. They also have managed not to release results of the contract ratification vote. Maybe the vote count is slow or is having some technical issues. (I’d go there as my first guess). Maybe there is really a problem with the results, and they are brainstorming a press release on that, as well.
The ruling:
Year Two, Day One
That’s today. The first day of the second year. Of my retirement. Some thoughts…
Housekeeping. My retirement date was this January 3rd. And I stopped working for the DoE around the second week of July last summer. That was programming, scheduling for the school in my absence. But the day after that day last June, that’s when I stopped having regular teacher responsibilities. So yeah, today was the beginning of my second lap without time cards.
For years I have warned retirees “The day after Labor Day, make a plan not to be in New York City. It’s too weird to be around when school starts.” And last September, sure enough, I was in the Adirondacks for Labor Day, and on a pond in Maine the day after… And that was a good thing to do. But the day wasn’t really that weird. It was just like summer vacation, extended a bit.
On the other hand, no one warned me about June 26 or 27. The close of the school year – that had always been my time. Finals and Regents. The UFT luncheon at my school. Transcript work. Creating new schedules. Doing intake on the lists of new students. Graduation. Yearbooks. Goodbyes. I missed the last day of my first retirement year much more than I missed the first. Nostalgic. Wistful. Melancholy. It hit hardest yesterday, and lingered today.
Honestly, this year has felt strange. At first it was like a long vacation. But I need a routine, or routines. I have been making progress. I knew this was coming.
I’ve started taking math classes. I like being a student. I’ll take more in the fall. I tried to get a math reading group started. Rough start, but I’ll try to restart it. And probably start a second group. I also have a job – a few weeks this summer – problem solving. And I’m hoping to get a once a week during the year. See that – teach one day a week, take classes twice a week – there’s my workweek – all three partial days…
I’m reading again. Not enough, but so much more than while I was working. Fits and starts, getting through books here and there. I’m actually reading my magazines, most of them, now. The New Yorker. The Economist. I still barely dip into the Scientific American. But progress is progress.
Walking all the time. I have the local streets. And the NY Botanical Garden. And Van Cortlandt Park – huge, wonderful – watching the seasons shift. I was there on my birthday, sub-zero windchill, and many, many more days. And hikes – we have lovely woods and hills close to New York City – so many beautiful places to explore. And I am healthier. And less stressed. (I hate data, but I have data). It’s real, the less stress, the health.
And I’ve kept up, to some degree, blogging. And I’ve been working with Retiree Advocate.
And Now
These last few days – I’m not working yet – and my classes ended over a month ago – so there was nothing to occupy me – and it gave me a lot of time to dwell on, well, my melancholy. Like I said, May and June, especially June, that was my season. I missed it.
Also, for context, I made a lot of space, set a lot of distance, pretty much cut off, my school. And I needed that distance – but maybe not so much, maybe not in June. So that nostalgia was bad, and there was no ready relief.
And then I heard from a former colleague. And another. And a few more. And a heard from an alum. And another. And a just graduated student. And I’m sure there were more, the last few days kind of blur together. But whoever, however many, it helped.
Also, the days themselves, mostly nice. Today I had a nice meet up with some like-minded folks, one a teacher from not so far away. Yesterday some easy appointments, a walk across a park, ran into a few colleagues. Sunday I saw some of the parade periphery, and a bunch of family at a cousin’s graduation from a highly specialized program. Saturday me and a friend picked a stupidly busy day to visit the Metropolitan Museum, but someone decided they liked how we looked, and we got treated like honored guests. Friday I met up with some teachers, including from far away. And Thursday… you get the picture… I’ve been busy with nice things. (And Thursday was the tail end of a Juneteenth trip, I’ll write about it and post some pictures. Another day).
In any case, Year One of Retirement is in the books.
And Next?
Well, summer job. Maybe a regular 3 day schedule from the fall. And keep making progress on walking and reading and studying and learning and teaching and visiting family, and struggling for what’s right. And maybe a trip.
Intimidation during the vote – 37½ minutes
Unity is desperate to get this contract to pass. One line they are using claims that there will be no modifications to school schedules unless the contract passes: “If the contract is not ratified the default schedule is 37.5 minutes of student engagement…”
What gives?
Unity allowed SBOs and flexibility so they wouldn’t be blamed for creating the extra time in the first place
Every year schools pick a schedule option. They pick “preapproved” options – or they write their own School Based Option (SBO) – principal and chapter leader must agree – then it goes to a vote of the membership. There is always a default – to be sure – but many many schools SBO their way to their own schedule.
The 150 minutes (or is it 155?) has been floating around since the UFT leadership sold it to us in a bad contract two decades ago. And for the twenty years since those 37½ minutes (that’s 150 divided by four – Monday through Thursday) have been mostly a nuisance for most teachers in the system.
What came before? We used to have a shorter workday. Mulgrew, Barr, your borough reps, most of your officers – they all supported lengthening the day – they pushed for the original 37½ minutes.
And for two decades the UFT leadership has tried to find new ways to slice up those 150 minutes – to make them palatable. And they don’t want to take the blame (though they fully deserve it) – so they create lots of options, and allow schools to create their own options.
This year Unity says 37½ will be the only choice – unless the contract is passed
It’s not the DoE saying this. It’s Unity.
That is the actual language Unity wants Chapter Leaders to share with members – during the SBO vote – and during the contract vote.
Who approves SBOs? The DoE and the UFT leadership. Who is saying no? The UFT leadership. Unity. Why? They are trying to lean on members to vote yes.
Will Unity really stop approving individual SBOs?
Probably not. But they are trying to make their threat credible right now – because winning the vote is important to them. DRs are telling at least some schools that only preapproved schedules will be considered. I could see them causing a year of chaos, trying to blame teachers who voted no on the contract (which is really not related).
Would the DoE approve time SBOs?
Sure.
But Unity says it will deny them.
Is the Unity leadership really planning to make members’ schedules worse if their contract isn’t approved?
That’s one hell of a question, isn’t it?
Are there health care cuts in this contract?
Several groups and blogs have made health care a primary reason for opposing this contract. They include Nick Bacon writing for New Action (my former caucus), Arthur Goldstein aka NYC Educator – Arthur was the long-term chapter leader at Francis Lewis HS, and the MORE Caucus – another left-leaning teachers group.
UFT reps, even officers, have been running around telling everyone they can that there are no health care cuts in this contract.
So let’s look.
1. There is no language about health care cuts in the MOA (memorandum of agreement). That’s true.
2. There was no language about health care cuts in the 2018 contract – but there actually were cuts – big cuts – added copays – and this whole move to dump retirees into privatized Aetna Medicare Advantage
3. The 2018 health care cuts were hidden in a side agreement, called at the time “Appendix B” – which the leadership did not share with the members.
4. There was a health care section in the 2014 UFT fact sheet, but the MOA was vague, and the actual cuts were more serious. I now have prior authorizations for cancer screening (necessitated by my genes) that I did not previously have. For example.
5. In 2018 Mulgrew specifically said “no new copays” – later he clarified that he meant that existing copays could go up (which they did
6. – but that there would be no brand new copays. Which was a lie. Those of you who use Montefiore know that we now face copays on every visit, and that just started in October
7. The Appendix B from 2018 set up health care cuts of $600million, that need to be repeated annually – we have no idea what additional cuts the UFT is planning to meet next year’s goals – or the year after.
8. Appendix B also sets up a Labor-Management-Management committee to recommend future cuts. To my knowledge that committee (The Tripartite Committee) still meets, and still has the power to recommend more cuts.
Short version – UFT leadership has not been forthcoming about health care cuts. They have not told us what cuts are in store. They are perfectly capable of hiding cuts in the contract without telling us (they did that in 2018). And even if there are no new provisions, they have not shared what cuts they have already agreed to that have not yet taken effect.
I’d say this stuff is a big deal. I would not trust the leadership’s answers. And on a contract that is otherwise just barely okay – this makes my recommendation to vote No.
Out of Place
In NYC 70% of students are Black or Hispanic. The Citywide Council on High Schools, just elected, has no Black or Hispanic parents. There’s a story. Short version.
There are parent elections in New York City, this is the second time, they are scheduled every two years to the Community Education Councils (CECs), and the Citywide Council on High Schools, Citywide Council on Special Education, Citywide Council for District 75, and Citywide Council for English Language Learners.
An organization called “PLACE” – devoted to maintaining the SHSAT and screens – decided to contest almost every seat – and won about 40% of the seats. PLACE won all 10 seats on the Citywide Council on High Schools (CCHS).
PLACE
Who wants to keep the screens and the tests? PLACE is unsurprisingly whiter than New York City as a whole, and much whiter than the New York City public schools. Not surprisingly, their school politics (use tests and screens to hold seats for their kids) spill over – PLACE is anti-progressive in general. In the last elections PLACE endorsed Lee Zeldin and his racist campaign for governor. PLACE endorsed George Santos for congress.
It’s hard to hold an organization responsible for its members’ tweets – but focusing on white Manhattan and Queens PLACE supporters, there’s a lot of ugly anti-Black message. I am not trying to convince you, the reader that PLACE is racist. I am telling you, the reader, that I am fully convinced that PLACE is racist.
The Endorsements
PLACE endorsed candidates for the CCHS. None of those endorsements were for Black or Hispanic candidates.
When PLACE made endorsements, they may have violated DoE election rules. Maybe not. But in any case – the DoE did not see fit to warn them.
When progressive groups made endorsements, the DoE threatened them.
The Results
Results can be reviewed by clicking through each CEC here.
PLACE did better on some CECs than on others. Unsurprisingly, they scored lots of seats in District 2 and District 3, including some of the wealthiest white neighborhoods in the city. Sadly, they swept all 10 high school seats – leaving no Black or Hispanic parents representing high schools in New York City.
40% of CCHS members will now be white – while less than 15% of NYC public school high school students are white. 60% of CCHS members will represent specialized high schools. Only 2% of NYC public high schools are specialized.
Of the 4 white PLACE members on the 10 person CCHS, one represents a borough that they do not live in, and where their children attend schools that do not enroll a majority from that borough, and two will have children who are about to graduate – that is they claim to be qualified to represent high school parents, while their children will be attending a NYC public high school for only ONE MONTH of their TWENTY-FOUR MONTH term. These are usurped seats.
The Election System
School Board elections were historically low-turnout affairs in NYC – and that hasn’t changed. Most of the high school winners got around 200 votes… there are over 300,000 high school students… I can see something between 3 and 5% turnout… (although it does not appear that the NYC Department of Education reported on turnout)
Voting was through an on-line school account – and that form of voting favors those with easy access to on-line accounts, and with regular experience managing multiple accounts with different platforms and passwords. White gentrifiers could not have created a system that favored themselves more, unless they directly borrowed from pre-Voting Rights Act Mississippi. Voting was NOT allowed in person – which would have favored traditional active parents in their communitites.
Next?
Obviously this is completely unacceptable. I am not part of deciding how to change things, but a few ideas:
- Treat the specialized high schools as a block, and entitle them to one seat (6/10, crazy)
- Require CCHS members to reside in the borough they represent
- Require CCHS members to resign if they no longer have a child in high school for part of their term (again, these two will have no child in a NYC public high school for 23/24 months that they are on the council) – maybe this rule can be made effective immediately
- Allow multiple modes of voting – not just those that favor the gentrifiers
- Work on increasing turnout. Set minimum turnout levels for a valid election
Honestly, it should also be possible to outmobilize PLACE. Their racist core is just not that big.
Today
Literally today. There is an event at Gracie Mansion at 4PM. If you are available, I urge you to attend.
Tentative Agreement – Some Thoughts
- The UFT has a tentative contract agreement. It went through negotiating committee, executive committee, delegate assembly on Tuesday. It’ll get voted on in most chapters – this week. Probably.
- I’m retired. This (mostly) does not affect me personally. I do not vote on it. In past years I’ve been on all three of those committees – the distance is a little strange.
- I have supported previous contracts. I have opposed previous contracts. None of them, as far as I was concerned, were good contracts. But some were genuinely harmful, and some were ok.
- Of the five contracts that came up while I was in service, I voted for three and against two. One that I voted for I probably should have voted against (Unity hid crucial information)
- I opposed 2005 when the caucus I was joining, New Action, was officially neutral. I supported 2018 (probably a mistake) when much of New Action and all of MORE (who we had run with in 2016) were opposed. I make up my own mind. I don’t evaluate contracts primarily on what’s best for me personally (I do pay attention), but based on what’s best for the members and the union as a whole.
- The biggest plus on this contract is no major givebacks, that we can see. It sounds like a low bar. It is a low bar. But not every contract has met that bar.
- I’m neither impressed nor disheartened by the calendar and schedule stuff. It was strange how this allegedly almost blew everything up last week, but a few days later was done in fine detail. I’m hearing some folks say it was all a big show. Make believe. Play fighting. Maybe. But no matter – this is really still just dicing and slicing the time from the time-for-money-swap two decades ago. Some mistakes, Randi Weingarten and Unity, stay with you a long, long time.
What I don’t do:
- I don’t automatically do what the union leadership recommends
- I don’t reflexively oppose everything that Unity does
- I don’t vote based on money alone (and now I don’t vote)
- I don’t vote based on my personal interest alone (again, no longer voting)
- I don’t oppose based on not get back everything we gave up (2005 is a generation ago)
What I do:
- I evaluate each contract on its merits, in the context of what is happening in the City, the DoE, and in our union
Here’s my biggest reservations this time:
- The money. Inflation during the pandemic, and after, have been bad. Our effective pay has dropped, because prices have gone up. These raises do not keep up with FUTURE inflation. In no way do they make up for the inflation (salary cuts) that we have experienced in the last three years.
- The money. Lowest paid titles fall further behind in this agreement. Beginning teachers should not be falling further behind experienced teachers. And please, please, paraprofessionals need to START at a living wage. We are a union – we should be supporting our most vulnerable.
- The money. Signing bonuses are inducements to vote yes – which are worth LESS than if the money were rolled into future raises. To be sure, our side, Mulgrew, Unity leadership, chose bonuses instead of salary increases. Cynical move. They don’t trust members. These are payday loans.
- The money. Retention payments are non-pensionable. The fact that they are flat amounts rather than percents is good (helps the lowest-paid among us the most – helps beginning teachers and counselors, helps titles such as para and secretary even more). But this makes non-pensionable a larger share of a para’s salary than of a teacher’s salary – in other words – hurts most the people who need the biggest boost. And regular non-pensionable payments open a door we should not be opening.
At this point, I would be on the fence. Not a great contract. Very disappointing money. A few bad details. But no obvious givebacks. I have supported similar deals in the past, voted for them, urged others to.
But then there’s healthcare
- There is no explicit health care cut or giveback in this tentative agreement
- In the 2018 contract there was no explicit health care cut or giveback. After the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly had already voted to recommend the contract, James Eterno got his hands on and published “Appendix B” that Unity had hidden from the members.
- Unity agreed to Appendix B separately, earlier in the year, but needed to include this extraordinary health care cut, by reference, in the contract.
But what does this mean for 2023? This is a five year old agreement.
- Members need to know if there is any implicit agreement on health care (Unity was NOT forthcoming last time)
- Members need to know if they are ratifying the continuation of Appendix B (in other words, agreeing to more cuts down the road)
- Members need to know what cuts Appendix B mandates, and how deep those cuts will go.
I recommend voting no
Meh contract. Bad money. I might have voted no, might have voted yes if that was all. Other provisions that are unlikely to add up to much. But those question marks on healthcare tip the scales. If I were still in service, I would be voting no. I urge you to do so.
I’ll try to write more about the contract vote in the coming days. Why is it so rushed? Why does the money look the way it does? How likely is it that the contract is sent back to be renegotiated? (short answer, not very likely) And why it is worth voting no, even if the contract is likely to pass.
Brad Lander is not registering the Aetna contract
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 8, 2023
Chloe Chik, (646) 761-2914
cchik@comptroller.nyc.gov
press@comptroller.nyc.gov
Comptroller Lander Declines to Register Medicare Advantage Contract Pending Litigation
New York, NY – The Comptroller’s Office declined to register the City’s contract with Aetna to transfer City retirees to a Medicare Advantage program for their health care coverage. A pending lawsuit, brought on behalf of retirees, questions the City’s authority to enter into such an agreement.
Comptroller Brad Lander issued the following statement:
“The Comptroller’s Bureau of Contract Administration carefully reviewed the City’s contract with Aetna and returned the contract to the Office of Labor Relations without registering it. Pending litigation calls into question the legality of this procurement and constrains us from fulfilling our Charter mandated responsibility to confirm that procurement rules were followed, sufficient funds are available, and the City has the necessary authority to enter into the contract.
“As a matter of public policy, beyond the scope of our office’s specific Charter responsibility for contract registration, I am seriously concerned about the privatization of Medicare plans, overbilling by insurance companies, and barriers to care under Medicare Advantage.
“I appreciate the work of the Municipal Labor Council and the Office of Labor Relations to negotiate improvements to the Aetna contract to address some of the concerns raised by retirees. However, the broader Medicare Advantage trends are worrisome. Recent investigations identified extensive allegations of fraud, abuse, overbilling, and denials of medically necessary care at 9 of the top 10 Medicare Advantage plans, including CVS Health, which owns Aetna.
“As health care activist Ady Barkan wrote last month, noting that half of Medicare enrollees nationwide have been transferred from traditional Medicare to private Medicare Advantage plans: ‘Once corporations privatize every inch of the public provision of health care, we may never get Medicare back.’”
###
DoE did not collaborate with UFT on calendar
The DoE released next year’s calendar – and they did not run it by the UFT first. Should the UFT leadership have been pissed? Of course.
Making matters worse, the DoE released the calendar at the end of the day on Friday (around 2PM?) so that there would not be time to engage before the weekend. Friday afternoon announcements are real weasel moves. UFT leadership was rightfully angry. Did they handle it well? Hmm. Read on.
The DoE did not work out the default schedules with the UFT in advance. We have nuisance time – non-instructional – “37½ minutes” – that each school has to decide how to use – and the DoE and UFT leadership decide in advance of the calendar coming out some ways that schools can break up that time without special authorization. Except this year the DoE skipped that step. And the UFT leadership is, rightfully, pissed.
As an aside, that non-instructional time – the infamous “37½ minutes” – we can blame that on the UFT leadership – they negotiated it as part of the deeply concessionary 2005 contract. Every Unity leader you know who was working in 2005 – they fought, personally, to get this contract passed. And it was closer than most – 60-40 among teachers – (probably rejected by high school teachers, though that does not count). So the leaders who are pissed – understandably – about the DoE cutting them out of the process – they should be made to think about how their lousy negotiating put us here in the first place. OK, point made.
Bottom line for today is the UFT leadership is rightfully pissed.
I start seeing calendar posts a little after 2PM. Several hours later, maybe around 7PM, they (I don’t believe Mulgrew writes the emails himself) wrote to members:
The Department of Education today released a 2023-24 school calendar without giving any notice to our union or completing negotiations on the pilot workday agreement.
For the past 10 years, it has been the responsibility of the DOE to come to an agreement with our union on a pilot workday to use the 155 minutes of extended time each week for professional development, parent engagement and Other Professional Work. This year, the DOE released a calendar as if an agreement had been reached but it had not.
At this moment, without the pilot workday agreement in place, the use of the extended time will automatically revert in September to the time configuration prior to 2014: 37.5 minutes on tutoring or small-group instruction after the regular workday, Monday through Thursday, in single-session schools.
Every school’s UFT consultation committee should meet with their school principal to discuss how their plans for next school year must change.
And now members are really, really worried.
What’s Missing?
When the DoE Calendar was released, that was Friday afternoon. The UFT leadership should have addressed members immediately:
“The Department of Education today released a 2023-24 school calendar without giving any notice to our union or completing negotiations on the pilot workday agreement. That is not right. It is not collaborative. There are issues that should have been worked out with the UFT before releasing the calendar. We are studying the issue, and will write to you over the weekend once we have determined our best course of action.“
(this is not what was written over Mulgrew’s signature)
Strong message. We just saw this. It’s not right. We are working on it. Hold tight, we will update you when we decide how to proceed. Instead, the leadership sat on the issue for 5 or so hours. Instead of reassurance from the leadership, members got silence.
Why? Our leadership never makes a mistake. Or at least never owns up to one. And our leadership never gets caught not knowing what to do. Or at least never owns up to not knowing. Better, in their minds, to leave teachers in the dark than to admit to being less than all-knowing.
By the way, this silence while the leadership was plotting? It also means that working teachers were not consulted about the plans.
This delays also means that while the DoE were horrible weasels for their Friday afternoon release, that the UFT leaders were actually worse, with emails arriving in members’ boxes 7, 8, 9PM on a Friday. Not good.
What Else is Missing?
There’s nothing in the email over Mulgrew’s signature about the calendar itself. This is certainly not the best calendar ever. Members think it’s pretty bad. I guess we can argue about fine details. But we certainly do not need to argue about snow days. The calendar does not need them. When schools don’t open teachers and students will Zoom. So why are there snow days in the calendar? Apparently that was not on the authors’ minds.
What Matters to Unity? What’s their strategy?
The DoE did not negotiate the workday options with the UFT. The leadership is pissed. And that’s what this email deals with.
It looks like they want Chapter Leaders (and committees) to push principals on this – with no UFT agreement there will be 4 days, 37½ minutes after school, and no other options. They want the UFT members to panic the principals. And they want the principals to lean on their superintendents to get this addressed.
Know What Else is Missing?
That’s the strategy. Go in to your principal. Make a fuss about 37½ minutes. Get the principal to make noise. Get the superintendents to ask the DoE to negotiate with UFT leadership. And get this fixed. But that’s not what the email says.
The email, sent after Friday’s happy hours were over, was written so that members think the 37½ minutes is done, that this is what will happen in September. Unity figures that teachers will engage with their principals with more passion if they think this is about to happen to them. Unity does not tell chapter leaders that this is a strategy. Unity does not trust members or chapter leaders, they do not draw members or chapter leaders into the decision-making process, and they do not share with members and chapter leaders what the actual strategy is.
Another Way?
Sure.
- Send an email at 3 – the calendar is out – they didn’t consult – we are not happy – snow days? there’s no reason – no pilot day bad.
- Think it over. Bring chapter leaders into a bigger conversation about how to respond.
- When ready, send a follow up email:
“The Department of Education today released a 2023-24 school calendar without giving any notice to our union or completing negotiations on the pilot workday agreement. That is not right. It is not collaborative. There are issues that should have been worked out with the UFT before releasing the calendar.
“1) There are too many days in this calendar – there is no need for snow days – we will attempt to address this directly with the Chancellor.
“2) There is no pilot day. The default would be the 37½ minutes – which we know many of our members, and many school communities do not want. We considered raising this directly with the Chancellor, but we are opting for a different approach.
“Every school’s UFT consultation committee should meet with their school principal to discuss the 37½ minutes – and how their plans for next school year would have to change. Your goal is to encourage your principal to contact their superintendent, looking for more options. We think this will lead the DoE to sit down and negotiate with us.
I continue to be amazed – I think Unity is wrong on many political issues – but why can’t they figure out how to communicate clearly and respectfully with Chapter Leaders and members?
Summary of Legal Filing to Save Medicare (NYC/UFT)
On Wednesday, May 31 the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees went to the Supreme Court of the State of New York to stop New York City from forcing its retirees off of Medicare and into an Aetna/CVS Medicare Advantage. (“supreme” sounds high – in New York it is not)
There is the case, and other filings, including a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Here is an excerpt/summary:
The City’s radical overhaul of Retiree healthcare is not just harmful, it is also unlawful. Although there are a dozen ways in which the City is violating the law (which are detailed in the Petition/Complaint), for the sake of judicial efficiency, we focus here on only five.
First, because the City clearly and unambiguously promised every Retiree that they would be entitled to City-funded Medicare-plus-supplemental insurance when they became Medicare-eligible, and because Retirees reasonably relied to their detriment on that promise, the City is estopped from denying them such insurance coverage now.
Second, because the City’s new healthcare policy will force Retirees with life-threatening illnesses whose doctors will not accept the Aetna MAP to either switch doctors mid-treatment or proceed without insurance coverage, it is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, in violation of CPLR 7803(3).
Third, because the City will be diminishing the healthcare benefits provided to Retirees and the contributions made to their health insurance without similarly diminishing either the benefits or contributions for active employees, it is violating in two separate ways the Retiree Health Insurance Moratorium Act.
Fourth, because the City has changed the rules governing Retiree healthcare without complying with the procedures required under the City Administrative Procedure Act, its new healthcare policy is invalid.
And fifth, because the City is providing incomplete and inaccurate information about the Aetna MAP, Retirees cannot make an informed opt-out decision by the June 30 deadline.
The City is on the verge of stripping a quarter-million elderly and disabled Retirees of Medicare benefits they were promised and desperately need. Given the extreme suffering this will cause and Petitioners’ likelihood of success on the merits, this Court should temporarily enjoin the City’s new healthcare policy pending a decision on the merits. The City has provided, and Retirees have relied on, Medicare plus supplemental insurance for the past 57 years. This Court should maintain that critical status quo while this case proceeds.
Complete documentation accessible at https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=_PLUS_IDYK0flEDapsoEVXJNmnw%3D%3D&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1&fbclid=IwAR0LUAbRq8dHnk2C6YhIYmHeICHViyH8MjfiGEP9ahNglx2pWJn7wB-oRu0
(this was distributed by Dave Newman to his West Midwood listserve – someone shared that posting on the Retiree Advocate listserve, which is where I took it from)
History of UFT Copays – Can You Help?
How did they sneak in so many copays? I am hoping you have part of the answer…
Which copays were added, and when? Which were increased, and when? When did co-pays get increased on some providers, but not all?
I am focused today on GHI (Emblem) for in-service members. I think pre-Medicare retirees have the same package.
I have some of the records, and I want to write a piece. But I’m missing a lot.
Dear readers, can you help? Did you save notices of new copays, copay increases, changing rules for copays? They may have come above Mulgrew’s signature, or as an email from the Welfare Fund. They also may have been in Chapter Leader Updates, for anyone who saves those. I don’t recall emails from GHI, but there may have been. And there may have been letters from GHI.
My imperfect recollection is that they have snuck in a lot, piecemeal, over time. Let’s see if the documents bear this out.
Oh – big question – when did copays start? Were GHI copays there forever for members? I don’t think so.
An interesting aspect – the NY City code calls for cost-free, not premium-free, health care. We will come back to this.
Please leave information as comments on this post
Or, better, email me, Jonathan, at:
[this blog’s name] [dot] [gmail.com]
Forward me whatever you’ve got
Last week I wrote – I am paying A LOT in copays this year.
Here are some other bits I’ve written about copays:
https://jd2718.org/2022/11/02/quiz-health-care-cuts-or-health-care-savings/
A Better Tone
The way Mulgrew talks at retirees – it doesn’t have to be that way. Scroll down for an alternative. Look at how patiently, how honestly the Professional Staff Congress helps its retirees with the difficult decision about whether to go with Aetna, or to choose traditional Medicare. Union leaders can treat members with empathy, and with respect. United Federation of Teacher Retirees should expect the same, should demand the same.
UFT Retirees have been getting messages with a “certain tone” from Mulgrew and from the UFT Retiree Teachers Chapter. Messages about health insurance. When they are selling something, they sell it hard, like they are fresh off a used car lot, bad suits and all. And they are selling Medicare Advantage hard.
They’ve won, for now, Mulgrew and the New York City Office of Labor Relations – they’ve won their fight against retirees. Unless something upends their plans, Medicare retirees will be forced off of traditional Medicare, real Medicare, September 1, 2023. So why are they still selling?
Today retirees are trying to decide if they will allow themselves to be moved into Mulgrew’s Aetna/CVS Medicare Advantage, or pay a fairly large amount to remain in traditional Medicare. The period to decide ends June 30, 2023, in just over a month. Going into Aetna happens automatically, unless the retiree acts.
And it is not an easy decision. There’s the politics of privatized Medicare, for sure. But there’s the money. Buying your own Medigap costs real money. And there’s the drug plan. And the City will stop providing Part B Reimbursements (I think). But there are issues of control of prior authorizations. And of which doctors take which plan. And of the cost of drugs. Not easy. Retirees who are 65 and over, many of them need help.
Help from the UFT? It’s still the hard sell. Why? Why so little respect for members? Why so little sympathy for the difficult choices retired teachers are trying to make?
Is there another way? Yes. Look at the following article from the Professional Staff Congress’s Retiree Newsletter. Here is the full newsletter. Please note – much of what Ms. Greenbaum writes is specific to PSC – we can only hope that the UFT leadership puts out something so clear, so empathetic, so understanding. But while we are hoping, let’s not hold our breath.
GETTING CLOSE TO THE WIRE
Joan Greenbaum, LaGuardia & GC
As we all know by now, June 30 is the last date to waive out of what is called the City of New York’s Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan. Many hope that this date itself will be waived away and/or a lawsuit will stop the implementation of this privatized plan. The PSC voted against the MLC’s approval of Medicare Advantage last summer and has garnered support with a coalition of unions that did so as well. So many of us have fought many battles up to this point and will continue to work with other groups fighting the City’s effort to reduce the benefits we were promised when we retired.
That said, however, as a union representing over 3,000 retiree members (and countless numbers of retirees who may have forgotten to pay retiree dues), we are obliged to review our options. The City will no longer pay for Senior Care (the Emblem supplemental plan to traditional Medicare), and this plan will cease to exist. On September 1 all NYC retirees who are Medicare eligible will be moved to Medicare Advantage, except for those who either “opt out” into the NYC HIP VIP plan (a Medicare Advantage HMO, but only for those who live in NYC and surrounding counties) or waive NYC retiree health coverage so they can continue to be covered by traditional Medicare. Estimated costs for Medigap policies to supplement Medicare, as Senior Care now does, will vary by state and other criteria. Not incidentally, waiving NYC coverage will also mean losing the Medicare Part B (& IRMAA, if applicable) reimbursement we receive annually from NYC.
These decisions are huge. Paying on one’s own for a Medigap policy similar to current Senior Care (Medigap Plan G) in New York City will cost at least $5,363 (including Part B premiums) per person/per year.
And there are other costs to consider, such as the possible loss of our Welfare-Fund benefits–drugs, dental, optical and hearing care, which the union is fighting to prevent. The PSC is still negotiating with CUNY to continue Welfare Fund benefits for those who waive NYC coverage. Clearly the City is spiking the deal to transfer almost all retirees to privatized Medicare Advantage.
Physically and emotionally the costs of these decisions may seem almost unbearable to many of us. For younger retirees who are in good health the situation may seem manageable for the time being. But for 2 those of us who have current health concerns and for the many who are octogenarians and older (we have over 20 members who are centenarians!), these seem like life and death decisions hanging in the balance. Questions that have been raised at our retiree meetings include: Will I be denied a needed procedure by Aetna? Will health benefits be seamless between August and September? What if I am already scheduled for a medical procedure or operation in early September? A drug I need is on a list requiring special approval; what will happen to me? And there are many, many more. These concerns cause anxiety and, for some, sleepless nights. There are no clear-cut answers at this time from Aetna or NYC. If you have specific questions about the coverage that will start on September 1st , call Aetna at 855-648-0389. Problems and questions about the transition should be addressed to the NYC Office of Labor Relations (OLR) 212-306- 7200.
While the PSC website is not a panacea for all that ails us now, you can find basic information there which retirees need to know, some guidance about how to make a decision, links to authoritative information, and answers to some of the many questions that keep coming up. As union representatives learn more details on these important questions, the website will be updated. Please keep it bookmarked for reference and help older members who may not be able to access or understand it. psccuny.org/whats-happening-retireehealthcare/
And talk to your friends and colleagues, particularly those who may be retiring this year and haven’t been given these details. On a personal note, as I write this article, I have not yet decided what I am going to do; I’m at least waiting until I hear if we get to keep Welfare Fund benefits if we waive NYC coverage. We have until June 30th to decide and should make use of that time to learn as much as we can.
Copays?
Retired teacher here. NYC. UFT. GHI – not part of this Medicare mess – I’m too young. I know they’ve been sneaking in copays – but never like this before.
Just to be clear. New York City. United Federation of Teachers. GHI is now Emblem, the most popular insurance for teachers, including retired teachers (before Medicare) – with no premium.
So here’s the thing. When I’m asked to pay a copay, I’m getting medical service, which I need. I pay. And I know that I am paying more copays and higher copays, and I might make a point of them being too frequent or too much – still I pay them.
But $340 in 2023? The year’s not half done. Why am I paying so much in copays?
UFT members (in service and retired but not Medicare yet) – are you finding the same? Are you paying more copays? Are they adding up to much more than they used to?
Opt out of Aetna?
“Should I opt out of Aetna?” – it’s a question I hear a lot. I think a lot of us are hearing it a lot.
Big hint: I am not going to answer the question in this post.
First, to be clear, it is not about me. I am not medicare-eligible. This will not be my choice.
Second, the way New York City Office of Labor Relations (OLR) set things up, they want you to “waive NYC health benefits” and they are reserving the phrase “opt out” to mean “choose HIP VIP, not Aetna/CVS Medicare Advantage.” This is confusing. And given OLR’s record, I think it is intentionally confusing.
“Should I opt out of Aetna?”
I don’t know.
Different people may have different answers
Third, it’s a really important question, whether to opt out (waive benefits) or not. Read on.
“Savings” means taking money and services from regular people – and transferring it to banks and big business.
“Savings” is horrible, national, and bipartisan
There is a large battle taking place in New York City right now. It is part of a battle taking place across the country.
The financial branch of New York City government (appointed, not elected, and tend to stay in power from administration to administration) wants to pay NYC workers, and people in general, less. They call denying funding, denying support, denying assistance to regular New Yorkers “savings.” What does that mean? They close a library for an extra day. That “saves” the cost of heating and the cost of paying the staff – so that the money can be shifted to a big real estate developer for a tax abatement (fancy name for a hand-out). NYC “saves” money by denying service so they can “shift” the money to a big company. From the point of view of regular New Yorkers, the City closes their library. (No savings, and a loss of service). From the point of view of the library staff, the City pays them less, or doesn’t hire additional staff. (Not a savings). Which is a long around way of explaining: New York City’s financial handlers want to SHIFT money away from regular people, HAND it to bankers or big business, and CALL that SAVINGS.
It’s not just NYC. This kind of reverse Robin Hood math is taking place across the country. It has been going on, sometimes more actively, sometimes in the background, for a good 40-45 years. The election of Reagan in 1980 was an ugly milestone on this path. A lot of “public good” – physical infrastructure, programs, etc – were put in place during the New Deal, and then the Great Society. And there were plenty of state and local initiatives from those same periods. And the banks and federal government, and state government, and local government have been working to undo much of that public good. Sometimes they nibble around the edges. And sometimes they aim at the heart.
Medicare and Medicare Advantage
Medicare is a case a point. And it’s the case we care deeply about, today, now, because it is being threatened. At the federal level, we can just about ignore Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott. His open threat to Medicare won’t fly, even among Republicans. But pay more attention to Trump’s initiative to switch seniors from Medicare to Medicare Advantage.
Pause for a second. Medicare Advantage is part of the same law that creates Medicare. So what’s the big difference? Well, Medicare Advantage was not part of the original law that created Medicare. Medicare Advantage (with a different name) shows up in 1997 (Clinton). It gets its name in 2003 (Bush). Under Trump there were several initiatives to shift people out of Medicare, into Medicare Advantage, including big financial incentives, for, say, a large municipal employer, like, perhaps, New York. And Biden has doubled down on the Trump regressive reforms.
Medicare Advantage is not Medicare. It is part of the same law, sure enough, but Medicare is publicly funded and administered health care for senior citizens – the Medicare Advantage plans are private. I am going to baldly assert here that the privatization of public services is a Bad Thing, without arguing that MA is worse for the individual than Medicare is. (Advantage IS worse, I’m just not laying out the case here).
New York City and “Savings”
So here’s our specific story. The feds will reward New York City’s financial agencies and their backers for “saving money” (shifting money out of the hands of regular folks, into the hands of big business) – specifically if this “shifting” (which they call “savings”) involves giving retirees less health care. And the NYC financiers, and their bargaining agents in the Office of Labor Relations found willing partners in some of the leaders of big municipal unions, including my UFT.
And so for the last two plus years, OLR and the Municipal Labor Coalition (MLC) have been trying to shift municipal retirees out of Medicare, into Medicare Advantage. Opposing them have been regular retirees. We have slowed them down, stalled them, diverted them. At times it looked like we had them beaten. We want to stop this “healthcare savings” (taking of money away from our health care). But they fought back. Dirty, and hard. Today OLR and the MLC and the UFT leadership – it looks like they are winning the battle with retirees. And retirees are currently scheduled to be shifted to Medicare Advantage on September 1 of this year.
Should you fight against the NYC implementation of Medicare Advantage?
Absolutely. I hope you have been part of the effort – lobbying city council, contacting your union leaders, getting the word out.
And it’s not done yet. In the coming days, or weeks, or months, there may be further opportunity to fight, to reverse the current situation.
This is a fight about principle. It is a fight about our own personal health. We should all have been part of it. We should be part of anything that comes next. We should be shouting “No to Aetna/CVS!”
Should you opt out of Aetna/CVS? (waive NYC health benefits)
So while you should be part of the big fight, you should also be looking out to protect yourself. September 1 – we might be able to stop it – but right now it’s looming. And the “opt out” or “waiver” period is now – May 1 – June 30.
I think the process is a mess. I just heard that OLR removed its old form and has put out a new one. Soon, I hope, the UFT leadership will issue some guidance on filling this out.
But that doesn’t get to the decision. For each of us (well, not me. For each medicare-eligible retiree), you need to be preparing to make a choice. It is a personal decision, based on what is best for your health care and your family’s health care. The fight to stop this thing is collective, social. But this moment, the choosing, has fallen unfairly on medicare-eligible retirees as individuals.
I wish I could offer advice. I don’t know that I can. You need to know which doctors will accept which coverage, and which networks and which hospitals. It would be useful if this information was widely shared – but if it is not, you will need to do your best to figure it out. There is information about copays and coverage. You will have to read some of it. There are rules about giving up NYC health benefits, and then claiming them again. (I think I know how that works, but want to be certain before writing). There are rules about giving up traditional Medicare and then trying to return to it. These rules have exceptions in four states – New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine (again, I want to be certain before writing). There is the cost of lost reimbursements. There is the cost of different Medigap plans.
And I’m not going to start on drugs today – although I have big questions about Aetna’s drug plan that I want to ask.
There is a lot to figure out. And the opt out period has 7½ weeks left. (unless it is delayed, which it should be, since even OLR knows its first form was bad. And all of us know that there is not yet enough information). But as of today, 7½ weeks left. You should be supporting efforts to stop this – but today, you should also be doing research on whether to let them switch you into Aetna/CVS City of New York Medicare Advantage, or whether to waive NYC Health Benefits.
If you decide to opt out of Aetna/CVS, when should you do it?
I got a strange comment here two days ago. I have been reporting on problems with the process. I have not encouraged anyone to opt out. But Marianne Pizzitola asked me to stop encouraging people to waive their benefits. To be clear – I have never written anything to encourage anyone to waive their benefits.
You SHOULD be doing your research. But there is potentially more information coming. There is potential to delay the process. There may even be the possibility of upending this process. So do your research, but, if you decide that waiving benefits is your choice, I would recommend you wait before filing. Not until the last day – who knows what will go wrong with the form or the website or the phones – but until later in these 7½ weeks, to let any developments that may be coming, actually develop, and to avoid prematurely cutting off options.
Studying in Retirement – “Metrics”
I am taking Point Set Topology. This is, for me, challenging math, and I’m liking it.
Last fall was my first “term” of retirement. (I was on terminal leave). In many ways it felt like an extended summer vacation. Fun. At first. But it got long.
So for the spring I committed to create a schedule for myself.
- I was looking at forming a math reading group.
- I wanted to pick up work one or two days a week – work with kids and math.
- I wanted to regularize reading (I’d almost completely stopped reading my last years of teaching).
- I wanted to regularize walking.
- And I wanted to take courses – when I was on sabbatical a decade ago, I loved being a student again.
I had partial success.
- Sue and I formed a reading group, which I have enjoyed, but has been irregular. I will try again, soon, to create a slightly larger group.
- I didn’t get work for the spring, but landed something I am really interested in for the summer.
- Reading has been mixed. I AM reading much more – both books, and making progress in my magazines (New Yorker, Economist, Scientific American) – but I have not succeeded in making a regular time – and I am uneven. I’ll take the progress, and work on more.
- Walking has been good. I am out most days. There are hikes. There’s loops around the neighborhood (usually around the reservoir). And there’s days in the New York Botanical Gardens (the grounds are free to Bronx residents.) And there’s days in Van Cortlandt Park, which I love.
- And I signed up for a course. Turned out to be a math course, Point Set Topology, at Queens College.
I scrambled in January – I got back from a trip January 6, and courses were starting in a few weeks. Out of lack of imagination, I chose mathematics. Cost pushed me to CUNY. I was divided between Lehman for distance and Queens for course offerings – and Queens was where I’d been on sabbatical. In fact, I’d forgotten, Queens had admitted me to their masters program. Now, do I want to earn another masters? I don’t know. But it made registration easy.
I love being a student. I like sitting in class. I do not have most of the right answers. This is challenging for me. But I get some of it right. There’s actually a freshman (this is mixed graduate/undergraduate) who runs rings around us (rings in the “runs rings” expression sense, not in the math sense, where I know what a ring is, but don’t know how to run one). A few weeks ago me and two people around my level formed an open study group – and it is nice to hang out in the library after class, and slowly go over ideas and problems.
Also, this is Queens College. The class, and the study group, are integrated. We have a fascinating mix of backgrounds. It reminds me of the high school I worked at, when it was just starting (not like today).
I’d love to tell you about the course. I got an okay grade on the first quiz. A perfect grade on the second. But if you’ve taught, you know. Getting a high grade << Being able to explain. And I am laser-focused on not being able to explain what Point Set Topology is. It is a goal. I cannot do it here, today. I mean, I could use the right words, maybe, and a math person would understand, and assume I really knew what I was talking about. But no, they would be filling in the blanks. I am not ready. I am not there.
But a few weeks ago we ran into a topic that I really did understand. So I’m going to share that with you.
Distance
Think of distance as a function – the input is two places – the output is a number – the distance between the places. “How far is it from the movie theater to the liquor store?” – we have “how far” and two places, the movie theater and the liquor store.
OK, good enough for math people? Nope.
Abstract rules (axioms)
First they need some abstract rules. And they always start with the things that are so obvious that there’s no proof of them. Math people call these “axioms.” And for distance they come up with three of them, plus an obvious fact.
- Obvious fact: Distance is never negative.
- Rule 1 without proof: If the distance between two places is 0, then they must be the same place.
- Rule 2 without proof: The distance from home to work is the same as the distance from work to home (or whatever two places you want, they don’t need to be home and work)
- Rule 3 without proof: The distance from home to work to the bar has to be the same as or more than the distance from home straight to the bar (could be from school to the skate park to your friend’s house, or really any three points)
I see other people describe these or break them up a little differently. I wonder what’s that about – although small differences do seem to crop up among math people about a wide range of things.
Not just distance, “Metric”
Math people need this to be more general. So I write distance(theater to store) = 8 blocks, or d(x,y) = 7 and say “the distance from x to y is 7”.
And we call a function that follows the same rules as distance “a metric.”
“Metric” sounds like “metric system” – and for good reason. “Metric” means of or related to the either the metric system, or measurement in general.
By the way, I am writing “distance” – but I mean regular, normal distance. Math people call this Euclidean distance or the Euclidean metric. I think when I come back to writing about this topic (I will!) I’ll start with Euclidean distance. (which is just regular distance).
“Not My King” – too easy?
He’s not. Charles is an oafish doof. And not my king.
New Haven (my hometown) folk have had issues with kings named Charles. The first Charles – New Haven gave food and shelter to his executioners. We named streets after them. And we named other stuff after them too. I grew up there, without a king, and definitely without a king Chuck.
Three lived in New Haven: Whalley, bottom of the first column, right under his cousin, Oliver Cromwell. His son-in-law Goffe, third in the third column. And a minister, John Dixwell, next to last in the fifth column. They came to New Haven after having made sure that Charles I was nobody’s king.
The monarchy has not really held power since Charles I’s head rolled – but they have remained a symbol for the empire – including colonialism, slavery, exploitation, expropriation, theft of national legacies, imperialism.
Britain’s crimes continue. The lame argument that this is ancient history. When Elizabeth heard that her father had died, in 1952, she was in Kenya:
“During her reign, British soldiers committed widespread atrocities against Kenyans at the height of Mau Mau uprising between 1952 and 1960. Roughly 1.5 million people were forced into concentration camps where they were subjected to torture, rape and other violations.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/12/queen-death-kenya-colonial-rule-mau-mau-uprising
Ireland. Falklands. Junior partners to the US in Iraq, Afghanistan… Britain has troops in over 40 countries today – second only to the United States. And these exercises in neo-colonialism? In the name of the Queen. And now in the name of her son.
The waste of money on useless parasites bothers me. But just a little. The medieval ceremonies – the carriages and ridiculous clothing? The hearkening back to feudal times and lords and ladies (with most people peasants) – not something we should be looking to. Not my king.
What about us, at home?
But that’s easy. It’s easy sitting in the United States to poke fun at Charles the Gallant and his funny hat. What about our own archaic relics? Our symbols of an evil past? Our current antiquated institutions?
Now some will jump right on the Electoral College. And I agree, antiquated. But, if you were one of the people who went there – easy – too easy. Do you want to get rid of it because it is anachronistic and tied to the legacy of slavery? or because it helped Trump win in 2016? Don’t answer.
If we want to get rid of something outdated and backward with a reactionary history, try the states. Why do we have 50 states, with different laws, different education systems, different voting rules, different environmental rules, hell, different traffic rules? Why cross the border into Connecticut and pay different taxes. Or into New Jersey and lose rights around health care. Or into Massachusetts and into a better educational system. These are not separate countries – why should crossing from one to another entail changes like crossing a real border, except for passport?
Sovereign states have led to a war, and are leading the charge against abortion. There’s really no reason for them. They are not as embarrassing as Charles, but close enough.
Spring Blog Cleaning – Plus an Image Quiz
In 17 years, this blog has accumulated quite a lot of “stuff.”
Blogging a bunch
I started writing in 2006. There was lots of union stuff, and math teaching and math puzzles, and some travel, and movies, and… well, a lot. And in 2007 I posted over 400 times. In 2008 and 2009 almost as much. I was getting some attention – from math education and puzzle people, from UFT people. The Manhattan Users Guide wrote a blurb about me. Some of my content got debated. My guide to Bronx high schools to avoid got lots of attention.
Petering Out
In 2010 my posting fell off – two reasons. First, as a co-coordinator of a UFT caucus I did not want my blog voice to contradict the caucus. And second, my involvement publicizing the abuse of teachers in Bronx Science led me to receive indirect threats that I could face discipline over my blogging; this did not stop me from writing, but did make me cautious, in a way that slowed down my writing. From 2012 – 2016 I was writing maybe 30 – 70 times a year. And in 2017, 18 and 19 – combined – there were 41 posts – barely one per month. If I couldn’t write, the thought occurred to me more than once, maybe I should formally shut it down.
Honestly, I shouldn’t have been scared by the implicit threats. And by the beginning of 2019 I had stopped working with New Action. But I was still barely posting. And that’s where I was when 2020 rolled around.
I’m back
Then the pandemic hit. Which gave me time. And motivated me to write. I was writing things that others were not. About policy – Mulgrew supporting Cuomo against de Blasio. The DoE not having a clue. About safety. About reopening. About scheduling a school. I was very busy in the first few months of COVID, and then a bit less, but this blog was breathing again. Another surge of writing around the UFT election. And again around the battle in the New York City Council, with the UFT leadership on one side, and the retirees on the other.
The Future?
I’m retired, but I’d like to keep involved with the union, and with union politics. And writing about those things. I have not gotten back to writing about mathematics and teaching math and puzzles, but that’s on my mind. And other things. Big Politics. Travel.
Now? Some cleaning
Through the years, I developed quite a blog roll. That’s the list on the right side, below the list of current posts. Those are blogs (and other websites) that you can click to right from here. Now, some blog rolls are quite selective. I once had a blogger write about the selective blog rolls, and the other kind, the kitchen sink blog rolls. I was his example of the kitchen sink.
Not only was my blog roll bloated, but it was, well, old. I hadn’t really maintained it since 2012. Actually, not sure I didn’t any real maintenance since 2007. In any case, this week I found the controls, and I dug in. There were pages that no longer existed. There were blogs that had been removed by their owners. There were pages that were now private. Several pages – the domains were now for sale. Others had been purchased – a gambling site, some sort of scam site… And there were quite a few that had not been updated since 2009.
So I removed the clearly dead, missing, and deleted blogs. I deleted most of those that had gone long without updates. But I didn’t prune for “relatedness” or anything like. I cut more than half, and it’s still badly bloated. 65 links. There needs to be a lot more pruning.
One link I added was for Retiree Advocate / UFT, a caucus I have recently gotten involved with. There’s a little bit to read there – take a look: Retiree Advocate.
Image Quiz
- What is this?
- Where was it taken?
- Bonus point: anything particularly interesting about it? Think trivia.
And, should I keep it? I have better photos, but this one has been there for so long…
JD2718 