More on the Scheinman Recommendations
Conversation today has focused on what role Martin Scheinman was playing when he produced the unusual document we received yesterday.
Mulgrew called it a “ruling,” DC37 called it an “award,” the UFT Press Office called it a “decision,” the NY Daily News called it a “ruling,” Unity Caucus said Scheinman “ordered” the City to conclude a deal with Aetna, and Crains says he “ruled.”
Who thinks this was not a “ruling”? Just me and Scheinman
I don’t think it was a ruling. But I don’t count.
Scheinman doesn’t think it was a ruling. Scheinman knows it is not a ruling. Scheinman counts.
Scheinman doesn’t call this a ruling or a decision
Where we expect Scheinman to describe the positions of the parties, he says nothing. When we expect Scheinman to write “this is my award” he instead writes “this is my opinion” (p. 31)
Compare that to what Scheinman writes when he is writing a real arbitration decision (from the Spring Break arbitration):
And of course, those positions:
Me, I don’t think this is a ruling or a decision
Short version – the June 28, 2018 letter Robert Linn, then Commissioner of the Office of Labor Relations (OLR) to Harry Nespoli for the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC) has 7 points.
Points 1 – 4 are about 2018 – 2021 “savings” (those are cuts and increases for regular people – savings for Mulgrew, the Commissioners, and Insurance Executives). Those savings were met – as reported by new OLR Commissioner Renee Campion in this memo.
Point 5 calls for a “Tripartite Committee” to look at longterm “savings.” The committee is charged with – wait for this – making a recommendation. Scheinman is not arbitrating. He has not made a mistake. He is making a recommendation – as he is supposed to do – under Point 5.
What about his role as the arbitrator? The last point is point 7 – and it makes Scheinman the arbitrator – but only under specific circumstances: “In the event of any dispute under sections 1 – 4 of this Agreement…” It is quite clear. His role as arbitrator is NOT for Point 5. And Points 1 – 4 have already been satisfied.
And this means?
There are two elements to this.
First: Why tell the world that a recommendation is an arbitration decision? Mulgrew, Scheinman, Nespoli, OLR, the insurance people, the whole cabal – all they seem to want is for the City Council to amend 12-126. In fact, in Scheinman’s recommendation he suggests changing the code. A recommendation would not intimidate members and retirees and City Council members. But an arbitration decision would.
Second: If this is a recommendation, not an award, then it is up to the “parties” what to do with it. But know this – if they follow Scheinman’s suggestions – it will be because the parties agreed to them. If we get Aetna, if we get premiums, if retirees lose Senior Care – it will mean that Mulgrew has agreed to do those things to you.
Back to Scheinman
If Scheinman knows that he issued a recommendation, but he sees that the other members of the committee (they are not parties) and the press are reporting it is a “ruling” or a “decision” does he have an ethical obligation to clarify? Or can the Tripartite Committee choose to withhold information from the public, in the interest of misleading union members, retirees, to better lobby the City Council? And as part of the Tripartite Committee, could Scheinman be obliged not to reveal the deceptive tactic? I can read the ethical guidelines for arbitrators, but if he wasn’t acting as an arbitrator, would those guidelines hold?
And maybe Mulgrew does know?
This is from the Mulgrew email:
“As we expected, an independent arbitrator today ruled that the city and the Municipal Labor Committee should create a new Medicare Advantage plan for Medicare-eligible city retirees.”
Why do they say that the MLC SHOULD create a MA plan, and not that “the MLC is ordered to…” or “the MLC MUST create…”? Maybe this is not such a big discovery. Do you think Mulgrew knows this was a recommendation and not a decision?
Collusion and Bullying by OLR/UFT/MLC (Mulgrew et al)
Mulgrew is still working from the same playbook.
In October he used a letter from the Office of Labor Relations (OLR) to the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC) to scare United Federation of Teachers (UFT) members and retirees. He wants us to support amending Section 12-126 of the New York City Administrative Code.
Today he used an “Opinion and Award” from the Tripartite Committee Chair (and arbitrator), Martin Scheinman, to do the same thing. Mulgrew linked to the UFT “Campaign Page” which campaigns to….? You guessed it. Amend Section 12-126 of the New York City Administrative Code.
Both in October and now the form was the same. Horrible things were about to happen to in-service members, or retirees – unless the City Council agrees to amend Section 12-126 of the New York City Administrative Code.
Mulgrew and his allies are consistent in their messaging.
Collusion
I have made the case before: Mulgrew, Nespoli, Garrido, the whole MLC, Scheinman, Adams, and the City’s financial administration, starting with the OLR, plus the insurance companies – they are all working in concert. They are colluding. And they leave the evidence all over the place
In today’s Mulgrew letter we have some creative use of language. Take a look:
Notice it? “we expected” “we see an opportunity” “we will use the time” “we are committed.” Who’s the “we”? It’s not me. It’s not you. It’s UFT/MLC/OLR/Scheinman/Aetna.
In Scheinman’s “Opinion and Award” there is some language that, while not creative, is strangely familiar. Starting on page 3 where he discusses what happened, he writes “a small group of retirees” – which phrase we have seen before.
To be sure, if it were a small group, that’s what you’d expect it might be called. But with 18,000 facebook followers and 60,000 opt-outs (that’s 10% and a 33% of NYC Medicare retirees, hardly small groups) – one person calling it a “small group” would be a mistake. But when several people share language… Were you copying each other? Or did you work on your letters together?
And then, reading Scheinman’s “Opinion and Award” more closely, I noticed more language that I’d previously seen on UFT emails and pages, or heard during Mulgrew’s reports at DAs and Town Halls. I wasn’t certain that Mulgrew’s people and other MLC people participated with Renee Campion in the production of Ms. Campion’s October 28 scary letter; I am absolutely convinced that Scheinman worked with the City and the leadership of the MLC unions, including Mulgrew’s people, in creating his 12/15/22 “Opinion and Award.”
I would run the Scheinman document and a UFT Town Hall transcript through a plagiarism checker – but the UFT has not made the Town Hall transcript available. And Scheinman’s document, although plainly produced on a computer, was released as a print copy, and reproduced crooked on the page to make it hard to convert to a format that a word processor could recognize.
Some questions about this “decision”
First of all, it’s not a decision. It is an “Opinion and Award.” That’s odd. More at the end of this post.
So if there is an award, there should be an issue, and parties to that issue. The first page names the parties. But… There are no “positions of the parties” – that’s what we expect from an arbitration. What is the MLC asking for? What is the City asking for? Scheinman doesn’t mention this.
I wrote “Scheinman doesn’t mention this” not “Scheinman fails to mention this” because I don’t know if the City and MLC actually approached him trying to decide between different courses of action.
In fact, Scheinman’s decision-making power as the arbitrator for the Tripartite Health Insurance Policy Committee arises in the case of a dispute
(From the 2018 letter referred to within the UFT as Appendix B)
Where is the dispute? Does Scheinman actually have any authority here? There are no positions for the parties, because the parties appear to be not in dispute. Everyone agrees about who needs to get screwed (me, and you).
It is normal for arbitrators to lay out in their decisions the source of their authority. It is curious that Scheinman does no such thing.
How do arbitrators normally write up awards? Look at how Scheinman does it (he knows how) in the Spring Break Arbitration.
Scheinman NOT designated arbitrator for Medicare Advantage issue
Oh, and oh no. Scheinman has been named to resolve disputes on items 1-4 in Appendix B. But the current issue, Medicare Advantage, comes from item 5. The agreement doesn’t cover point 5. Maybe that’s why Scheinman does not begin by establishing his authority? Point 5 only calls for recommendations.
Other oddities in Scheinman’s write-up
Here’s Scheinman talking about supporting the Stabilization Fund. It is fairly clear that Mulgrew’s negotiations have been all about protecting the health – not of our members and retirees – but of this fund (p.16):
To keep the fund safe, Mulgrew and Scheinman (and the other parts of this club) need to raise copays, limit doctors, require preauthorizations (to limit healthcare, etc. Look at that paragraphs again.
Expertise
And in the whole of the document, Scheinman strangely claims knowledge of what the impacts of health care changes are on people who need health care. When he writes “I was persuaded that the Aetna program would meet the needs of the City retiree population” (p.24) he is appealing to an unqualified authority: himself.
Self-defeating Award
The “award” is strange. Ordering the City to conclude negotiations with Aetna in 25 days – well – Aetna is looking to maximize profit. And if Scheinman’s “award” holds, then the City is negotiating with a for-profit company that knows it is required to reach a deal. Dumb, right?
Someone’s not been honest
At one point (p.25) Scheinman defends against a charge that he’s screwing retirees, by pointing out how hard he’s worked to screw in-service members over these last eight years. I like this part, not because I like the copays (I DO NOT), but because it gives the lie to Mulgrew claiming that the loans from the Stabilization Fund were paid back with no give backs. (It is, as Scheinman reveals, a lie. We paid. And the”we” means in-service and pre-Medicare retired members).
Not a Decision?
The whole thing is called an “Opinion and Award” right? That’s weird. But what’s weirder – take a look, page 31:
What does that look like to you? He writes that “this instrument” (means the document) “is my Recommendation.”
Is that what he always writes? Nope. Here’s the end of the Spring Break Arbitration:
All this noise and fuss. Is there a difference between a “recommendation” and an “award”? What do you think?
And of course, 12-126
From page 30. Of course Scheinman wants us to amend the Administrative Code – so it is easier to go after retirees.
Why is this happening?
The UFT’s Unity leadership is used to getting exactly what it wants. And it can control every vote, win every vote, WITHIN the UFT. It can even prevent votes it doesn’t want from being taken.
But this is beyond the UFT. And the Retirees (UFT and other municipal workers) are pushing back hard. They have out-mobilized the UFT leaders. They have out-lobbied the UFT, badly, at the City Council.
Even in the UFT, Unity is having trouble with an unhappy membership. There have been rumors, lots of them, about disquiet in the Unity ranks. And Tuesday, in an unprecedented turn, a UFT Retired Teachers Chapter meeting was shut down early because members insisted on discussing healthcare. (I will cover this event soon, and place a link here when I do).
But the bottom line is, while Unity still controls all the levers of power within the UFT, its credibility has never been lower. Their opponents are active. Their own supporters are whispering. And people who usually don’t care, some of them are starting to, and find Mulgrew’s people untrustworthy.
The UFT leadership (Mulgrew and crew, aka “Unity”) are locked in a desperate fight with the UFT members and the UFT retirees – Mulgrew and company are struggling to reduce how much health care we receive, in order to pay a debt they incurred years ago – we are battling to prevent them, to preserve our health care.
Because the politicians and the insurance companies and big business are on Mulgrew’s side, you might think he is a heavy favorite to defeat the members and the retirees.
But so far we have successfully held him off.
The United Federation of Teachers, DC37, the Municipal Labor Committee – their leaderships have formed an unholy alliance
with New York City’s financial managers, the insurance companies, and
the “independent arbitrator” –
and this evil alliance is pulling out all stops to defeat the members and retirees. Scheinman’s “Opinion and Award” is their latest.
Now Mulgrew is jammed up. He needs to amend 12-126 so he can force retirees into Medicare Advantage – while leaving them a Senior Care option. But retirees don’t want that to happen. No one wants the upcharge on their current insurance. So Mulgrew has pulled out every threat – including threats he has no intention of following through on.
By having Mulgrew and Nespoli, and Scheinman, and Campion, and Adams all working together, but making it look like they are working separately – each can blame the other for the outcome that each of them has privately agreed to. Don’t miss it – they are all on the same page. They are doing this to us, as a group, as conspirators, together – but in public they don’t say so. Mulgrew’s not to blame for what Scheinman recommends? Even if Mulgrew helped write the recommendation?
Pay attention. Every communication from Campion, from Scheinman, from Mulgrew – they all talk about amending 12-126. Every UFT webpage on healthcare either asks you to change your position on 12-126, or links you to a page that makes that ask. Every not from your District Rep – same. They want you scared – so they can flip you on 12-126. So…
One last thing – Keep making those calls
This is not over. For now the fight is to STOP Mulgrew/Unity and the Municipal Labor Committee and New York City from amending 12-126. Reach out to your council member – even if you have already done so, do it again – and tell them NOT to amend 12-126.
This is a today story. There has been some quick response. See also
ICE: http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com/2022/12/arbitrator-scheinman-imposeses.html
EdNotes: https://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2022/12/there-will-be-blood-er-lawsuits-uft.html
Was 2018 the Worst Bad Deal Ever?
No one should be putting health care cuts into contracts. This is bad negotiating by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) leadership (Unity Caucus). Nick calls it a bad deal. He’s right. But there was something much worse about the 2018 contract than most people realize. Read on.
The UFT leadership (Mulgrew and crew, aka “Unity”) are locked in a desperate fight with the UFT members and the UFT retirees – Mulgrew and company are struggling to reduce how much health care we receive, in order to pay a debt they incurred years ago – we are battling to prevent them, to preserve our health care.
Because the politicians and the insurance companies and big business are on Mulgrew’s side, you might think he is a heavy favorite to defeat the members and the retirees.
But so far we have successfully held him off.
This fight has its roots in previous Unity schemes and deals – some of which were hidden from UFT members and retirees. Perhaps the worst, most dangerous lines were hidden in “Appendix B” – permanent, annual cuts in health care – with no end to the cutting.
The 2018 contract ratified an earlier agreement that was not shared with the UFT membership. The memorandum of agreement has a health care heading, but it just says to see Appendix B.
Here’s the link to the MOA: https://www.uft.org/files/attachments/secure/moa-2018.pdf
Appendix B, as you might guess, is not attached.
In fact, when Unity was hard-selling this deal, in an unexplained rush, they clearly said there were no health care give backs. And then they did not provide Appendix B. James found it. But because the leadership hid it, and most members rely on the leadership for their information, there is no way of knowing how many of those who voted yes on the contract knew there were givebacks. Probably very few, in light of Unity’s brazen lies. Arthur provides a good summary of the Unity rush to get the 2018 contract passed without revealing the health care give backs.
Appendix B is a letter. Here’s a link to the whole of Appendix B (4 pages). And here’s the first page:
So, we already know, agreeing to cutting health care is a bad deal. But worst deal ever? Let’s look at 1.a, and focus on 1.a.iv
First, a reminder: “savings” are savings for the City of New York and the Stabilization Fund. “Savings” for you and me mean less health care, harder to access health care, or more costly health care.
Mulgrew Savings = Member/Retiree Cuts and Higher Costs
So Appendix B is about health care cuts.
Let’s focus on line iv. $600 million per yer – on a recurring basis. That means, even though that contract is over, the health care cuts need to continue forward. And worse. Any fool knows, health care costs are going up. So whatever cuts were good enough to amount to $600 mil a year ago, they are not enough today. Unity has put us on the hook for never ending cuts in health care. That’s what makes this perhaps the worst negotiated deal, ever.
Our contract is expired. But the health care cuts continue.
The health care cuts are permanent.
And Appendix B promises more cuts every year that health care costs rise.
Our job right now
Stop the OLR/MLC/UFT / Adams / Mulgrew / Nespoli plan in its tracks.
Do Not Amend 12-126 (keep calling / writing / texting your city council member)
Do Not accept Medicare Advantage.
Demand our unions to negotiate ON OUR BEHALF – instead of on behalf of the stabilization fund that they seem more anxious to represent than their own members.
Seek alternate funding sources (read down for resolution on stock transfer tax and billionaires tax).
Battle Against Medicare Advantage – Updates
A summary of recent work by UFT activists.
Collusion
I made the case that United Federation of Teachers (UFT) President Mulgrew and the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC) colluded with NYC – the mayor and the Office of Labor Relations (OLR) to force retirees into Medicare Advantage last year (the retirees stopped them) and to change Section 12-126 of the City’s Administrative Code this fall (so that they might succeed in ambushing the retirees. Here’s my piece. And James published some photographic evidence.
UFT Leadership Contempt for Membership
Unity’s leader displayed really bad attitude at last week’s town hall – Arthur describes how Mulgrew belittles members and retirees, instead of working with those who have been out-organizing the leadership. And I remind readers that instead of trying to work together, Unity leadership silences people who disagree with them. And there’s a lot of us.
A bad deal from 2018
Nick Bacon reviews the deal that set the stage for the Medicare fiasco. Arthur talks about it, too.
Alternatives exist…
Nick’s Exec Board minutes cover a resolution (scroll down) to raise funding via billionaire taxes and reinstating thestock transfer tax – not on retiree’s backs. And James is right – we can negotiate with our current rights, and without screwing over any members or retirees.
…to Unity’s and the MLC’s and OLR’s and Scheinman’s plans
Nick lays out Mulgrew’s general game plan – agree to something that sucks, and blame the retirees. And yesterday James went into some detail about what Mulgrew may be working on next.
This is Not Over
We are still fighting. We are currently, strange as it seems, winning.
Keep making those calls to City Council – Do Not Amend 12-126.
Retiree Advocate explains why:
The UFT leadership (Mulgrew and crew, aka “Unity”) are locked in a desperate fight with the UFT members and the UFT retirees – Mulgrew and company are struggling to reduce how much health care we receive, in order to pay a debt they incurred years ago – we are battling to prevent them, to preserve our health care.
Because the politicians and the insurance companies and big business are on Mulgrew’s side, you might think he is a heavy favorite to defeat the members and the retirees.
But so far we have successfully held him off.
An email I will not answer (Part 2 of 2)
I got an email from a federal investigator. He asked to talk about the UFT. November 16. I will not respond.
Part 2
Spring UFT Elections
Back in the spring, my coalition ran against the entrenched UFT leadership. I was the United for Change candidate for High School Vice President.
Spring 2022 Complaint
In this spring’s campaign Unity pulled its usually stuff. And members of my coalition began to assemble a complaint, or a group of complaints. But these were not just about staffers campaigning on union time (a big no-no). This complaint also included things about UFT reps discussing the election on Facebook. I was not comfortable with that sort of complaint – we all talk on Facebook.
A UFC complaint was drawn up that included the kitchen sink. Marginal violations. Even things that UFC candidates had done too, all were in there. And the complaint rested largely on violations of federal law, rather than on the union’s own rules and norms.
In the end, after UFC has lost the election (but won high schools) the complaint was submitted to the UFT. Most of it was rejected.
Appeals
And then the complaint was appealed to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, our parent union). That’s an understandable next step.
And then there was a proposal to appeal beyond the AFT, to the federal government, to the Department of Labor. Here’s where the original complaint resting so heavily on federal law comes into play. It was designed from the start, it seems to me, to go to the feds.
UFC – structure?
The United For Change coalition was formed to contest the spring 2022 United Federation of Teachers election. It is a coalition of several groups and caucuses within the union. Some, but not all, have defined membership. Also there are independents, like me.
During the election we made decisions using some sort of consensus. It was not perfect, but it functioned ok for the election period – platform, candidates, literature were the main issues.
So when the proposal to go to the Department of Labor came up, there were discussions between UFC members, but also in the groups/caucuses. And two of the membership caucuses said no. And a third was only willing to go ahead if there were consensus, which there was not.
As an individual, independent part of the coalition, I argued against appealing to the Department of Labor. Let me explain.
I am opposed to involving the government in union affairs.
I am opposed to government interference in unions. Even where something has gone wrong (and yes, I believe that Unity abuses its power), it is up to us, internally, to address. The government is not a friend of the unions. Look at what just happened to the rail workers.
The government restricts unions. It restricts organizing. It routinely decides disputes against workers. It makes it hard to create a union. It limits what unions are allowed to do. It decides cases against unions and workers. And the few cases it decides in favor of workers, most are overturned on appeal. Appeal to the government. The government also restricts how unions can fight strikes. It restricts how we can get others to join unions. In New York, the state curtails our right to strike.
There’s also a history of internal interference in unions. Sometimes well meaning opposition people have looked to the government to fix unions, but ended up with a mess. The Teamsters is the first example that comes to mind (president leading a national strike, removed by the government). And I will add, I don’t care how good your intentions were, when you brought the Department of Labor into the union, you set the stage for the government interfering, at a fairly high cost to the union members. And when leaders appeal to the government to fix union problems, they are telling the rank and file that the government is a neutral arbiter, that they should trust the Department of Labor, NLRB, courts, etc. And that is a lie.
We need to warn workers that the feds are not our friends. That in matters of labor against bosses, the federal government has a side, and it is not ours. We cannot do that while we appeal to the feds to investigate our unions internal affairs.
UFC Decision – not to appeal to the Department of Labor – so what happened?
So several caucuses that had participated in the election under the UFC umbrella did not support going to the Department of Labor. Another group, which was nominally in favor, did not support going forward without consensus. I argued fairly strongly against appealing to the government. There was not a UFC decision to make this last appeal.
But the appeal happened. The Department of Labor (not the UFC) says that individuals may make complaints about an election for union officers. And five individuals signed a complaint addressed to the Department of Labor.
Interestingly (or frustratingly, for at least me), they did not restrict their complaint to how they were treated in the election, but felt empowered (in the absence of an affirmative UFC decision) to complain about how the UFC was treated. When the Department of Labor called this a “UFC Complaint” the five individuals did not feel the need to clarify that the complaint was not originating from UFC.
No one signed who was speaking for a caucus with membership. None of the people elected to the Exec Board signed. I did not sign.
The email
I don’t know who gave the feds my email. I only have guesses. I certainly did not give my permission to share my email. And I had already made clear that I was adamantly opposed to this complaint. And I will not talk to federal investigators about my union. Hell, I doubt I would speak to feds about anything.
The Department of Labor guy wanted me to call him, to speak about last spring’s United Federation of Teachers (UFT) election. From the Department of Labor. I didn’t say no. I just won’t respond.
But now it is clear to me that the five individuals took a non-UFC decision and acted as if they were acting on behalf of UFC. So just to clarify. No.
An email I will not answer (Part 1 of 2)
From a federal investigator. To talk about the UFT. It was a few weeks ago. I will not respond.
He wanted me to call him, to speak about last spring’s United Federation of Teachers (UFT) election. From the Department of Labor. I didn’t say no. I just won’t respond.
Spring UFT Elections
Back in the spring, my coalition ran against the entrenched UFT leadership. I was the United for Change candidate for High School Vice President.
In lots of ways the election was rigged against us. Unity (the entrenched leadership’s “caucus”) holds all the levers of power. Every union staffer a regular member encounters – at the welfare fund, in the borough offices, in grievance, or our own district reps and special reps, belong to Unity. Plus the rules have been rigged over the years. I was running for HS VP, won the majority of the high school votes, but was defeated in a system where retirees and elementary teachers cast more votes for HS VP than actual high school teachers do.
Unity uses its advantages. It uses the unfair rules. And it uses its staff. And it crosses the line into territory that’s clearly not allowed. They do it every election. In the past I’ve been part of campaigns that has called them on flagrant violations. And they usually draw back.
Spring 2022 Complaint
In this spring’s campaign Unity pulled its usually stuff. And members of my coalition began to assemble a complaint, or a group of complaints. But these were not just about staffers campaigning on union time (a big no-no). This complaint also included things about UFT reps discussing the election on Facebook. I was not comfortable with that sort of complaint – we all talk on Facebook.
In the end a UFC complaint was drawn up that included the kitchen sink. Pages of items included Facebook, and Twitter, and Instagram, generally insubstantial. Every time a Unity candidate appeared in the New York Teacher – complaint. Conflict at the Delegate Assembly? In the complaint. There were 31 pages with 32 points and 29 subpoints, plus over 40 pages of appendices.
I was quite uncomfortable with the complaint resting on violations of federal law and chancellors regs, rather than on the union’s own rules and norms. As we will see, that discomfort was not ill-founded.
Some of the violations were clearly violations. I contributed three items (people brought them to me). I believe the UFT, which dismissed most of the UFC complaint, did find merit in two of the three items I added (and the third was dismissed because the violation had been committed orally, and not reduced to writing).
Some of the complaint was not just trivial, but wrong. A host of complaints about chapter leaders (not employees) made me very uncomfortable. In some instances CLs were being cited for telling their members which caucus they preferred. I am glad this group of complaints was rejected – they would have a chilling effect on all chapter leaders, regardless of caucus, who need to speak openly and freely with their members. I objected, pointing out that I as a chapter leader had engaged in practices that were being complained about, to no avail.
We have bad precedent here. In 2016 both sides, Unity on one, MORE/New Action on the other, had actively encouraged voting. This is important in a union with horribly low turnout. Several chapter leaders offered cookies or a bottle of water to any member who brought in and filled out their ballots on a specific date. (Members filled out their own ballots as they saw fit – the prize was for voting, not for voting the “right” way). Several chapters organized a ballot “drop off” where one member collected SEALED ballots and dropped them in a mail, or where a group from the chapter walked together to the mailbox, and made a show of casting the chapter’s ballots. What a cool way to build camaraderie. But in 2016 Portelos (sore loser) complained about these practices. I voted against his complaint. But in the aftermath the union in an overabundance of caution banned “cookies for ballots” and “walks to the mailbox.”
In the end the complaint was submitted to the UFT. Most of it was rejected – but a few items (Mostly reps mixing union business with Unity campaigning) were found to have occurred and be violations of our practices. I think the reps were admonished not to do so again – not much of a consequence, but still, public. And there was no question in my mind, in most of our minds, that the sum total of the violations did not change the result of the election. (UFC won the high schools, Unity won the other divisions, and overall).
Appeals
And then the complaint was appealed to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, our parent union). That’s an understandable next step.
And then there was a proposal to appeal beyond the AFT, to the federal government, to the Department of Labor. Here’s where the original complaint resting so heavily on federal law comes into play. It was designed from the start, it seems to me, to go to the feds.
The Federal Government and Unions
I am opposed to government interference in unions. Even where something has gone wrong (and yes, I believe that Unity abuses its power), it is up to us, internally, to address. I’m not a fan of the approach of organizing a new union where an old one is decrepit, but that doesn’t involve the government, and things could reach that point.
But the government is not a friend of the unions. Imagine an overseer telling me, a chapter leader, how I can communicate with my members. Imagine that we won the election – and we wanted to consider breaking the Taylor Law, and a federal overseer forbidding us from discussing that with the membership. That’s pretty easy to imagine. The government does NOT have any interest in a strong union. To the extent that they see violations of union democracy, they see them as an opportunity to interfere in the day to day functioning of the union.
I did not need early December’s events to convince me. But they should be a wake up call to all of us. Rail workers have been pounded since the pandemic began. They need sick days. They have none, wanted seven. (Seven over twelve months. New York City teachers, whose jobs do not take us out of town, get ten in ten months). Bargaining broke down.
But before they could strike, Biden and congress got into the act. The House passed a bill on November 30 imposing a contract. The weasels, Democrat and Republican, passed a separate resolution calling for more sick days. They knew by dividing the measures they could look like they supported sick days, but that the Senate and president would safely remove them. On December 1 the Senate passed a bill making a strike illegal. And December 2 Biden signed it all. Rail workers had been sucker-punched – by the feds. They had a government-imposed contract. Without the sick days they desperately need.
We need to warn workers that the feds are not our friends. That in matters of labor against bosses, the federal government has a side, and it is not ours. We can’t do that while we appeal to the feds to investigate our unions internal affairs.
The email
I don’t know who gave the feds my email. When I got the email November 16 I asked a blogger – who clearly had not given them my info. So I am left with only guesses. I certainly did not give my permission to share my email. And I will not talk to federal investigators about my union.
(Continued in Part 2)
Why did Campion write the 10/28 Office of Labor Relations Letter on Health Care?
Mulgrew called it a “bombshell.” The UFT and DC37 immediately sent horrified letters to their members. They both began lobbying campaigns in reaction.
The UFT leadership (Mulgrew and crew, aka “Unity”) are locked in a desperate fight with the UFT members and the UFT retirees – Mulgrew and company are struggling to reduce how much health care we receive, in order to pay a debt they incurred years ago – we are battling to prevent them, to preserve our health care.
Because the politicians and the insurance companies and big business are on Mulgrew’s side, you might think he is a heavy favorite to defeat the members and the retirees.
But so far we have successfully held him off.
A major event in this struggle was the letter from NYC OLR Commissioner Renee Campion to Harry Nespoli and the MLC (and by extension Michael Mulgrew.)
It threatened to ask Scheinman to force the retirees into a Medicare Advantage plan.
But Campion, Nespoli, Mulgrew, all already agreed.
Why write a letter when sender and recipients agree?
Renee Campion, Commissioner of the New York City Office of Labor Relations, wrote on October 28 that unless the City Council got moving on amending Section 12-126 of the City’s Administrative Code, that OLR would ask arbitrator Martin Scheinman to intervene and throw all of our retirees onto Medicare Advantage.
Pass the amendment to 12-126, she writes, or I’m bringing this to Scheinman.
Scheinman, for his part, had already weighed in on the matter. In a letter to the Office of Labor Relations on September 30, he wrote:
“Thus, absent the proposed amendment to the Administrative that would redress what the Court found missing in current Code § 12-126, I would determine the City and the MLC shall eliminate Senior Care as an option.”
He goes on to discuss the other option he would consider, to make in-service members pay premiums, and indicates that he does not prefer that option.
So on October 27 we were living in a world where Mulgrew and the UFT leadership wanted to amend 12-126, the rest of the Municipal Labor Committee (Nespoli et al) wanted to amend 12-126, NYC (Adams) and its Office of Labor Relations (Campion) wanted to amend 12-126, the arbitrator who might rule on what to do wanted to amend 12-126.
What was new on October 28?
On October 28 we were living in this same world, but with a “bombshell” letter from Campion. It was addressed to Nespoli and the MLC. DC37 and the UFT responded immediately. But all the players, authors, recipients, and potential arbitrator, all of them already agreed. Why write that letter, if everyone already agreed?
Who did not agree?
Retirees did not agree. They had been fighting against the change to the City’s Administrative Code. They were calling city council members, a lot. And effectively. Some council members went public with their opposition to the change. More made private comments that were leaning against the change. None of them came out in support of the Mulgrew/MLC amendment.
In service members (of the UFT) mostly were not involved. The leadership did not have a strategy to counter the retirees. And some in-service members, mostly opposition, were already on the ball, also contacting city council members, opposing the amendment to 12-126.
The Problem Facing the Conspirators
Mulgrew, Campion, Adams, Nespoli, Garrido, Scheinman, etc all agreed – they wanted to amend 12-126 so that they could impose a (future) Medicare Advantage plan. Future? Yes, because their selected company had pulled out. In any case, they agreed about amending the administrative code. But they’d been beaten to the punch. The City Council had been well-lobbied, by on the ground constituents, retirees, and was not in any mood to consider the MLC/NYC proposal. It was not worth facing hundreds or thousands of angry retired constituents.
The Letter – Possible Purpose 1:
Perhaps New York City was angry at the unions (who NYC was cooperating closely with) for not lobbying well or hard enough? In that context, an angry letter telling them to get a move on might have been in order.
But this letter is not angry. Campion does not disagree with Mulgrew. If they all just needed to lobby harder, they could have agreed in private.
The Letter – Possible Purpose 2:
Mulgrew and Garrido could have reported to Campion and Scheinman that they were so far unable to get their members to engage in favor of their amendment (unable to rally their in-service against their retirees). All sides may have agreed that a scary letter from Campion would be the best way to motivate in-service workers to campaign for amending 12-126, and against the retirees.
More Likely?
The letter feels like a collaborative effort between the City and the MLC to scare the members.
It just does not make sense for Campion to scold Nespoli, Mulgrew, and Garrido, when they have been working hand in hand every step of the way to push retirees into Medicare Advantage.
We cannot know what happens between Mulgrew and the City, since Unity’s policy is to keep all negotiations secret from UFT members.
But we do know the UFT and DC37 had the same response to their memberships the following day.
All sides already agreed. A letter without new information. A coordinated response. If the UFT, DC37, and the MLC were going to coordinate with the City to bully in-service members into lobbying against the retirees, this letter is what that coordination would look like.
Do I have Evidence?
No. I do not have evidence. But this feels like how Unity operates.
How I imagine it:
Back room, darkened, in City Hall. Campion and a few staff members, Mulgrew and some aide who was never a teacher, Nespoli, Garrido. There’s an insurance exec who doesn’t speak.
“Where are we on amending 12-126?”
“City Council isn’t moving. They are scared shitless of the retirees.”
“We can’t move until this amendment passes”
“We have been lobbying the City Council. We have assigned our best full-time staff. We are not getting anywhere.”
“We have been leaning on them. But we can’t withhold neighborhood projects for this one vote.”
“Can you get the retirees to stop calling and telling them not to amend?”
A few silent beats as eyes roll around the table.
“OK, can you get other retirees to call and tell them YES, amend? Then they can claim they were getting mixed messages.”
“Members are afraid of pissing off the retirees in their district. A few calls the other way won’t do it.”
“We could get active members to call?”
“Mine don’t care enough. They think this is all about retirees.”
“You could explain? They know they are next, right?”
“They might get angry, too. We have to be careful about not giving too much detail.”
“There should be something bad that will happen if they don’t help us nail the retirees.”
“That’s it. Renee, can you write a scary letter to the three of us? We will use it to scare the members into lobbying against the retirees.”
Campion nods yes. The insurance exec smiles and walks out.
One last thing – Keep making those calls
This is not over. For now the fight is to STOP Mulgrew/Unity and the Municipal Labor Committee and New York City from amending 12-126. Reach out to your council member – even if you have already done so, do it again – and tell them NOT to amend 12-126.
UFT policies are decided by a vote. But not when Mulgrew’s losing?
Mulgrew’s Unity Caucus controls the UFT. What they want, they vote yes on. What they don’t want, they vote no on. Or, as they are commonly doing these days, what they don’t want, they prevent from even being mentioned.
But why hasn’t Mulgrew gotten a rubber stamp vote on the leadership’s current healthcare scheme?
The UFT leadership (Mulgrew and crew, aka “Unity”) are locked in a desperate fight with the UFT members and the UFT retirees – Mulgrew and co are struggling to reduce how much health care we receive, in order to pay a debt they incurred years ago – we are battling to prevent them, to preserve our health care.
Because the politicians and the insurance companies and big business are on Mulgrew’s side, you might think he is a heavy favorite to defeat the members and the retirees.
But so far we have successfully held him off.
Mulgrew and Unity are so deeply engaged in fighting against our retirees,
and so shocked not to be winning,
that they have forgotten to bother with a vote.
Sometimes UFT votes seem like shams. Unity Caucus holds all of the spots on the Administrative Committee, a 95-7 majority on the Executive Board, and a working majority in the Delegate Assembly. What the UFT leadership (run by Unity) wants, they put up for a vote, and it passes.
The fact that they have to put things up for a vote means there is some feedback. They may not usually listen, but it’s there. There’s a chance for opponents to point out big problems. There’s a chance for their supporters (occasionally) to point out weaknesses to be addressed. I’m not pretending it’s a good democratic process – it’s not. But there’s a chance to talk, to engage, before Mulgrew’s thought becomes policy. Unity is usually especially careful when organizational resources are going to be committed.
High Stakes
But it’s different this time. UFT leadership was stymied by the retirees when they tried to force them into Medicare Advantage. So they looked to amend Section 12-126 of the City Administrative Code (once that’s done Unity will resume pushing Medicare Advantage – but they’ll need to finish lining up a new company in the interim). Amending 12-126 is crucial to their plans. And they were in a rush.
Normally a Vote, Followed by a Campaign
If it were any other issue, any other year, with any other president, Unity would have brought the new policy to a vote. First the Exec Board. Then the Delegate Assembly. Once it passed the Exec and the DA, Unity would have run a full court press, using the Borough Reps and especially the District Reps to push the policy into the schools, and push chapter leaders to get members to make phone calls. That’s how they usually play things.
Nope. A Campaign. With No Vote
But no. Losing. Desperate. In a rush. Couldn’t be bothered.
October 28 (Friday) Renee Campion, NYC Commissioner of Labor Relations, wrote a threatening letter about what she would do if 12-126 was not amended, with first steps by an early deadline. (That deadline came and went. Nothing happened. We should think more about that letter). (Every bone in my body says Unity helped write that letter. I have no proof. Just years of instinct).
October 29 (Saturday) Michael Mulgrew started an email campaign to get members to support the amend 12-126 position. (It had very little impact).
And then, boom, it was more than an email. District Reps started pushing chapter leaders. Borough Reps held zoom meetings (using lots of staff time). The organization was all-in. That’s time. That’s money.
But no vote to set amending 12-126 as policy. And so they were allocating resources without a vote.
Aha! Gotcha? Nope.
This is slop. The vote would be Unity-controlled. They still might go back and retroactively “fix” this, if they notice. I did not write this post to get them in trouble for breaking their own very flimsy rules. (although they really should try to follow at least the minimal requirements of internal democracy that they are ok with).
Can’t or won’t follow their own norms, because they are in “a state”
I wrote this because they normally do follow this norm. And the fact that they messed up, or were too rushed to bother, that speaks to the state they are in. Concern. Worry. Panic. This is not normal. As of today, we are winning.
(This isn’t over. For now the fight is to STOP Mulgrew/Unity and the Municipal Labor Committee and New York City from amending 12-126. Reach out to your council member – even if you have already done so, do it again – and tell them NOT to amend 12-126)
The retirees and in-service members are up against Mulgrew and the MLC and NYC government. David is taking on Goliath. And it’s not over. But Goliath? Not winning.
How many ways to number a die? (answers)
I asked this question a few days ago.
Here are two of my favorite answers. Do you have another way to get to 30? Put it in the comments!
Question
How many ways can a die be numbered, using the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 exactly one time each?
Term: “Same Dice”
Two dice are “the same” if they can be rotated until their numbers match up exactly. For example, if you take a standard die, and place it with the 1 on top, the 6 will be on the bottom. If you rotate it so the 2 is in front, the 5 will be in back. And then you might notice the 4 is on the left, and the 3 is on the right. All standard dice are numbered this way.
Solution 1 – way overcount
Consider one die, with any numbering. There are six sides that could be face down. And then there are four rotations with that face down. Six times four is twenty-four (24) orientations for each numbering.
Now let’s think about a blank die. How many numbers can we put on the bottom? Six. How many are left over to put on the front? Five. How many left to put on the left (ha ha)? Four. How many to place on the right? Three. In the back? Two. On top? Only one number left. That’s 6×5×4×3×2×1=720 ways to put 6 numbers on a die.
But hold on. Each numbering has 24 orientations. So those 720 numberings – 24 of them are the standard die, 24 are the standard but with 3 and 4 swapped, etc. To get the actual number of ways to number a die, divide 720 by 24. That’s 30. (And for each of those 30 ways, there are 24 numberings. 30×24=720)
Solution 2 – constructive
This time we will avoid overcounting.
We will imagine that the “1” has been put on the bottom of the die (and if it hasn’t, flip the die around so the “1” is on the bottom, which is always possible).
What number is on the top? We have five choices.
Now, we have four numbers left to wrap around the middle. How many are there?
Well, to put four things in order we have twenty-four ways. Twenty-four is 4×3×2×1. But that’s not the answer. Let’s look at some letters instead of numbers, for the moment:
- ARST
- ARTS
- ASRT
- ASTR
- ATRS
- ATSR
- RAST
- RATS
- RSAT
- RSTA
- RTAS
- RTSA
- SART
- SATR
- SRAT
- SRTA
- STAR
- STRA
- TARS
- TASR
- TRAS
- TRSA
- TSAR
- TSRA
Looks good, right? 24? Nope. Because these wrap around the middle of the die, ARTS and RTSA are the same. ARTS is really ARTS and then A and then R like this: ARTSARTSARTSAR and as you keep going around there’s not a beginning or an end, just a sequence.
So how many ways are there to wrap four things in a circle? Let’s list them:
- ARST RSTA STAR TARS
- ARTS RTSA TSAR SART
- ASRT SRTA RTAS TASR
- ASTR STRA TRAS RAST
- ATRS TRSA RSAT SATR
- ATSR TSRA SRAT RATS
Six ways. And that kind of makes sense. Each of these ways can be written with four different starting points. So our list of twenty-four including four copies of each arrangement, and twenty-four divided by four is six.
As an aside, arranging objects in a circle I call a “circle permutation” – and if the items are unique, and there are n of them, then there are n×(n-1)×(n-2)×…×2×1 ways to list them, but then we have to divide by n, so we get (n-1)×(n-2)×…×2×1circle permutations.
Let’s get back to our problem.
We place “1” on the bottom face.
We have five choices for the top face.
We have four numbers left to put in a circle, which gives us 3×2×1=6 circle permutations.
1×5×6= 30 ways to number a die.
Healthcare Debacle: Mulgrew’s in Trouble, but He Still Owns the Microphone
The UFT leadership (Mulgrew and crew, aka “Unity”) are locked in a desperate fight with the UFT members and the UFT retirees – Mulgrew and co are struggling to reduce how much health care we receive, in order to pay a debt they incurred years ago – we are battling to prevent them, to preserve our health care.
Because the politicians and the insurance companies and big business are on Mulgrew’s side, you might think he is a heavy favorite to defeat the members and the retirees.
But so far we have successfully held him off.
In desperation, Mulgrew and Unity are falling back on their tried and true trick #1: denying their opponents the ability to speak with other members.
There is a battle in New York City. A David vs Goliath battle. A battle with a retiree group allied with labor activists on one side, and Mayor Adams, the Municipal Labor Committee, and the United Federation of Teachers leadership under president Michael Mulgrew on the other.
A judge ruled in favor of the retirees, and against Mulgrew (and Nespoli and Garrido and Mayor Adams – ie, against the UFT and the other big city union and against the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC). And against the City of New York.) Mulgrew loss.
A panel of five appeals judges ruled the same way. Another Mulgrew loss.
Fifty city council members seem unwilling to introduce the legislation that Mulgrew wants, to amend section 12-126 of the administrative code so that the UFT/MLC and Adams can force retirees into Medicare Advantage. The retirees have been lobbying against, in advance, good on them, and they seem to have made city council members reluctant to play footsie with Mulgrew, at least for now. Another Mulgrew loss.
Mulgrew’s Court of Last Resort
I guess Mulgrew’s court of last resort is our membership. And Unity, faced with losses in every other venue, had no choice. Armed with weak arguments that few believe, they have been trying to convince our membership. To convince them of what? For now, to support the change to 12-126. No matter how thick Unity is, they are not trying to sell members on Medicare Advantage, not today. That blew up in Unity’s faces when they tried to convince our sharp retirees that “Silver Sneakers” would make up for prior authorizations (and denials). Yeah, right.
Unity has been facing opposition. Even some in their ranks are worried about what they are doing to healthcare. And those opposed to Unity and Mulgrew have been vocal. What do they do?
Stifle Dissent
Mulgrew and company should do some heavy thinking about why their moves to force retirees into Medicare Advantage, and to revise a city law that protects in-service and retired members, have done so poorly with UFT members. Instead, they behave as if they could get their way on the backs of the members, if only independent voices could be silenced. And so that’s what they are doing. Silencing, as best they can, those who disagree.
Through this entire health care mess Mulgrew has assiduously avoided calling on people who might challenge this health care mess at the Delegate Assemblies. And you know how he has calls pre-screened at the Town Halls.
Debate, even within the UFT’s own healthcare committees, is stifled. Committee members aren’t allowed to communicate with each other on the committee mailing lists. When retiree health committee member Bennett Fischer sent an email debating the UFT’s stance on amending the city code, the RTC committee chairman accused Bennett of sending personal emails (the email was about the health care debate, and was political, not personal). “Your email is, to my memory, the first email from a member of the committee to the committee’s members. I had asked when the committee was formed that everyone respect the member’s email addresses and not use them for personal purposes.” Can you imagine – a committee that was formed over eighteen months ago, and only one email sent among the members at large? Meanwhile, the chair himself uses almost every email – including the one where he petulantly chided Bennett – to promulgate his own personal opinions of the debate.
Another Path
There is, of course, another route. Unity could listen to the membership. They could consider other ways to protect the Stabilization Fund, without taking money from members’ pockets. They could remember who they are supposed to represent.
Dice Question
How many ways can a die be numbered, using the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 exactly one time each?
(Some solutions posted here. Add your own!)
Same Dice
Two dice are “the same” if they can be rotated until their numbers match up exactly. For example, if you take a standard die, and place it with the 1 on top, the 6 will be on the bottom. If you rotate it so the 2 is in front, the 5 will be in back. And then you might notice the 4 is on the left, and the 3 is on the right. All standard dice are numbered this way.
Different numberings
How many different numberings are possible?
The standard die (mentioned above) is one possibility.
You could swap the 4 and the 3, and that would be a second numbering.
How many are there, altogether?
Making Up Work
Kid contacts you (might be the parents, but let’s say it’s high school and it’s the kid). They’ve been out two days. It’s a family thing. They will be out for an indefinite period of time – hopefully not too long, but they don’t know. What do you do?
Grumble a bit? Maybe. It’s not what you’ve planned for. Little extra work for you. But it’s not the kid’s fault. Maybe they even sounded sad about not being in class. So you do the right thing:
- Make a plan for the kid to keep up, or partially keep up, if they are able. You give it to the kid.
- Make a plan for them to catch up when they return. It’s tentative, since you don’t know when that will be. It might be mental, not written – easier as you keep mentally revising it. And you tell the kid “don’t worry – we will have a plan when you get back.”
Where I’ve taught, where friends and colleagues have taught, that is the norm. But there are exceptions. Ugly exceptions.
There are teachers who don’t make a plan for the kid to keep up. Who don’t reassure the kid there will be a plan when they get back. And when the kid does return, there are teachers who don’t make it easy to catch up. These are jerks.
Far worse are the assholes. An asshole blames a kid for having been out. An asshole makes much of how far behind the kid is. And an asshole does not give the kid a chance to make up work.
NYC Remote Year 2020-2021
This was like a big, extended absence. Most of us were remote (or at least not regular in-person) for most of the year. We provided some work for kids. And we were ready to get going as soon as school was normal again. We did what normal teachers do. We did our best to do the right thing.
2020-2021 Jerks
We needed help making remote better. Where was the NYC Department of Education? Where was the United Federation of Teachers? Not helping.
They were focused on getting us back into the classroom. They must have thought that working to improve remote instruction would make them look “bad” – like they would rather have us remote.
We needed to be remote because of the pandemic. It was not our choice. But while we were remote we needed help. Was there professional development? Did the UFT create spaces for teachers to share best remote practices? No.
Kids needed help learning what they could through the remote period. The jerks sat on the side.
(Teachers really tried to teach. It was hard)
Today, Assholes
Starting last September, and continuing through this year, we have students. These students lived through the pandemic. They struggled. Some did not learn anything during that time. Some learned a little. Many learned quite a bit, but less than they would have in a normal school year.
So what did we do?
Did we figure out how to catch the students up? Did we decide that some material could be safely skipped or forgotten? (Math teachers in particular needed to work on this – not having done so we are still facing consequences).
It’s been a real mixed bag.
And that’s a shame, because the schools’ obligation is to serve the kids. Not the kids we wish we were teaching, the imaginary kids who did not live through the height of COVID. The schools need to serve the kids in their buildings.
There should be curricular adjustment. There really hasn’t been. Scope and sequence need modification. Not happening.
But what is happening is vile.
The New York Times, the centrist Democrats, and all and sundry opponents of public education – they are celebrating. They are dancing. They are pointing to lower test scores.
“See!” – they squeal with delight – “Learning Loss!”
(In fact, the phrase “learning loss” is not constructed to understand and improve. It is destructive, by design. I should come back to that.)
A kid misses months of school. How will the kid get back into the swing?
Oster and Shapiro and the Times are too busy congratulating themselves to pay any attention to helping our kids.
Don’t believe me? Go read what they write. Not a word about a plan to move forward.
Assholes.
What the “Stabilization Fund” Stabilizes (and why Mulgrew needs to stop raiding it)
The UFT leadership (Mulgrew and crew, aka “Unity”) are locked in a desperate fight with the UFT members and the UFT retirees – Mulgrew and co are struggling to reduce how much health care we receive, in order to pay a debt they incurred years ago – we are battling to prevent them, to preserve our health care.
Because the politicians and the insurance companies and big business are on Mulgrew’s side, you might think he is a heavy favorite to defeat the members and the retirees.
But so far we have successfully held him off.
A key element in this debate is the “Stabilization Fund” – most members have not heard of the Stabilization Fund, and those who have generally do not know much about it. There’s a reason – read on:
There is a battle in New York City. A David vs Goliath battle. A battle with a retiree group allied with labor activists on one side, and Mayor Adams, the Municipal Labor Committee, and the United Federation of Teachers leadership under president Michael Mulgrew on the other.
The Stabilization Fund is at the heart of the battle. And the stakes: how much health care Mulgrew allows members and retirees to have. (I’m writing “Mulgrew” but really municipal union leaders Nespoli and Garrido along with Mayor Eric Adams are all part of one team).
Administrative Code 12-126 is involved. There’s been plenty written about that.
City agreed to fund healthcare at a specific level
But today we look at the code from a new angle. Section 12-126 of the Administrative Code provides that the City will fund health care at the level of HIP (which is a relatively high bar). If you sign up for a plan that costs more than HIP, you pay the difference. That’s what you look at each fall during the health care transfer period – not the cost of each of the other plans, but the cost above HIP.
But what about the other option? HIP is an HMO. We have a choice of two premium-free plans. The other is not an HMO. It used to be GHI (that’s what I still usually call it, even though I know that’s wrong). Today it is in fact, Emblem.
When HIP costs more than GHI did, there’s no problem. GHI was cheaper, the agreement says the city funds up to the HIP level. We were covered.
But sometimes GHI (now Emblem) costs more than HIP, as is the case today. The Stabilization Fund was designed to smooth over that difference (when GHI cost more).
Stabilize the difference between the cost of HIP and the cost of GHI
The Stabilization Fund “stabilizes” the difference in cost between HIP and GHI (now Emblem) so that we get both premium-free.
It’s a big chunk of money (I’m not sure how big – that seems to be an item of contention, but the UFT says “almost broke” and this guy says $900,000,000 – so in that range), and while it is “sitting there” it is tempting for some to try to dip into it.
What else? (Mulgrew version)
The UFT website says
“the city and its unions have also used the fund in a variety of ways, such as offsetting members’ costs for PICA drugs (such as chemotherapy and injectables), subsidizing the cost of retiree prescription drug riders, shoring up various union welfare funds facing fiscal uncertainties and paying survivors’ benefits to the widows of uniformed officers.”
What else? (What you wanted to know)
This fund sits there. It is a temptation. I do believe that it currently holds $900,000,000 (nine hundred million, if that helps. Almost a billion).
In our 2014 contract, the UFT desperately wanted big raises. They learned the wrong lesson from their one failed contract (1995): they always want to make the “number” look big. So when the City claimed not to have enough money, the UFT offered up our future health care. They took bigger raises, but promised to pay back into the Stabilization Fund. They might have gotten some by reducing administrative costs or getting hospitals not to overcharge. But they also took money from my pocket and yours. Every new copay we paid, that was us repaying Mulgrew’s debt. Every new restriction, that was us limiting how much healthcare we took (leaving more for the Fund).
However, the UFT did make its obligation on the 2014 loan. (in part with our money, but they made it).
In 2018, however, they’d gotten used to the bad habit. Big pool of money. They got permission to borrow from it once before.
Fund or Piggy Bank?
Is it a stabilization fund? Or a piggy bank? Depends on who you ask. Mulgrew thinks it’s a bank, and borrowed from it again. I will talk more about this more extensively in a later post.
Today Mulgrew (and the MLC) are scrambling to pay what they owe. And once again, they want to pay with my money and your money, or by paying out less for our healthcare.
Does Michael Mulgrew care more about the health of his Stabilization Fund or about the health of his members and retirees?
These loans that the MLC (and UFT) took from the Stabilization Fund, they have to be paid back.
The first (2014) was paid back with a variety of sources, but some of the payback came from members’ pockets.
The second (2018) has been partially paid back with a mix, but more this time came from members’ pockets
The second (2018) for really horrible reasons is not close to being paid back. And with a mountain of debt, Mulgrew is looking to pick a new group of pockets (retirees) to replenish the piggy bank.
Question? Answer!
What is the Stabilization Fund? It is money the city and the unions used to use to balance the cost between HIP and GHI. Now it sits there like a slush fund. The MLC unions (including the UFT) borrowed from it, promising to return the money in the form of healthcare cuts. And the current debate was generated by the MLC and UFT and NYC trying to find a quick stream of cash to put into it, and deciding to try to squeeze that cash out of the retirees.
Blame it on Bad Rollout
The UFT leadership (Mulgrew and crew, aka “Unity”) are locked in a desperate fight with the UFT members and the UFT retirees – Mulgrew and co are struggling to reduce how much health care we receive, in order to pay a debt they incurred years ago – we are battling to prevent them, to preserve our health care.
Because the politicians and the insurance companies and big business are on Mulgrew’s side, you might think he is a heavy favorite to defeat the members and the retirees.
But so far we have successfully held him off.
Mulgrew and the UFT leadership (Unity) are pursuing a win at all costs – including misleading the membership.
One particular piece of disinformation involves a “bad rollout” – read on:
There is a battle in New York City. A David vs Goliath battle. A battle with a retiree group allied with labor activists on one side, and Mayor Adams, the Municipal Labor Committee, and the United Federation of Teachers leadership under president Michael Mulgrew on the other.
We are currently sparring over Administrative Code 12-126. There’s been plenty written about that.
Instead, today, let’s look at how this blew up in the first place.
The UFT leadership’s version goes like this:
We tried to do something revolutionary that would protect and preserve robust premium free benefits.
Geofrey Sorkin – director of the UFT Welfare Fund
The New York City Medicare Advantage Plus Plan, negotiated by the MLC, was a totally new, unprecedented version of Medicare Advantage that was ONLY for New York City municipal retirees and their families.
UFT website – https://www.uft.org/your-rights/safety-health/environmental-health-and-safety/disease-information/coronavirus-hub/school-year-2022-23-faq/health-care
But something happened. A bad rollout. Here’s how the UFT describes it:
Poor rollout of information causes delays. The city and the alliance of Empire BlueCross BlueShield and EmblemHealth did a poor job of communicating to both retirees and medical providers how the new NYC Medicare Advantage Plus plan would work. They did not make clear that it was not a typical HMO Medicare Advantage plan so many doctors mistakenly told members they would not accept it, even though all doctors would receive the full standard Medicare payments for their services under the new plan.
(I am providing image showing the url, and an image of the section I quoted. Because it turns out to be serious disinformation, I decline to provide a direct link)
What really happened?
The Municipal Labor Committee (MLC) and the United Federation of Teachers leadership (the UFT is one of the two controlling unions in the MLC) were negotiating with New York City over health care, in secret. Not only were the details of the negotiation kept from the members, but the fact that the UFT was even negotiating at all was a secret. Let me repeat that.
The UFT leadership kept secret from the membership and retirees that they were negotiating a Medicare Advantage “deal”. Mulgrew prefers to shake hands in dark alleys, to make deals in backrooms, to bargain reductions in our healthcare far from the prying eyes of the members and retirees whose healthcare he was trying to cut.
Bad Roll Out?
Well.
Not really.
Another union blew up his spot.
The Professional Staff Congress (CUNY union) shared with its members that this “deal” to switch retirees to medicare advantage, to add in prior authorizations, delay treatment, etc, was in the works. We talk to each other. Word reached UFT members and retirees.
Bad rollout? How about retirees finding out from another union that Unity had been messing with their healthcare, without even the decency of letting retirees or members know that this wheeling and dealing was happening.
Members were furious. Retirees were apoplectic.
Were they angry that “The city and the alliance of Empire BlueCross BlueShield and EmblemHealth did a poor job of communicating” to both retirees”? (which is what Mulgrew claims)
Nah. That’s disinformation.
Retirees were angry because someone pulled back the curtain. And we saw. We saw the UFT leadership had been selling our health care to the lowest bidder. In secret.
Busy Tuesday 11/22/22 – Budget Cuts, 12-126
Budget Cuts Stay. Court Tells City, Don’t Do It Again; Stop Cheating
The New York Court of Appeals released decisions today, including two with impact on United Federation of Teachers members.
Budget cuts. Last Spring the New York City Department of Education did not allow public input on its budget proposal (that was full of cuts). They got around public comment by declaring an “emergency” – the same slimy tactic they used under Bloomberg and de Blasio. Eventually, though, the City Council passed the budget. In a win that was not a win, the court ruled that New York City violated the law. However, reversing the cuts today, the court affirmed, would be disruptive. They ordered the City to stop declaring emergencies to avoid public scrutiny.
Analysis is at Class Size Matters. The decision is here.
NYC, MLC, UFT cannot impose $192/month fee on retirees
New York City, the Municipal Labor Committee, the United Federation of Teachers leadership, and the leaderships of other municipal unions tried to impose a $192/month fee on municipal retirees who opted out of joining “Medicare Advantage Plus.” Retirees fought back, and in a stunning decision, won. But the City appealed. And today the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court was right.
Coverage of the decision on Norm’s and James’s blogs.
In the meantime, the Mulgrew/Nespoli Medicare Advantage Plan collapsed months ago.
Today Mayor Adams, Harry Nespoli (Sanitation), and the UFT’s own lame duck, Michael Mulgrew, are off trying to change the law, as an end-run around the ruling. Section 12-126 of the administrative code protects workers and retirees against exactly the type of scheme these guys are trying to force on us. Call, email, tweet, write – let your city council member know how you feel “Do Not Amend 12-126. Do Not Amend the Code.”
Today Adams, Nespoli, and Mulgrew are trying to smear their opponents – the members, the retirees, us, the people who have so far blocked their plans to cut our healthcare.
Today Adams, Nespoli, and Mulgrew are off trying to find a new vendor for Medicare Advantage. They will eventually find a vendor – the deal is too good – take federal money – and the more procedures you deny, the more $$$ doesn’t get spent on healthcare – the bigger your profits will be.
So, no choice. Keep making those calls.
Weekend in the Shenandoah Valley
Weekend getaways are not my usual. This one was sweet.
Cozy cottage, set right into the edge of the Blue Ridge. Visited with a former teaching fellow, now a principal. Hadn’t seen each other in over a decade. She credits me, I didn’t realize, with, well, her words: “I’ve always loved math, but this guy was the one that helped me find my passion and love for teaching math as an NYC fellow.” I was touched.
There wasn’t enough time, but we hiked into and up the Blue Ridge. Climbed 750′ to a breathtaking overlook (on the Appalachian Trail), and then detoured another 800′ down to an impressive little waterfall (81′, but the water wasn’t running heavy). We missed the foliage by a few weeks. I can only imagine.
And then a cute local diner, and a winery for tasting.
There wasn’t enough time for Luray Caverns. I guess there should be a return trip. 😀
View from the cabin
Shenandoah Valley from the top of the ridge
Joining the Appalachian Trail
Tying Their Hands
Resolutions to bind their hands
Every few years a United Federation of Teachers (UFT) delegate suggests a resolution that the UFT take up front a position on something that is part of contract negotiations. Resolution to make class size reduction a negotiating priority. Resolution to get raises that at least keep up with inflation. Resolution not to trade more time for money. Resolution not to cut health care.
The leadership typically points out that the item is subject of collective bargaining. They further point out that we have a 50-member or 100-member or 300-member or 500-member negotiating committee. To take a position in advance on what our committee should be negotiating would bind their hands, when we don’t know where negotiations might be going. And then they get the delegate to withdraw the resolution, or they vote it down.
There was an exception. A delegate asked “no more time for money” and Unity approved that one. We voted on it. It is UFT policy. Why was Unity willing to make an exception? Because they had already traded away a huge amount of time for a not-quite commensurate amount of money in the horrible 2005 contract. Unity extended our school day, and then called the extra pay for the extra hours “a raise” – despite it meaning less time with our families – and frustratingly in spite of the fact that the extra time has not been super valuable. Anyway, I’m off track. A delegate stood up with a resolution that we don’t bargain away time for money, and Unity agreed because they’d already traded as much time away for money as they could.
But every other time Unity has said “do not tie the hands of our negotiating committee.”
The negotiating committee
Each contract these committees get larger. And over the years the committee has moved from being just a bunch of observers, to having conversations with the actual UFT negotiators, to actually playing some role in the discussions with the City. Yet most of us get the feeling some of the important dealing is being done out of earshot. Maybe most of it.
The committee members have to sign a confidentiality pledge. I’ve discussed this before. The pledge stops rank and file members from knowing what is going on. But the leadership and the City leak the negotiations to the press. And the Unity leadership lets the City know our demands before we officially give them to them.
Health Care
Arthur Goldstein was on the Negotiating Committee for the last contract. So when he wrote a piece in the Gotham Gazette last week, saying the health care changes were kept secret from us, Unity paid attention.
An officer requested a meeting with Arthur. Five Unity members (or union officials? not sure what capacity they were meeting with him in) met with him and tried to convince him he was wrong about Medicare Advantage. Plus, according to them, they were no longer trying to get retirees onto Medicare Advantage. Also, they pointed out, yes Arthur did know about the health care aspect of the 2018 contract – he wrote about it on his blog.
I checked Arthur’s blog. Yup, he wrote about the health care aspect of the agreement. He had written that Mulgrew said there were no givebacks. The New York Teacher wrote the same thing. Arthur had also written about the Exec Board, where Mulgrew didn’t even mention health care. And Arthur eventually wrote about the appendix where the health care changes were hidden. Arthur (and me) did see the appendix, eventually. But not because Mulgrew/Unity shared it. James Eterno found a source.
It turns out, Unity made a side deal six months before the contract.
- Unity made a deal outside of contract negotiations (Spring 2018) for health care cuts.
- The 2018 Negotiating Committee did not negotiate health care – even though health care cuts appeared in the appendix to the proposed contract. (Unity said “Contract negotiated by membership who sat across from DOE.” This omits health care)
- The cuts were not formally ratified until the October/November 2018 contract vote.
- Mulgrew did not tell the Executive Board the health care cuts were in the proposed contract.
- Mulgrew called it a “no giveback contract” (but there were givebacks)
- Mulgrew told the Delegate Assembly “Healthcare has nothing to do with this agreement”
- The Executive Board heard about the contract and voted to recommend it in the same meeting, without a chance to read the language, and never having seen Appendix B.
- The Delegate Assembly was rushed to recommend the contract to the membership without time to review the agreement. Importantly, the leadership hid Appendix B from the delegates,
- Arthur eventually learned that health care was in the contract, but not from the Unity leadership. It was from another blogger. Unity did not share Appendix B until later, although some sources did leak it before the contract vote.
Because the UFT officials/Unity members correctly pointed out that Arthur knew about health care being in the contract, he wrote a correction in Gotham Gazette (at bottom) and published a correction on his blog.
Here’s Arthur’s Gotham Gazette correction:
Correction: There was a health agreement made by MLC six months before the 2018 Contract, and UFT members were informed if it. Rank and file had not voted on it, and we were not aware of the particulars or implications. It was incorporated into Appendix B of the contract, which was not shared with us before the contract was ratified.
https://www.gothamgazette.com/130-opinion/11684-who-blame-nyc-teacher-health-care-debacle
Tying Their Hands
We need an intrepid delegate to offer a resolution:
- No more healthcare givebacks.
- Get back the health care we gave up.
A negotiating priority should be to undo the healthcare givebacks. It is very hard to get something back once we’ve given it away. It will take an extraordinary effort. It will take great creativity. And it requires rank and file oversight.
But in order for this to happen, we need to control the process.
- All health care negotiations must go through the negotiating committee.
- All health care deals must be completely explained to Exec Board members and Delegates, with time for reflection, research, and conversation with members before any vote.
- And that means no back door health care negotiations.
We do not need to tie the hands of the Negotiating Committee. They did not do this. But Mulgrew’s free rein to wheel and deal behind our backs? No. In that sense we need to place limits.
Big Picture vs Misdirection – Admin Code 12-126
Here’s the series of events:
- Mayor Adams, the Municipal Labor Committee, including the United Federation of Teachers leadership (Mulgrew et al) were trying to force retirees out of real Medicare and into their “Medicare Advantage Plus.”
- Retirees sued to stop them.
- Judge ruled against Mulgrew and Adams. The decision rested on Section 12-126 of the Administrative Code.
Pause here. Mulgrew wanted something. He was denied. There’s a law that stopped him. So how does he react?
- Mulgrew/Nespoli (MLC) et al begin a campaign to amend the law.
- Retirees go into action, and lobby city council NOT to amend.
- Retirees seem to have the upper hand.
- Mulgrew/Garido (DC37) et al try to campaign for the amendment, with talking point memos sent to in-service and retired members.
- Retirees still seem to have the upper hand.
- Adams’ Commissioner of Labor Relations, Renee Campion, sends a letter to the unions October 13 threatening Bad Things if the code is not amended.
- The UFT and DC37 use the Campion letter to revive their City Council Lobbying campaign.
- Using the Campion letter to scare members proves ineffective for Mulgrew. Retirees still have upper hand.
Pause. Mulgrew wants Medicare Advantage Plus. Retirees block him. He tries to change the law to “unblock” the City and the MLC (so they can force retirees onto Medicare Advantage). They block him again. He tries campaigning with members. Nope. He tries using the Campion letter to scare members into supporting amending 12-126 so he can force retirees into Medicare Advantage. Still not working.
- Mulgrew issues a new “fact” sheet.
- He buries the argument over 12-126 in details (it’s SIX pages. I’m not sharing)
- He claims this has nothing to do with Medicare Advantage.
So I put it to you. After fighting for almost two years to force retirees onto Medicare Advantage, is Mulgrew now fighting, with the same people on his side, and the same opponents, but not about Medicare Advantage anymore?
And the City.
- Does the City (Adams/Campion) favor amending the code because it will allow them (with MLC cooperation) to force retirees into a Medicare Advantage Plan?
- Or does the City (Adams/Campion) want to change the code to give the UFT more power and give UFT members more protections?
Adams wants to change the code.
- To protect city workers?
- Or to force retirees into Medicare Advantage?
Focus on the big picture. Mulgrew and Unity think you can be distracted by misdirection.
Do not amend Section 12-126 of the NYC Administrative Code. Take action (sign, call, email) now.
What’s going on with Congressional Results?
All the outlets are saying the Republicans are close, but have not yet clinched.
Except Decision Desk. They say the Republicans already won. And NBC, which is reporting a projection instead of a count.
Quick rundown on what the outlets say. And a quick rundown of the seats that are still, or might be still, in play.
| Outlet | Dem | GOP | Remaining | Note |
| ABC | 209 | 217 | 9 | 10 left on the map |
| Bloomberg | 209 | 217 | 9 | 10 left on the map |
| Decision Desk | 206 | 219 | 10 | |
| Fox News | 209 | 217 | 9 | 10 left open. They put their circles in a grid. It looks like they have 208-217, not 209-217. |
| NBC News | 209 | 216 | 10 | That’s what their map shows. They give a projection 215-220 |
| Politico | 208 | 217 | 10 | |
| Real Clear Politics | 208 | 217 | 10 | |
| Washington Post | 209 | 217 | 9 |
It’s annoying that so many are making some shared counting error – maps show 10 seats left to count, but their counts show 9 left.
But aside from the one seat error, and Decision Desk declaring a few extra seats, the counts are very similar. No one is making crazy claims.
Lets look at the specific seats that have not been called:
Seats Not Yet Called
| Note | Which way | ||
| AK at large | Waiting for Ranked Choice | Very Likely D | 🔵🔵🔵 |
| CO-03 | 1,112 R vote margin, still counting, recount(s) likely | Likely R | 🔴🔴 |
| ME-02 | Waiting for Ranked Choice | Likely D | 🔵🔵 |
| CA-03 | Slow count, but not much drama | Likely R | 🔴🔴 |
| CA-13 | Central Valley – toss up | Lean D | 🔵 |
| CA-22 | Valadao, Trump-impeacher R, holds lead of 3,280 | Lean R | 🔴 |
| CA-27 | Not called, but R Mike Garcia has claimed victory | Very Likely R | 🔴🔴🔴 |
| CA-34 | Gomez (D) leads Kim (D) | Solid D | 🔵🔵🔵 |
| CA-47 | Porter leads by 3,772 with 84% counted. | Lean D | 🔵 |
| CA-49 | D holds 12,000 vote lead | Likely D | 🔵🔵 |
| All others | 208 – 217 |
AK at large. It’s ranked choice – in this case one candidate will need 50%. The democrat, Peltola, has 47% to 26% for Palin and 24% for Begich. The rules will make it take a while to get to the count, but in a very similar race this summer Peltola needed more votes from Begich, and easily got them. Many Begich voters will just not support Palin. This is a Democratic win, just a matter of time.
ME-02. Also a ranked choice situation. Golden, the Democrat, leads Poliquin, the Republican, 151,504 to 141,006, or 48.2% to 44.9%. A third candidate has 21,555 votes, which will be redistributed between the two major candidates. That third candidate, Tiffany Bond, ran on a socially liberal old-fashioned Republican platform, with a tinge of Libertarianism to it. I bet her votes split fairly evenly. And Poliquin, to win, would need 3/4s of her votes. Does not look likely.
CO-03. Lauren Boebert took a very Republican district (+15R partisan lean) and turned it into a nail-biter. Too crazy for Trump voters. She leads 162,040 to 160,918 (50.2% to 49.8%) with only a few votes outstanding. Counting will wrap up Friday, after which there may be a recount (or recounts).
CA-03. District runs a long stretch of the Nevada border. It’s on the right side of the state, and leans to the right side of the political spectrum. It’s got a +8 Republic partisan lean. The Republican leads by 5.6%. Why has this district not been called? Because less than 60% of the vote is in. Is there a reason to think this one might be close? Nah. Kevin Kiley should win.
CA-13. Democratic Adam Gray leads this Central Valley district 56,521 to 55,921, a razor-thin margin (50.3% to 49.7%) with 2/3rds counted. The district has a D Partisan lean of +7, but that my be offset by lower turnout among agricultural workers.
CA-22. David Valadao was one of the few Republicans to vote to impeach Trump. His San Joaquin Valley district, including Bakersfield, is pretty evenly divided. And he maintains a small lead. over Rudy Salas, 35,421 to 32,141. That may be enough to hang on, but only 2/3rds of the vote is in.
CA-27. Likely Republican hold. Decision Desk called it. Incumbent Mike Garcia claimed victory. But race not officially called.
CA-34. California has open primaries (every party) and the top two face off in the general election. Does that mean the top two could both be Democrats? That’s what happened in CD34. Rematch of 2020, Jimmy Gomez (incumbent) beating David Kim in this Los Angeles seat, this time 52%-48%, last time 53%-47%.
CA-47. Katie Porter leads by 3,772 or 1.6% with 84% counted. The district is in Orange County, and has a +6D partisan lean, but elections here have been tight. This may take a while to be finalized.
CA-49. Incumbent Levin (D) leads by over 12,000 votes with 89% of the vote in. Almost a 5% lead. This is approaching a safe margin.
Summary
Today we are at 208 – 217.
Including the most likely remaining: 210 – 218 (Republicans control the house)
Including most of the rest, except CA-13, CA-22 and CA-47: 212-220
Including all: 214 – 221.
212-223, 213-222, 214-221, and 215-220 all seem reasonable picks at this point. Republican margin would be 5, 7, 9, or 11. All small. But all with Republicans in control.
Does Mulgrew have a Plan B?
UFT members, in-service and retired, have been calling our City Council members with a clear message: “Do NOT Amend administrative code 12-126” By the way – there’s still time to write or call.
Why do we have to protect this law?
Because the City and the Municipal Labor Committee have joined forces to lean on members to lobby the city council to change the administrative code 12-126. That’s Mulgrew and the UFT leadership, and DC37, and a bunch of other union leaders.
What are they doing? The unions have promised the City that they would generate $600 million in health care savings, every year. They made the promise in the contract that just ended, but the promise goes on indefinitely.
Health care savings? Means we get less service. Or we pay more. Cuts is what regular people call them.
Anyhow, the route the MLC and the City (Mulgrew, Nespoli, Adams) are trying to take is to amend 12-126 so they can force retirees onto a medicare advantage plan.
Who’s Winning?
Regular folks are saying “don’t amend” – the politicians and the union leaders are saying “amend.” Both sides can’t win.
Right now, believe it or not, the workers and retirees seem to have the upper hand. In this country, the little guy winning? Wow. That’s a movie. (or it would be, if it were sexier than New York City Administrative Code 12-126). And in the UFT? It’s been almost three decades since the rank and file did anything like this, defeating a contract with zeroes in it.
What Happens Next?
If the amendment is defeated? Or if it is never even voted on? (which seems more likely)
There are some scary threats from the City. I might write about them. But I don’t know that they are really coming.
What’s next? Honestly. If they lose their amendment, they will have to come up with something.
If Mulgrew is on the hook for six mil, and he can’t get it from retirees, he’s going to need a back-up plan, a Plan B.
What is Mulgrew’s Plan B?
I think we have to ask him. I think he needs to tell us. Because that is in all likelihood where we are headed.
“Looks like your amendment’s failed. What’s your Plan B?”
Oh, and if you ask him, and he answers, please let the rest of us know.
Any ideas out there?
Yup – there is a resolution out there – apparently not yet introduced – to restore the stock transfer tax, stock buyback tax, and bring the corporate tax back to where it was in 2017, and create several other taxes on super-wealth (luxury Manhattan second homes worth $14M should pay something, right?). We could use that money so that regular people don’t get less healthcare, and don’t have to pay more for what they do get. Anyway: Interim Resolution to Address the Rising Cost of Health Care (scroll down for it).
And if you have other ideas, please share them. Explain them clearly, and simply. Mulgrew really does need a Plan B, and maybe we can help.
Save Our Healthcare –
MORE Town Hall
Sunday evening, November 13
http://tinyurl.com/HealthCareTH
The fight against amending NYC Administrative Code 12-126 continues. The code sets a floor the city must pay for our healthcare, and blocks them from going lower.
The amendment will let them go lower. We need to defeat this amendment, or even stop City Council from considering it.
http://tinyurl.com/HealthCareTH
This event is for current teachers and other school workers, and for retirees.
These changes threaten the healthcare of IN SERVICE and RETIREES. We are in this together. We will beat this together.
See you Sunday!
Votes for Congress in New York State 2022
Most of us know, Democrats lost four districts in New York, including two on Long Island. New York was the worst swing for the Democrats in the country, arguably worse than the loss of four in Florida. In Florida an aggressive gerrymander worked, and the statewide GOP got good turnout – but Democrats held their own exactly where they were expected to.
In New York, it looks like Democratic vote failed to meet expectations hardly anywhere. But “anywhere” introduces the idea of “where” which means we might turn things up looking at some maps. OK.
Before you go on, you might like to take a look at what I wrote about the governor’s race yesterday. There’s a pretty good argument to be made that there were very different dynamics at play – I might use I-84 as the dividing line – from Port Jervis through Poughkeepsie to somewhere on the northwest CT border. Above and to the left, we have some regional variation, but it’s kind of a regular state. Down and to the right, the northern suburbs, NYC, and Long Island are a different sort of animal. In particular this election Hochul did far worse in the lower part (NYC etc) than Cuomo had in 2018, but she ran close to him or even better in the first part. Also, turnout plummeted in the NYC etc part for the Democrats. It rose dramatically, but not nearly as much, for the Republicans downstate.
538
I have followed 538 for a while. They can slice up data pretty well. They are not particularly good at analyzing it. They don’t have much of a sense of history (though I have seen some improvement). They don’t write very well, and as someone who doesn’t write particularly well, I claim some expertise. And their “model” or really “models” remind me of boys making a formula for picking the MVP. Then not liking the results, and adjusting the formula. And doing it again and again until it gives the result they expected. So their prior expectations litter the result, but those expectations are not completely wrong, and in the process of tinkering they might begin to recognize some interesting stuff. That’s pretty much my understanding of Nate Silver, except he has a lot more time, really powerful computers, paid staff, and chronological age over 11.
All of which is to say I am using 538s Deluxe Model, because it is the one Silver has tinkered with the most. Here’s what it predicted for New York State (map looks red because of western NY, the Southern Tier, Central New York, the North Country, and the Capitol Region – which are all less dense than the concentration of districts in the Lower Hudson Valley, New York City (11 districts) and Long Island (4 districts).
538 Deluxe Forecast: Margins in NY Congressional Districts
Source 538.com’s model page – not sure you can see the data, but you can try
Democrats had 15 pretty certain and 4 leans, Republicans had 6 pretty certain and 1 lean.
But you know what happened – Democratic turnout, especially in NYC and suburbs, including Rockland and Long Island, was not there. And this is what the map looks like (I am not certain why no one has called 22, that small one that looks like a dog barking right in the center, with Syracuse if you know where that is. But it looks like a GOP hold.)
Unofficial Results: Margins in NY Congressional Districts
Source: NY State Board of Elections Election Nights Results Page
Immediately I notice that blue belt (20-19-18-17-16-NYC-3-4, above) breaking up. And it is true, those four districts that are not blue, 19, 17, 3, and 4, they are the big New York congressional races news. But I am interested in what’s going on with the votes in New York State.
Let’s look at how much higher or lower margins were than expected. That means not only looking at the flips – but where did each party actually meet expectations. And, I have a feeling you already know what’s going to jump out:
Actual Margin vs Forecast (538 Deluxe) Margin
Where is most of Hochul’s underperformance? NYC. Where is most of Zeldin’s overperformance? Long Island and Staten Island. Look at the rest of the state. Two very close districts flipped, but aside from that, it’s an ordinary map, mostly each party held its own districts by roughly the expected margin.
Specific districts
CD-22, the medium red district in the center that looks like a dog howling – see the snout pointed towards Lake Champlain? And the lower jaw pointing to Lake George? And the stubby tail south of Oswego? It would be clearer if they drew Oneida Lake out, so you could see his left ear. Anyhow, someone needs to draw that dog and make it look beautiful, and someone with more data and skill than I do should look at the demographics and voting patterns of this Erie Canal/New York Central/Central New York district. It is complicated. Rome, Utica, and Syracuse are not like the rest of New York State. I think as the rest of the state swings to and fro, this district may be moving in its own direction.
CD-19, the furthest north of the flipped districts. This is a complicated amalgam of a university town – Ithaca – a fairly Trumpy region, some conservative suburbs, and part of the increasingly hard Democratic leaning Upper Hudson Valley. It too should stay a competitive – perhaps longer than 22, since it’s different parts may tend to drift in different political directions.
CD-17. There is a story. Sean Patrick Maloney losing is a big deal. He was a non-progressive big shot in the Democratic Party. He bullied his way into the seat, running where Mondaire Jones was serving (Jones ran in the primary in CD10 in Manhattan, screwing up that race and handing it to a friend of the family that runs the New York Times). Alessandra Biaggi primaried Maloney (good for her!), but he won, he got what he wanted, and he lost.
It would be easy for outside observers to take some interesting stabs at what happened, without having any specific information. In fact, I see at 538 (remember, data good, analysis? Meh) they are doing just that:
If you are going to discuss a specific district, it might be helpful to know something about that district.
17 was drawn as a balanced, Democratic-leaning district, drawn from part of Westchester, all of Putnam, all of Rockland, and part of Dutchess. By votes: 42% Westchester, 38% Rockland, 14% Putnam, 6% Dutchess. Now, there’s been redistricting, so no direct comparisons are possible district to district. But not every county line was cut. And we have Rockland returns from the last 2 elections.
Rockland County 2020 vs 2022
| Dem | GOP | |
| 2020 | 68,697 | 54,791 |
| 2022 | 47,591 | 58,288 |
How is this different from Zeldin up some, Dem down a bunch anywhere else downstate? First let me note that there were about 1,200 Zeldin (R) / Maloney (D) voters in Rockland. That’s interesting.
But then, let’s just look at this endorsement: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-721699. This week. Hasids. Zeldin. Strong endorsement. Groups vote en bloc. And there are now 50,000 Hasidim in Rockland County. Yes, Zeldin outran Molinaro. Yes Democratic turnout fell in NYC and the near suburbs. But that endorsement hit Sean Patrick Maloney in CD-17, and did not matter one bit in CD-18.
And then the reason is two-fold. One, they like Republicans, but vote for Democrats if they think Democrats are sure winners. Maybe this is a successful version of “seat at the table” politics. We could send in Unity leaders to learn how it is actually done. But maybe not. The second reason might get in the way.
Under Cuomo, the Hasidic groups used that “seat at the table” to secure unwritten agreements that they could get public funding for their schools, with no oversight. In a famous case, a group sued FOR state intervention, because their kids were learning torah, but not math, not to read and write English, not the things that we really expect schools to do. But I don’t think Hochul made the same dirty deal.
And thus Sean Patrick Maloney may have been defeated by people seeking to keep their children from learning to read.
Long Island
I’m not talking about Long Island. I don’t want to get into any more trouble.
What Happened to Hochul’s Vote?
Did Kathy Hochul do much worse than Andrew Cuomo? How did that happen? Can I make maps that will help us understand? Sure I can!
Some historic data first:
| Dem | Rep | Ind | Grn | Other | |
| 1998 | Vallone | Pataki | Golisano | Lewis | Mccaughey (Liberal) |
| 1998 | 1.57M | 2.57M | 0.36M | 0.1M | 0.1M |
| 1998 | 33.2% | 54.3% | 7.7% | 1.1% | 1.7% |
| 2002 | McCall | Pataki | Golisano | ||
| 2002 | 1.53M | 2.26M | 0.65M | ||
| 2002 | 33.5% | 49.4% | 14.3% | ||
| 2006 | Spitzer | Faso | |||
| 2006 | 3.09M | 1.27M | |||
| 2006 | 65.3% | 27.1% | |||
| 2010 | Cuomo | Paladino | Hawkins | ||
| 2010 | 2.91M | 1.55M | 0.1M | ||
| 2010 | 63.0% | 33.5% | 1.3% | ||
| 2014 | Cuomo | Astorino | Hawkins | ||
| 2014 | 2.07M | 1.54M | 0.2M | ||
| 2014 | 54.3% | 40.3% | 4.8% | ||
| 2018 | Cuomo | Molinaro | Hawkins | Sharpe (Libertarian) | |
| 2018 | 3.64M | 2.21M | 0.1M | 0.1M | |
| 2018 | 59.6% | 36.2% | 1.7% | 1.6% | |
| 2022 | Hochul | Zeldin | |||
| 2022 | 3.03M | 2.73M | |||
| 2022 | 52.6% | 47.4% |
I included any parties that both broke 1% and got at least 50k votes. I listed candidates under the main party they campaigned under – sorry WFP. In 1998 the Right to Life (which seems not to have actually had one) got 1.2%.
Now, there’s not enough here to figure out what happened. Hochul scored a lower percent than Cuomo scored in three races, but not much less than 2014. Her vote total exceeded his from 2014 and 2010. And, remember, 2018 everyone was petrified of Trump, which drove urban turnout. Also, no one has a percent as high as Eliot Spitzer, and that was before Trump.
First item. Turnout looks lower in 2022 than 2018.
Turnout 2022 compared to 2018
And this is a VERY specific map. Turnout was mixed in NY from Syracuse, west. Turnout was up slightly in the North Country, flat in the Hudson Valley, up slightly on Long Island, and down, kind of dramatically, in the four major boroughs and Westchester. The biggest fall? The Bronx, where turnout dropped 33.4%
Was this drop in voters felt equally by both parties? Let’s look at Zeldin first:
Zeldin votes as share of Molinaro votes
The legend came out tiny, sorry. But that cherry red is over a 25% increase in raw votes (not percentage) and the dark red is over 50%. Zeldin lost votes or was flat along the CT/MA/VT border and in one county, from Dutchess to Washington, but he gained votes everywhere else in the state. And he topped Molinaro by the biggest numbers on Long Island, in Rockland, and especially in NYC, precisely where the total vote dropped the most sharply. Vote dropped? And Zeldin votes went up? Same places? That’s probably more than enthusiasm – that’s some groups shifting sides.
Let’s see where Hochul’s votes rose and fell.
Hochul votes as Share of Cuomo 2018 votes
Surprised? Hochul generally outran Cuomo upstate, except for a bit of the Trump-y southern tier. And she creamed him in the Capitol District and upper Hudson Valley. But she ran way behind him in Rockland, Westchester, NYC, and Long Island.
Most people would not look at difference in raw votes. They would consider the margin by which the democrat trailed or led the republican. OK, that’s a slightly different lens. If Cuomo lost Dutchess county by 7%, and Hochul lost by 4%, we can call that a plus three (+3%) swing to Hochul. Here’s what that looks like on a map:
Margin swing Cuomo 2018 to Hochul 2022
Nice when a map confirms what we expected! Hochul ran nearly even with Cuomo 2018 in most of the state, outpaced him in the Capitol District (the area around Albany) and the upper Hudson Valley, and did far worse in Rockland, Westchester, NYC, and Long Island.
I was talking to someone from the WFP today, and he said “Jon. but 2018 was amazing turnout in NYC, everyone was wild about Trump.” So, having already downloaded 2014 data, I answered “OK, I’ll compare Hochul to 2014, figure that’s more of a baseline.” And I did.
A quick peek at turnout, before we proceed. Sorry for not sticking to the green scale. I think I got distracted.
Turnout 2022 compared to 2014
It’s going to be hard to look at raw votes between 2014 and 2022, because totals for everyone are up, pretty much everywhere, except 3 fairly lightly populated North Country counties. So we will just look at percentage swing.
Margin swing Cuomo 2014 to Hochul 2022
Color scales are not identical to the 2018 to 2022 map, sorry. But you get the idea.
In the last decade some upstate areas – along the southern tier – in the North Country, have added substantial GOP votes. This needs more work, because these are definitely NOT the counties that swung hardest to the GOP in the age of Trump, though they all did swing at least a little.
But also, all of NYC except Manhattan, Long Island, and Rockland added Republican votes.
In fact, I didn’t repeat the map you can see at Politico, but Hochul and Cuomo carried the same counties upstate.
In the Capitol District and Lower Hudson Valley, Cuomo only carried Ulster and Albany. Hochul took those, and also Schenectady and Columbia.
But the biggest changes were Hochul losing Rockland, Staten Island, Nassau, and Suffolk – all which Cuomo won.
Last Notes
The Capitol District and Lower Hudson are growing more democratic, but also more progressive. It looks like the Greens had been doing better there in the NYC and the suburbs, and the Working Families Party did well in parts of the 5 boroughs, but also Tompkins (Ithaca, the colleges), and the Capitol District and Upper Hudson.
NYC needs a look at the Election District level, or at least the Assembly District level, to get a better handle on which Democratic voters didn’t vote, and which switched to Zeldin. Something like that would be useful for Rockland and Long Island as well.
Since Pataki, New York has looked so Democratic Party run that we might forget that statewide things have swung back and forth. Parts of this state, this city, may be realigning. Or it could just be a fluke election. Me? I am not voting fluke.
That’s one question to dig into. Another, a big one, the Democrats lost Congressional seats on Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk), in the Lower Hudson Valley (that’s Maloney – Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam), and District 19, which stretches from Tioga and Tompkins all the way to Greene and Columbia, so that is more of a mixed district. But for the other three, do those losses represent long-term voter shifts? or just Hochul lagging Cuomo in those areas? Not easy questions.
And yeah, in answer to my original question, Hochul did a lot worse than Cuomo’s best election, and just a little worse than his election before that.
The data comes from the NYS Board of elections, except 2022 comes from Politico, where all returns were unofficial, and mostly incomplete (95%, 98%, like that)
Election Day Today
So go out and vote, if you haven’t yet. Polls are open in New York until 9PM – that’s plenty of time.
A lot of people already voted. I did. We get to relax and watch the results come in. Or don’t relax. But your choice. Some people are volunteering at polling places. I might show up.
Teachers get “PD” instead of a regular work day. I am not teaching this year. But I used to not especially like meetings instead of teaching. The best part of being in school, for me, and for many teachers, is working directly with kids. One year I went to a pd in a nearby school. It was in a large auditorium, and the speaker carefully explained the science behind “attention span” and why 15 minutes was the absolute longest teens and most adults could hold focus, and 10 minutes might be more like it. He spoke to us, without interruption, for 45 minutes on this topic. Was it worth 45 minutes of sliding in and out of focus (consciousness) to earn my favorite pd story? Hmm. I’d rather teach.
Predictions
Might as well make predictions.
In New York, no real surprises. Hochul’s “tight” race will turn out to be about a 10 point win. Bigger wins for Letitia James and Tom Di Napoli. Even bigger for Schumer, who I won’t vote for, ever. The house delegation goes for the Democrats 19 – 7, with no upsets (It’s currently 19 – 8).
Nationally, it’s a likely going to be a bad day for the Democrats.
Current house is 222 Democrats, 212 Republicans, and one vacancy. I keep counting and recounting, best guess is it ends up 199 Democrats and 236 Republicans.
The Senate is at 50 – 50, with VP Harris breaking ties for the Democrats. I think it will take more than a day to get “final” results, and the Democrats seem to have a chance, but I’m torn on my prediction – between 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and Georgia going to a run-off to determine control of the senate – or 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and Georgia going to a run-off that won’t determine control.
Thought
Can you imagine a country where we are divided roughly 50/50? The “moderate” democrats, the ones really in charge of the party, I’m not making a list, not today, but I have nothing in common with them. But the alternative choice in many races are batshit insane, openly racist Trumpers? And it’s really 50/50. What a sick, sick country we have become.
At least I’ve got a good state senator.
The Proposed Amendment to 12-126 Threatens the Healthcare of In-service NYC Workers as well
Adams and Mulgrew are threatening the healthcare of active workers AND retirees. The Municipal Labor Committee (MLC) and the City Office of Labor Relations have been trying to force retirees out of Real Medicare into Medicare Advantage. Since they have been blocked they are now trying to amend the City Administrative Code (like local law) to make it easy to reduce how much health care is provided.
It’s playing in the media like it’s all about retirees. Why should actives care? Well we should.
First, those retiree benefits that UFT President Mulgrew is trying to diminish? Those are ours, one day.
But more immediately, the changes he and Mayor Adams and the head of the MLC, Sanitation Workers, harry Nespoli are pushing – they would enable to the City to cut health care for active, in-service employees.
Solidarity between retired teachers and in-service teachers, between retired city workers and active city workers – that solidarity is critical to preventing Adams/Mulgrew/Nespoli’s plans to reduce how much health care each of us gets.
A friend, a 71 year old retired NYC employee (not a UFT member) who put in 35 years of service and has kept informed on this matter, wrote up some notes. Here is an excerpt. All the parts that affect in-service members are in bold type:
· The proposed changes to 12-126 have their origin in an ill-conceived scheme hatched by the previous Mayor and the leaders of the MLC that involved the ‘borrowing’ of a billion dollars in health insurance stabilization funds to pay for raises to active employees and ‘repaying’ the borrowed funds with ‘savings’ generated by forcing existing New York City retirees to enroll in a ‘free’ Federally subsidized Medicare Advantage plan or to begin paying for the $200 per month per person for themselves and their dependents for the free Medicare supplemental health insurance plan they had earned as a result of their years of service.
· While the previous Mayor and his MLC cohorts did succeed in ‘borrowing’ the stabilization money to fund raises, their repayment plan failed spectacularly due to the fact it violated 12-126 and the extraordinarily inferior quality of the Medicare Advantage Plan they wanted to impose on existing retirees.
· Although they are now being presented as measures designed to reduce and stabilize healthcare benefit costs, the proposed changes to 12-126 are first and foremost a second attempt to implement the previous administration’s ill-founded and poorly conceived repayment plan.
· The proposed changes to 12-126 will put the quality and cost of active employee and retiree health care benefits at risk by allowing the single health insurance price setting benchmark and the all-inclusive definition of the class it applies to that were explicitly set forth in 12-126 when it was adopted by the City Council to be replaced at any time by the current Mayor and his MLC cohorts as well as by future Mayors and MLC leaders with multiple different price setting benchmarks and class definitions designed to raise the monthly health insurance premiums to be paid by whatever group or groups of people they choose to target.
· The way proposed changes to 12-126 are constructed the City Council, the City’s legislative body, will be unable to review, question, moderate or prevent the imposition of price setting benchmarks and class definitions a Mayor and the MLC decide to set in order to raise premiums.
· The proposed changes to 12-126 will give all power in setting health insurance premiums to the Mayor and MLC members and reduce not only the role of the City Council but of everyone else to that of a powerless bystander.
· The impact of the proposed changes to 12-126 will fall first and most heavily on existing retirees because the changes will allow the Mayor and the MLC to once again offer them the Hobson’s choice of paying $200 per month per person for themselves and each of their dependents to keep the now free supplemental health insurance they were promised and earned or to allow themselves and their dependents to be enrolled in a privately run Medicare Advantage Plan, which is health insurance model proven to foster corruption, offer fewer provider choices and place profit ahead of quality care.
· In the future, active employees can and are likely to be impacted by the proposed changes to 12-126 because the changes will allow this Mayor and his MLC cohorts as well as future Mayors and MLC leaders to change pricing benchmarks and class definitions so as to impose or raise the premiums active employees pay for their health insurance whenever they deem it necessary to cut costs or save money and to do so without any public input or review.
· The proposed changes to 12-126 will result in active employees confronting upon their retirement the same Hobson’s choice to be imposed on existing retirees and needing to choose between paying $200 per month per person for themselves and each of their dependents for the free supplemental health insurance they were originally promised or allowing themselves and their dependents to be enrolled in a privately run Medicare Advantage Plan, which absent substantial reforms at the Federal level will still be a health insurance model that fosters corruption, offers fewer provider choices and places profit ahead of quality care.
· That the proposed changes to 12-126 will do nothing to temper the rising hospital and prescription drug costs which are the true drivers of escalating health insurance premiums and that those rising costs would best be addressed not by changing 12-126 which relates specifically to the premium amounts the City will cover but by the City, the State, the unions and health insurance providers coming together to negotiate better deals with doctors, hospitals and prescription drug providers.
JD2718 
