Sunday, May 4, 2014

REVISED! Lose Just 9K, Plus Interest, With New Contract!

As I said, I am no math teacher, so I promised to gladly revise my numbers on the new contract if someone could show where I erred. JD2718 did just that, by showing that I neglected to take into account the retro payments the UFT promised for the years 2015-2020. Being a reader of JD's blog, I know he is a math whiz, and I refer my readers to his excellent post on the contract numbers.

Even so, I did show that a teacher at the top of the scale would lose 57K in salary while receiving far less in retro, for a difference of 9K. Even JD has not accounted for the 9K we are losing. I suspect, as a non-math teacher, that it is due to compounding, or voodoo, or possibly tree gnomes.

In any case, the 57K difference that I calculated has real consequences, because had we been given the money on time, we'd have been able to sock much of it away in TDA, which pays 7%, or some other investment which would have earned us more money than we are going to get.

In all likelihood, I'd have spent a fair amount of that money on Girl Scout Cookies, so this contract also hurts another great American institution.

I will delete my prior post, as I don't want to mislead anyone as to the real numbers. I will, however, repost the chart I made before to show where the shortfall comes from. Thanks JD, and if we ever meet, the Girl Scout Thin Mints are on me.



Salary Year
Raise
Salary with Frontloading
Raise
Salary with Backloading
Annual
Loss
2009-10
4%
$104000
0%
$100000
$4000
2010-11
4%
$108160
0%
$100000
$8160
2011-12
0%
$108160
0%
$100000
$8160
2012-13
0%
$108160
0%
$100000
$8160
2013-14
1%
$109241
1%
$101000
$8241
2014-15
1%
$110333
1%
$102100
$8233
2015-16
1%
$111436
3%
$105163
$6273
2016-17
1.5%
$113107
3.5
$108843
$4264
2017-18
2.5%
$115934
4.5
$113740
$2194
2018-19
3%
$119412
5
$119427
-$15

6 comments:

jd2718.org said...

Thin mints. Or do-si-dos.

Still want to find out where those $9k went.

Mr. Talk said...

You want do-si-dos, you got 'em.

Please let me know if you find out about that 9K, as I do strive for accuracy here, despite my declining math skills.

jd2718.org said...

And you understood the comment from before? If you apply the raises each May 1, instead of each September 1, that reduces the gap from $57k to $49k (and yes, I still don't know why the union says 40, not 49)

Jonathan

NYC Educator said...

Shouldn't your title read lose 49K rather than 9K? I'm not a math person either, but I'm a little confused.

jd2718.org said...

The 57 or 49 is excluding retro, so it is wrong. But there may be something funny about how retro is calculated - neither 49 nor 57 is the same as the 40 the leadership mentioned. Could be 9 missing, or 17, or something else.

We will have the answer once we have the MoA, which we still do not have.

jd2718.org said...

It's all there. "Over 40" was their way of being conservative. Nothing missing.

Also, for retirement, they will recalculate salary as if the raises had kicked in '09 and '10.

Jonathan