EONYC, The WIRE:. don’t confuse a temporary check with a raise. don’t confuse a political campaign with collective bargaining. Arthur Goldstein, The Ever-Shifting Rationales of Michael Mulgrew. You CAN’T circumvent collective bargaining. That’s. ...
That’s
what he [Mulgrew] told us as we tried to pass 1096. No doubt he’ll trot this out
again as we support the newly named 1008. The problem, he claims, with a
bill that would make our health care city policy and eliminate his
beloved co-pays is it violates collective bargaining.
There were howls of laughter in UFT-land when the unpopular union leader Michael Mulgrew declared war on the super popular Mayor Mamdani over the para bonus issue.
Did Mamdani invite Mulgrew to break the much-maligned pattern bargaining that sets a standard of pay raise for all unions based on the first union to settle? It would make sense for a DSA pro-labor mayor to give special attention to the lowest paid workers and paras certainly fit that mold, as do EMS workers. But that would break the pattern and might lead to squawking from higher salaried who might get less %wise even if the actual money they get would be more - much more.
Due to pattern-bargaining, the same % goes to the highest and lowest paid. Thus a 100k at 3% worker gets a 3k raise a year and a para at 35K gets a $350 raise in the same contract. The only way for paras to get a permanent, pensionable salary is to selectively break the pattern.
Yes, Mulgrew is using the same collective bargaining argument as Mamdani when it comes to protecting retiree healthcare, except Mamdani is closer to the truth than Mulgrew. But using "truth" and "Mulgrew" in the same sentence is a sham.
Oh, the irony of the mainstream NYC press (Times, News, Post) engaging in a rare Mamdani praise-fest for standing up to the UFT, when in actuality he is taking a potential long-range pro-para pro-union position. But then again so much of what Mulgrew has done is actually anti-union, and the para bonus gambit may just fit that mold.
I say potential because the crucial test will be in the next contract negotiations where if Mamdani doesn't deliver for paras his cred on the left on the affordability issue with some of the lowest paid city workers would be laid to waste.
There are many facets to the para pay issue. When my wife, who pays little attention to some of this stuff, asked me why Mamdani opposes the para bonus, I realized the issue had gone mainstream. I told her the key to understanding the entire issue was the Fix Para Pay election win over Unity in the 2024 chapter election. Her eyes glazed over at the inside baseball. Go and explain this to the mainstream press which is framing the issue in lopsided ways.
Daniel Alicea addresses the Unity election loss issue:
The
Daily News says UFT President Michael Mulgrew “failed”
paraprofessionals at the bargaining table and “basically left the paras
behind.”
That’s the sentence worth remembering.
Because
before there was a RESPECT Check, before Mayor Zohran Mamdani sued to
stop it, and before politicians started holding press conferences about
paraprofessional poverty, paras themselves had already revolted.
Only
after that political earthquake inside his own union did Mulgrew become
the public face of a $10,000 legislative campaign. A lobbying campaign
and series of bills in which Mulgrew never once consulted with the UFT
paraprofessional chapter over its design or messaging.
The mainstream mostly anti-Mamdani and anti-union press has been having a field day, gleeful at seeing a split and mocking a DSA member mayor, and so happy that a pro-labor socialist will stand up to the union.
Here are a few points to explore:
Mulgrew's para gambit was a response to the Para chapter election loss in 2024. Check.
If we delve deeper, we can see that Mamdani is actually more pro-labor than Mulgrew and his corrupt UFT leadership by defending the collective bargaining agreement as the way to enact permanent economic health for paras as opposed to a one-time non-pensionable gimmick.
Mulgrew and City Council chair Menin tag team Mamdani as she preps a 2029 campaign against him, a campaign the UFT will back (maybe the kiss of death for her?). The para issue is the first of others to come where Menin looks for opportunities to differentiate herself. (Keep an eye on the 9/11 ceremonies).
The mainstream press has superficially been siding with Mamdani for standing up to the union and attacking Menin, but that is temporary. The second he gives paras a raise in the contract, the dogs will be out.
The left, especially the loyal opposition in the UFT, which is reluctant to criticize Mamdani and seems confused, just stays silent - see if you can find a Jacobin article delving into the issue. So the only place with a left-leaning perspective where you will get some analysis is by reading Arthur, Daniel, ABC, Fix Retiree Benefits, FIx Para Pay and Ed Notes. Let me know when you see MORE, RA or NAC put something up.
Here are excerpts from the NYT authored by 3 reporters who always have their chops out to slam Mamdani. The Times has followed the scurvy NY Post lead on anti-Mamdani articles.
A
lawsuit filed by the Mamdani administration to block $10,000 bonuses
for teachers’ aides has put the mayor at odds with their union.
When Mayor Zohran Mamdani sued the City Council
over its end-run move to give $10,000 bonuses to teachers’ aides
outside the normal collective bargaining process, the mayor placed
himself at the short end of a two-on-one battle.
Not
only would the mayor square off against the City Council, a frequent
sparring partner, but he would also embark on his first major fight with
a public sector union, in this case the United Federation of Teachers.
In
doing so, a mayor eager to burnish his pro-worker bona fides has
scrambled conventional wisdom and left himself in the strange position
of being praised by some of his most committed critics.
“Mamdani
does right,” read a recent headline from The New York Post’s
conservative editorial
Because Speaker Julie Menin knows better, her unabashed abuse of power in orchestrating a unanimous City Council vote for a $10,000 bonus payment for NYC’s deeply deserving school paraprofessionals would make Donald Trump proud.
Her usurping the mayor’s exclusive authority under the state Taylor Law
to negotiate contracts was a naked giveaway to the powerful teachers
union and United Federation of Teachers President Mike Mulgrew and sets a
dangerous precedent at City Hall.
The Missing Link in all reporting on the para issue is the 10k is the Unity Loss to Fix Para Pay in the 2024 Para Chapter Election, along with the loss in the Retiree election.
The losses were by big margins: 63% in the RTC and 75% in the para election. In the RTC, Unity dropped from their usual 17-19K to 10K.
With 26k paras and 70K retirees and his re-election coming up a year later, losing big in those chapters could very well have turned into a loss for Unity - and both results spurred Amy Arundell and other unhappy Unity people to join with some standard opposition folk to form a potent ABC and become a threat. Mulgrew pivoted by declaring he no longer backed MedAdvantage and for the paras came up with the one-time non-pensionable 10k bonus.
And it seemed to work in time for the 2025 election . One of the reasons ABC actually thought it had a chance to win even in a 3 slate race was the hope that the para and retiree vote would be substantial. While the retiree vote dropped from 2024 it was still enough to continue to worry Unity with Unity regaining some ground but fundamentally in a 50-50 split with the ABC/ARISE combo retiree vote. (I will delve deeply into the upcoming RTC election.)
The para vote was not substantial, as the Unity blitz before the election gave paras the impression Mulgrew was really fighting for them. It will be interesting to see how things play out in the upcoming para chapter election if FPP runs a slate. Will there be some blowback if they still haven't gotten the check by the spring?
While supporting the 10k as an emergency bonus, ABC pointed out the one-time only gimmicky aspect and called for paras to get a permanent pensionable raise in contract negotiations, while also pointing out that Mulgrew had his chance to get them a big raise in the last contract and didn't even try. For taking that position, Unity attacked ABC as being against the 10K and that also cut down the vote. But 140 paras ran with ABC -- and none with ARISE.
Now that Mamdani is taking the collective bargaining position in opposing the 10k bonus and in essence challenging Mulgrew to bargain effectively (two contradictory words for UFT negotiators) he also puts to shame the Mulgrew position that supporting City Council bills to protect retiree healthcare violates collective bargaining and the Taylor Law. Taking one side for an issue and taking the contradictory side for another issue is not out of bounds in the UFT.
I left a text linking the para election issue at the Brian Lehrer show regarding the election after a segment on the para issue last week.
Daniel points out that if going around contract negotiations and using politics to bargain is good for the goose, it is also good for the gander as other unions will play the same game.
While
UFT leadership, City Council Speaker Menin and Mayor Mamdani are cast
as heroes and villains, we continue to forget paraprofessionals need a
permanent living wage, now — not later.
Where
I part company with the board is over what happens next — and who gets
to play hero now that everybody has discovered that a school worker
making barely $33,000 can’t afford New York City.
The iron law of institutions
states that people who run an organization care more about keeping
their own power than helping the organization succeed....political analysts use this concept to explain why progressive or
liberal groups, labor unions, and activist spaces sometimes prioritize
internal control, ideological conformity, or leadership survival over
winning broader elections or achieving their stated social goals.
The institutional Dem Natl Comm are so threatened by a statewide win by a progressive in Michigan, they spend more time attacking him than his Republican opponent --- thus you see the name Hassan Piker being raised
in every media, both Republican and Democrat circles. Dem Doyone Neera Tanden who heads the misnamed Center for American Progress (I prefer Regress) had 15 tweets about Piker over two days. She'd rather see a Republican win in
Michigan and lose the Senate because a win by Abdul will negate her influence and power. Tell her to GFH with a donation to him.
Keep these points in mind while I switch gears.
The first EdNotesOnline post on Aug. 27, 2006:
An attentive class size of three
Sadly, all 3 cats are gone, the last one in 2011 - but we did have two more after that, but they are gone too -- so, we are catless for the first time in 55 years.
Monday, August 31, 2026 - Celebrating 20 years of blogging.
Education Notes has been around in print and online for almost 30 years. I began publishing the print editions in 1998 but they are not online yet.
An item I published 20 years ago (see below) turns out to have some relevance to the sturm und drang taking place in the world of UFT retirees over the differences between the Retiree Advocate/New Action tandem and Fix Retiree Benefits. The discussion broke out in the RTC Ex Bd and beyond on some listserves when a group of independents unaffiliated with either group, seeing a Unity retake of the RTC as an existential threat to retiree healthcare, began demanding there be a united slate in the spring 2027 RTC election.
RA/New Action group dominates the 25 member RTC officers and Ex Bd with 9 out of 10 officers (Arthur Goldstein of FRB is the only non RA member) and also occupy 6 of the 15 EB. Given the level of outreach to a broader level of retirees, with the help of Marianne Pizzitola's NYCOPSR, FRB is asking for a 50-50 split of the 25 seats with the odd position going to the group that doesn't choose the chapter leader. The response has not been encouraging, indicating that the current RTC leadership is happy with the status quo and wants to maintain control.
(See above, The iron law of institutions).
One concern with the RTC leadership over the past two years has been a lack of pushback against the UFT/Unity leadership - the subservience to Mulgrew
and Unity Caucus retirees who are scheming to take back the chapter and
are getting little resistance.
Recently
RA put out a proposed platform with no mention of Unity Caucus, who they
are supposedly running against. There's a history at play here - the long-time dozen year relationship between NAC/RA and Unity.
I helped form the Independent Community of Educators in late 2003 to run in the 2004 election because of the NAC deal with Unity - details another time - but search this blog for New Action if you want to know more. Let's go back 20 years to August 31, 2006 when I included an item on the upcoming UFT elections in the spring of 2007 https://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2006/08/ednotes-online-august-31-2006.html, with this snippet.
With
New Action not revealing their intentions at this time other than to
give strong indications they will not run with the ICE-TJC slate despite
an offer that was made to have them join the slate, there is an opening
for them to play a spoiler for Unity by dividing the opposition vote
and allowing Unity to regain control of 100% of the Executive Board. Of
course, New Action could choose not to run at all but without some
statement from New Action affirming that position, ICE-TJC must now go
on the assumption New Action might agree to be a stalking horse for
Unity. ICE-TJC welcomes individuals in New Action who wish to run with
them.
What is old is new again.
The co-chairs of New Action 20 years ago were Michael Shulman and Jonathan Halabi, both leaders of the current Retiree Advocate (Shulman is still co-chair of NAC) and are among the 10 officers of the RTC and viewed as the major resistors to running a united slate in the RTC election to prevent Unity from regaining control of the chapter.
(See The iron law of institutions).
New Action spawned Retiree Advocate over 30 years ago and reps from both ran in UFT elections in cooperation with Unity by endorsing Randi for president in 2004 and 2007 and Mulgrew in 2010 and 2013 and ran on the Unity slate in 2007, 2010 and 2013, getting their reps elected to the Exec Bd with Unity votes, including both Shulman and Halabi.
While I criticized RA and NAC during those years, we made peace in 2016 when they left the Unity fold and I and others connected to ICE and MORE joined RA and worked hard in the election 2 years ago. We also worked together in the 2022 UFT elections. I make these points to those who claim we are driven apart by personal pique and egos. If we worked together over almost 10 years despite differences, we are still willing to see Unity as the common enemy.
And therein lies the rub. NAC and RA people often chastise critics for pointing to Unity as an enemy. "They are just fellow union members," they say. "Sure," I reply. "Fellow union members who advocated for taking us out of Medicare." If they had succeeded, with my current medical condition I'm not sure I'd still be alive. Sorry, people who are willing to risk our lives are enemies.
Like
I said, some issues never go away.
=====
Both Halabi and Shulman are prominently mentioned in a recent post by Arthur Goldstein, the only one of the 10 RTC officers not in the Retiree Advocate steering committee.
One of their leaders opposes 1096/1008. Another criticizes aligning with Marianne Pizzitola.
There’s been a flurry of mail directed to RTC Executive Board
members, urging we build a united front to fight Unity in the next
retiree election. That’s a good idea, though not a new one. I started
contacting people the day after the last election to try and organize.
My friends at Fix Retiree Benefits
(FRB), an offshoot of ABC, agreed. We decided we’d have a better chance
of beating Unity if we ran cooperatively with Retiree Advocate (RA).
Newly formed ABC got 9,000 retiree votes last year, while RA went from
17,000 to 3,000. Unity edged us all out with 13,000. This told me that
we needed to put aside our differences.
I thought of a
way we could run together—a way that, to my mind, was generous. Rather
than demand we get the three to one representation election results
indicated, we’d split it right down the middle, 50-50. My FRB friends agreed.
After
a year of no response, RA met with us twice. Both times, they said they
had no authority to make agreements, and no proposals of their own.
They canceled our third meeting, scheduled for June. Now RA’s Jonathan
Halabi, who openly opposes 1096/1008, has emailed a proposal for
something his caucus calls an “Open Election Slate.”
It’s
open to the degree that any RTC member may apply. However, RA continues
their policy of keeping total control in the hands of their now
15-member steering committee, in that “All nominees will be vetted by the Committee.”(Correction—They say they are forming a committee to do that, and it will not necessarily be the steering committee.) That’s a far cry from running cooperatively.
And
Marianne Pizzitola who has lead the NYC Retirees over the past 5 years
to many court victories to stop the plan to put retirees in Medicare
Advantage and also to fight co-pays, takes on NAC co-chair Nick Bacon (who replaced Halabi, and spends most of his writing time attacking Marianne, ABC and FRB while making excuses for Unity.)
If Retiree Healthcare is the main issue, why I am the focus of Nick Bacon?
Nick
Bacon’s piece deserves a response, not because NYC Organization of
Public Service Retirees needs to defend its independence, but because
his argument appears to conflate two entirely different questions:
Should the UFT formally affiliate with NYCOPSR?
and
Should
UFT members or opposition caucuses be free to work with an independent
retiree organization on issues where they share common goals?
Those are not the same question.
Nick spends considerable time explaining why the UFT shouldn’t
formally partner with NYCOPSR. But who is actually proposing that? If
the current question is whether different UFT opposition groups should
work together, why is NYCOPSR being presented as the obstacle? If Daniel
Alicea, Arthur Goldstein, or others want to work with NYCOPSR on
retiree healthcare, that does not mean NYCOPSR controls their slate. It
doesn’t mean they surrender their
independence. It doesn’t mean they agree with us on every issue. We do
not. It means they recognize that on one important issue, protecting
retiree healthcare, they share common ground. That is called coalition
politics. We align on what we agree with, and not where we don’t.
And
if someone believes that working with NYCOPSR should disqualify an
opposition group from participating in a broader UFT coalition, then
they should simply say that directly. Don’t disguise a political
decision as a legal necessity
No one from the UFT/Unity was there (of course) but we had 4 members of the RTC Exec Bd at the event and a nice crew from Fix Retiree Benefits, which has been working closely with NYC Retirees.
Fix Retiree Benefits in the house
Saturday, August 15, 2026
DSA had a bunch of social events going on today and I intend to go to a beach party in Rockaway where I will stand around and try to find someone over 30 to talk to. There is also a local Rockaway DSA group meeting elsewhere which actually includes older people. Oh, the choices.
I attended the Thursday morning NYC Retiree rally and presser near City Hall along a nice sized crowd where the new bill replacing 1096 was announced by Democrat Chris Marti, one of the most liberal city council members from the lower East Side who was joined by Staten Island Republican Frank Morano, one of the most conservative members.
Only Marianne Pizzitola could accomplish such a feat of unity. I find it more than ironic that certain forces inside the current leadership of the Retired Teachers Chapter of the UFT have been critical of her efforts to unite all sides of the political world in the the support of the healthcare of retired NYC workers because they would rather people whose politics they abhor not to support us and castigate Marianne for getting them to work in our interests. The level of support for working with Marianne is one sticking point in the disagreement between the 30 year old Retiree Advocate, which won the 2024 election with Marianne's massive support, and the new kids on the block, Fix Retiree Benefits (FRB), which has been working with her organization to battle on issues like co-pay and para pensions.
After it was over and we took photos, I was one of the few people left when Rockaway lifeguard legend Janet Fash showed up.
She came by subway, so no surprise that the A-train would get here there late. She was disappointed in not getting to meet Marianne and Arthur Goldstein. I had just bought her book the day before and she signed it. (CBS Saturday morning just did a major feature on her and she has been appearing on NPR and other media). Her book goes beyond her life story and explores the corrupt lifeguard union. I remember reading about her battles with the union leader, who was also her boss. (Yes she was retaliated against). She was also active in the UFT as a chapter leader in a Queens middle school and had gone to UFT DAs and borough meetings and was aware the UFT is not democratic.
She is very up to date on the doings in the retiree chapter. I ran into her at the June RTC meeting and she attended the FRB zoom in late June and signed up to be more involved. She decided to take the ferry back to Rockaway and I considered going with her. I was trying to decide whether to go back to Rockaway or go back uptown to Bryant Park for a 12:30 Broadway in the park. I also had tickets for an Art Cart drawing class at 2:30. Having had chemo the day before, I had to make sure I had the energy to keep going. I decided to stay in the city and take a late afternoon ferry home.
I stopped for breakfast at a Dunkn on Chambers St. and took the subway uptown to Bryant Park (one of the great wonders of NYC and only a few blocks from my pied... er apartment (don't tell Mamdani - lucky I have a cheaper one). The night before I missed the 6PM yoga class but this Monday I'm going to the City of God movie.
Anyway, I'm so glad a went because I met two ladies with health issues, one with Type 1 diabetes (she was wearing a dexcom patch) and later at the Art Cart a cancer survivor who had a lot of knowledge and was very encouraging. We talked so much, my drawing of the buildings surrounding the park look like a Jackson Pollock.
Back to the rally and presser, this is an updated version of Intro 1096 that was proposed during the 2024-25 Council session.
The bill summary states: This
bill would maintain the health insurance coverage of eligible retired
employees of the city of New York and their dependents by prohibiting
the City from increasing the total costs for healthcare above the rate
paid by each retiree as of December 31, 2021, or by decreasing the level
of coverage that was provided to each such retiree as of December 31,
2021.
The full text of the bill reads as follows:
Int. No. 1008
A
Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in
relation to protecting the health insurance coverage and contribution
for Medicare-eligible retired employees of the city of New York and
their Medicare-eligible dependents
Be it enacted by the Council as follows:
Section
1. Subdivision a of section 12-126 of the administrative code of the
city of New York, as amended by local law number 9 for the year 2010, is
amended to read as follows:
a. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings [hereinafter stated]:
[i.
“]City employee.[“] The term “city employee” means [A] a person: (1)
who is employed by a department or agency of the city; and (2) is paid
out of the city treasury; and (3) is employed under terms prescribing a
work week regularly consisting of twenty or more hours during the fiscal
year; and (4) is not employed by the board of education.
[ii.
“]City retiree.[“] The term “city retiree” means [A] a person who: (1)
is receiving a retirement allowance, pension or other retirement
benefit from a retirement or pension system either maintained by the
city or to which the city has made contributions on behalf of such
person pursuant to subdivision (g) of section 80-a of the retirement and
social security law; and (2) immediately prior to such person's
retirement as a member of such system, was a city employee, or was an
employee of the board of education employed under terms prescribing a
work week regularly consisting of twenty or more hours during the fiscal
year; and (3) had at the time of retirement, at least five years of
credited service as a member of such retirement or pension system,
except that (A) such requirement of credited service shall not apply in
cases of retirement for accident disability, (B) the requirement of
credited service for vested retirement and service retirement shall be
at least ten years for a person who was not an employee of the city or
the board of education on or before the effective date of the local law
that added this clause, and (C) notwithstanding the provisions of clause
(B) of this subparagraph, the requirement of credited service for
vested retirement and service retirement shall be at least fifteen years
for a person who was not an employee of the city or the board of
education on or before the effective date of the local law that added
this clause, is receiving a retirement allowance from the New York city
teachers' retirement system or the New York city board of education
retirement system, and held a position represented by the recognized
teacher organization for collective bargaining purposes on such person's
last day of paid service.
[iii.
“]Dependent.[“] The term “dependent” means [T]the spouse of a city
employee or city retiree or any child of a city employee or city retiree
during the period of eligibility of such child for coverage under the
insurance contract applicable to such employee or retiree; provided,
however, that no spouse or child of any such employee or retiree shall
be deemed a dependent after the death of such employee or retiree.
Diminish.
The term “diminish” means to cause any change in health care offered
that could potentially make it harder for city retirees residing
anywhere in the United States, including its territories and
possessions, to access their health care than before such change was
made. These changes include increasing the total costs for healthcare
paid by each city retiree, including with respect to premiums,
deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments.
[iv.
“]Health insurance coverage.[“] The term “health insurance coverage”
means [A] a program of hospital-surgical-medical benefits to be provided
by health and hospitalization insurance contracts entered into between
the city and companies providing such health and hospitalization
insurance.
§
2. Section 12-126 of the administrative code of the city of New York is
amended by adding a new subdivision e to read as follows:
e.
The city shall not diminish the health insurance coverage provided to
city retirees and their dependents or the contributions the city makes
for such health insurance coverage below the level of such benefits or
contributions made on behalf of such city retirees and their dependents
by the city as of December 31, 2021. Nothing in this subdivision shall
be construed to impair the ability of employee organizations to
negotiate the terms and conditions of employment, including those
concerning future retirement benefits, for their employee members.
§
3. This local law takes effect immediately and is retroactive to and
deemed to have been in full force and effect on and after December 31,
2021.
New York City Council Member Chris Marte [D-1st District] reintroduced legislation on Thursday aimed at blocking ongoing efforts to chip away at the healthcare coverage municipal retirees earned after decades on the job—and this time, he said, the bill will pass.
“I think there’s a lot of momentum on our side,” Marte told Work-Bites outside the gates of City Hall Aug. 13. “Whether it’s the recent [court] decisions, the [$53M] settlement, it really shows that this is a force to be reckoned with and we’re on the right side of history.”
In 2024, then Mayoral-candidate Zohran Mamdani told Work-Bites that Marte’s bill—then known as Intro. 1096— would not be needed if he was elected. But municipal retirees who have continued to press for legislation further codifying the healthcare package they had enjoyed up until the end of 2021, insist a new bill is needed.
Last year, they successfully pushed Mayor Eric Adams to abandon a campaign—originally hatched between Mayor Bill de Blasio and the heads of the largest public sector unions in the city—to strip municipal retirees their tradition Medicare and Medigap benefits and herd them into a profit-driven Medicare Advantage plan.
The scheme was supposedly going to save the City of New York $600 million annually and cover long overdue raises for active city workers.
Adams also imposed $15 copays on municipal retirees that many living on severely limited incomes could hardly afford. Retirees fought them, too, ultimately convincing Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Lyle Frank to block the charges in 2023.
Venerable New York City municipal retiree Evelyn Jones-Rich helps to rally supporters outside the gates of City Hall this week.
The Adams administration later responded and successfully managed to reinstate the copays.
Just this month, however, municipal retirees won a $53 million settlement with the City of New York and EmblemHelath reimbursing them for the $15 copays they were forced to part with back in 2022.
This week, Marte said his reintroduced bill will put a stop to any further efforts to diminish retiree healthcare.
“Whether that’s limiting your network, whether that’s changing your provider to give you a worse system or increase your copays—that will not happen when we pass this bill,” he said on Thursday.
Previous versions of the retiree bill, according to Marte, had to “side step” the legislative process and be introduced from the City Council floor because then-City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams opposed it.
This time, he added, his team has been able to introduce the bill though the legislative process with the bill-drafting unit, “so [opponents] can no longer say that we did not look at this bill before it was introduced.”
Council Member Frank Morano [r] joins fellow Council Member Chris Marte [l] in calling for passage of newly-reintroduce legislation protecting the traditional Medicare benefits City retirees earned on the job.
“They can no longer say that our lawyers didn’t have an opportunity to look at every single word to make sure it was right or not. All those false narratives they’ve used in the past two years against us—they can no longer be used today,” he said.
Intro. 1096 largely failed to pass because District 37 Executive Director Henry Garrido, head of the largest public sector union in the city, also opposed it and actively worked to intimidate other City Council members against supporting it.
“We are in the fight of our lives,” nonagenarian Evelyn Jones-Rich told Work-Bites on Thursday. “There are millions of us who believe in ourselves and the city we built—and we will prevail. We will fight to keep our traditional Medicare, we’re going to fight to keep our supplements, we’re going to fight to not have copays. We believe that we make this city and this nation—little people like us, ordinary people, ladies who have struggled behind the scenes. We have stood in the shadows for too long. Now we are standing up—we are speaking out.”
Marte’s reintroduced retiree bill also comes out of the gate with strong bipartisan support. In co-sponsoring the new legislation, City Council Member Frank Morano [R-51st District] has easily out-lefted the most progressive members in the legislative body and democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani himself.
“The government talks constantly about rebuilding trust,” Morano said on Thursday. “Here’s a good place to start: Keep your word. The $53M victory that we’re [also] talking about today proves something else: You can fight City Hall—and sometimes City Hall loses. Retirees should’t have to hire lawyers and spend years in court every time somebody in government comes up with another clever way to reinterpret a promise. That’s why we need legislation.”
Mariann Pizzitola, retired FDNY EMS first-responder and head of the New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees, said the City of New York should never seek to achieve savings or balance the budget on the backs of active workers or retirees.
“Here’s the deal,” she said, “these people worked for decades. They’ve been retired for decades. A promise was made to them. They kept their end of the deal and the city has to keep its promise. We’re going to hold them accountable to that.”
Mayor Mamdani, a close ally of Garrido, has so far ignored Pizzitola’s requests to meet and discuss retiree legislation.
Garrido, along with the other of the heads of the Municipal Labor Committee—UFT President Michael Mulgrew and Uniformed Sanitation Men’s Association President Harry Nespoli [retired]—have long insisted that legislation protecting retiree healthcare violates collective bargaining rights.
Marte, however, maintains that the newly-reintroduced retiree bill explicitly protects collective bargaining and that nothing in it limits the ability of employee organizations to “negotiate terms and conditions of employment, including future retirement benefits, on behalf of the active employees they represent.”
“We have heard the stories of retirees being frustrated, being scared, having anxiety every time they wake up, or every time they have to go to their doctor or provider—that is killing our people who have given so much for our city,” Marte said on Thursday.
I'm just leaving to attend this event today. Here is a photo from last week:
COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTOPHER MARTE, NYC RETIREES TO RALLY FOR LEGISLATION PROTECTING RETIREE HEALTHCARE
Marte to Reintroduce Legislation Protecting Municipal Retirees from
Medicare Advantage, Increased Healthcare Costs and Reduced Access to
Care
Who: Council Member Christopher
Marte, New York City municipal retirees, Retiree healthcare advocates,
Elected officials and supporters
What: Rally to Protect NYC Retiree Healthcare and Reintroduction of Retiree Healthcare Legislation
When: Thursday, August 13, 2026, 9:30 AM
Where: Broadway and Murray Street
New York, NY — On Thursday, August 13 at 9:30 AM,
New York City Council Member Christopher Marte will join retired
municipal workers and advocates at Broadway and Murray Street to rally
for permanent protections
for the healthcare benefits earned by New York City retirees.
Following the rally, Council Member Marte will formally reintroduce
legislation at the City Council’s Stated Meeting to prevent the City
from diminishing healthcare coverage for Medicare-eligible municipal
retirees and their dependents.
While the City has stepped away from its previous effort to move
retirees onto Medicare Advantage, retirees remain in limbo and
vulnerable to future attempts to privatize their healthcare, restrict
their choice of doctors, or impose new copays and other out-of-pocket
costs. The legislation would ensure that the City cannot reduce
retirees’ healthcare access or contributions below the protections they
had as of December 31, 2021. (The next day, the City imposed copays for
the first time in 60 years that have amounted to
a car payment to many, preventing them from accessing life-saving care
or putting them in debt.)
For decades, New York City retirees have relied on healthcare benefits
they earned through years of public service. The legislation seeks to
ensure that a future administration cannot unilaterally force them into a
privatized Medicare plan with limited provider
networks or increase the costs retirees must pay to access care.
"Retirees are no longer in unions, although they used to protect us.
The Administrative Code states, 'The City will pay the full cost of
health coverage up to the HiP HMO for every employee, retiree, and their
dependent.' Our Senior Care plan only covers
the 20% of our bills Medicare doesn't, and it is well under the HiP
HMO. There was no reason to impose cost transfer on retirees. We MUST
fix this injustice and never force retirees into Medicare Advantage,"
said Marianne Pizzitola, President of the NYC
Organization of Public Service Retirees. "We have this law because
Mayor John Lindsay passed it when Medicare was created so he could give
it to City workers. We kept our promise; the City must keep its
promise."
The legislation also explicitly protects collective bargaining rights.
Nothing in the bill limits employee organizations from negotiating the
terms and conditions of employment, including future retirement
benefits, for the active employees they represent.
Retiree healthcare protections have historically been established
through City law, and protecting benefits for people who are already
retired does not interfere with collective bargaining agreements
covering current workers.
The rally will call on the City Council to act while it has the
opportunity to provide retirees with long-term certainty and prevent
another attempt to place their healthcare at risk.
Mulgrew and his Unity flacks must be in mourning since he never met a co-pay he didn't like.
Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2026
Tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the Ed Notes blog.
I'm in Manhattan and heading down to the presser and rally at City Hall. Don't expect any UFT officials to be there. But will Retired Teacher Chapter officers and exex bd members be there to celebrate a freeze on co-pays for the rest of this year?
I will be taking photos and report back tomorrow with an analysis of the rift between most of the RTC leadership and Marianne, a leading cause of the current rift within the RTC chapter that just may hand back the chapter to Unity, which will be a disaster for the future of our healthcare. Mulgrew and crew is probably moaning over the fact co-pays are frozen until Jan. 1 2027. Due to my medical condition(s) - diabetes and cancer plus the usual assorted issues any 81 year old faces, I see many doctors.
Just yesterday I left my house at 7AM to catch a ferry to 34th St (an hour and a half) and then a bus uptown to 74th St, another hour including a 15 minute walk to the Koch center, where I had blood taken (ca-ching) and a meeting with the endocrinologist nurse (more ka-ching? Next week I have 3 appointments in one day. And the co-pays come flying into my in box.
I was told the other day that Marianne has over 10k UFT retirees in her network. My election analysis has shown that Marianne brought over 9k retiree votes to both the 2024 victory in the RTC election and in the 2025 UFT election. Those 9k votes are up for grab in next year's RTC battle between Unity and Retiree Advocate and Fix Retiree Benefits. There are some serious differences between RA and FRB, some over Marianne who some in RA don't consider kosher enough politically to support plus major resentment over her support of ABC in the election last year which brought them those 9k votes.
There are also differences over the lack of pushback against the UFT leadership where FRB feel the RTC leadership (10 officers and 15 Exec Bd members ) has been weak in defending our healthcare, seemingly distracted by outside factors - very quick to support workers in other unions but I've seen nothing out there urging members to show up today.
I will be taking attendance and some photos.
NYC PUBLIC SERVICE RETIREES TO HOLD RALLY ON CITY HALL STEPS FOLLOWING $53 MILLION HEALTHCARE SETTLEMENT
WHO:
Marianne Pizzitola, President, NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees
Jacob Gardener, Walden Haran Williams LLP
Steve Cohen, Pollock Cohen LLP
New York City public service retirees
Supporters and advocates
WHAT:
Following the announcement of the $53 million class action
settlement between the City of New York, EmblemHealth, and more than
250,000 retired City workers over unlawful GHI Senior Care co-pays,
retirees will gather on the steps of City Hall to discuss
what the settlement means—and why the fight to protect earned retiree
healthcare benefits continues.
Speakers will address the significance of the settlement, the impact on
retirees living on fixed incomes, and the organization's call for
long-term protections for retiree healthcare.
The Speaker's Office must permit legislation to properly protect retirees to be introduced.
WHEN:
Wednesday, August 5, 2026
10:30 a.m. ET
WHERE:
Steps of New York City Hall
New York, NY
VISUALS:
Marianne Pizzitola speaking on the steps of City Hall
Retired New York City public servants gathering in support
Interview opportunities with retirees directly impacted by the healthcare changes
MEDIA OPPORTUNITY:
Marianne Pizzitola and retired New York City public servants will be available for interviews immediately following the event.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Deborah Schonfeld
Communications Consultant
