"Contrary To Some Rumors That Have Appeared On The Internet"

Check out this email that CTU is passing along clarifying again some of the provisions in the proposed agreement, which says in part:

Contrary to some rumors that have appeared on
the internet, the new contract continues full dental
coverage...

 

Contrary to some rumors that have appeared on
the internet, the new contract provides the same mental health
care coverage as in the last contract...

The increase in employee contributions for
health care is not 50% of the salary increase – but merely
50% of the salary increase multiplied by the
contribution rate.

Click below to read the whole thing.  Make sure you're making your decision based on good information.

Rachel G. Resnick

Chief Labor Relations Officer

Chicago Public Schools

125 S. Clark St., 5th Floor

Chicago, Il 60603

Sent:
Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:06 PM
To: Moriarty,
Joseph T; Whalen, Antonia ; 'Franczek, James C., Jr.'; 'Rose,
Charles P.';
Subject: RE: clarification language- one
more time

 

RE:  Tentative Agreement with
the CTU

 

Please read the attached. This has
been reviewed by our attorneys. This must be sent out first
thing in the morning to clarify misinformation.

 

Rachel
Resnick

 

 Dear Principal:

 

We have received some inquiries regarding the
tentative contract approved by the CTU House of Delegates and
scheduled for a vote this Monday, September 10th.
In order to clear up any confusion we want to explain what
it means for our teachers.  Please share this updated
summary with them
today:

 

Issue #1: Employee health
care contributions spelled out in Appendix B:

 

During the first three years of the contract,
employee health care contributions are frozen and converted to a
flat amount based on the 2006-2007 salary schedule and
contribution rates. The only increases in contributions during
the first three years will occur as an individual moves up steps
or across lanes. 

 

In the fourth and fifth years, there
may be modest increases in employee contributions if
health care costs rise.  If health care costs rise more
than 5% in years four and five, employee contributions will be
according to the same formula that applied in the previous
contract (i.e., the same percentage of base salary as in the
previous contract).  However, if the increase is between 1%
and 5% a new formula applies where the increase in employee
health care contributions is based on 50% of the salary increase
multiplied by the contribution rate.

 

For Example:

o Assume a $60,000 salary in
year three of the new contract.
 

o Under the proposed
agreement, in year four the salary rises by 4% or
$2400.
 

o Take 50% of the increase
and you get $1200.
 

o Multiply $1200 by the
employee contribution rate of .028 (may vary by plan) and you
get $33.60 for the year or $1.29 per paycheck.
 

 

          
In other words, the increase in employee contributions for
health care is not 50% of the salary increase – but merely
50% of the salary increase multiplied by the
contribution rate.

 

 

Issue #2: Dental
coverage

 

Contrary to some rumors that have appeared on
the internet, the new contract continues full dental
coverage.

 

Issue #3:  Mental
Health coverage
.

 

Contrary to some rumors that have appeared on
the internet, the new contract provides the same mental health
care coverage as in the last contract.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I'm gong to vote, "Maybe,er...yes...er...no" and then I'm going to explain my vote a week after I vote, and then I'm going to clarify the explanation with a series of memos.

  • The checks in the mail.

  • 6:44

    Amen brother (or sister).

    as for you re:

    I don't need to attend informational meetings, I read the thing, I can see that health care will be reopened in a year; I can see that it CLEARLY STATES that 50% of our raise will go towards healthcare.

    I will NOT vote for a contract that needs to be clarified, I will vote for a contract that is clear...

    I will NOT vote for a contract that has delegates attend explanatory meetings AFTER they've already voted...

    I will NOT vote for a contract that is being forced down my throat in one week's time..

  • 8:28

    Yes, to this contract I have been completely antagonistic. It actually has little to do with its content, but more to do with how it was being shoved down my throat with half truths, vagueries (is that even a word), and broken promises.

    Had they been completely upfront, had the language been clear, in all honesty there is a good chance I would have voted for it.

  • When I first read the proposed contract, I was upset that I had decided to retire. Now, the more that it's clarified, the happier I am that I am out of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Casey - you are right. This happened in 2003 when Lynch's contract was first presented. It was voted down and they went back to the table. There were some postive gains (shorter length of contract and I believe a 1% increase in pay). We have nothing to lose if they go back to the table, only gains will be made. I am voting NO to this contract because the contract is to long. Afterschool pay should be my hourly wage. Young teachers are probaby looking at $37.50 an hour as a fair hourly wage but when their hourly wage becomes $57.00 an hour, $20.00 less an hour will not seem so fair. Class size need to be addressed and acted upon. Vote NO!! WE CAN DO BETTER!!

  • Skalinde-commie-pinko

    I would tend to agree with you, but these payments are being made to the most corrupt, most despicable companies in America, health insurance companies.

    As having socialist tendencies myself, public service jobs should provide absolutely free insurance to all its employees.

    Increase my taxes, give everyone health insurance, then I'm happy to pay more as I make more, but to give health insurance companies more money...ugh

  • why even discuss this all...the votes will not be secured...your vote "No" or "Yes" is subject to tampering...this is America where voting has become a national joke...and in Chicago voting history is legendary...our beloved CTU? ...wasn't our last election ugly enough?

Leave a comment