THE CHIEF-LEADER welcomes letters from its readers for publication.
Correspondents must include their names, addresses and
phone numbers. Letters should be submitted with the understanding
that all correspondence is subject to the editorial judgment of this
newspaper. Letters can be e-mailed to: RSTEIER@RCN.COM or
mailed to: Richard Steier, Editor, 277 Broadway, Suite 1506, NY, NY
10007.

Letters to the Editor: Local 100 Entitled to Refunds

Letters to the Editor
Local 100 Entitled to Refunds

To the Editor:

The new TWU Local 100 contract with the MTA has a provision for previous (prior to 2001) pension payment refunds (subject to Governor Pataki's approval). I think that the union can demand such refunds under the Constitution of the State of New York.

Indeed, the Constitution states that "... After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished ..." (Article V, Par. 7).

Let's analyze the word "diminish." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes the word "diminish" as "... to make less or cause to appear less ..." It is obvious that pension benefits of union members who paid more to the pension fund at least were made "to appear less" and lost some of their value when employees with lower seniority were allowed to pay less.

The current situation, therefore, violates the Constitution of New York State, and it should be corrected immediately. And the only way to do it is to pay refunds. Because all pension refunds should be approved by the Governor, it will be beneficial for Local 100 to have the state Constitution on its side. So the union has to write a petition asking the judge to decide which interpretation of the word "diminish" is correct.

A similar situation was created in 1995 when Governor Pataki signed into law the new Pension Bill (Chapter 96). That law had the Provision 57/10, which allowed all new employees (in exchange for an additional contribution to the Pension Fund - currently, 1.85 percent) to retire at age 57. But the state lawmakers did not realize that the Provision 57/10 didn't just legalize the reverse seniority (because employees with higher seniority had to wait until they were 62 years old to retire), it violated the state Constitution as well.

VICTOR MALTSEV

Editor's note: Mr. Maltsev is a former Electrical Engineer with New York City Transit who retired last year.