General Display |
![]() |
Schools & Instruction |
![]() |
Legal Services |
![]() |
Legal Notices |
![]() |
Classifieds |
![]() |
Salute to Civil Service Organization Month |
|
|||||
|
Pension Injustice To the
Editor: Therefore, any hourly-paid employee who moved up the ranks very fast and was in an annually-paid position above the direct line of promotion from an hourly-paid position was denied entry into this new Transit 25/55 plan. The following year, Chapter 96 of the Laws of 1995 established Section 604-c creating a 25/55 plan for most members of the New York City Employees' Retirement System excluding those eligible for the Transit 25/55 plan and some other specific plans. Many Transit managers who were denied entry in to the Transit 25/55 plan now signed up for the Chapter 96 25/55 plan. Come forward five years and Chapter 10 of the Laws of 2000 amended Section 604-b by eliminating (c) above, from the definition of "New York City Transit Authority Member" and at the same time, mandated all re-defined "New York City Transit Authority members" who were not already in the Transit 25/55 plan into the Transit 25/55 plan. This new law now placed the previously denied Transit managers into the Transit 25/55 plan and locked up on average $20,000 to $25,000 of additional member contributions that each Transit manager paid in to the Chapter 96 25/55 plan. With Transit workers now poised to get back all of their Transit 25/55 additional member contributions one way or the other, either from NYCERS if the Governor signs the bill, or from the MTA as per the arbitrated contract, where does this leave the Chapter 96 money that the Transit managers contributed? Chapter 96 allows a refund of the "employee portion" only if you die, or are terminated for economic reasons, or if you retire for disability and/or some other extenuating circumstances. Well, pension law is not equitable. End of story.
NORMAN ROSENFELD,
| |||||