Monday, January 22, 2018

When 2 Percent Isn't 2 Percent

I know many readers are aware that we teachers are expecting a raise of 2 percent this coming May 1st, with another 3 percent only on June 16. The numbers are on the salary schedule from 
(Readers have probably seen it 100 times).

Our current, 2017, amount is shown on page 7 of that document. The May 1 2018 amount is shown on page 8.

There is a slight problem is that the actual numbers between page 7 (2017) and page 8  (2018): They don't match 2 percent.  The math doesn't quite add up. 

I mean, I'm no math teacher but my friend, a math teacher, told me I wasn't wrong so I much not be wrong.

If you examine the numbers from 2017 on page 7 and multiply them time 1.02 (or 2 percent raise on top of the amount we currently make) you should see the same thing my math teacher friend and I saw: Those numbers on page 8 aren't 2 percent higher than the ones on page 7. Instead, the numbers reflective of the 2018 riase are 1.923% higher than the for the 2017 salary.

That's a slight difference but a difference nonetheless.

The increase that a first year teacher (currently $54,000 (p. 7), soon to be $55,059 (p.8)) is actually 1.923%. That's the increased amount. 

If that teacher were to receive an actual 2% raise, the amount would be $55,080. That's 21 bucks a year. But it's still 21 bucks.

The amount that a teacher at the top of the pay scale receives (currently 113762 soon to be 115993) is actually 1.923% . That teacher, at an actual 2% would receive 116037 (and 24 cents!). Now that's only 44 bucks a year for a top tier teacher but that's still 44 bucks per year. 

My own increase is 1.923% as well. I'm a but further than 1/2 way through. 

The total amount I would be missing is .077% of the 2 percent I was originally expecting and it's only .032% of my current total annual salary so I'm almost positive there are other pressing issues. But still that's about 30 bucks a year to me.

And what? Do I look like some rich guy hgere?  30 bucks is 30 bucks!

I asked a good friend Mike Schirtzer, an elected UFT Executive Board member, to raise the issue at the next meeting but he couldn't. So we have no answers about the mysterious case of the vanishing .077 percent. Only questions.

Compare your year to year  increase for our next raise in May. Are you set for 2% of 1.923%?  Leave a comment with your numbers and the percentages. 


  1. Corrupt UFT. 1.9xxx% only equals 2% at the UFT. Take a look at the contract. Note when the lumps are due...they have always paid them 2 weeks later. Again, UFT wouldn't take case forward. "We only take forward (to next level) items we choose to." That's what the mediator told me downtown at a grievance with the city!

  2. The 2% you received “, in their math, in 2010 as part of the 4% and 4% rates we supposedly should’ve received as part of that contract. That 2% isn’t actually a raise for this year. You have to track back to 2010. Add 2%, then compound the additional theory somehow this works out. I run the “Vote No” Facebook page, and looked over the MOA, and ran some back of the envelope looks like it works out.

  3. The 2% is from 2010, not a raise in this year. It's very complicated...all to screw us. But we received the two 4% raises from 2009 and 2010 over the last couple years, the final 2% being included in our checks as of June; but theoretically the money really went into our pay in 2010, so it's not compounded with the raises we received. So if you look over the raises below, the 2% is NOT compounded with the approximately 7% actual raises since 2010 and those raises compounded must come to around 7.7%. I do the Vote "No On The UFT Contract" Facebook page. It does workout. B. 2009-2011 Round –
    Salaries and rates of pay as customarily done:
    i. 5/1/15: 2%
    ii. 5/1/16: 2%
    iii. 5/1/17: 2%
    iv. 5/1/18: 2%

    F. General Wage Increases
    Salaries and rates of pay as customarily done:
    i. 5/1/13: 1%
    ii. 5/1/14: 1%
    iii. 5/1/15: 1%
    iv. 5/1/16: 1.5%
    v. 5/1/17: 2.5%
    vi. 5/1/18: 3%

  4. Let me make one more attempt to explain why our raise isn't 2% head is spinning, but I hope it helps others to understand. Or at least a starting point to run with. Honestly I can only understand it in theory.

    Theoretically the 2% was already part of our pay since 2010. It's being added to our salary in literal form finally, but has been part of our salary since that time. We haven't actually seen the money from that raise, but we've been collecting retro from it. The 7% in raises we've received since then were on top of a totally imaginary number we never saw. The subsequent raises were put into place on scales which should've reflected the 2% being part of our pay. Assuming the previous raises(someone with more math skills will have to go through the scales) were compounded on-top of the theoretical 2% being part of our salary, then when we actually get the 2% it would be around .08% less, since the 7% in raises over the last 8 years would compound to somewhere around .08%, so put the 2% into the pay, minus the compounded raises over the last years which were on top of the imaginary number...and you get to the number...

    These numbers assume a lot...I'd love to see the UFT explain it. But they're A-holes and will just answer with "trust us" pissant.

  5. top salary 1.96% difference between top salary now and tops salary slated for May increase. WTF?

  6. Apologies to all. Just seeing the comments now for publishing. The flu had me sidelined.