I understand Mulgrew stated the city didn't want anyone on leave to get retro, that the city wanted continuous employment. Wasn't it his job to tell the city, "no?" Did Mulgrew explain why he didn't fight when he learned the city wanted to withhold money from any member who already earned it? It could be argued that members on a childcare leave need that money the most while they are caring for a baby with no income. Perhaps Mulgrew has a good reason for not fighting for these members. I'd like to know what it is.
I desperately needed that money BECAUSE I am on a childcare leave.
The DOE doesn't allow staff to earn ANY part-time income while on a leave. At the same time they are withholding money we've earned when we need it the most, when our children need it the most. It makes no sense. That money is mine. I earned it and it could make a real difference for my family and my son.
Darren Marelli has left a new comment on your post "Mulgrew Against Moms: Jia Lee/MORE Raise Reso at DA