1096 is now 1008 - Retirees Rally (Again) on Healthcare - Who was there, UFT/Unity MIA

I posted about this event just as I was leaving to attend Thursday morning: 

NYC Retirees Press Release - Legislation Introduction with Council Member Christopher Marte to Protect Retiree Healthcare

No one from the UFT/Unity was there (of course) but we had 4 members of the RTC Exec Bd at the event and a nice crew from Fix Retiree Benefits, which has been working closely with NYC Retirees.

Fix Retiree Benefits in the house

 

 

Saturday, August 15, 2026 

DSA had a bunch of social events going on today and I intend to go to a beach party in Rockaway where I will stand around and try to find someone over 30 to talk to. There is also a local Rockaway DSA group meeting elsewhere which actually includes older people. Oh, the choices.

I attended the Thursday morning NYC Retiree rally and presser near City Hall along a nice sized crowd where the new bill replacing 1096 was announced by Democrat Chris Marti, one of the most liberal city council members from the lower East Side who was joined by Staten Island Republican Frank Morano, one of the most conservative members.

Only Marianne Pizzitola could accomplish such a feat of unity. I find it more than ironic that certain forces inside the current leadership of the Retired Teachers Chapter of the UFT have been critical of her efforts to unite all sides of the political world in the the support of the healthcare of retired NYC workers because they would rather people whose politics they abhor not to support us and castigate Marianne for getting them to work in our interests. The level of support for working with Marianne is one sticking point in the disagreement between the 30 year old Retiree Advocate, which won the 2024 election with Marianne's massive support, and the new kids on the block, Fix Retiree Benefits (FRB), which has been working with her organization to battle on issues like co-pay and para pensions.

After it was over and we took photos, I was one of the few people left when Rockaway lifeguard legend Janet Fash showed up. 

 

She came by subway, so no surprise that the A-train would get here there late. She was disappointed in not getting to meet Marianne and Arthur Goldstein. I had just bought her book the day before and she signed it. (CBS Saturday morning just did a major feature on her and she has been appearing on NPR and other media). Her book goes beyond her life story and explores the corrupt lifeguard union. I remember reading about her battles with the union leader, who was also her boss. (Yes she was retaliated against). She was also active in the UFT as a chapter leader in a Queens middle school and had gone to UFT DAs and borough meetings and was aware the UFT is not democratic.

She is very up to date on the doings in the retiree chapter. I ran into her at the June RTC meeting and she attended the FRB zoom in late June and signed up to be more involved. She decided to take the ferry back to Rockaway and I considered going with her. I was trying to decide whether to go back to Rockaway or go back uptown to Bryant Park for a 12:30 Broadway in the park. I also had tickets for an Art Cart drawing class at 2:30. Having had chemo the day before, I had to make sure I had the energy to keep going. I decided to stay in the city and take a late afternoon ferry home. 

I stopped for breakfast at a Dunkn on Chambers St. and took the subway uptown to Bryant Park (one of the great wonders of NYC and only a few blocks from my pied... er apartment (don't tell Mamdani - lucky I have a cheaper one). The night before I missed the 6PM yoga class but this Monday I'm going to the City of God movie. 

Anyway, I'm so glad a went because I met two ladies with health issues, one with Type 1 diabetes (she was wearing a dexcom patch) and later at the Art Cart a cancer survivor who had a lot of knowledge and was very encouraging. We talked so much, my drawing of the buildings surrounding the park look like a Jackson Pollock. 

Back to the rally and presser, this is an updated version of Intro 1096 that was proposed during the 2024-25 Council session.

The bill summary states: This bill would maintain the health insurance coverage of eligible retired employees of the city of New York and their dependents by prohibiting the City from increasing the total costs for healthcare above the rate paid by each retiree as of December 31, 2021, or by decreasing the level of coverage that was provided to each such retiree as of December 31, 2021.

The full text of the bill reads as follows:

Int. No. 1008

 

 

A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to protecting the health insurance coverage and contribution for Medicare-eligible retired employees of the city of New York and their Medicare-eligible dependents

 

Be it enacted by the Council as follows:

 

Section 1. Subdivision a of section 12-126 of the administrative code of the city of New York, as amended by local law number 9 for the year 2010, is amended to read as follows:

a. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings [hereinafter stated]:

[i. “]City employee.[“] The term “city employee” means [A] a person: (1) who is employed by a department or agency of the city; and (2) is paid out of the city treasury; and (3) is employed under terms prescribing a work week regularly consisting of twenty or more hours during the fiscal year; and (4) is not employed by the board of education. 

[ii. “]City retiree.[“] The term “city retiree” means [A] a person who: (1) is receiving a  retirement allowance, pension or other retirement benefit from a retirement or pension system either maintained by the city or to which the city has made contributions on behalf of such person pursuant to subdivision (g) of section 80-a of the retirement and social security law; and (2) immediately prior to such person's retirement as a member of such system, was a city employee, or was an employee of the board of education employed under terms prescribing a work week regularly consisting of twenty or more hours during the fiscal year; and (3) had at the time of retirement, at least five years of credited service as a member of such retirement or pension system, except that (A) such requirement of credited service shall not apply in cases of retirement for accident disability, (B) the requirement of credited service for vested retirement and service retirement shall be at least ten years for a person who was not an employee of the city or the board of education on or before the effective date of the local law that added this clause, and (C) notwithstanding the provisions of clause (B) of this subparagraph, the requirement of credited service for vested retirement and service retirement shall be at least fifteen years for a person who was not an employee of the city or the board of education on or before the effective date of the local law that added this clause, is receiving a retirement allowance from the New York city teachers' retirement system or the New York city board of education retirement system, and held a position represented by the recognized teacher organization for collective bargaining purposes on such person's last day of paid service. 

[iii. “]Dependent.[“] The term “dependent” means [T]the spouse of a city employee or city retiree or any child of a city employee or city retiree during the period of eligibility of such child for coverage under the insurance contract applicable to such employee or retiree; provided, however, that no spouse or child of any such employee or retiree shall be deemed a dependent after the death of such employee or retiree. 

Diminish. The term “diminish” means to cause any change in health care offered that could potentially make it harder for city retirees residing anywhere in the United States, including its territories and possessions, to access their health care than before such change was made. These changes include increasing the total costs for healthcare paid by each city retiree, including with respect to premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments.

[iv. “]Health insurance coverage.[“] The term “health insurance coverage” means [A] a program of hospital-surgical-medical benefits to be provided by health and hospitalization insurance contracts entered into between the city and companies providing such health and hospitalization insurance. 

§ 2. Section 12-126 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new subdivision e to read as follows:

e. The city shall not diminish the health insurance coverage provided to city retirees and their dependents or the contributions the city makes for such health insurance coverage below the level of such benefits or contributions made on behalf of such city retirees and their dependents by the city as of December 31, 2021. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to impair the ability of employee organizations to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment, including those concerning future retirement benefits, for their employee members.

§ 3. This local law takes effect immediately and is retroactive to and deemed to have been in full force and effect on and after December 31, 2021.

NYC Retirees Battle Back with New Bill to Protect Healthcare

Top Story

Aug 13

 

By Joe Maniscalco

New York City Council Member Chris Marte [D-1st District] reintroduced legislation on Thursday aimed at blocking ongoing efforts to chip away at the healthcare coverage municipal retirees earned after decades on the job—and this time, he said, the bill will pass. 

“I think there’s a lot of momentum on our side,” Marte told Work-Bites outside the gates of City Hall Aug. 13. “Whether it’s the recent [court] decisions, the [$53M] settlement, it really shows that this is a force to be reckoned with and we’re on the right side of history.”

In 2024, then Mayoral-candidate Zohran Mamdani told Work-Bites that Marte’s bill—then known as Intro. 1096— would not be needed if he was elected. But municipal retirees who have continued to press for legislation further codifying the healthcare package they had enjoyed up until the end of 2021, insist a new bill is needed. 

Last year, they successfully pushed Mayor Eric Adams to abandon a campaign—originally hatched between Mayor Bill de Blasio and the heads of the largest public sector unions in the city—to strip municipal retirees their tradition Medicare and Medigap benefits and herd them into a profit-driven Medicare Advantage plan.

The scheme was supposedly going to save the City of New York $600 million annually and cover long overdue raises for active city workers. 

Adams also imposed $15 copays on municipal retirees that many living on severely limited incomes could hardly afford.  Retirees fought them, too, ultimately convincing Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Lyle Frank to block the charges in 2023. 

Venerable New York City municipal retiree Evelyn Jones-Rich helps to rally supporters outside the gates of City Hall this week.

The Adams administration later responded and successfully managed to reinstate the copays. 

Just this month, however, municipal retirees won a $53 million settlement with the City of New York and EmblemHelath reimbursing them for the $15 copays they were forced to part with back in 2022. 

This week, Marte said his reintroduced bill will put a stop to any further efforts to diminish retiree healthcare. 

“Whether that’s limiting your network, whether that’s changing your provider to give you a worse system or increase your copays—that will not happen when we pass this bill,” he said on Thursday. 

Previous versions of the retiree bill, according to Marte, had to “side step” the legislative process and be introduced from the City Council floor because then-City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams opposed it. 

This time, he added, his team has been able to introduce the bill though the legislative process with the bill-drafting unit, “so [opponents] can no longer say that we did not look at this bill before it was introduced.”

Council Member Frank Morano [r] joins fellow Council Member Chris Marte [l] in calling for passage of newly-reintroduce legislation protecting the traditional Medicare benefits City retirees earned on the job.

“They can no longer say that our lawyers didn’t have an opportunity to look at every single word to make sure it was right or not. All those false narratives they’ve used in the past two years against us—they can no longer be used today,” he said.

Intro. 1096 largely failed to pass because District 37 Executive Director Henry Garrido, head of the largest public sector union in the city, also opposed it and actively worked to intimidate other City Council members against supporting it. 

“We are in the fight of our lives,” nonagenarian Evelyn Jones-Rich told Work-Bites on Thursday. “There are millions of us who believe in ourselves and the city we built—and we will prevail. We will fight to keep our traditional Medicare, we’re going to fight to keep our supplements, we’re going to fight to not have copays. We believe that we make this city and this nation—little people like us, ordinary people, ladies who have struggled behind the scenes. We have stood in the shadows for too long. Now we are standing up—we are speaking out.”

Marte’s reintroduced retiree bill also comes out of the gate with strong bipartisan support. In co-sponsoring the new legislation, City Council Member Frank Morano [R-51st District] has easily out-lefted the most progressive members in the legislative body and democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani himself. 

“The government talks constantly about rebuilding trust,” Morano said on Thursday. “Here’s a good place to start: Keep your word. The $53M victory that we’re [also] talking about today proves something else: You can fight City Hall—and sometimes City Hall loses. Retirees should’t have to hire lawyers and spend years in court every time somebody in government comes up with another clever way to reinterpret a promise. That’s why we need legislation.”

Mariann Pizzitola, retired FDNY EMS first-responder and head of the New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees, said the City of New York should never seek to achieve savings or balance the budget on the backs of active workers or retirees. 

“Here’s the deal,” she said, “these people worked for decades. They’ve been retired for decades. A promise was made to them. They kept their end of the deal and the city has to keep its promise. We’re going to hold them accountable to that.”

Mayor Mamdani, a close ally of Garrido, has so far ignored Pizzitola’s requests to meet and discuss retiree legislation.

Garrido, along with the other of the heads of the Municipal Labor Committee—UFT President Michael Mulgrew and Uniformed Sanitation Men’s Association President Harry Nespoli [retired]—have long insisted that legislation protecting retiree healthcare violates collective bargaining rights.

Marte, however, maintains that the newly-reintroduced retiree bill explicitly protects collective bargaining and that nothing in it limits the ability of employee organizations to “negotiate terms and conditions of employment, including future retirement benefits, on behalf of the active employees they represent.”

“We have heard the stories of retirees being frustrated, being scared, having anxiety every time they wake up, or every time they have to go to their doctor or provider—that is killing our people who have given so much for our city,” Marte said on Thursday.

 

NYC Retirees Press Release - Legislation Introduction with Council Member Christopher Marte to Protect Retiree Healthcare

 I'm just leaving to attend this event today. Here is a photo from last week:

 

COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTOPHER MARTE, NYC RETIREES TO RALLY FOR LEGISLATION PROTECTING RETIREE HEALTHCARE

Marte to Reintroduce Legislation Protecting Municipal Retirees from Medicare Advantage, Increased Healthcare Costs and Reduced Access to Care

Who: Council Member Christopher Marte, New York City municipal retirees, Retiree healthcare advocates, Elected officials and supporters

What: Rally to Protect NYC Retiree Healthcare and Reintroduction of Retiree Healthcare Legislation

When: Thursday, August 13, 2026, 9:30 AM

Where: Broadway and Murray Street

New York, NY — On Thursday, August 13 at 9:30 AM, New York City Council Member Christopher Marte will join retired municipal workers and advocates at Broadway and Murray Street to rally for permanent protections for the healthcare benefits earned by New York City retirees.

Following the rally, Council Member Marte will formally reintroduce legislation at the City Council’s Stated Meeting to prevent the City from diminishing healthcare coverage for Medicare-eligible municipal retirees and their dependents.

While the City has stepped away from its previous effort to move retirees onto Medicare Advantage, retirees remain in limbo and vulnerable to future attempts to privatize their healthcare, restrict their choice of doctors, or impose new copays and other out-of-pocket costs. The legislation would ensure that the City cannot reduce retirees’ healthcare access or contributions below the protections they had as of December 31, 2021.  (The next day, the City imposed copays for the first time in 60 years that have amounted to a car payment to many, preventing them from accessing life-saving care or putting them in debt.)

For decades, New York City retirees have relied on healthcare benefits they earned through years of public service. The legislation seeks to ensure that a future administration cannot unilaterally force them into a privatized Medicare plan with limited provider networks or increase the costs retirees must pay to access care.

"Retirees are no longer in unions, although they used to protect us.  The Administrative Code states, 'The City will pay the full cost of health coverage up to the HiP HMO for every employee, retiree, and their dependent.'  Our Senior Care plan only covers the 20% of our bills Medicare doesn't, and it is well under the HiP HMO.  There was no reason to impose cost transfer on retirees.  We MUST fix this injustice and never force retirees into Medicare Advantage," said Marianne Pizzitola, President of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees.  "We have this law because Mayor John Lindsay passed it when Medicare was created so he could give it to City workers. We kept our promise; the City must keep its promise." 

The legislation also explicitly protects collective bargaining rights. Nothing in the bill limits employee organizations from negotiating the terms and conditions of employment, including future retirement benefits, for the active employees they represent. Retiree healthcare protections have historically been established through City law, and protecting benefits for people who are already retired does not interfere with collective bargaining agreements covering current workers.

The rally will call on the City Council to act while it has the opportunity to provide retirees with long-term certainty and prevent another attempt to place their healthcare at risk.

###

Media Contact:

Deb Schonfeld

dschonfeld@gmail.com

(310)985-4902

 

$53 Million Settlement for NYC Retirees: August 5th, 10:30 am - Press Conference and Rally - WE WON

Mulgrew and his Unity flacks must be in mourning since he never met a co-pay he didn't like. 

Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2026

Tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the Ed Notes blog.  

I'm in Manhattan and heading down to the presser and rally at City Hall. Don't expect any UFT officials to be there. But will Retired Teacher Chapter officers and exex bd members be there to celebrate a freeze on co-pays for the rest of this year? 

I will be taking photos and report back tomorrow with an analysis of the rift between most of the RTC leadership and Marianne, a leading cause of the current rift within the RTC chapter that just may hand back the chapter to Unity, which will be a disaster for the future of our healthcare. Mulgrew and crew is probably moaning over the fact co-pays are frozen until Jan. 1 2027. Due to my medical condition(s) - diabetes and cancer plus the usual assorted issues any 81 year old faces, I see many doctors. 

Just yesterday I left my house at 7AM to catch a ferry to 34th St (an hour and a half) and then a bus uptown to 74th St, another hour including a 15 minute walk to the Koch center, where I had blood taken (ca-ching) and a meeting with the endocrinologist nurse (more ka-ching? Next week I have 3 appointments in one day. And the co-pays come flying into my in box. 

I was told the other day that Marianne has over 10k UFT retirees in her network. My election analysis has shown that Marianne brought over 9k retiree votes to both the 2024 victory in the RTC election and in the 2025 UFT election. Those 9k votes are up for grab in next year's RTC battle between Unity and Retiree Advocate and Fix Retiree Benefits. There are some serious differences between RA and FRB, some over Marianne who some in RA don't consider kosher enough politically to support plus major resentment over her support of ABC in the election last year which brought them those 9k votes. 

There are also differences over the lack of pushback against the UFT leadership where FRB feel the RTC leadership (10 officers and 15 Exec Bd members ) has been weak in defending our healthcare, seemingly distracted by outside factors - very quick to support workers in other unions but I've seen nothing out there urging members to show up today. 

I will be taking attendance and some photos. 

 

NYC PUBLIC SERVICE RETIREES TO HOLD RALLY ON CITY HALL STEPS FOLLOWING $53 MILLION HEALTHCARE SETTLEMENT

WHO:

• Marianne Pizzitola, President, NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees
• Jacob Gardener, Walden Haran Williams LLP
• Steve  Cohen, Pollock Cohen LLP
• New York City public service retirees
• Supporters and advocates
  
  

WHAT:
Following the announcement of the $53 million class action settlement between the City of New York, EmblemHealth, and more than 250,000 retired City workers over unlawful GHI Senior Care co-pays, retirees will gather on the steps of City Hall to discuss what the settlement means—and why the fight to protect earned retiree healthcare benefits continues.

Speakers will address the significance of the settlement, the impact on retirees living on fixed incomes, and the organization's call for long-term protections for retiree healthcare. The Speaker's Office must permit legislation to properly protect retirees to be introduced. 

WHEN:
Wednesday, August 5, 2026
10:30 a.m. ET

WHERE:
Steps of New York City Hall
New York, NY

VISUALS:

• Marianne Pizzitola speaking on the steps of City Hall
• Retired New York City public servants gathering in support
• Interview opportunities with retirees directly impacted by the healthcare changes

MEDIA OPPORTUNITY:
Marianne Pizzitola and retired New York City public servants will be available for interviews immediately following the event.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Deborah Schonfeld
Communications Consultant

310-985-4902

dschonfeld@gmail.com

Marianne Pizzitola

President

NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees

631-793-9715

 

NYC Retirees Win Co-Pay Suit - NYC and EmblemHealth Settle Senior Care Co-Pay Class Action for $53Million

Monday, Aug. 3, 2026

Boy there's a lot on the plate to report and every day when I don't post, the list gets longer. This morning, NYC Retirees led by Marianne Pizzitola made a historic announcement. Another monumental win for NYC Retirees led by their president, Marianne. 

Wednesday, August 5 Rally and Press Conference  at City Hall:

 

There is some irony in that one of the sticking points in the (rare) negotiations between Fix Retiree Benefits and Retiree Advocate over the upcoming Retiree Chapter Election next spring is over an alliance with Marianne who has come under criticism from some ideologues over what may or may not be her personal politics, which frankly I don't give a rat's ass about since she is focused on one issue: protecting retiree benefits of all municipal workers.

Marianne appeared in NY1 last week and when asked what would be her number 1 wish, it was to end the co-pays. While she did win backpay, she also won a freeze on raising co-pays for this year. I know full well about co-pays as I have a few every week.

 

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/the-rush-hour/2026/07/29/public-service-retirees-call-for-better-healthcare-protections  

 

Read more about what amounts to one of the largest class action settlements in NYC history.

NYC and EmblemHealth Settle Senior Care Co-Pay Class Action for $53Million One of the Largest Class Action Settlements in City History Marianne Pizzitola Aug 03, 2026

New York, NY, August 3, 2026 – In a major development, the City of New York and EmblemHealth agreed to pay $53 million to settle a class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 250,000 elderly and disabled retired City workers enrolled in EmblemHealth’s GHI Senior Care Plan. The suit was brought by the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees and a handful of retirees. The signed settlement papers were sent to New York County Supreme Court Justice Lyle E. Frank for the Court’s approval.

The settlement refunds co-pays that retirees were unlawfully charged for medical visits between January 1, 2022 through January 31, 2023. The $53 million represents 100 percent of the co-pays retirees had been charged. In addition to the monetary settlement, the City and EmblemHealth also agreed not to increase the existing $15 Senior Care co-pays through at least December 31, 2027.

The $53 million settlement amount is one of the largest class action settlements in New York City history. In addition, the lawsuit saved retirees an estimated $106 million through a temporary injunction, which halted the co-pays for two years.

This settlement is just the latest healthcare victory by the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, which has, to date, collectively saved retirees approximately $3.16 billion since 2022. The Organization stopped the City from forcing retirees to pay for Senior Care, which the City itself has valued at $600 million per year; prevented the City and EmblemHealth from charging retirees co-pays in 2023 and 2024, which (according to EmblemHealth’s records) was worth approximately $106 million; and pioneered this class action settlement that is returning $53 million to the pockets of retirees.

“This is a wonderful victory for retirees,” said Marianne Pizzitola, president of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, one of the named plaintiffs. “The older people get, the more likely they are to need medical care, and co-pays are one of the worst, most regressive burdens making healthcare unaffordable. We hope Mayor Mamdani and City Council Speaker Menin recognize this and roll back co-pays.”

“Retired City workers have proven once again that they will fight relentlessly, and successfully, to protect their healthcare rights, which have been under constant attack for the past five years,” said Jacob Gardener of Walden Haran Williams LLP, one of the lead attorneys for the retirees.

“It is another step forward in ensuring affordable healthcare for our seniors,” said Steve Cohen of Pollock Cohen LLP, the other lead attorney for the retirees. “Now we have to get the City Council and the Mayor to eliminate co-pays for seniors entirely. They were promised and deserve free healthcare in retirement.”

The settlement papers can be found here.

 

UFT/Unity Abandons Disabled Paras Over TRS Mistake

The NYC Teachers Retirement System (TRS) contacted over 180 retired paras and advised them they “made a mistake” when their pension was calculated some more that 15 years ago.  Not only are they reducing their pension by half, they are clawing back the alleged overpayment for the last three years. ...the UFT argue that active paraprofessionals are making an unlivable wage and even declare war on the Mayor if he doesn’t sign into law the bill in the City Council to give them a $10,000 ‘respect check’ of Non-Pensionable income. Well a pension that is 2/3 of that salary is unlivable and now take more than half of that away from them when they came to rely on that money is criminal.  The UFT told these paras when they called, that there was nothing they can do.  The UFT has been silent on this issue.  TRS already cut these retirees pensions in half beginning with the July pension check.

Well, look at this one. The UFT, with its 3 TRS pension reps sits silently by and not standing up for the affected disabled paras who are undergoing pension reductions due to a mistake made by TRS in overpaying them. A group of UFT paras and retirees have joined with the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees to stand up for them.

July 31, 2026 

Good Morning,

Attached is a press statement from our three organizations.   Fix Para Pay is a slate of active and retired UFT Paraprofessionals advocating for better wages to be negotiated by their union.   Fix Retiree Benefits is a slate of active and retired UFT members advocating to protect an improve the conditions for UFT retirees.  NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees is an organization of over 200,000 municipal NYC retirees founded to protect retirees healthcare and other benefits from diminishment in retirement. 

Together, we stand with our retired paraprofessionals today.  The NYC Teachers Retirement System (TRS) contacted over 180 retired paras and advised them they “made a mistake” when their pension was calculated some more that 15 years ago.  Not only are they reducing their pension by half, they are clawing back the alleged overpayment for the last three years. 

You have watched the UFT argue that active paraprofessionals are making an unlivable wage and even declare war on the Mayor if he doesn’t sign into law the bill in the City Council to give them a $10,000 ‘respect check’ of Non-Pensionable income. Well a pension that is 2/3 of that salary is unlivable and now take more than half of that away from them when they came to rely on that money is criminal.  The UFT told these paras when they called, that there was nothing they can do.  The UFT has been silent on this issue that needs to end today.  TRS already cut these retirees pensions in half beginning with the July pension check.

We are collectively demanding that they amend the Retirement and Social Security Law they amended in 2002 under then President Randi Weingarten and correct this injustice and TRS must pass a resolution not to claw back any alleged overpayment. 

 

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Arthur Goldstein: 516-661-3221

Marianne Pizzitola: 631-793-9715

 

Public Control or ‘20th-Century Socialism’? The Bruhaha over a few publicly supported super markets p o in NYC by Mamdani

One of the (many) controversial policies of DSA is public ownership of the means of production, which causes outrage. Oh the outrage over the Mamdani plan which the right wing and even some Dems are calling "free food" when in fact it is reduced price food. I find it funny how the anti-Mamdani cabal will hang onto anything they can grab, led by the NY Post.

DSA - NY has called for a takeover of Con Ed and other public utilities. Our water and sewage systems are publicly owned and managed. How would you feel if we sold them off to private equity?

The major public entity in this country over the past 200 years has been the public school system, which of course there has been a major move to privatize, with charter schools being the spearhead, but even that is not good enough - thus vouchers. I'm surprised they haven''t moved to make all learning remote and sell off all the school buildings to turn them into condos. Boy, my old school in Williamsburg built in 1904 has high ceilings and big windows. 

In fact, we have found over the past 50 years that the reduction of public regulation, if not outright ownership, has been a disaster in this country. Think of Chicago selling off its parking meter system.

Chicago's parking meter deal still haunts the city's finances 

Chicago parking meter deal: City's meters sold to another ...

Margaret Thatcher destroyed the public ownership of so many areas of England in the 80s, even weakening the vaunted public health system - yes, in England healthcare was publicly controlled. So here is an article in the July 29 NYT business section, that has not been receiving the outrage from the Wall St Journal - yet. 

Public Control or ‘20th-Century Socialism’? U.K. Debates a Different Way.

The new prime minister, Andy Burnham, faulted Margaret Thatcher’s privatization in the 1980s. He wants an alternative economic model, especially to run utilities.

By Eshe Nelson

Reporting from London

July 28, 2026

Andy Burnham, Britain’s new prime minister, began his leadership with a full-throttled rebuke of the past 40 years of British policymaking. Rejecting the sweep of privatization introduced by Margaret Thatcher, Mr. Burnham said he would bring in a new political and economic model.

A central pillar of that approach will be more government control over utilities and services that were handed over to private companies starting in the late 1980s, like water and energy.

Mr. Burnham was ushered into office extraordinarily quickly. A little over a month ago, he was the mayor of Greater Manchester in the northwest of England, without a seat in Parliament. Now he is vowing to remake Britain, and little is known about the details of his economic agenda.

One result has been the start of a vivid debate about privatization — whether it went too far and how best to fix its failings. Mr. Burnham calls for more “public control” of services, not necessarily government ownership. But the vagueness of the term has left a lot open to interpretation and speculation. It has come to encompass everything from a socialist turn into widespread nationalization to tighter regulation of utilities.

Mr. Burnham said that later this year he would release a 10-year plan to increase public control and reduce the cost of essential services like water, housing, energy and transportation.

Mr. Burnham should create the “feeling that the state is back and it’s on our side,” said Danny Sriskandarajah, the chief executive of the New Economics Foundation, a progressive British research group. “That’s what’s been missing.”

Arguments about ownership frame the debate.

As prime minister in the 1980s, Ms. Thatcher fundamentally reshaped the British economy. Her 11-year tenure increased private homeownership, greatly enhanced the financial services industry and diminished manufacturing. Her government also privatized huge segments of the economy, including energy, telecommunications, airports and water.

The resulting companies were floated on the stock market. The idea was to bring about mass public ownership through these shares, but many companies ended up in private hands and most were delisted from stock exchanges.

The forceful opening of the British economy led to wealth creation and prosperity. It also wrought regional inequality through deindustrialization in the north and accelerated the shift to an economy more dependent on financial and business services, which were clustered in London and the southeast.

“In the 1980s, Britain took some wrong turns,” Mr. Burnham said on July 20, standing in front of No. 10 Downing Street, just moments after he became prime minister. “Political power was centralized, economic power privatized, large parts of the country deindustrialized, and they still haven’t recovered.”

But is ownership really what makes the difference in how well a utility or service, like trains, is run? Economists and policy strategists aren’t decided either way.

Mathew Lawrence, the founder of Common Wealth, a British think tank, who has presented his ideas to Mr. Burnham’s team, is in favor of some public ownership.

“Public ownership and public provision are not panaceas, they are tools,” he said, and shouldn’t been seen as “magic wands that fix everything.”

But previous periods of nationalization, such as after World War II, had notable successes, including the building of more public housing and the transformation of the energy system from an inefficient patchwork of thousands of companies into a few centralized and regional systems.

Ownership is important because it enables profits to be returned to the government, Mr. Lawrence added, and then a choice can be made about how to spend them in the public interest.

Others are less convinced. Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge, said that how services were regulated and the sectors were organized to create competition mattered more than if they were run by private firms or public agencies.

There’s a strong argument, she said, for a system where state-owned companies compete with private enterprises. That way, public ownership can lead to diversity in business models, more competition and more informed oversight.

“People obsess too much about ownership,” said Ms. Coyle, who has influenced policymaking in Manchester and at the national level. “It isn’t the ownership, it’s the structure of the market that makes a difference in the kind of outcomes for consumers and citizens.”

Some government takeover is already happening.

More nationalization is already underway in Britain. On several occasions it has been an act of last resort.

Under the previous prime minister, Keir Starmer, the government had started to bring the railway system under full public ownership and was pulling more than a dozen train operators into one public company, Great British Railways. Several operators were already nationalized by the previous Conservative government for financial or operational failings.

One of Mr. Starmer’s last acts as prime minister was to complete the nationalization of British Steel, which operates the country’s last blast furnaces for making steel. It seized control of the company last year after its Chinese owner, Jingye, appeared to be trying to shut down operations.

Water companies could be next. In the late 1980s, Britain went further than almost anywhere else in the world when it privatized the water authorities of England and Wales, selling off assets such as pipes, land and reservoirs. After decades of private ownership, much of the county is fed up with rising bills, pollution and chronic underinvestment that followed a period when billions of pounds were paid out in dividends. A few years ago, every major water and wastewater company was under investigation for dispensing sewage in rivers and other waterways.

The poster child of the failure is Thames Water, the country’s largest water company. Weighed down by enormous debts, it has been on the brink of financial collapse for years and faces the possibility it will be temporarily nationalized. It currently has only enough cash to last until the end of the year. Last month, the government rejected a rescue plan by Thames Water creditors, which include the large American funds Apollo Global Management and Elliott Management. Mr. Burnham will need to decide what to do about Thames Water.

For some, it could be a test case for the rest of the industry. GMB Union, one of Britain’s largest labor organizations, has called on Mr. Burnham to “take decisive action and nationalize Thames Water.”

Public ownership is about politics, not just economics.

It’s one thing for the government to prop up operators of essential utilities offering substandard services or in financial distress. It’s another entirely to bring companies and services into public ownership on the argument that it’s a superior model.

For some services, the public has taken a side. More than 80 percent of Britons believe water companies should be run in the public sector, and 70 percent say the same for energy, according to recent polling.

Still, widespread nationalization of services is unlikely.

Mr. Burnham said he wanted to be a “business-friendly” leader. His method of public control is likely to be influenced by changes he made to the bus system in Manchester, where a franchise model allows a local authority to set the routes, fares and other conditions, while private companies bid on contracts to operate the service. And so, in his 10-year plan, private companies are expected to play an important role.

“The state has withdrawn too far on the basic essentials,” said Mr. Sriskandarajah of the New Economics Foundation. “But its re-entry doesn’t need to be 20th-century socialism.”