It almost sounds like your argument is that raising older employees up to your rate is a sacrifice that'll help you.
The battle as I understand it was to protect everything we currently have. It sounds like we'll come out successful on 2 out of 3 fronts (high 3, retaining current contribution rates), and unsuccessful on the supplement.
To be fair, a lot of us (who want to/will retire before 56) would be better off upping to 5% contributions VS losing the supplement.
I'm not arguing, I'm just bitching.
Taking away benefits doesn't help anyone. But when NATCA has quietly enjoyed keeping their own benefits while watching newer members without, it creates a schism. When you're complicit in the system of inequality, and aren't pushing for a system of greater equality it breeds resentment. Long term, this is the type of bullshit that tears a union apart.
NATCA has had members with 4%+ FERS contributions for a decade, but hasn't felt a need to address it until it started impacting those in leadership positions. Where was the fight before right now?
Whether it's true or not - natca 100% of the time being behind the ball communicating things to the membership before they are mandated by the government makes it seem like they aren't in a position with any decision making power.
Losing any of these benefits is a huge loss. But I think it is important to note that nearly half of the membership has already taken an L and is getting no representation to fight back for something better.
It almost sounds like your argument is that raising older employees up to your rate is a sacrifice that'll help you.
The battle as I understand it was to protect everything we currently have. It sounds like we'll come out successful on 2 out of 3 fronts (high 3, retaining current contribution rates), and unsuccessful on the supplement.
To be fair, a lot of us (who want to/will retire before 56) would be better off upping to 5% contributions VS losing the supplement.
Im not really arguing, im just pissing into the wind.
Cutting benefits doesnt help anyone. The point I'm trying to illustrate is that the FERS contribution issue has been around for a decade. And now NATCA suddenly cares.
Most of the profession could use a pay raise. If you're making 190k before differentials at 40 hours a week (with multiple hours a day on break), then I feel like you aren't the first person I'm worried about. But it is usually the demographic that natca is worried about.
I think the incentive pay for new hires and hard to staff facilities is a good thing, but big picture NATCA is just taking whatever scraps the agency is willing to hand out. Not negotiating with any power or organization.
