|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
| SEARCH | SUBSCRIBE | ||
|
 |
Mothers Call For Pension Reinstatement Carol Cocozzo taught home economics to Mechanicville High School students for 18 years, teaching teenagers to cook, sew and raise children. She took 13 years off to raise a family, and today, the 64-year-old retiree receives a pension of about $8,000 a year. Cocozzo is one of about 3,000 New Yorkers -- mostly female teachers -- who lost their standing in the pension system when they took time off to have children. When they left the workplace, New York did not have a tiered pension system. When they returned, they were put on one of the lowest levels of the new four-tiered system. The state rectified that situation in the late 1990s, but only for employees still working. The women who already retired, some only months before the first reinstatement bill passed in 1998, were left collecting just over half of what they would otherwise be receiving. Those left out of the fix have since been fighting for what they say is their fair share. They dub their legislation, "The Mommies Bill." Lawmakers in both houses and on both sides of the political aisle agree women were discriminated against in the work force and deserve a pension increase. But with the state's tight budget and local governments already bearing higher-than-expected pension costs, whether a change will be made soon remains anyone's guess. "It's a well-deserved bill," said Sen. Thomas Morahan, R-Nanuet, the bill's Senate sponsor. "It's a fairness bill. Many of these women didn't have the opportunity to take leaves like they do today. They were virtually forced out, and they stayed out to raise their kids." Returning the retired workers to the top tier, Tier 1, retroactively to 1989 would cost state and local employers about $22 million and add $2.5 million a year to the $3.8 billion annual pension bill. Reinstating retired teachers would cost the New York State Teachers' Retirement System $9.3 million a year, or eight-tenths of a percent of its $3.6 billion payroll, according to the text of the bill. Nine women advocating for the bill said last week the stories of women in state jobs, particularly teachers, who got pregnant almost always had the same outcome. They were expected to leave work before they were "showing," take long maternity leaves to raise their young children and were not quickly re-hired, because bosses feared they would take days off to tend to sick children at home. The worst stories shocked women and lawmakers: a teacher asked to turn sideways for the principal so he could inspect her stomach, another whose husband, also a teacher, was reprimanded by the principal for getting his wife pregnant, and several women who as newlyweds were grilled by principals on what birth control they were going to use. Many of the women were told to take their money out of the retirement system when they stopped working. When they returned, they found a new tier system that put them at the bottom, despite years of previous work, and almost no information about what that meant for their future. Their sentiment today, as they collect about $9,000 less a year than they would have been taking home as Tier 1 employees, isn't anger, but frustration mixed with a hint of sadness. "We were trusting that they would take care of us," said Jane Otoupal, who had to leave her job as a teacher in the late 1960s. She and her husband were adopting children, and only couples with a nonworking parent were eligible, she said. As the women later pushed to be reinstated to their original tier, they were told that was not a possibility. For various reasons, such as personal or family illness, they retired, believing a change would not come. "It will never happen," Cocozzo said she was told. "It was sickening how many times we heard that." But, in 1998, Gov. George Pataki and the Legislature put those employees back to the top tier. More than 40,000 workers were affected, but about 3,000 who had already retired were left out. "I retired the year before the (1998 reinstatement) happened," said Pat Hernandez. "And I felt like the dumbest person ever, but there was no information this might happen." Morahan said there is strong support for the bill, but this year would be a struggle. "I just think it's going to be a tough year," Morahan said. "We're getting hammered because local governments want pension relief." The bill, which has slightly different versions in each house, has majority sponsorship in both the Senate and Assembly. It also has dozens of sponsors from all over the state. But lawmakers were split on whether the bill has a chance this year. "I think we can move the bill," said Assemblyman Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam. "It can stand on its own merits. The fiscal impact isn't that great, but to the 3,000 people affected, it means a whole lot. Financially, and I think morally." A group of New York retirees, primarily women, have been lobbying lawmakers for years to be reinstated to Tier 1. Their campaign has drummed up support for the bills. "The lobbying by the advocates has been very effective," said Assemblyman Ron Canestrari, D-Cohoes, another co-sponsor of the bill. "They've been up and down the halls as foot soldiers." But, Canestrari said, the question is not if the bill should pass, but when. "The downside of that," he said, "is that some of these people are older. The longer we wait, a few of them might not be around to receive these benefits." Copyright
© 2002 Global Action on Aging |
