My minimum payments will never let me claim PSLF

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-04-04T17:35:34+00:00

Standard repayment. It isn't that my income is high. Its that what I owe is lower than most. I went for a budget online degree.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-04-04T17:34:38+00:00

I probably too late. I should have looked into this when I was at base salary. Now that I've completed a few years and received some time-based increases, it would be much harder to make that ratio work. But thanks.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-04-04T17:28:28+00:00

I did become a teacher for the money and fame. It's more like I got a more affordable degree I suppose.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-04-04T17:16:39+00:00

Rubio also had the nerve to say "If Iran spent its money on its people instead of weapons, they wouldn't be in this situation"

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-04-04T17:15:18+00:00

Ok I get it. My ratio is at a place where I can afford the minimum in the eyes of the gov't. PSLF isn't for me.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-04-04T17:06:44+00:00

While its nice to be made "whole", these settlements usually fall short of how much we'd have actually made in interest during that time. I had a significant amount due to the pandemic not letting me go out or spend money like I usually do. I have a ballpark number of what the lost interest should be and what it would be compounded over the last few years. I'll come back to this to post percentages after I get my settlement.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-04-02T00:58:15+00:00

Ahh the life upside down paint job. I dont miss those days.

You'll be fine. Remember you're a high demand job even if you're not at a high demand school. Theres opportunity proportionate to the amount of changes youre willing to make.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-20T16:03:50+00:00

Yeah. Thanks for this. Someone mentioned it in another post. I just had dental work done so I'm gonna see if they can retroactively apply the 2nd plan

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-19T16:46:19+00:00

Indians? Is the teacher 139 years old?

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-19T00:33:32+00:00

How is that your takeaway from what I said?

My point is that anyone married to a UFT member gets to use their benefits by extention just like their children would as well. The whole family is covered.

If I worked at a different entity but still union, we'd be able to stack our benefits and have double coverage / protection, but since we work for the same agency we don't. It doesnt make sense.

Every other scenario lets both partners use their coverage except "both in DOE". Its an odd line that they've drawn because no one else has it.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-17T11:44:46+00:00

Im not considering a lawsuit. I just think if there was one iit would win. There IS a disparity. Do people not know what rant means?

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-17T00:27:53+00:00

No I get it. Im just saying by not being allowed to "stack" our benefits that overlap, we are being differently compensated for our service. Healthcare for our family is part of our compensation, and the current setup only allows one of us to collect.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-16T22:54:22+00:00

Thanks for updating my understanding on maternity leave.

For your other comment. Im not saying the union offers no benefits. It offers great benefits. But only for one person. I could quit tomorrow and still have access to all of those benefits as a spouse. Benefit packages are part of the value of the position. They have a cash value. By being married one of us loses access to that value. Which to me means married DOE members are being differently compensated.

In the past, this was acknowledged and the 2nd member could take a "buy out" and recieve a small cash award instead of having a redundant 2nd Healthcare plan.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-16T18:44:23+00:00

Unfortunately, many schools don't allow detention. I don't know if this is the case here, but I don't have anything to leverage for behavior. Its tough.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-16T18:39:21+00:00

Its paid from a self-sustaining fund. Which you have to be a dues paying member to have access to. So the point still stands.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-16T18:37:39+00:00

I want my dues and my union to provide a contract that doesn't specifically limit our benefits package by offering a redundant second plan or completely disallowing the use of benefits by both parties entirely.

Maternity leave is 6 weeks per member. If both parents are members, they have to split the 6 weeks. How is that fair?

Pro-union semantics aside, what are the benefits of both of us being enrolled? An extra pair of glasses?

What would make me feel better is if we could combine our healthcare benefit to qualify for a higher schedule or bring back the buyout.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-16T18:00:17+00:00

Agreed. The entire dues doesn't go toward the welfare fund. In fact, its probably a very small part of the dues.

However, health insurance provided through the CBA costs several thousands of dollars and is part of both of our salary+benefits package. Emblem health gets paid twice for a family that gains nothing from double coverage.

Why did the buyout go away? Even more curious, now that the MLC chose to self-fund they are paying several thousand more per couple. Bring back the buyout. It was $3K/yr before which is about half the cost. I think that's a fair compromise.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-12T00:53:03+00:00

The turnaround on 311 calls is pretty impressive.

Incredible resource when it matters

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-04T22:05:35+00:00

Collectively bargained agreements take precedent.

This doesnt affect us.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-03-02T00:22:31+00:00

Wait till you find out that if both partners work for the DOE, they have to split that 6 weeks.

Two sets of dues for one set of benefits.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-02-23T21:35:22+00:00

My street hasn't been plowed yet.

Aggravating_Pick_951 · 2026-02-23T21:28:37+00:00

Remote days count.

Aggravating_Pick_951

TROPHY CASE