As teachers, we should deal in facts, not lunchroom speculation about what’s in the new tentative agreement. I’ve heard too many worries that have no basis in reality. Here are a few of them:
1. With the transfer plans gone, we won’t be able to transfer to another school. They’ll be able to put us wherever they want.
Not true. In fact, there’ll be more transfer opportunities. The only thing is, like in the real world, you’ll have to sell yourself. See a vacancy? Just apply! All vacancies will be declared, not just half. No limits on how many jobs you can apply for. No release needed from your principal. No limits on how many teachers can transfer out of a single school. No discrimination in hiring allowed, not even for union activities — or age, race, etc. No involuntary transfers. It’s a free market, for those who dare! And for excessed teachers, there’s always a job for you back home (in your school or district) if you can’t find anything else.
2. Without being able to grieve letters in file, the principal can write anything he wants, and then fire me based on a couple of those lies.
No, you’re not giving up your right to dispute a letter. a) You append a response. b) You discuss it with the principal (with your union rep). c) If it’s used to try to fire you, you get to litigate it there, with a lawyer! d) It’s removed after 3 years, instead of following you around for the rest of your life. e) Discipline for not obeying ‘micro-management" like bulletin board formats and the workshop model is forbidden. And finally f)chances are, if you had grieved it, you would not have won. The odds of winning are minuscule because of the restrictions that past rulings put on these challenges. So on balance, you’re better off under the new agreement.
3. The 37 minutes is like having another class.
No, there are significant differences. one-third the number of kids. No new insruction, so no new lesson plans, just remediation. And probably no grades or papers to mark.
4. We’re all back on cafeteria duty.
First, if you are in an elementary school, you have no professional periods, so this doesn’t apply to you. Second, the chances of being assigned to a duty are pretty slim, since each year the least senior get the administrative assignments if there arent enough volunteers. Third, if you’ve had an admin duty one year, you can’t have any the next. Fourth, if your school restores home rooms, that’s the duty for almost every teacher; you don’t have to do anything else. Fifth, if there are too many administrative positions created, the union can grieve. Sixth, the city has apparently promised DC 37 not to lay off the aides they hired to do these jobs.
5. Our day will now be longer than the suburbs’.
People love to point to a district they know to prove this one. But the numbers speak for themselves. Based on the contracts of the 36 largest surrounding districts (the same ones we used to show the suburban salaries were 14% ahead of ours), suburban school days are still longer than ours. I could give you the numbers, but I don’t want to give the administration any ammunition. So let me just say that secondary school days are considerably longer and elementary schools only in the single digits longer than our new schedule under the agreement. 6. It’s really a pay cut, because we have to give about 4% more time for an annual increase of less than 4%. Huh? Do the math. The total pay increase is 15%, because it adds up, but the 4% increased time stays the same.
6. We’re going to endorse Bloomberg and then wait until after the election to count the ratification ballots, so as not to embarrass him if it goes down.
B—s—. Neither part of this statement is true. But this is one myth I can’t disprove — at least right now. But wait and see. And if anyone would like to pass along a few more fables, I’ll try to give them a reality check.
147 Comments:
1 outraged
· Oct 6, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Lets see, a 4% increase in time for an additional 3% increase in salary and if you factor in cost of living which averaged above 3.5% during the time no contract agreement was reached(except as stated below) and if you factor in the 5% inflation rate on an annual basis during the months of June, July and August, and don’t forget about the increased copayments and deductibles which where negoticated outside the contract, its hard to see the gains, so please explain it again.
2 outraged
· Oct 6, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Im sorry, but I could help but take my towns school calandar and compare it to the NYC schools calandar. Guess what? Prior to the great deal, the City school calandar has 5 more days, and if you add the additional 3 days, that makes 8. I know you will probably say the hours are shorter in the city, so I urge the membership to do the math on their home districts. The mythology that you are spinning belongs in a classical greek course and not in reality.
3 luke
· Oct 6, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Here’s one other myth: The lead teacher innovation is “merit pay.” Ask teachers or parents in District 9 if that’s how they view the CC9 lead teacher program, which is the model for this proposal. Under the contract terms, lead teachers would be selected in a two-stage process involving teachers, administrators and parents, with the final say coming from a school-based committee with a majority of teachers. The lead teacher job is to help his/her colleagues, help that newer teachers say they desperately need (even with the mentors). It is a step in the direction of the career ladder that the UFT has proposed in the last two contract negotiations, offering experienced teachers a way to advance without moving into administration. And rather than pit teachers against each other for extra money–awarded either for test scores or at the discretion of the principal, as with traditional merit pay–it is money earned for expertise and is awarded by colleagues. How is that merit pay? It’s differentiated pay. Those two are not the same thing. Many of the commenters seem to be trying to boil things down, which is fine, but not to the point where there’s nothing left but burned stuff. This contract proposal changes the conversation on education in the city. It’s complex, true, but reducing it too fast just misses all the aspects.
4 CitySue
· Oct 6, 2005 at 2:23 pm
OK, I’ll try to explain it again. (I hope you’re not a math teacher.) Yes, if it were only a one-year contract, and we got 3.5% more and gave back 4% in time, that would not be a good trade. But it’s not a one-year, 4% copntract. It’s a four-year, 15% contract. And the additional time still stays at 4%; it doesn’t grow each year as the raise does. At the end, you’re still giving 4% more time, but getting back 15% more moeny. Get it?
5 steadyeddieg
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:00 pm
This is the worst possible contract. This is even worse than the results of the 1975 strike debacle!
Without seniority transfers, we are returning to the spoils systems. No matter how excellent you are, if you don’t have political pull, you’re stuck where you are. Principals will be coerced to choose well-connected people. I’ve seen this already. Some of the most incompetent people got important positions due to their political connections.
Anyone who advocates cafeteria duty needs immediate psychiatric evaluation. I fondly remember doing this insult of a job. When the bell would ring, I would have to run from the basement to the 4th floor. The class I was going to had not been in the cafeteria and had long arrived. Often there was mayhem by the time I got there.
TEACHERS DID NOT GO FOR MASTER’S DEGREES TO DO CAFETERIA AND HALL DUTY. CHILDREN DON’T BEHAVE ANY BETTER WHEN THE TEACHER IS AROUND THE AREA. MANY WILL CURSE YOU OUT AND RUN AWAY. THE POLICE ARE NEEDED.
It appears to me that Ms. Weingarten is ready to abandon a sinking ship. How dare she submit such a contract to the membership.She must think that we’re very stupid. 15% over 4 1/2 years means nothing when you’re being made to work like this.
Randi, I remember when my late district rep., who was also my teacher at JHS 61 in Brooklyn-Herb Yules, ran around in elation that teachers were being freed from cafeteria duty. Remember how Dathan was ready to bring the Hebrew slaves back to Egypt? Now, teachers are faced with a return to cafeteria and hallway patrol.Dreadful!
Ms. W., are you abandoning us? The UFT hierarchy should be term-limited. After leaving your positions, you should be made to teach under the conditions you are advocating for the rest of us peons.
May G-d help us if such a contract is passed.
By the way, what did the other city unions have to give back? Next, to nothing. Why is this union constantly being harassed? Where is the necessary backbone of leadership? We need Mike Quill at the helm. Instead our leadership cowers to a city administration that despises teachers.
6 NYC Educator
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:04 pm
The additional time does, indeed, stay at 4%. That is, of course, if you fail to factor the time and effort involved with the sixth class, the 37.5 minute “small group instruction.” That’s part of the extra work for which folks like you, City Sue, give us neither credit nor compensation.
Let me put this in terms everyone can understand–the pattern of exchanging time for money is a poor one.
1. The time will never be offered back.
2. Anyone with a minimal imagination can see that we are being set up to teach a sixth full class with the inevitable 10 minutes in the next contract.
3. When the UFT tells you we will have to accept zeroes, as they have done in the past, you will be stuck with the extra time.
4. The pattern of the last two contracts, which both involved extra time, suggests the time does indeed grow as a precondition to any increase. It strongly suggests the time, which could now have us working in August, will continue to grow in future contracts.
5. It is misleading to call this increase a “raise.” A raise is when you get more money for doing the same job.
7 outraged
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:21 pm
That right, you get 3.5% raise and increase time 4%. It would only be a half percent loss if it was for one year only. However, if the time required remains the same, then the loss is one half a percent per year, or 5% over 10 years.
Furthermore, what about the length of the school calandar? Care to disclose your information. I’m sure DOE and the union know what the deal is.
8 xkaydet65
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:28 pm
We have already been teaching one third of the extra time for three years. And we have been burdened with onerous PDs run by the incompetent.I’ll grant that the additional teaching may be worth an additional two percent above the actual time, that still is way below the 15%. I mentioned yesterday and the Daily News did so today that the 37 min is poorly developed and I think it will require Bloomie to ask Randi to revisit the issue in the contract. As it stands now many teachers, particularly in single session HSs will have little to do since the kids cannot be mandated to attend. The DoE can’t even extend the day because the contract language limits the extra time to starting AFTER dismissal and if they kept everyone there is no way they could meet the 1/10 ratio. As far as teaching the class, if it’s test prep or remidiation, someone will have to provide plans for me. I’m a SS teacher, never made a test prep plan. Think your admins can do that job?Were i Randi, I would reopen talks concerning the 37 min in return for the new excessing rules being dispensed with.
Bloomie is now faced with every child in NYC schools having ten minutes less classroom instruction unless they attend afterschool, but no provision was made to go beyond test prep and remidiation. So students who don’t need such help can’t attend and will have less classroom time. How will Bloomie sell that? On this isssue Weingarten foxed him. Now she has to get something back.
9 CitySue
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Sure, outraged. Here’s the deal on school calendars. It’s harder to compare because our year varies according to when the holidays fall, etc. The last few years have been on the long side, I will admit. Generally we go between 182 and 187 days. This agreement would add 2 days, 3 for folks in Brooklyn and Queens. So maybe we’ll be at 185 to 190. The suburban schools, amny of which start before Labor Day but end earlier in June, cluster around 185 days. I can’t imagine how any district could be 8 days less than us, as you claim. After all, the state requires 180 instructional days, and every disrict has a few more for organization and conference days. So, outraged, what town is that? And how many work days (not student days) does it have? I’d like to check it out.
10 institutional memory
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:53 pm
You left out “They can take away my parking space.”
Maybe that’ll be a “giveback” in the next contract. I’m sure a predictable minority of our membership will address this pending injustice.
11 outraged
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Sue you must be gifted. Having said that, the 180 days of instruction is equal, but the city teachers have to work the last week of June. In my district they don’t. What say you?
12 Jack
· Oct 6, 2005 at 4:03 pm
i think we need to just stop debating and do the obvious since Randi sold us out already anyway. Let’s all just vote NO! Then Randi can go back to Bloomberg and Klein and negotiate a REAL contract not some back door sham.
13 realitybasededucator
· Oct 6, 2005 at 4:06 pm
The Daily News reports today that part of the contract may be illegal: apparently the DOE cannot keep just some kids after school for the 37.5 minute small group instruction periods four times a week as agreed to by Weingarten. The small group instruction would have to be voluntary, like summer school, or manadatory, as in making the school day longer.
So how do you think the DOE will solve this problem?
They’ll extend the schoolday for everybody!!! No more “small group instruction. Instead, you’ll have a sixth class with bubble sheets and full rosters!!!
And once the UFT has agreed to the contract, we can’t say anything about it!
Before people believe the desperate spin coming out of Weingarten and her UFT cronies, ask yourself this question:
How did the UFT deal with the 20 extra minutes added in the last contract?
I don’t know about you, but at my school we changed how the minutes were handled FOUR TIMES!!! Even now, we’ve added time to each of the periods to create 43 minute classes, yet we still have to do something called FIRST MONDAY where we sit and listen to B.S. for an hour and a half. FIRST MONDAY was supposed to take the place of faculty and department meetings, but it doesn’t. We still have those during our professional periods a couple of times a month. The minutes don’t add up for us, we are working more than we agreed to work, yet this is considered the best solution for how we use the minutes, though lots of teachers on staff are resentful about the deal.
My point about all of this is that the UFT is trying to spin the added time in the new contract agreement as positively as it can so we will agree to this sham contract. Once the contract is agreed to, there’s nothing we can do about it, so if we find out that the extra time is a nightmare, or the grievance changes or seniority changes are a nightmare, we’re stuck. We already bought the contract!
The only smart thing to do is to reject the contract and vote Weingarten and her UNITY cronies out of office. Then we can start new negotiations with a team of union leaders who won’t sell us out for their own political interests.
14 outraged
· Oct 6, 2005 at 4:08 pm
If you really would like to compare the extra days to equivalent minutes per day, the 8 days if spread over a 200 day span would be equal to increasing the time 16 minutes per day. That more than the 10 minutes for which you would be underpaid.
Don’t play with the numbers, you are over your head
15 Dfreecity
· Oct 6, 2005 at 4:14 pm
This is a contract that helps Bloomberg and Randi with their future political aspirations. We don’t expect anything else from Bloomberg but this is not why we pay Randi’s salary. Everyone that I talk to, from young teachers to the more seasoned, are disgusted by this contract.
16 annoyedinbklyn
· Oct 6, 2005 at 4:16 pm
How is this 37 minutes of small group instruction going to work? Is it mandatory for students to attend in the middle schools? And if it is mandatory how are schools going to have enough staff to make this 10:1 ratio work? The math doesn’t add up.
17 xkaydet65
· Oct 6, 2005 at 4:21 pm
The DoE will have a tough time extending the day. The contract is clear that the extra time starts AFTER dismissal. The 1/10 ratio is written in the contract WITH monetary penalties. 1.1 million kids/75K teachers (if that since Guidance, SBST et al are part of the unit) The Math does not work for them. If we sign the contract the DoE has its hands tied. I’m not saying vote yes because the due process and excessing clauses are unfair, but the way its written the time is both less than the percent of increase, (do a line graph) and the DoE now discovers that it has a problem with the State. That does not invalidate the contract since the only thing we agreed to is to work 37 minutes AFTER dismissal. Getting the kids to show up is the DoE’s problem.
18 realitybasededucator
· Oct 6, 2005 at 5:03 pm
In the Daily News article entitled “Cracks in the UFT Pact”, State Education Dept. spokesman Jonathan Burman is quoted as saying City Hall could get around state law by extending the regular day for all kids – regardless of whether they are struggling in class – if the law will not allow small group instruction to be held for just a few struggling kids.
Frankly, my experience tells me Randi agrees to these added time clauses without specifying EXACTLY what they will be used for, giving the DOE leeway to change things on us after the fact.
As I say, we have endured four changes with how the extra 20 minutes from the old contract is to be used. Sure, the UFT went to court a few times over the time, then the DOE went to court a few times over the time, but the bottom line is, the time issue has been quite chaotic and badly handled by the UFT.
I can’t imagine Randi will handle the new time changes any more competently than she handled the last ones. Frankly, I do not have confidence in Weingarten’s ability to maintain the “one third kids” number for the “small group instruction” that’s posted above by CitySue either.
If we agree to the 37.5 minute classes four times a week, we will be teaching a sixth class of kids with full rosters and bubble sheets and curriculum. Perhaps not rightaway, but you know that’s what will happen BY the next contract.
It’s wishful thinking to write, as CitySue did, that the small group instruction won’t include new lesson plans and “probably no grades or papers to mark.” The DOE will want its moneys’ worth out of the sixth class, the mayor will especially want his money’s worth out of that sixth class, and eventually you will have all of those things – papers, grading, lesson plans, bubble sheets, and a full roster.
Say no to a sixth class of instruction. VOTE NO on the contract.
19 redhog
· Oct 6, 2005 at 5:23 pm
With all due and undue respect, “reality based educator”, I urgently propose that you change your screen name. Do you take irony with all your meals?
You say that “once the UFT has agreed to the Contract,we can’t say anything about it.” You are laboring under a painful and needless disillusionment: “We” and the “UFT” are the same. The Contract is not in effect and binding until the general membership ratifies it. “We” means the general membership.
All the extra time that you say we surrendered does not exceed the basic workday that is in effect in every suburban district. Too often folks cite the strengths of the suburbs, but ignore the weaknesses.
You mention the Daily News piece which claims that under State law, the DOE cannot force kids to stay after school for the 37.5 minute small group instructions.
Comrade: Do you know the meaning of “kvetching”? First you complain that the extra burden will be unbearable, and then you moan that the burden may not be legally enforceable. If it’s not, it’s the DOE’s problem, not yours. You’re getting paid anyway. You’ll do the best you can for those who have the responsibility, temerity, and guts to show up for your help. Are you spoiling for a guilt trip?
“They” could not unilaterally extend the day, as you rightfully dread, “for everybody,” because the Agreement is a document of law and that document specifically limits the number of kids who will be in your thrall, Mr. Reality-Based Pretender. You’ll have no more “bubble sheets”, but you might see more bubble gum.
Your high anxiety about “grievance” and “seniority” issues are anticipated and conquored by the exquisitely lucid and comprehensive posts on this blog by City Sue and Stamatis.
Nobody is jubilant over the Contract. But it is by far the best deal conceivable, given the framework of political and lawful reality.
My reputation as a free-thinker and heretic are second to none within the Union. But give me sodium pentothol and hypnotize me and do any other damned state-of-the-art test of my sincerity and integrity, and the result will be the same: THIS CONTRACT DESERVES AND DEMANDS THE HONOR OF YOUR SUPPORT!!
20 xkaydet65
· Oct 6, 2005 at 6:29 pm
If Randi can’t enforce the clauses of this contract pertaining to the timing of the 37 minutes, specifically AFTER dismissal, and the 1/10 ratio then she is a less competent as a union leader that that idiot coach from Univ Pitt who had his punter throw a four yard pass friday when he needed 12 yards for a first down against Rutgers and the guy had NEVER thrown a pass before in his HS or college career, is as a coach. I’m no fan of Randi, but she aint that dumb.
There’s stuff like the assault on tenure and the abandonment of excessed teachers that make this contract unacceptable, so let’s speak to those real issues where real damage has been done.
21 Lucy2024
· Oct 6, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Redhog,
Regarding the extra time, I usually spend two or three hours at school tutoring (for free), paperwork, calling parents, organizing, cleaning, etc. Then I go home take care of my family, then spend a couple more hours planning and grading (on a daily basis). An extra 37.4 minutes a day is a big deal for me and I think for a lot of others, too.
Most of the teachers I speak with just want a raise to keep up with the expenses. That is not the only thing, but it is the most important. Working more hours in exhange for more money is not a raise. I already dedicate so many hours to my job. The 37.5 minutes are going to be in addition to what I already do, not in place of it.
This issue is huge.
22 paulrubin
· Oct 6, 2005 at 7:25 pm
It’s not the firing part of no letters grievances that annoys me. If anything this will blow up in Kleinberg’s face since letters will now be grieved 3 years after the fact when the students have moved on and colleagues have retired and administrators are gone. It’s going to be tougher to defend an unfair letter, not easier. The part that bothers me is where in the newly proposed contract does it say these letters cannot be used to deny teachers specific assignments, grades, subjects, comp time jobs, etc. I’m not of the opinion that file letters are only for the express use of evidence in a full blown termination hearing. Can someone in the know reassure me on this one. And again, I have no negative letters in my file. I bring this up strictly just to get all the information out there.
23 paulrubin
· Oct 6, 2005 at 7:27 pm
>
Have we addressed whether these minutes are mandatory for kids. If not, this is a horrible joke on Kleinberg. If they are, there aren’t enough staff members to keep to the 10:1 ratio. So which is it. Especially in non-neighborhood schools.
24 NYC Educator
· Oct 6, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Redhog,
It would be nice if you stuck to the issues and refrained from personal attacks.
25 mshalo18
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:08 pm
City Sue-
Are you a teacher? Or another UNITY pawn who is trying to put a spin on this abomination of a contract?
Question about the 37.5 minutes- when I’m doing remediation, what will the music teacher be doing? And the art teacher? What about the PE teachers? And before anyone jumps down my throat, I’m not saying that they aren’t hard working-that is not the point I’m trying to make. But I can guarantee you this: the powers that be will stick 20, or maybe 30 kids into the classroom of a major subject area teacher (in the middle and high schools), along with a band and chorus teacher, then try to convince you that the ratio is 10:1.
I am sick over the thought of what will become of good, decent hard working teachers if this contract becomes a reality.
26 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:40 pm
To me one of the worse features is the suspension without pay for probable cause based on a DOE OR OSI determination. Don’t take my word for this. Talk to attorneys who don’t work for the union but make their livelihood in the private bar with criminal defense. They will tell you what a raw deal this is. No union lawyer can spin this one away. It is extremely serious. Who saw “Capturing the Friedmans”? A friend of mine a prominent Child psychiatrist had an allegation made against him by his babysitter who was jealous of how well he and his wife lived. (People have been known to be jealous of doctors and their wives.) the untrue allegations took years to resolve and had my friend on the verge of suicide.(Never mind that one of our well regarded coaches just killed himself last week over an allegation.)
YOU HAVE TO BE A REAL JACKASS NOT TO REALIZE THAT AN UNTRUE ALLEGATION CAN BE A VERITABLE NIGHTMARE. NOW IT IS STILL A NIGHTMARE BUT YOU GET PAID WHILE THEY SOUGHT IT OUT. WITH THIS NEW CONTRACT YOU ARE OFF THE PAYROLL WHILE YOU SCRAMBLE FOR A PRIVATE ATTORNEY IF YOU REALLY WANT AN A ONE DEFENSE
I really welcome response on this one. I truly believe my points are irrefutable. Sure to say we have zero tolerance is good spin and sounds great but I ‘d love to see Randi defend this one to a group of criminal defense attorneys of which she herself was once one.
27 Schoolgal
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:46 pm
All I can say to CitySue is that you are really a cruel individual to take such a flippant attitude towards excessed teachers.
You obviously didn’t teach during the early 70’s. Teachers, after years of service, were excessed or laid off. Imagine if someone told them that they now had to start all over again. Instead the UFT supported us, offered us the opportunity to get recertified in other subject areas until the crisis was over. We took the courses and the tests that gave us the opportunity to teach again. After the crisis, some of us were reassigned to our old school or another in the district without having to go through a grueling interview process.
Then again, that was a time the UFT stood up for us and protected our senority.
Where is that union today?
28 Alum32K
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:48 pm
mshalo18
I thought we were all playing chess here.
We are all giving our own spin to what we’ve read in the agreement.
I work with a bunch of “good, decent hard working teachers” who, 9 times out of ten, will vote for this contract.
Let’s just put it to a vote. I am confident that the majority would rather take the retro, and the increases rather than hit the streets in the dead of winter.
What say you?
29 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:54 pm
No the UFT is not going to endorse Bloomberg. In that we are better than DC37. But just NOT endorsing Freddy is a real gift to Bloomberg after he tortured us for years. If we really worked our phone banks with 1199 and the members of Dc37 who are never going to vote for Bloomberg we could be a real nightmare for Mike.
Incidentally anyone else but me notice Mike is taking a page out of KarlRove/George W campaign style with a specific but unnamed threat to the subway which however we should all keep riding, while the color code remains unchanged. Give me a break here! Wake up folks!!
30 Yankee4Life493
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:43 pm
No Contract, No Peace! Well, let’s just vote no on this one! It is definitely not the best that we can do. By the way, When do we ratify this contract, after elections or before? If it is after, we are in deep trouble.
Randy and this current leadership has sold us out! People don’t forget this comes next Union’s elections.
31 indigo
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:49 pm
Here is a myth, we don’t deserve better. How dare we even look at this contract. The medical being put into the contract will be a huge problem and negotiating point for the future. GM was just in the news trying to make their employees to pay more of the medical. Guess what, we will be paying in no time. Next contract we will give into a full 6-period working day and thousands a year for medical.
32 firefly
· Oct 6, 2005 at 11:44 pm
I’m not a fan of this contract but the bottom line is that if we don’t accept it we’ll be left to sit with our current contract for another 4 years until Bloomies out of office. This is the offer and it was indeed the best Randi could do at this point in time. I don’t know about any of you, but I’m already working more than I did least year between all the PD’s and every professional period and prep being taken up by something extra I need to do at my school. I can’t imagine that adding another 50 minutes to my weekly schedule will be that much more exhausting than it already is.
I don’t like it one bit, but you know what? I want my 15% raise now and for the next year or so. Based on this contract agreement I’ve made my decision about when to leave and that’s in two years….way before retirement mind you. So much for teacher retention.
33 xkaydet65
· Oct 7, 2005 at 12:30 am
Shouldhavegone speaks for me about this zero tolerance. The phrase is a good soundbite and I’m sure the UFT dreads every News headline that claims we’re defending pedophiles, but there is a standard of innocent till proven guilty. Now I understand that an accused pedophile should not be in the classroom, but taking away his pay is a punishment and don’t believe an acquitted teacher will receive the money back with a check delivered by DHL. The city will fight tooth and nail to withhold payment as long as it can
The problem here is that there is no way we can oppose this and not be portrayed as the bad guys.I guess that’s why Randi gave in so easily/ Also the agreement refers to deliberately false accusations resulting in pay restoration. What if the accusation is false but a result of misunderstanding or the immaturity of the student. Is the teacher repaid? This topic is fraught with dangerous consequences and I fear that the UFT has caved to understandable public fears without regard for the consequences to the innocent.
34 HS_ teacher
· Oct 7, 2005 at 1:54 am
Reading the comments on this particular post leads me to notice something about the title and “myths”. People are quoting and citing the Daily News as if they were the great oracle at Delphi. Why do we trust the newspapers and media to tell us the reality? You notice how the Daily news backtracked today (maybe Klein wasn’t that good after all). I was informed of the news conference before hand and saw most of it. Bloomberg kept on trying to say it includes and “additional period” and you now see how he supports “smaller class sizes” in this “period”!?! Randi tried to correct him in that it was not an additional period but rather small group instruction. Who do you believe?
Can people please read the details of the Memorandum of Agreement:
http://www.uft.org/news/teacher/contract_agreement/
Between this, the Fact Sheet & Q&A I received at a Chapter Leader Meeting today, it really defies many of these myths and half-truths. Please ask you chapter leaders about this.
Let me start with the fact that most teachers will not get “hall patrol” or “cafeteria duty” especially since they (Klein) insisted that “Homeroom” be a professional activity. (Read the details). They come from a specific menu and you get a preference and so like all preferences you will have to get something YOU choose. The number of assignments are also limited with discussions with the Chapter Leader (if they disagree it can go all the way to the Office of Labor Relations – where DC 37 also has sway – to make the final decision – not the Chancellor). Hence if you choose “Homeroom” you are done. (Read the details). I wouldn’t be surprised if many JHS and middle school start getting “Homeroom” again or event the High Schools. When those positions aren’t filled, the least senior person can be forced to get it and then not have it the following year. (Read the details).
Some one said here we should stop debating. Are you kidding? Debate and dialogue is exactly what is needed now! In our schools, in our Chapter meetings, in our Delegate Assembly and with ourselves. (Although our last DA ended with a shouting match from a loud minority that didn’t get what they wanted and so they had to stop all discussions and interest the vast majority of us had).
As far as the Extended Time is concerned, if you remember they came to us each of the times so that they wouldn’t screw it up more than they did the previous year. It is their responsibility to make their (Klein’s) deal work. They had problems (beyond us) they couldn’t handle before I wouldn’t be surprised if they have problems again (in 4 months). The small group instruction begins at the dismissal of the students. If the students don’t come back I “do” my 37 ½ minutes just the same (doesn’t the half minute tell you about how petty they – Klein – are/is). It’s a shame.
As for the 6th pd. notion, again, why are we listening to the Daily News, because they quoted a guy from the “State”? Maybe they can arbitrarily mandate all of the students to stay instead of the 1-10 small groups; it doesn’t mean we have to stay with them. There is a new specially expedited procedure for violations of this. (Read the details). As you may note that we also compared ourselves to the suburbs for salary purposes and no other district in NYS teaches a 6th pd. (us HS teachers shouldn’t forget the elementary school teachers that have even less time in a day than we do in any of our recent contracts). By the way, it is 4 days of Extended Time instruction not 5. This is a “period”? I don’t think so. (Read the details).
As for execessing it is the same as before but now they can be kept as ATR’s in their own schools or districts and there are NO FORCED TRANSFERS. (Read the details). Now there will be no limit on transfers and so anyone who can find a position, anywhere in the city, can transfer and the principal cannnot stop them from leaving. Imagine those not so nice principals with 20-30% of the staff leaving each year. What do you think that would say?
As for other tools that can be used against abusive supervisors, I think actually strengthens Chapter Leader’s hands. Using something like Article 2 (against many forms of discrimination & union activity) as well as Article 23 (harassment) (read the details), I can imagine how much more embarrassed a supervisor might be if they are held up as “discriminatory” or “harassing”.
As for “guilt” or “innocence” of sexual misconduct we must stand firm against such offenses when proven. How dare we ask the people of this city to trust us with the education of their children and then allow people to betray that trust! As for the innocent, we now have a new provision never before had of correcting the records with full back pay. (Read the details). (For the record, I believe Randi has a law degree in Labor Law not criminal law. I could be wrong, but you can ask her yourself I’m sure she’ll be happy to tell you).
Excessing and recertification can be but are not necessarily connected. The UFT recently worked out something similar to what was described for some esoteric licenses. Many old licenses may no longer be viable. But more to the point, the vast majority of teachers who are excessed have nothing to do with the most esoteric licenses.
Absences, possibly related to medical issues, is the ONLY new provision even mentioning “medical”. (Read the details). Besides the fact that medical costs have sky rotted everywhere and we are lucky we are paying what we do. Just ask your friends in non-union, heck non-municipal-union, jobs and they can tell you how hurt they are by the costs (pun intended). I suggest you stop reading the ICE website and propaganda where they have their own political/personal agenda against Randi and “the leadership” where they mentioned “medical” NOT the actual Memorandum of Agreement. (Read the details).
Endorsing Freddy publicly may make him and many of us feel good. But it is up to the politician himself to get within striking range of his opponent. We can’t do it with an endorsement alone in our best day (it is still 15 points apart). If we support him just to show how mad we are at Kleinberg, which we are, and he doesn’t win what will that tell the city and the politicians about the UFT’s endorsements? Another candidate that doesn’t win?
I’ll tell you what though, there are lots of people who have started an “Educators for Freddy” campaign that is completely grassroots (and for some of you excited enough) not from “the leadership” or Randi. I saw many of them at the last DA. Ask them for info on how to get involved or call the campaign yourself.
35 Wolfman
· Oct 7, 2005 at 3:07 am
VOTE NO!
Bad Precedent:
Summer Vacation is no longer sacrosanct; we have to work two days before Labor Day.
Regressions:
1. We can’t grieve letters in the file.
2. Principal has a veto over seniority transfers.
3. Building assignments (i.e. hallway and cafeteria duty) will come back.
4. 20 minutes extra last contract + 10 minutes now. . . .
Anyone see where this is leading? Yup – a sixth teaching period.
Stagnation:
1. Unmanageably large labs (up to 34 students) stay unmanageably large.
2. No real teeth in Article 7R, which obligates the DOE to provide books and basic supplies. Very difficult to grieve lack of supplies, and teachers face retaliation for trying.
3. It is still next to impossible to get rid of disruptive students who make our working life hell and prevent others from learning.
This is what we get after being strung along for two and one-half years, and not even full retroactivity. The point of having a union is to PROgress, not REgress, to extract from the bosses what is rightfully ours, not to relinquish hard won gains.
VOTE NO!
36 mshalo18
· Oct 7, 2005 at 7:20 am
Alum-
If we don’t take this deal, that doesn’t mean a strike- all it means is our gal Randi goes back to the bargaining table. She couldn’t possibly do any worse than she did with this deal. And quite frankly, 2 or 3 days of walking the picket line (and don’t kid yourself- a strike wouldn’t last long, because NYC would be PARALYZED by a teacher strike) wouldn’t be the end of the world.
Our district rep is coming in to speak to us today, and I have a list of questions a mile long for her- can’t wait to hear and report back.
37 outraged
· Oct 7, 2005 at 9:15 am
Your leadership has not looked at the big picture by focusing on the gap between the surrounding areas salaries and those of NYC. They have allowed the press, Bloomberg, and many others to put forth the attitude that city teachers are not deserving of a fair deal, since you have too many work rules and the kids don’t score as well as the surrounding areas. So how good are the city teachers? Could the teachers in burbs do better? Maybe some could but without parental involvement and help, the overwhelming majority could not. New York City is one of the wealthest cities in the world. Your job, to educated the students, is probably more frustrating and difficult than anywhere else. It is an outrage that your union even asked for and 18% raise. They should have asked for 30%. Why because your job is more difficult and the city should come up with the money if they cared about the kids. Frustrated teachers burnout or quit more often than happy ones. If you cannot even keep up with inflation, how can you devote the energy to your profession. You should not have to worry more about paying the bills? To me, if I were worrying about the future, I would rather do what’s necessary now, and face the music, than allow this contract to erode my standard of living slowly. Just think, a sacrafice is easier now, later it would be more difficult.
38 KatieL
· Oct 7, 2005 at 10:49 am
Regarding seniority transfers, it sounds great to say that we can all apply for whatever jobs we want, without seniority being an issue just like “the real world”, but that’s not really true. The fact is, in the private sector (the “real world), salaries are always negotiable. Here we take our salaries with us. What principal in his right mind would pay top salary from his already limited budget if he could find someone just as competent with just a few years experience? If you think Principals will be willing to pay those salaries for the more seasoned teacher, you’re wrong. They would much rather take on someone competent but with fewer years – someone they see as having potential – and molding that person into their own version of the perfect teacher. If you’re friendly with a principal, ask them. They’ll probably tell you the same thing. It’s the senior teachers who will lose out. Top salary teachers will find themselves hard pressed to find a principal who won’t take that factor into consideration when deciding who to hire.
39 NYC Educator
· Oct 7, 2005 at 2:55 pm
That’s a great point, Katie L.
Another point is that this blatantly removes an option from the teachers and places it in the hands of principals. While some may comfortable depending on the kindness of principals, I’d very much prefer to see the cards in the hands of teachers.
We paid for this option with zeroes in a time when the city said it had no money. It’s certainly preferable to the conditions of the proposed contract.
This is an option you may need one day. Don’t let them buy it back so cheaply.
40 art-teacher
· Oct 7, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Its great to see someone other than myself has ACTUALLY read the MOA…way to go HS_Teacher, I was initially against the new proposals but I will vote for it
41 wattyler
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:10 pm
Yesterday at a meeting union leaders were saying it’s this contract or strike. They are using the same scare tactics as Bush, more shame on them. I agree with MsHalo that this is not the case. Our leadership is pitting elementary school teachers against high school teachers. They are emasculating our union. They have failed to build a movement that poses a credible threat to anyone, because they think Bloomberg has all the power and we have none. RW said as much at a DA a year or so ago. We have a great deal of power, but not if you don’t organize us. We are to strike NOW, with no preparation? That’s ridiculous.
I want to know this: How many of the negotiators are still actually working in the classroom, and how many of them teach five periods a day?
And another thing, I just got an email saying that the UFT is hiring outside security. I cannot say how angry this makes me. But I think it shows they are scared of their own membership. Well they should be, because they don’t respect us. That does make you afraid.
42 wattyler
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:11 pm
And by the way,
VOTE NO
43 wattyler
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Another PS,
–Small group instruction IS another period!!!!! How can you say it’s something different, whether it’s before or after the bell? What nonsense. Some people at the UFT have been taking lessons in English and truthfulness from our leader in Washington.
Do you really think that in the next contract, this small group instruction situation is going to be taken away, or is it going to be expanded into something more closely resembling the 34-student situation? Give us teachers a little credit. We’re not as stupid as Miss Weingarten et al seem to think we are.
44 wattyler
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:19 pm
I sent this email in response to the one I received this afternoon from the UFT:
Dear Mr. Mendel,
I find the email I received from you today shocking.
Perhaps you should be more interested in why some people are so angry about this proposed contract, and less interested in maintaining the appearance of democracy. I have been a UFT delegate for only about two years and I am still shocked by the monarchical disregard for rank and file members’ opinions shown by the people who technically represent us.
I remember that you helped me at the old BOE when my seniority transfer (remember those) was being thwarted by every one of the five schools I tried to transfer into. You were a kind voice who listened, and I am grateful to you for that.
Ask yourselves, why has it come to this, that the union leaders should feel so threatened by fellow “brothers and sisters” that you require an outside security firm in order to protect you from the people you are charged to represent?
Sincerely, and in solidarity with all union members,
Christopher Balchin
45 CitySue
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:39 pm
OK. I promised a reality check and here it is.
1. Security – The UFT did not hire ouside security guards; the Marriott Hotel did. They brought the threats of disruption to the union’s attention.
2. Even if the state rules that the after-school instruction must be offered to all students, the DOE cannot exceed the 1:10 ratio. That could be accomplished by dividing the students into 4 groups and serving each goup once a week, for example.
3. Strike preparation – If you think the union didn’t prepare people for a strike what do you think all those thousands of school-based actions were for?
4. Excessed teachers – This agreement treats excessed teachers better than they were treated in the 70s. It guarantees them a job in or near their old school.
5. False accusations – People falsely charged with sexual misconduct or corporal punishment get back pay with interest once they are acquitted or the charges are dropped, regardless of whether the charge was knowingly false. If it was knowingly false there are additional ramifications.
6. Calendars – Note how outraged is avoiding saying how many days teachers in his home district work. Saying they finish a week earlier tells me nothing. When do they start? Do they have a midwinter break? Do they get the Jewish holidays? Do they get days added when schools are closed for snow? You can’t claim they have 8 days more by teling me when they finish. Facts please.
6. Hiring and school budgets – Principals are allotted hiring budgets based on the average salaries of the teachers in their school. This prevents age and seniority discrimination. If they hire more senior teachers, their budgets are adjusted accordingly. Same if they hire more junior teachers. And if you suspect you haven’t been hired because of age discrimination, there’s always Art 23 or the US government.
Any further fables?
46 KatieL
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:52 pm
HS-Teacher (Often I wish I was one)This is the other side of the coin for elementary teachers.
I understand that you do your 37 1/2 minutes with or without the students as an elementary teacher my students will all stay. So I will do the 37 1/2 minutes with all ten students every day. I am sure on some days when my colleagues are out, the Principal who only has the substitute until 3 will dump some additional students in my room, or when the Principal needs a colleague to do soemthing their group of 10 will be split into other groups. I have no idea how this brainchild will work. If the cap is 10 and there will be an expediated grievence process for ignoring this, how will I as a teacher get around all the emergency situations where I must cover a colleagues group, or a few extra students. It will just be a joke, if I have a set curriculum and now have to find extra copies or babysit additional kids in this additional truncated period.
There needs to be a specified monetary unit for each kid over the 10 that kicks in anytime that the number is violated. Many elementary teachers are fed up with a few students being added to their class during the day when a colleague is out now we will have 37 minutes more of additional students.
Many times parents of elementary students ask for babysitting (Oops I mean additional time for their kids) Whether their child needs it or not. One loud cry out of the last additional 20 minutes was parents saying why can’t my kid be eligible for the extra 10 minutes?
An additional fact is that elementary teachers walk their class to the door and dismiss. Usually with k-2 students eye contact with a parent is required. Then what am I supposed to do with the one or two kids not picked up at dismissal? Where do I find my small group of 10 are they waiting patiently for me in the cafeteria? What happens after the 37 1/2 minutes if a student is not picked up? There will be fewer parents and students later in the day. Do I just dismiss or hang around for the parent to come? What happens when a younger sibling is not picked up at the standard dismissal time? The Principal will send me the younger sibling to sit with his or her brother or sister so that they could walk him home together after the extended time. (extra kid)
It was not specified can we be observed during this period? This is additional instruction time with no additional planning time, or assessment time. (can you see the parents face “How is my child doing?” “I don’t know I do not have time to evaluate this group”) In may schools it is hard enought to get supplies for regular classes, no less for extra time. Will we also be mandated how to teach this remedial period (truncated) Do it this way training and materials will come later.
Who decides which kids you sit with. Can behavior problems be removed form this session because they are behavior problems? Will it be in your subject area or grade? How will you get materials if you don’t have them? Will you have to purchase them? There are a lot of questions with few answers. We should be more specific unlike last time. How will this program be implemented? No details.
I guarantee in the elementary school teachers will have the whole class with another person in their room for the full 37 minutes. Because otherwise two dismissals are next to impossible. When the second teacher who is suppose to be in your room is reassigned or absent what do you do with her kids? This is why there should be a monetary penalty for each time the 10 is violated. If we vote for small groups in our contract that is what we should get. I know that we are professionals and emergency situations do happen but they seem to happen way too many times in the NYCDOE. Split classes emergency coverages are a real and true fact. If there is not some kind of regulation the 37 minute small group idea will be abused, like everything else.
47 mshalo18
· Oct 7, 2005 at 5:27 pm
“False accusations – People falsely charged with sexual misconduct or corporal punishment get back pay with interest once they are acquitted or the charges are dropped, regardless of whether the charge was knowingly false. If it was knowingly false there are additional ramifications.”
Who was the genius who came up with this gem? Do you understand that while someone waits out an investigation THEY CAN LOSE THEIR HOME? Do you understand that the stimga of a false accusation NEVER leaves that teacher?
It’s bad enough that the UFT propaganda machine is out in full force, who the hell needs FELLOW PEDAGOGUES helping them out?
48 TeacherTeacher
· Oct 7, 2005 at 5:44 pm
No Myth!
#1 Our only guarantee is an assignment as a sub.
#2 Three years of LIF harassment is enough to break even the strong hearted.
#3 A teaching period is a teaching period. You say, “And probably no grades and papers to mark.” No assumptions please.
#4 I am an elementary school teacher. Yes, we have a professional period.
#5 There are 5 school districts within a 15 mile radius of my house. Their work day and year is shorter.
#6 Me thinks it’s the conspirators who are spreading the conspiracy theories. Let’s engage in intelligent debate.
49 Schoolgal
· Oct 7, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Citysue,
The fact is that an excessed teacher should have the right to bump someone with less senority and not sit around the ROC praying for a vacancy or have to go through the SBO. Knowing that a newly- hired teacher has set up a classroom will do little for morale. These teachers have put in the time and dedication, and they deserve to be treated with respect!
My school is now an SBO school. The truth is (NOT MYTH) the principal wrote outlandish requirements in order to insure few applications. This was done (with the approval of the committee) to protect the teachers she wanted to keep on staff. The fact (NOT MYTH) was no one on the our staff could meet those requirements!
One teacher put it eloquently when she stood up at a union meeting and said, “I know I am an excellent teacher, but I get nervous during interviews and would not do well under the SBO.”
FABLES USUALLY COME WITH A MORAL.
IF WE VOTE YES, THEN WE GAVE AN INCH.
AND NEXT TIME THEY WILL TAKE A MILE.
IS THE MONEY REALLY WORTH IT?
50 BioIsMyBiz
· Oct 7, 2005 at 6:47 pm
I remember striking as a new teacher. I gave up a great deal of money when the Taylor Law was used against us. I fought hard and put my money where my mouth was. Now I am being asked to give up some of the things I fought for. How can our Union leadership sell us down the river this way. We don’t need Bloomberg to bust our union. Our precious Randi is doing that already. VOTE NO. We can do better than this. Don’t be afraid to vote no. How much worse do you think we can do? As the election gets closer Bloomberg might just begin to sweat and give in more.
51 AEJ612
· Oct 7, 2005 at 7:47 pm
This is my 5th year teaching and I must say I am proud of myself for staying this long. I am afraid to be in the cafeteria NOW. The hallways are NASCAR roadways. I jokingly told my union rep I think I am suffering from the 5year itch. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this term, let me explain. 50% of new teachers leave within th first two years, a quarter of the remaining leave by the 5th year. I started the school year without energy, enthusiasm or drive. I am sluggish and drained. I find myself saying I just don’t think I can keep this up. The sad part is that I actually went to school to be a teacher this is my dream, well not the situation, just the career. If this contract passes, which I wll vote no. I will leave!!!!!!!.
52 bronxenglish
· Oct 7, 2005 at 9:06 pm
THIS CONTRACT DESERVES AND DEMANDS THE HONOR OF YOUR SUPPORT!!
this was posted by redhog quite a few posts ago. many of my fellow teachers have written since, but i could not concentrate after reading this garbage.
i am so unbelievably disgusted after reading this, i am utterly speechless. How could ANYONE who believes in this profession type or think this???
53 acornhigh
· Oct 7, 2005 at 9:21 pm
bronxenglish – it’s quite possible that he’s read the agreement.
54 bronxenglish
· Oct 7, 2005 at 9:24 pm
I WILL VOTE NO!!!
i am a senior teacher at my school, (I only have 7 years under my belt, how sad is this?) so i am not worried about my life as a teacher in NYC. i will not have bathroom or hall duty. i will not get letters that matter (since i was tenured long ago). i still make my salary and go home. My husband is an educator too–he works for the district, but still makes educator pay. he and I will be fine. I WILL STILL VOTE NO!
WHY? this contract is not about me!!! it is about ALL members of this union, the ones here and the ones coming in. THIS CONTRACT IS NOT FAIR TO YOUNGER AND TO NEW TEACHERS!!! i refuse to give up my firstborn to this city & to this garbage contract!!!! i will vote no until a FAIR contract is designed and written up for this city.
In 4 years, when this contract expires, I will be gone–I WILL VOTE NO just for the teachers who will be taking my place!
I love my school, I love my kids, I love my colleagues, I love my job, but I am not stupid. I had to buy a house over an hour away (this is what my husband and i, both NYC teachers mind you, could afford.). i will try to work closer to my house–mark my words, a lot of NYC teachers will do the same as I will do. There has always been an exodus from this city–after this 4 year garbage contract happens, that will become a mass exodus and this city will be filled with inexperienced teachers an fellow….WAIT ONE SECOND….
I think that is what the mayor and his cronies want!!!!! Fill the city with inexperienced teachers and fellows–they’ll do whatever they are told.
Something to think about, isn’t it?
55 John Lad
· Oct 7, 2005 at 9:57 pm
As a chapter leader, you are completely mischaractizing the contract in your comment above. There is no selling of the first born. The cops were forced to do that with a large pay cut, that what giving up the first born means. We all love our kids, and I’m going to be teaching for at least another decade. If you look at the contract, the bathroom and hall duties are going to be rare occourances if ever, because of the DC37 members, and because the union has the power to grieve. I’m very happy with this contract. When it comes to my ballot I will vote yes. Most of what I’ve read here is doomsday spin, I know my school and my union well enough to know we’ve gotten a good deal.
56 TriBeCaTchr
· Oct 7, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Are we not ONE Union? So many of us have questions (especially re: the 37.5 min… it’s use…..prep & materials…..management……penalties for violation)? We need to respect one other and give members time to getting answers! We already waited “37.5″…..umm….2.5 years so what’s a few more weeks.
If we vote NO, will negotiating continue?…will we HAVE TO strike?…will we just have to wait?
57 wattyler
· Oct 7, 2005 at 11:29 pm
This is the letter I and presumably many other people received. Yes, it says that the Marriott is hiring the firm, but from whom does the impetus to hire the firm seem to be coming?
“Dear Delegates:
We have learned that there is a group who may attempt to disrupt the Delegate Assembly and prevent a vote on sending the tentative contract agreement to the members for ratification.
We are concerned about the democratic process at the meeting and the Brooklyn Marriott Hotel is concerned about how such a large meeting may affect their guests, so they will be hiring an outside security firm to insure order.
We will make every effort to make sure your voices are heard and your vote is counted.
Have a good holiday.
Michael Mendel
Director of Staff”
58 paulrubin
· Oct 7, 2005 at 11:36 pm
It would be disgusting if the membership were prevented in any way from getting to vote. Yes or no, the decision to send it to the membership should be a formality. If the consensus is that this was a bad deal, then Weingarten should be voted out at the next opportunity. But the bottom line is that the only thing wrong with delaying the vote of the membership is that it should be BEFORE the election, not after.
59 Frank48
· Oct 7, 2005 at 11:57 pm
The vote is scheduled AFTER the mayoral election.
This is a big break for Bloomberg since he appears to the general public as having settled with the teachers. The vote should have been before. He gets off scott free here.
I don’t buy the union bs that they can’t take the vote sooner. All this time, and they couldn’t prepare to do the vote sooner? That’s hard to believe that wasn’t intnentional. This is a passive endorsement of Bloomberg.
Regarding LIFs, – our union handout today said that the Klein camp was adamant about winning this point. They wouldn’t budge on this one. So tell me – if this is a meaningless point, why are they so intent on winning it ?
60 Cybernote
· Oct 8, 2005 at 12:23 am
It’s time for a reality check. Randi explained what the fact-finding process was all about before we went to fact-finding The Delegate Assembly, representing the membership, voted to send our contract dispute to fact-finding. The UFT presented an extremely strong case on our behalf. Guess what, in spite of any arguments we make, the arbiters get to write their own report. The fact-finding report was not what we hoped for or deserved. Randi was able to mitigate most of the terrible aspects contained in the report. She deserves recognition for a job well done in the face of the Herculean task of negotiating with Bloomberg-Klein. Mayor Bloomberg’s mission was to crush the UFT, just as President Regan crushed the Air Traffic Controllers. Randi made that a mission impossible by making certain this agreement kept our core rights of tenure, due process, and seniority preferences for teaching positions within the school. Our contract retains the means to stop bullying by administrators. Randi got the DOE to admit there is micromanaging, and that it must end. She won our members the highest salary raise of any union in our city. Of course, if we could write our own agreement we could make a perfect deal. It doesn’t work that way. We had to negotiate with this mayor, and this chancellor in an anti labor climate. Vote yes for the new contract, and in solidarity the contract will keep us strong.
61 hypatiaNYC
· Oct 8, 2005 at 12:49 am
KatieL-
Senior teachers will not be at a disadvantage under the new transfer system as schools pay the same price for all teachers on staff regardless of their actual salary status. Each district averages the salaries of all of its teachers and comes up with a figure that all the schools within its boundaries use when costing out the price of teachers.
62 Alum32K
· Oct 8, 2005 at 12:52 am
Cybernote
Could not have said it better myself. Most teachers at my school like the deal. Yes there are teachers, new and old, who dislike it. However, they will cast their individual ballot and hope for the best.
That’s the best we can do individually.
However, collectively, we need to get on the same page. Tuesday’s DA should and WILL allow for debate. Tactics that disrupt/delay the proceedings must not make it onto the floor.
We should agree to disagree, make our cases take a vote and call it a day.
All sides should hope for the best, accept the outcome and move on with our lives.
63 hypatiaNYC
· Oct 8, 2005 at 1:16 am
TriBeCaTchr-
If the membership fails to ratify this contract, there will be no more negotiations – at least not for a long time. The Bloomberg administration refused to negotiate with us for more than a year, and was only forced to do so because the Fact Finding Report became public just weeks before the mayoral election. Once the election is over, Bloomberg will have absolutely no reason to even try to pacify us. That will leave us with only two options: wait an additional 4 years without a raise until a new mayor is installed, or hit the streets for a strike with the Taylor Law intact. Personally, I can neither afford to wait a total of 7 1/2 years for a raise, nor pay the 2 for 1 penalties incurred by a strike. This agreement is not great, but it’s better than any other deal a union has made with the City, and it may be the only chance we have to get a contract for a long time to come. I urge you to read the Memorandum yourself. If you do so, I believe you will see that Randi has done the best for us she possibly could in the current political climate. I will be supporting her efforts by voting “yes” for this contract, and I believe the majority of my colleagues will be doing the same.
64 JRY
· Oct 8, 2005 at 2:44 am
On my blog, one of my posts on the proposal asked:
————————–
“Can anyone tell me:
* Who is physically sitting at the negotiation table on our behalf?
* What are their names?
* How were they chosen?
* What are their negotiation qualifications for this very important task?
* Do we have big guns on our side like Bloomberg has on his?
Perhaps we need a fresh negotiating team.”
————————–
Does anyone know “who” they are?
65 JRY
· Oct 8, 2005 at 3:41 am
John Lad: You wrote:
“I know my school and my union well enough to know we’ve gotten a good deal.”
I just urge you to think a bit more into the future: school administrations change, unions change, life is constant change. Are you so positive that next year all the variables in effect in your situation will be exactly the same as they are right this minute? Please don’t hitch your wagon to one star. If it goes super-nova, you are left out in the cold.
Many teachers are not exactly thrilled with their working environment and yet hope to stay for the long haul. This proposal is just a proposal. A no vote does not mean a strike. It means re-negotiation. I would hope with a better negotiating team and SMART use of union money to run pointed media campaigns our leadership would do a better job of representing the general membership.
The money after taxes (remember Uncle Sam takes his cut) it a pittance for the loss of decades of hard won contract rights. Rights lost are usually never regained.
The city and Weingarten are counting on the “I’m just worried about me at this moment, and will settle for anything” mentality to slip this through.
The future is not guaranteed. A YES vote will make it even less so.
I believe -vote NO!
66 NYC Educator
· Oct 8, 2005 at 7:13 am
Cybernote,
You say Randi got the highest raise of any union. Perhaps my math is not what it used to be. Let’s put aside the time and givebacks and look only at the numbers.
Kindly explain how a four year contract at 15% represents a higher raise than a two year contract at 10.25%?
67 TriBeCaTchr
· Oct 8, 2005 at 7:50 am
hypatiaNYC wrote “I urge you to read the Memorandum yourself”
As a C.L. I have read the MOA and had it explained from the POV of the reps in our Dist/Reg/Boro. That doesn’t mean all questions have been answered. All of these “what ifs” makes members uneasy…makes members angry!
YES! I believe that Randi has dealt with a very stubborn Kleinberg machine. People are tired of waiting! They want a resolution!
But… people have questions that need to be discussed and debated! The next D.A. is going to be a hot one!
68 outraged
· Oct 8, 2005 at 10:16 am
City Sue,
I can back up my data to show the salary gap between by distict and the city is 4 to 5% greater because the city would have to put in additional time in this contract.
YOU HAVE MADE A CLAIM STATING THE REVERSE. NOW BACK IT UP!
SHOW US YOU DATA!! THIS IS A SECOND REQUEST!
69 outraged
· Oct 8, 2005 at 10:26 am
This is for cybernote:
Going to fact finding should not have been a mistake. You say that the leadership presented a strong case? Please explain how the union received a better contract in June of 2002 than present. The city was in a recession after 911, and today the economy is booming. There was no inflation in 2002, and now it oning at a 5% clip. There was no election on the horizon, now you just handed it to Bloomberg. The findings were bogus and you should view them as such. Furthermore, I find it amazing that Bloomberg had not agressively pursued the CFE. He just doesnot what to give you what you deserve. That should tell you what you are dealing with. WAKE UP!
70 outraged
· Oct 8, 2005 at 10:38 am
Obviously 10.25% is less than 15%, and to expand that, 15% current deal is greater than a 16% prior contract, because 52 month deal is more than a 29.5 month contract (prior deal). There, any way you look at this you could be right. NOT!
More to the point, Bloomberg gave in the first contract because he needed you. He doesn’t need your support any more, but has opened a door by not going to the Apollo debate. By doing nothing, you can see where the next contract is going.
71 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 8, 2005 at 10:48 am
remember all your colleagues who loved guiliani thinking he was making the city better? everything kleinberg has done to torture teachers is just a continuation of guiliani’s anti-teacher policies.
and the worst part of all it only happened because teachers and their families were so naive if not just plain dumb that they voted for this madness!!!
as you sow so shall ye reap!! we have sown and boy are we reaping this!!1
the excessing rules alone make this contract impossible for anyone who truly cares about the city and a future career here.
72 John Lad
· Oct 8, 2005 at 12:42 pm
JRY,
Yes, much of what I read here are doomsday scenario’s that I’ve heard during every contract since 1990 when I became a teacher. I’m happier with the LIF’s going away after 3 years, I can ammend a letter if I ever get another one, and if my principal who is not the nicest in the system tries to abuse using the letters I have other recourses, including harrasment. I like the lead teacher program, I’m familiar with what was done in the Bronx. I don’t mind the 10 extra minutes especially since the PD time was gone and I have 10 minutes less of large class instruction and more time to try to help my students. 15% sounds worse than when I look at the money and realize how much easier it’ll make my life. I have zero problems with the zero tolerance rules, and I’m happy there’s now a right against false accusations.
Do I understand if some people want to vote no? Yes, I can understand how a few teachers may dislike the problem. What bothers me is that it seems people are operating from press reports of what’s in the contract, rather than what’s acutally in the contract.
73 outraged
· Oct 8, 2005 at 1:02 pm
City Sue
I am still awaiting your response..and by the way incase you say my district’s hours are more I’ll respond before:
elementary 9:10 to 3:20 6hrs 10 min
middle 7:50 to 2:40 6hrs 50 min
high 7:19 to 2:05 6hrs 46 min
so how are the city teachers catching up other than more days less pay?
Still waiting for your stats. Or should you just adjust you state with a retraction.
74 Chaz
· Oct 8, 2005 at 1:37 pm
John:
I will ask you the same question I asked Leo (who has failed to respond). While I agree with zero tolerance for sexual abuse & sexual relations with a student (even when he/she is 17 years old and older). I would like a definition of sexual misconduct? Further, can you tell me what happens to a student who falsely accuses a teacher?? The only thing I heard was removing the student from your class. Your atatement “I’m happy these’s now a right against false accusations” suggests you understand this right. Please explain it to the rest of us.
75 firebrand
· Oct 8, 2005 at 4:43 pm
I can’t wait for Tuesday’s DA. I just can’t wait. I have to see for myself how Randi spins this one.
The delegate body didn’t even want to use the fact finding reports. She is going to have a lot of explaining to do and I hope to GOD the delegate body votes this damned thing down before it even hits the rest of the membership.
I want a seat up close to the front this time.
76 Frank48
· Oct 8, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Tell me – do we also lose the right to grieve formal observation reports ?
77 mshalo18
· Oct 8, 2005 at 5:48 pm
Frank- according to our district UFT rep, you lose the right to grieve an unsatisfactory observation.
BTW- does anyone know- our school doesn’t have delegate- and I’ve half a mind to announce on Tuesday that I want to be it (trust me, I’d win hands down- nobody wants the job). What exactly is involved, and would I be able to participate at the DA at the last minute?
78 Educat
· Oct 8, 2005 at 5:50 pm
the main sticking point for this deal is the 6th teaching period. if nothing else, most staff feel like their intelligence has been insulted.although not happily,i could accept this deal if the time were just spread evenly over the regular day.
79 Frank48
· Oct 8, 2005 at 6:59 pm
That is TERRIBLE !! Well, at first I thought it was just minor letters…now you tell me we can’t even greive observations if we wish to….How can anyone vote yes on this thing ?
80 Kombiz
· Oct 8, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Frank48 your answer is here
81 paulrubin
· Oct 8, 2005 at 7:49 pm
I’m of a very different mind. The monetary issues while far from acceptable are not the issues of note for me. I never expected more than 3% a year so even taking the extra time (4%) out of the equation the money issues are what the majority of us expected. The real issues at the heart of this deal are the letter in the file issue which basically means do what you’re told when you’re told, how you’re told or else AND the whole concept of suspending one of us without pay without being proved guilty. Three months without pay for a teacher on maximum salary is going to be some $24,000 or roughly the cost of our proper defense conveniently enough. Nobody wants child molesters int he classroom. I have 4 kids including 3 daughters. However, what’s wrong with simply pulling the teacher from the classroom and having an accelerated hearing that quickly proves the teachers’ guilt or innocence. I’d also give the teacher carte blanche to sue the child back for defamation of character so you don’t have a total lack of consequences for blatantly false accusations.
I believe the extra time will remain a joke for the duration of the contract. If the extra time isn’t mandated hardly any kids will show. Look how many summer school kids don’t show up and their promotion is at stake. And if they make it mandatory, you can’t have the 10:1 ratio so that won’t fly either. This is simply stupid thinking by a bunch of people who aren’t in the classroom.
82 Kombiz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 12:28 am
JRY,
Regarding your question about the negotiating team here’s some basic info:
They include the president, several officers and several rank and file members who are full-time teachers. These members are approved by the executive board and their names are announced before the talks start. We also enlist two top labor law firms, whose representatives are at the table and help to develop the language.
83 Frank48
· Oct 9, 2005 at 10:19 am
Yes, the loss of the right to grieve is HUGE in this agreement. Mgt. can now “eliminate” anyone they deem fit in the near future .
Also, in an age where most student populations are more violent, chaotic, and more disrespectful of teachers – we’re losing most of what protected us from false allegations and abuse from students.
This is the demolition of the contract as we know it – all for a paltry increase LESS THAN THE DEPT. OF CORRECTION !
84 Bklynteacher
· Oct 9, 2005 at 11:02 am
I’m surprised that no one has commented on the fact that we are receiving no raise for the first 6 months of this contract and only 2% for the next 12 months. This greatly impacts the amount of backpay we are receiving (if this contract passes). At best, our most senior teachers will receive $5,770; everyone else is getting less, of course.
Contrast this with the $12,000-$15,000 the veteran NYPD and Correction Officers are getting for their 27 month 10.5% contract, which ends as of 4/2005(this according to a NY Times article published 9/27/05). Don’t get me wrong, they deserve the money, but SO DO WE!!!! Vote NO!
85 Frank48
· Oct 9, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Great point !
Also, back to the loss of grievance rights…
Let’s look at the facts here – not fantasy.
APs in many Brooklyn High Schools have been given “U” quotas – a stated amount of “U” observations demanded from the principal. THIS IS A FACT !
REALITY
1. Jack Welch, of all people, is the new education guru to Klein and Bloomberg. He goes on retreats with students of Klein’s Principal Academy. His mgt. philosophy at G.E. was to keep his workers constantly petrified of layoffs and firings since there WERE many layoffs with Welch – his sole interest was GE’s stock price.
Mr. Welch’s genius with the DOE is his mantra of going after at least 10 % of staff at all times – I guess this gets the gerbils running faster in their cages ! This startegy has already begun in certain schools – with the contract regularly ignored or broken.
REALITY : The DOE stated philosophy will be to administer appreciably more
Unsatisfactories and trim staff.
2. Bloomberg’s / Klein’s STATED goal is to give out a LOT MORE U’s. Their argument is that with a system with such poor results, the amount of Unsatisfactory ( teachers to fire ) teachers must neccessarily match in a nice neat ratio.
REALITY: Bloomie and Klein’s stated goal is to get many more “U” ratings across the system.
3. Accordingly, there were 40 % more U’s given out during last school year, citywide.
4. Winning this very point of eliminating grievances was the one provision that Kleinberg wouldn’t budge on – why is this ? Why do they want to eliminate the teacher?
REALITY: They want to give out MANY MORE “U” ratings !
5.The main goal of Kleinberg is eliminate tenure , eliminate any union, privatize, fill in the blanks.
REALITY : Destroying teacher grievance rights enable a sort of back door destruction of tenure, since it will be much easier to give out out “U”s with the new contract.
TEACHER”S FINAL REALITY WITH NEW CONTRACT:
You’re going to battle against this new mgt. philosophy with much less protection if you OK this new contract.
BUYER BEWARE !!!
86 gratemgl
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:06 pm
This debate is unreal. This contract does not hold any upsides for the body. Randi and the Executive Board has dropped the ball.
I will be at the Delegate Meeting on Tuesday voting NO! I urge my fellow delegates to do likewise. Hopefully this vote will not even reach the body.
One thing that I find highly questionable: Retirees get to vote on this contract! How is this possible? We have to eat whatever contract we get day in and day out and they don’t.
Randi also spends a lot of time politicin’ down in FLA, Vegas, and other plush retiree spots. To talk about retirement issues. They also vote on her position. I bet that she doesn’t fly coach and that she isn’t staying at the Motel 6. (Tom Bodet isn’t leaving the light on for her I’m sure.) Once we get this defunct contract off our table this issue must be raised. No offense to my collegues who have retired – good for you. But your out – we are now on the frontlines.
87 Kombiz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:26 pm
gratemgl your comment is plain wrong. Retiree’s will not vote on the contract in the DA, or when it’s sent to the membership.
88 Bklynteacher
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:31 pm
I think if the retirees of the last three years vote, they will vote no.
The initial pay raises are so small that it won’t improve their pensions much. It’s in their interest to vote no, in hopes of getting more money in the first two years of the contract.
89 QueensSpEdTeacher
· Oct 9, 2005 at 4:13 pm
My vote is NO. This contract is an insult. Someone please explain to me how on earth to tutor 10 students for 37 1/2 minutes without having prepared something for them to do. What planet are these people from? Randi included. What nonsense, this half minute. Who are these children negotiating on the behalf of New York’s hardworking teaching professionals?
My other concern is the return to lunchroom duty. That big victory of yesteryear bargained away, and for what? I see far more minuses than I see pluses in this “contract.”
We must NOT be seduced by dollar signs and percentages and read the “contract” for what it is “more work, same pay” carefully crafted to look like a big win for teachers. Garbage!
90 Schoolgal
· Oct 9, 2005 at 5:30 pm
The retired teachers I have spoken to also think this contract is bad. However, they are happy they are no longer in a system where their rights are no longer validated.
They have been hearing war stories from the schools they left behind. I know of one elementary school in my district that canceled their End Term Party because of the abuse from their new principal. This was a school who had a great former principal and teachers worked their a—s off. Two Literacy Coaches quit their job under this principal.
As for Jack Welch, the brains behind all the intimidation, he tried to screw his ex-wife out of millions when he divorced her for a “younger” woman. Guess what? He lost in court.
For those voting yes to this contract: It’s filled with $$$$$ but makes NO SENSE!
91 firefly
· Oct 9, 2005 at 5:33 pm
If we vote note to this contract I seriously doubt we’ll see another offer from the Bloomberg administration. He’ll most likely be re-elected and we’ll all be working at this rate of pay for the next 4 years. What are we going to do? Strike? I seriously doubt it. If that were a possibly way of getting anywhere I actually believe it would’ve happened already. Randi brought this to a head because she knew we wouldn’t vote to go out and it was all she could do at this point.
Also…read the actual details of the Memorandum. Personally, I’m not afraid of being suspended without pay for sexual abuse…I don’t intend to sexually abuse a student AND, if I am falsely accused by a student I don’t believe I’ll immediately be suspended…read the memorandum. Also, I have never had a letter in my file, nor have too many of the teachers I work with. This issue seems to be one of principals who behave inappropriately and write letters and give out “U’s” for no good reason. Maybe they should be held to some standards by their own union. That seems like a different fight. Also….the bathroom duty…again, read the memorandum…it is one of several offerings and seniority plays a role. Finally…the 37 minutes. Yes, as we know it is essentially another class, but there are plenty of review sheets to go around to the 2 – 3 students who will actually show up. They will not be mandated to stay after school. So really….
92 Democracy?
· Oct 9, 2005 at 5:36 pm
I have a few questions, having not totally made up my mind about the contract. In particular, how does one arrive at the 7% increase in time spent working (often used to rebut the 15% raise)? I understand that we will work 3 more days a year, and 10 extra minutes per day, but that does not get one to a 7% increase. I also looked at the Consumer Price Index, and saw that in 2004 the cost of living went up 4%, and in 2003, it was 3%. Assuming that these numbers are consistent in the next two years, even without the extra time we work, this is not actually a raise. The correct characterization would be that we are “keeping up” rather than falling behind. It seems to me that teacher, the epitome of what it means to be middle class are getting a much better deal than most other middle class wage earners in this country over the past five years, but we are still getting a raw deal. As I decide on how to vote on this contract, the questions I will ask myself is “Is this the best I can get?” and “Do I have a responsiblity, as a member of one of the few remaining unions with actual strength, to take a stand for working people the throughout the country?” I am inclined to think that the answer to both of these questions is “yes.” This, of course, gets me no closer to deciding how to vote.
93 redhog
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Our grievance procedure, in its worst hour and most egregious application, is still vastly superior to what law enforcement officers have, municipally, in NYS, in federal service. I know of what I speak.
94 firefly
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Has anyone else here ever had a job in the “real world”? Maybe we should just give up this whole “union” idea and negotiate our own job terms and pay rate with our individuals principals. We get raises if we do a great job and fired if we’re slackers.
Seriously folks. This is a second career for me and I haven’t ever felt any real support from the union. I think it’s a crock. Nice idea….but it really doesn’t seem to work anymore. I’m voting yes because I was a raise now…plain and simple.
95 jd2718
· Oct 9, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Democracy? asked how we find the percent increase in time.
The correct number is about 3½-4%.
We currently work (on average) 6:40 a day, or 400 minutes. We would move to 410 minutes (6:50).. 410/400 = 1.025, or a 2.5% increase in time.
We currently work (I may be slightly off) 184 days per year. We would increase 2 (Bx, Man. SI) or 3 (Bklyn, Qns). 187/184 = 1.0164. 186/184 = 1.0109 for an increase of 1.64% or 1.09%.
Now, to compound these properly, multiply 1.025 by 1.0164 or 1.0109, resulting in 1.0417 or 1.0361, which mean the time increase is 4.2% or 3.6%, depending on borough.
While this math lesson is running, the same method is used to (correctly) compound our raises. 0% becomes 1.00, 2% = 1.02, 3.5% = 1.035, 5.5% = 1.055, and 3.25% = 1.0325. (Those 1’s at the beginning equals what you already have, the part after the decimal is the persent increase.) Multiply 1.00 x 1.02 x 1.035 x 1.055 x 1.0325 and the result is 1.14996 or 14.966% (round it to 15%)
96 TriBeCaTchr
· Oct 9, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Can we please get specifics regarding the 37.5 mins??
Who provides the plans for the lessons.. the materials…etc.? Can the State force all students to attend? Will attendance become mandatory? Who’s responsibility is it to get the kids to show up? Specifiy EXACTLY what the time can be for with the small group? What if there are 30:3 in ONE room? Is that a violation? What if one of those teachers is absent? What happens to their group? Is the teacher required to stay if a child is not pick up at the end of the 37.5 mins? Can the principal observe you during this time? How do you deal with behavior problems? Can you refuse to take a “problem” child?
Comments…thoughts anyone???????
97 Schoolgal
· Oct 9, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Yes Firefly,
Many of us have been in the real world including me. Yes, the Union has protected bad teachers, but then again, many administrators did not follow the proper procedure to get rid of them.
And many of us know how lucky we are to be a part of the UFT.
I too have had only positive letters in my file, but as a former UFT rep, I had to represent my teachers who did not. I find it funny that when I was trained by the UFT, they made a big deal about this right.
Funny, they have changed their mind all of a sudden.
You need to sit back and understand that whatever we give back today will result in even greater give backs tomorrow.
I know many teachers do not read the UFT paper. But over the 20 years I have been in this system, I have read about Principals from Hell, Clowns, and what used to be the best part, “Grievance Corner”.
You need to do your homework on this subject. There are many principals that use their power to abuse. You seem to take this issue lightly. The MOA I read gave me chills. Remember that it was Randi who sent us to fact-finding and now she needs to justify these findings. Yet weeks ago she sent our district rep around to see if we agreed with the findings, and we didn’t! So what was the point in that?
I am sincerely happy that you have a nice principal. You can thank your C-30 committee for that.
The UFT I remember fought hard for C-30, End of Lunch Duty, Pro Due Process and Seniority Rights.
I AM WILLING TO:
*work the extra minutes
*report back in late August (I already do that, but I was also able to leave when my body started melting)
*give up BQ Day.
I don’t have a problem with the above and would have happily voted YES even if we lost sabbaticals.
But when a union gives back important rights, I do have a problem with that.
A Union is supposed to protect us regardless of the political climate.
But what saddens me more is that you believe the so-called “safeguards” written in the MOA.
For those that are voting Yes because of the money, that’s your choice. But be honest about it, and don’t try to spin the negatives into positives.
For those that are complaining about the extra time or that the money isn’t enough, get over it.
For those that are looking at the loss of our rights over the money, I salute you!
98 Leo Casey
· Oct 9, 2005 at 8:07 pm
There was an effort underway to change the law to make any sexual act between a teacher and a student, even if that student was otherwise above the age of consent, a crime. I was attempting to find out if that legislation had already been passed, since it would impacted on the question Chaz asked. He, however, seems impatient for an answer. So let me say that whether that legislation has been passed, I expect that it will be, and that at that point, any sexual act between a teacher and a student will lead to automatic dismissal and most likely to prosecution. And yes, that is as I think it should be: a sexual act between a teacher and a k-12 student is clearly exploitative, and a teacher who engages in it should be removed from the teaching profession.
99 redhog
· Oct 9, 2005 at 9:22 pm
If teachers deduct the new mandatory hours of instruction from the strictly voluntary time they have been donating for their entire careers, in many cases, they’ll be ahead of the game. This work/pay ratio can be individually tailored. Just do it discreetly and smile internally, you little foxes!
100 jd2718
· Oct 9, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Leo writes about the legislature criminalizing any sexual act between a teacher and a student, even if that student was otherwise above the age of consent. I doubt anyone reading this is either surprised, or opposed.
More interesting would be to know about teachers accused of sexual misconduct who are later cleared. These are the people who would have their pay suspended, though having not done wrong.
How many teachers are falsely accused in a typical year? About what percentage of allegations of sexual misconduct are dropped or not upheld?
101 hypatiaNYC
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:05 am
As we can all see from the heated debate here and in the other threads on Edwize, the Memorandum of Agreement has both staunch supporters and equally vocal opponents. I think, therefore, that it is only fair and appropriate that the UFT membership at large get the opportunity to decide whether or not to accept this proposal as our contract. The proper way to facilitate this is to vote ‘yes’ at the Delegate Assembly on Tuesday and then let our colleagues decide for themselves.
102 jd2718
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:13 am
hypatial says that it “is only fair and appropriate that the UFT membership at large get the opportunity to decide whether or not to accept this proposal…”
In all likelihood, the DA will vote as you suggest. But it is the DA’s obligation to recommend or not recommend the contract, not simply to transmit the wishes of the executive board. Were our negotiators unable to convince the DA to vote yes, that would indicate a serious disconnect.
It is possible to imagine a UFT where the Executive Board ran things quietly, where the membership voted when the Exec Board asked them, and where the Delegate Assembly did not exist.
But most of us, including, I have to believe, those who are frustrated with the divided vote that we are facing in two days, prefer to maintain our representative legislative body.
103 redhog
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:43 am
Schoolgal: You say that Randi has to “justify” the fact-finer’s report? Are you kidding? When she shared it at the D.A, there was a magnetic field in the air that was charged with her dismay. She did all that could be judiciously done, based on reasonable expectation and past outcomes, to avert the need to take the severest action that, after all the glitz and glamour of the inflammatory rhetoric had dissipated,, would have plunged each of us into incalculable turmoil. After taking all these measured and deliberate steps, she was as bold as any charismatic and triumphant leader in history in her readiness to commit to the ultimate battle and be imprisoned for it. Do you condemn her for striving to exhaust all hope before exhausting all possibilities? Weingarten is in perfect synchronization with the points and the passions of her members.
104 leopold
· Oct 10, 2005 at 6:32 am
redhog wrote:
“Weingarten is in perfect synchronization with the points and the passions of her members.”
Obviously she is not in sync otherwise there would not be such an uproar about the proposed contract she agreed to bring to her members. She sold us out and I think in return we should kick her out before she climbs the ladder to her next position in the NYSUT and leaves us in the dirt with contract she negotiated.
105 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:35 am
jd 2718
when you equate the extra days to the number of day in the year, you are assuming that all the days were equal. the new days are extended and therefore the increase would be greater. had you done it on a total number of minutes increase vs the total minutes in the current year, then you would see the time added would be greater.
106 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:46 am
Voting yes would be Hope Denied…there would be no hope of ever getting a better contract. Why would there be? Is this the best that could be done with the city in light of the $ 3 billion surplus and increased employment in the private sector?
If you student doesn’t get it at first, you help them try again. Randi, try again.
107 Schoolgal
· Oct 10, 2005 at 10:24 am
Hi Redhog,
Wow! You are an early riser. You post at 5:30 in the morning on a day off.
Like Randi, I was also willing to face the threat of jail if we went on strike. Also a strike would have greatly effected my pension due to the Taylor Law. Does this also make me Saint Schoolgal?
I was around when Al and Sandy were in real synchronization with their members. To see all our hard gains watered down is a disgrace.
You exhult Randi, and that’s a bit scary.
When she added the 100 minutes, she sold it as tutoring and real professional development. But never came to pass. And as a staff developer at the time, I had to prepare 50-minute presentations that were ordered by the principal. Try addressing 60 pair of eyes that would rather be somewhere else because of a subject matter that was of no real benefit to them. That’s when I decided I didn’t want to be a Literacy Coach and work after 2:50pm. It took Randi a year to change that work rule.
I also backed McCall against Randi’s advice. Did you run to the poll and vote for Pataki because Randi said to do it, or did you support a teacher-friendly candidate like McCall?
When the Union begged schools to vote for SBO transfers, did you back that right away? Now teachers who lose their position to no fault of their own (excessed) have lost the right to bump a brand new teacher. Have you ever been excessed? It’s devastating! Think about it–if after you put in a year or two at a school, spent hundreds of dollars worth of supplies, books, and arts and crafts materials, to have to pack it all up and store it away. But hey, if no position if found, you can become SUPERSUB!
As for letters in file, I have never received one, but as a former rep, I did help others grieve them and won at Step 1. Before we become regions, some DRs, like mine, built very strong relationships with the people at the District level. Many Step 2s were won. Now that we lost that intimacy, I can see why Randi would give up on this grievance and go straight to the Chancellor. What are our real chances with his office? However, if a letter is truly undeserved, a good rep can win at level 1. I also know of many admins who never wrote letters to avoid the grievance process. Well, they can go to town now.
I really feel that these givebacks are the beginning of the end of our rights.
By the way, if this contract is ratified, (and will we know before the election?) I probably gain more than you because I will be able to retire with a larger benefit. However, I will not sell my soul to Randi or anyone else for the bigger payout.
Now Redhog, if you really think I should vote yes, then I am willing to sell my soul if you or Randi install an air conditioner in my classroom.
Now I will have to come in even earlier in August to set up. The staff meetings, grade conferences and staff development that take place before the children return take away precious time to:
Reorganize student desks (the custodians often leave them all over the place).
Find new desks for the increase in my register.
Clean the room–the desks and sills are usually dirty; Clean and dust the bookcases.
Redecorate the bulletin boards and walls.
Tape name tags to the desks.
Add new books to my leveled library and reorganize the library.
Start a new roll book and plan book.
Etc., etc., etc.
More importantly, I can work around the heat, so when it gets too unbearable, I can leave and just go home. Under the new contract, I will be stuck in a hot school and have little energy to finish those projects.
Redhog, you know I have not complained about the extra days or minutes added to the contract. And, I know we will not sway each other in this debate. But, I promise you that one day you will see this contract as a turning point in the history of the demise of a once powerful union. Of course I will be on the beach or some other wonderful setting as I think back on the days of our one and only hero… AL!
My sincere best wishes to you and all those remaining in the system since I too think this contract will pass.
108 NYC Educator
· Oct 10, 2005 at 10:50 am
“Weingarten is in perfect synchronization with the points and the passions of her members.”
You may think so, but she doesn’t. In today’s Daily News, she expresses doubt this contract will pass. She attributes it to a photo of her hugging Klein.
Unfortunately, it isn’t nearly that simple.
109 jd2718
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:25 am
Outraged questions my math.
“when you equate the extra days to the number of day in the year, you are assuming that all the days were equal. the new days are extended and therefore the increase would be greater.”
(I calculated a 3.6% increase in time, 4.2% for Brooklyn in Queens. I multiplied 1.016 x 1.025 for a 1.6% increase in number of days and a 2.5% increase in the length of each day. The multiplication deals with the problem outraged thought s/he saw).
The numbers were good and correct.
We now work approx 184 days at 400 minutes per day. That is 73,600 minutes per year.
We would work 186 days at 410 minutes per day. That is 76,260 minutes.
76260/73600 = 1.0361, or 3.6%.
Brooklyn/Queens works out to 4.2%
How many days do we currently work? Was my 184 correct? (won’t make a difference in the calculations)
110 Schoolgal
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:26 am
NYC Educator,
I saw thar article on-line and fowarded it to everyone I know who teaches.
Does she really think we are that naive or stupid to feel this way over a hug??????
Obviously, she has been receiving more emails against than pro. I emailed her early on and actually got a response although she really didn’t address my questions.
I like how she spins the fact that many of us already report back in August and now we will be paid for it. Don’t you think if we really had actual preparation time, we would have reported back the day after Labor Day????
I have no problems with hugs, kisses, or whatever. Madame Randi has to stop these excuses and accept the responsibility. (Don’t cry for me Argentina….)
Redhog,
You should read this article. It proves your “points and passions” theory all wrong.
(Randi’s words, not mine!)
I can only hope her concerns come to pass.
111 NYC Educator
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:52 am
Schoolgirl,
Please pardon the shameless self-promotion, but you clicking on my name will bring you to my blog.
You might like it.
112 Schoolgal
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:24 pm
NYC ED:
Been there! Even posted–but not under Schoolgal.
I’m new to blogs and do this in between house cleaning and marking book reports (giving individual comments on what was needed to get a 4) since my 3-day weekend plans were rained out. It’s kind of fun. But after the vote, I doubt I want to hear any more war stories about this union or principals from hell.
I really wonder how many people read this blog. Not many of the teachers at my school even know about it. It’s always the same people posting–A little like talk radio. Some of them are quite mean! That’s why I hope teachers only gripe about the loss of rights and not the extra time or potty duty because it doesn’t look good in the press.
The Daily News article forgets to mention the real reasons we voted down the last contract. (25 years to reach maximum salary??? New Teachers not getting any raises til after their 3rd year!!! NO WAY!)
Good luck with your blog.
113 Frank48
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Some final thoughts – how’s THIS for a realistic scenario ?
1. Teachers vote DOWN this offer resulting in stalemate.
2. In due time Ms. Randi Weingarten begins to demand a fair COLA increase in pay, for no givebacks – since these givebacks are Draconian in nature and are unfairly foused on teacher inferiority as the sole reason for system failure.
Randi must do a much better job of illustrating the system’s successes during this time. She also has to be a much better communicator of what ELSE is needed BESIDES a lockdown on teachers. Make a socioeconomic, class warfare issue out of this – which is what it is ! Keep fighting for the state funds NYC classrooms are supposed to receive. We need more school psychologists, reading instructors, after school programs, laptops, smaller classes, vocational programs, alternate settings, new suspension rules, institution of 600 level type schools, many more sunset academies, and many more fill in the blanks . It’s NOT all the teacher’s fault here.
3. Bloomberg will probably refuse to negotiate for awhile, 6 months to a year. But all during the year, he will be advertising improved test scores, and other improvements he has implemented. Randi continues to harp on the fact that it is the teachers who are implementing the better results for Bloomberg, and ALL the other points mentioned above.
4. After some time, we’ll get at least our COLA increase . Bloomberg will look REALLY bad if he doesn’t even give his teachers a COLA increase while results are improving.
Let’s face it – we’re barely getting a COLA with this new piece of junk tossed at us – while giving back MAJOR givebacks. Strip down our demands in this “political climate” and mount a PR campaign over the next year. Currently we have little or no sympathy from the general public, and if we accept this horrible pact, we’ll be telling the public that Bloomberg was right all along – the teachers of NYC don’t deserve any respect at all.
114 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:42 pm
When city high schools break into smaller learning, new principals and staff do not have to take teachers for the phaseout schools. This creates a gult of experienced teachers who try to find positions at neighboring schools. Not all find new positions and most are left in the school that will close. If there are no seniority transfers and the old principles can block a tranfer, then the goal of the DOE is accomplished. Older teachers are replaced by new teachers. This has happened with out warning and with union compliance (since they allowed it to happen during contract negotiations)
So, tell me again how does the contract protect teachers, and why union dues should be collect?
My I also add, the DOE sabbatical fiasco. The DOE decision to not grant sabbaticals could happen again. What is there to prevent it? Many union member lost money in various ways because of it and the Union was unable to recover any damages or put any monetary penalities if such would occur in the future. The city got to spend less that year and got anyone who was looking to retire 3 years after the sabbatical to put it off one more year.
115 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:49 pm
THE Following should dispell any myth of the contract keeping up with inflation. Don’t just beleive me, but tune into BLOOMBERG NEWS on October 14, in the am. The government stat will be released.
116 missymath
· Oct 10, 2005 at 4:02 pm
I don’t like the idea of having to work any extra minutes to get more pay..I feel as if I could make more money just moving on the salary step…As a somewhat new teacher (this is my 4th year), I feel things are not going in the right direction unless we stand up…I definitely going to vote NO…
117 gratemgl
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:07 pm
This contract will not pass. Not because Klien put his grimey mitts around Randi. But because its not a good deal and Randi and the team dropped the ball. This contract is not passable. Oh, she’ll spin it this way and that – in the end it is trash.
Tomorrow should be very interesting at the Marriot.
118 firefly
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Contrary to what most people on this board feel I find that most of the teachers I’ve spoken to are voting YES because they want a raise now and aren’t willing to sit through 4 years with rising inflation rates at the same rate of pay.
119 gratemgl
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Unfortunately people see the flash of 15% and are awe struck. They don’t look into the details. I am hoping that the this contract does not make it out of the Delegate Meeting tomorrow.
I will be voting no and am urging others to do the same. Don’t let it out of the Marriot!!!
120 firefly
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Sorry all…but this contract will pass. You should all try to behave like adults at the meeting tomorrow. I wouldn’t want to see teachers behave badly.
121 gratemgl
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Oh I think they’ll be some angry adults at that meeting tomorrow. Dues paying and offended adults. I have a lot of years ahead of me and this contract will directly effect future contracts. Wouldn’t you agree???
People are talking about all these possibilites: 25/55 being one of them. Thats just a hope that it could be changed. The downsides and givebacks are all too real. I would hope that the uneducated teacher sees beyond the 15%.
I hope that Randi acts like an adult and doesn’t bulldoze this meeting picking people to talk that are on her board spinning this awful contract!
122 firefly
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:39 pm
There is nothing to gain by turning down this contract. Bloomberg will not offer another, and when he does…or when the next mayor does, it will be full of givebacks for even less of a raise. The age of “unions” are virtually over in this city…and country in fact.
Sorry to say, but look around….
123 gratemgl
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:46 pm
That’s a sad assessment of the Union. I for one would rather nothing and have no contract. We waited this long. I would rather cut the loss and remain where we are. I’m not interested, and there are many that share this feeling, in accepting this contract.
By accepting this contract we are admitting defeat. It will be a dismal day. Accept nothing but a raise – no givebacks.
The alternative would be a strike. Unfortunately, Randi and the board did not prepare for this. A strike, planned well, could shut this city down.
124 Bklynteacher
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Firefly
If we thought that way in 1995, you would be reaching maximum salary after 25 years now instead of 22 years.
We do have power and we do have a say.
We need to stand together and say NO.
Why is there money to give the NYPD and Correction Officers 10.5% for 27 months? The answer is they stood together and fought for it.
A Union is only as strong as its membership. What side are YOU (that’s a collective “YOU”) on?
125 WebMachiavelli
· Oct 10, 2005 at 6:40 pm
I love it…you people can not even agree on what the contract means.
126 HS_ teacher
· Oct 10, 2005 at 6:53 pm
It is amazing to see how many of us want to believe everything we read in the newspaper, especially from the Daily News.
It is interesting to see how those opposed to the contract proposal are blind to the political reality in NYC. EVERY other union except for 2 has given alot back for their meager increases. These same people just use the same bullying, lies (see ICE website of false Q& A by Jeff Kaufman that was e-mailed) and name calling tactics.
If we vote down the contract proposal on Tues. at the DA what makes you think the city will want to negotiate now for a “better” deal for us? 2 ½ years and an 8-page insult isn’t enough of a sign of what they care or don’t care about? Why should the public support us after making a hard negotiated deal, which has problems, but still protects us in many ways (because Klein doesn’t know how his own department works)? All of our efforts and successes in the past year of having the majority of the public see us, the UFT, as part of the solution will be futile AND empower the mayor. Great idea!
Rumor has it that those who oppose it plan to not allow a vote at the DA (it is even suggested in some responses here). How insulting is this for a democratic body. I know, why don’t we shout out people from debating or make motions of delay to not allow anything to occur. It wouldn’t be the first time that their lack of reasonable argument and support then grants them the right to stop evryone else’s right to vote.
If we wait 7 ½ years for a better deal how desperate do you think our members are going to be then? What will we beg for then just to get a “better” deal? No, those who oppose it suggest THEN we go on strike. Isn’t that what is being said? If we vote down this proposal either at the DA or at the membership level, what other choice do we have but a strike? Perhaps not the day after or the next but at some point because the mayor has no incentive to negotiate in facthe already did.
Let the members at the DA and at the schools vote!
127 TriBeCaTchr
· Oct 10, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Firefly wrote “The age of “unions” are virtually over in this city…and country in fact.”
In your opinion!
Read the biography of Mother Jones and the history of child labor laws!
I am NOT ready to give up on my members – which IS THIS UNION! We should fight for what we deserve – together!!!
128 gratemgl
· Oct 10, 2005 at 7:11 pm
Maybe the Union should have had a plan of action for a strike. What is this whole situation with givebacks. Political climate nothing. We are on the frontline everyday.
How can you (the collective) just accept something because it’s the best you’ll get? I can’t see this. We deserve better. I say shame on the negotiators for this contract. It should not be brought before us.
129 firefly
· Oct 10, 2005 at 10:27 pm
TriBeCaTchr,
No, actually, that is not my “opinion”. It is a fact. I’m not being hyperbolic…I’m being realistic. Read the NY Times, read the Wall Street Journal..look at the airlines, etc. Unions are being crushed in this country. I’m not saying that I’m “for” getting rid of unions, I’m just talking about what’s actually happening…what the “plan” is, so to speak.
Listen, I agree that this isn’t a great contract…I simply think it is the best thing we’ll see at this point in time. I personally think we should’ve called a strike in September of 2003 when our last contract had expred and no one was willing to talk. But we didn’t…we waited too late and have lost our power. Believe me, this union won’t strike…that is why Randi pushed this deal.
And, by the way, the NYPD totally sold out aspiring police officers. What do you say Bklynteacher? Should we all take a 10% raise and force the new teachers to live on a starting salary of $25,0000? That IS selling out.
I’m being a realist here. I’m not in agreement with this contract and I don’t think it’s a raise at all, but it at least gives me a cost of living raise during a time of ever-increasing inflation. (again…read the papers!). If you vote down this contract, we won’t see another one for four years. I can’t live with that…can you?
130 outraged
· Oct 11, 2005 at 9:19 am
Great stuff firefly!
Scare everone so they would reach like sheep. The next contract will be easier for them to swallow.
131 devils_advocate
· Oct 11, 2005 at 11:31 am
BklynTeacher wrote:
“If we thought that way in 1995, you would be reaching maximum salary after 25 years now instead of 22 years.”
1995! You mean the era of low unemployment and job hopping with a constant salary increase? Where people could set their own salary and bring their dogs to work because they felt like it?
Reality check…..
Since 1995 we have had the worst recession in 60 years. People have been without work for months, even years. People have had their jobs sent overseas, eliminated. People have had to take on the work of their laid off coworkers without pay increases. And they certainly can’t bring their dogs to work anymore.
How can you compare what was doable in 1995 with what is doable NOW?
1995 was a boom time, right before the Internet boom, day-trading etc. Now we are behind the Internet and telecom BUST, record backruptcies, near record decreases in the S&P.
You have to compare LIKE circumstances. This isn’t 1995.
132 outraged
· Oct 11, 2005 at 11:56 am
I heard Bloomberg talk about doubling the number of Charter Schools and wants to lobby the state to increase or eliminate the cap on the number of such schools. He also wants to be in full control of them. What does the union say about this?
133 IteachAPE
· Oct 11, 2005 at 6:11 pm
The real myth is that this proposed contract is good for teachers. The truth of the matter is said proposal is horrible.
How can our union even entertain such revisions which were fought so hard for by those before us?
I feel so abandoned by the UFT.
134 IteachAPE
· Oct 11, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Don’t let them fool you by telling you that the police sold out the new recruits. When they need teachers bad enough they will raise the salary again.
Klein is building the system for the short haul, he is not an educator, he is a businessman, a bean counter. The teachers that are joining now will work in the city system until they find a job in the suburbs, so do not accept a union breaking all give-back contract, IT WILL break our union & make it easier for them to take more away on the next contract.
Be smart, don’t fold. If we unite they will have to give in to us!!!!
135 Bklynteacher
· Oct 11, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Firefly
136 Bklynteacher
· Oct 11, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Firefly
Take a look and tell me if they (the new recruits) were sold out or if we were just led to think so.
http://www.nypd2.org/html/recruit/salary.html
Doubling their salary in 5 and a half years ($60,000 plus real overtime) doesn’t sound like a sell-out arrangement to me. Let’s not forget they can retire at 20 years at half pay at any age.
But this is not about the NYPD
vs. Teachers. They deserve everything they got and more. But so do we!
137 coldstorage5
· Oct 12, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Vote no!
1) cafeteria duty
2) extra time
3) extra days
4) Sixth period
5) the lousy raise is a cost of living increase. Hell it wont even pay my fuel bills.
We cant be wimps, we need to unite and vote no.
We got a better contact in 1995, we can dom it again.
138 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 12, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Firefly,
You want to go back to law school? you must learn or re learn how to stengthen and weaken arguements of course? Your big point here is this as good as it will get. Well, guess what sanitation just got 17 per cent spread over 51 months which works out to a full four per cent per year.
We got nothing and we should tell Bloomberg where stick this shit. Better to walk away with pride than eat a shit sandwhich.
139 Kombiz
· Oct 12, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Shouldagonetomeds
Despite the 17% increase the sanitation workers like every contract reached recently is consistent with the pattern. It includes huge trade offs that saved the city a great deal of money.
It includes removing some overtime from workers. It reduces the crew size from two to one man crews while lengthening the route. Salaries for new sanitation worker’s (the unborn) get cut from 30k a year, to 26k a year. Bloomberg, like his predecessors has managed to impose a pattern on more hard pressed group of workers. The reality is that despite how much Bloomberg talks about education, he tried to keep teachers to the same pattern as the other unions in the city.
140 Bklynteacher
· Oct 13, 2005 at 8:52 am
Kombiz
In case you didn’t catch my other posts on other threads…
From the Daily News this morning:
“Some workers will go solo on trucks that boost and unload Dumpsters. Workers who take on that assignment can earn up to $16,000 extra annually…”.
That sure beats out a “lead” teacher’s extra pay…and they don’t need 2 advanced degrees for that career. I’d say they did pretty well. The Mayor sure is a man’s man.
We all know the male/female ratio of all these “careers/jobs” that have recently settled their contracts, don’t we?
Sorry that’s how I see it…
141 Kombiz
· Oct 13, 2005 at 9:34 am
Bklynteacher,
The sanitation workers lost some of their overtime rights, they have agreed to layoffs, and will work more hours and longer routes, with less workers on top of what I mentioned in the comment above. The lead teacher program is a UFT designed program that’s been pretty succesful with teachers, and parents in the Bronx.
I sympathize with your point about the male/female ratio but I don’t think they did better, considering the 4k cut for their newborns. I sat down with two close friends one who is a labor organizer and the other was a TFA teacher who is now on her fifth year. They think Randi and the negotiating committee did amazing work considering the forces arrayed against them.
I’m here to get questions answered, and jump in where I can help. The larger point from my comment above is that the pattern, ie. where one city union settles and all other unions are set to those standards, is so difficult to overcome.
-kombiz
142 Bklynteacher
· Oct 13, 2005 at 10:10 am
We are not all the same. Teachers are required to have two degrees and 30 credits above to hit their maximum. We all know how much that is costing us.
Yet this fact is hardly given any attention.
The police and sanitation workers all hit maximum at 5 and a half years. So even if the newborns started at a lower salary (while training), their salary jumps up signicantly 6 months thereafter.
We should not be treated like the other City workers during salary negotiations.
143 mvplab
· Oct 13, 2005 at 10:55 am
Bklynteacher:
We have been arguing that for years. See the testimony we gave at fact-finding as the latest example at http://www.uft.org/member/rights/fact_finding/report/
Some would argue that we are doing better than the pattern but not by much.
144 Bklynteacher
· Oct 13, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Some would argue that we are doing better than the pattern but not by much.
Comment by mvplab — October 13, 2005 @
The new teachers should remember that as they write out their checks paying for their costly Master’s degree courses.
145 gratemgl
· Oct 13, 2005 at 11:54 pm
“gratemgl your comment is plain wrong. Retiree’s will not vote on the contract in the DA, or when it’s sent to the membership.
Comment by Kombiz — October 9, 2005 @ 3:26 pm”
There were a lot of retirees voting Tuesday. I certainly wasn’t “plain wrong”. But I am very upset. I don’t understand why they were there or why THEY VOTE ON THE UFT PRESIDENCY!!! Randi needs to go. Retirees voting on teaching issues that we eat on a daily basis needs to go.
Roll Call needs to be instituted in the future.
I know that a petition of no confidence in my school is being started. She simply needs to go. Her railroading of that DA meeting on Tuesday was the worst example of Democracy I’ve ever seen.
Vote this contract down. Educate your collegues.
146 Islandgrl63
· Oct 15, 2005 at 9:59 pm
I can’t believe this extra 37 1/2 minutes that’s being tacked onto four out of the five school days. (Bring back any back memories-say-two school years ago-2003-2004?) Remember, the infamous ninth period on Tuesday-well, that’s what is going to be in store for us with this extra time after school Monday-Thursday. It’s another way for Joel Klein and Doomberg to torture us and get more bang for their buck.
147 woodlass
· Oct 23, 2005 at 4:21 pm
If this whole thread is about contract mythology, then I’d like to report on an email exchange I had with someone on the staff of the UFT, who had responded to a note I had written. I had said that that it’s a myth to think that they have only one file on each of us. The district offices keep copies of all kinds of things the principals send them, and they use them in different ways.
The staffer at the UFT said true, but it’s only the stuff in the real file that can be used “against you.”
I am still pretty frustrated at the denials or the naivete of these staffers/execs who are supposed to be defending our rights but have not been on the receiving end of the abuse we’re getting when principals and district people want us out of their schools. They’re not only going after teachers whose skills are not up to par. They’ve also been attacking great teachers who don’t accept the educrap promulgated by the DOE . And they go after older teachers, and teachers who don’t play nice with the principal, and chapter leaders. Many of those are serving time in the rubber room or who have had near misses with that kind of thing.
What the staffers do not understand, because they’ve never experienced anything like what’s going on now under this current DOE administration when they were in the classrooms full-time many years ago, is how entirely demoralizing it is to be on the receiving end of such numerous and often unfounded attacks. And how well can the membership be served when the CL himself is intimidated into silence by the frequently unethical, union-busting tactics installed or tolerated by Tweed. CLs on the receiving end of a variety of negative attacks — from plain rudeness of so many administrators, to real disciplinary actions, to excessing, and to U-ratings — simply cannot serve the membership too well when their hearts are in their throats every day they walk into their buildings.
In a response to this staffer, I was complimentary to the district rep who had intervened so strongly on my behalf while I was being harrassed last year. Part of his simplistic answer was: “I am glad [X's] intervention helped – her authority came from the contract and our ability to stand together when one of our members is injured.”
How miopic and disingenuous some of these people are who are running our union! And if it is not miopia, then they are purposely looking the other way and refusing to see it from our end.
THERE IS A LOT OF ANGER OUT HERE. THOSE WHO HAVEN’T BEEN FIGHTING IN THE TRENCHES ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH.
I am posting here my latest response to this staffer, because it is not just for his ears.
“[The District Rep's] authority came from the contract, but she helped me because I was a CL. District Reps don’t have enough hours in the day to service the dozens and dozens of members that need a similar degree of protection. Although some teachers are bad eggs and misuse the system, others just rub the principal the wrong way and need the help of skilled representatives. Not all the CLs have the clout or the skills. I mean, there is a level of lying out there that leaves me dumbfounded. My own principal last year got me to sign the vacancy list for the SBO, then added names after I signed. Pure fraud. He was willing to lie in print and to our face. My former principal at [a central Manhattan MS] lied through her teeth the whole year. Tweed is creating administrators with some pretty nasty skills, and CLs in this current clime are growing weaker. They’re being badgered, and many are in the rubber room, as you know. I was virtually silenced while they were harrassing me last year. Filed no grievances, couldn’t serve the teachers at all, except in private meetings to “educate” them how far the principal was trespassing on their rights. Those young people didn’t even know the rules the principal should have been playing by, but I couldn’t fight their battles. I was fearful every day I was in that building, knowing there was a campaign against me.
“Letters in the file that have lies in them and are allowed to stay there for 3 years are terrible for the teacher. It is the very act of filing a real formal Grievance — even a Step I — that puts the whole thing on another level, a legal level. You’re asking us to accept that a written response to a letter in the file has the same weight as a real Grievance. You’re not living in the real world. Try it out here.
“As CL at [that MS I mentioned above], I used to go to the principal threatening several grievances at a time. To avoid a deluge of Step I’s, she’d fix some of the problems before I filed. Grievances for letters in the file (though very damaged in the past few years by the DOE’s attempts at removing the impartiality of the hearing officers) is nevertheless stronger than anything you’re intending to put in place. You guys are allowing them to peel off a layer of protection, and those of us who are in the classroom need every layer we already have. You’re wrong to spin it as something we can afford to lose.”
No answer yet.