It’s important to focus the discussion at this point. A vote is coming up, and more than 100,000 people will have to live with its results.
It has been painful reading some of the comments on this blog. The level of distrust in some schools–distrust of principals, of the union, of the administration, of parents, students, everyone–is overwhelming. No one reading these comments could help but feel for the writers, and wish they were given more respect, even if they sometimes come across as complaining or hostile.
But a contract cannot fix everything. Ultimately, a contract is a piece of paper. Schools are run by people. A contract cannot cover every eventuality. You wouldn’t want it to. Sometimes problems can and should be solved by the individuals in each school.
Knowing that a contract cannot fix everything:
1. Will you work for the salary?
2. Can you keep these hours? Will your health and well-being be protected?
3. Do you believe your job is reasonably ensured against capricious action or political retaliation?
4. Do you believe you could get a better deal right now?
5. Do the most difficult situations in your school–whether it be extreme micromanagment by the principal or unfair treatment of another sort–have some remedy in this contract?
6. Given the conditions, can students learn from you?
Overall, will you be better off or worse off under this contract? If you think you might be worse off, is it the contract or is it possible violations of the contract? And if it is violations you most fear, are there reasonable protections?
Nuts and bolts questions like these go into each person’s decision on whether to vote yes or no.
But there is one “intangible” that’s worth asking: what does this contract do, if anything, to change the miserable climate in the schools? Here I must admit my bias–I think it helps. In fact, it may be the contract’s most singular strength, for three reasons.
1. The contract lasts over four years–it buys peace until 2007, a year past the time all other union contracts are up.
2. It forced them to blink, at last. Kleinberg didn’t get his 8-page contract and he got an amazing show of resolve from teachers, parents and the whole city. That little phrase about micromanagement is an admission that they have been mismanaging the schools.
3. Finally, the lead teacher innovation, and the modifications in seniority and Circular 6 are all changes in which teachers now take on more responsibility for the school, not just for their classrooms. This is an opportunity to create (or restore) a working climate of trust in schools, or at least take a stab at it. No contract can assure respect, but this one may be able to set conditions towards it.
My personal view is that’s worth trying.
Everyone has to make up his or her own mind, though. It’s in your hands. How does this balance out? How will you vote?
69 Comments:
1 yomister
· Oct 9, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I am a younger teacher only in my second year of service. I am also a fellow (sorry bronxenglish). I have given significant consideration to this tentative agreement, and am fervently opposed to many of its provisions.
1. Right to grieve letters. The right to grieve a letter that is to placed in your file has a “chilling” effect on many principals. It requires that a principal exercise some degree of diligence in determining whether the letter is valid and appropriate, and whether they are prepared to advocate for its inclusion. In many respects, it is far more effective to prevent letters from entering a personnel file to begin with (and have a right of grievance in order to contest), than it is to simply allow them to drop out one’s file after three years. Ideally, the new contract would contain all of the former letter protections AND add that letters be removed within a three year time span should the letter fail to be used in a disciplinary proceeding.
2. The extra period (yes, let’s call it a period…. it is!) is an onerous burden on many of us that have multiple preps. Even remediation classes requires lesson plans, thought, and assessments. This is not a study hall; this is an additional class four days per week. So sorry, but my workload outside of direct instruction precludes me from even considering it.
3. Micromanagement will continue, regardless of the new provisions. Granted, letters may not be written, but we all know how administrators react to those who are not in compliance with stated “expectations”.
4. Seniority transfers? They are earned and they are necessary when faced with an administrator’s continued wrath. Period.
Do I need the extra money? Desperately. But I am not willing to accept this contract.
2 Kombiz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Yo mister,
On the right to grieve letters –
Bill Stamatis discusses what the actual contract means.
Peter Goodman discusses from his experience as a DR what the new LIF rules mean.
Marc Korashan talks about what the rules mean today.
More from Bill Stamatis on LIF’s
As far as issue #3 you listed some of the answers are in the links above, including using existing rules to make sure administrators aren’t harassing teachers.
3 Kombiz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:19 pm
As far as seniority transfers here’s Leo Casey on the what actually happened, and what’s been put into place in this contract:
The contract calls for ending ‘seniority transfers,’ by giving the principal of the school into which a teacher wants to transfer a veto. Prior to this contract, a growing number of schools had been leaving the seniority transfer plan for the school based staffing and transfer plan, with about half of all schools in the school based plan last year. One would expect that these numbers would continue to grow with this contract. In fact, the 1996 contract had called for the complete replacement of the seniority transfer plan by the school based transfer plan, and it was only the bureaucratic incompetence of the DOE that prevented the implementation of that part of the contract.
“The loss here is that the principal will have final authority but we were able to win language which specifically prohibited a principal from rejecting a transfer on the basis of “ age, race, gender, sexual orientation and union activities.” The principal will also be required to list all vacancies in his school [only one-half of the vacancies are listed under the seniority transfer plan], all caps and limits on the number of teachers who can transfer have been removed, and a teacher will not have to obtain a release from their current principal to transfer, provided that she does so before August 7. “
4 jd2718
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:36 pm
What was the point of eliminating SBO transfers? In theory, the hiring committees hired. In practice in many schools, the committee restrained or guided the principal, who held the ultimate decision.
(In other words, under the current SBOs the proposed future system was already functioning)
The proposed system makes the committee toothless. Do you really think disempowered committees would meet?
This is not my reason for voting no -
(August 31, 2006, 37½ minutes 144 days a year, 6R vs. 15%)
- and honestly, the SBO committee was a lot of work. I am just really curious what the impetus for eliminating SBO transfers and staffing was.
Also, something missing from the Memorandum: a position is advertised. Some people apply. What is the procedure for the principal to bypass the applicants and hire from outside the system?
5 outraged
· Oct 9, 2005 at 3:44 pm
You make lots of points but what you don’t do is offer anything in the way of sending the deal back to be rehashed. Furthermore, you should be looking for ways to get a better deal. how come there is no mention of the cfe funds and what was recommended by the fact finders.
i do not see any way to keep up with inflation when the contract does not cover the price increases in the area. this contact does not keep up with inflation. so, tell me how am i going to be better off? and when i’m older and my kids need more should i tell them to go see randi or the fact finders because a $ 3 a gallon for home heating oil and gas i cannot afford to take is contract. so please answer why would a contract which has not kept pace with or will not keep pace with inflation is something i should agree to now? each year my bargining position would decrease because it would be more difficult to make a better decision.
could you imagine dealing with a decreasing financial base and having to put up with the possibility of letter in the file. this can only produce an environment of fear.
this agreement was a mistake and should be sent back. if you read the comments on this blog i think a better case could be made for not using the fact finders report. besides the fact finders report is not binding so don’t try to hammer it home.
6 Taliesin
· Oct 9, 2005 at 5:18 pm
To follow the exact thread of the blog is to limit new ideas to explore and they should not be censored.
The union had the administration on the ropes and could have supported the Ferrer administration and helped cmapaign for it.
Have we forgotten how badly we were treated by this administration and where our grievance process became so unwieldy as to be a joke.
Do we look to take our modest salary increase and forget about the dignity that we preached with our “Let Teachers Teach” mantra.Promises and respect can not be expected from past experience.Promises regarding retirement and micromanagement can be ignored. What are you going to do about it? use the grievance process that requires a law suit to enforce.The union has become like a battered wife who is lost on how to extricate herself from the humiliations of the past.
She is uncomfortably satisfied with a new dress.
Comment by Taliesin — October 9, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
7 Maestro
· Oct 9, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Are you kidding? How is the evisceration of Circular 6 an “opportunity to create (or restore) a working climate of trust in schools”? How is shouting down raucous kids going to foster trust? Have you ever done lunch duty or potty patrol? I sure have, and trust is one thing that I most surely did not get from them. A rash, yes. Hearing loss, certainly. Trust, no.
You go on to say that “No contract can assure respect, but this one may be able to set conditions towards it.” Again, HOW? How does being an overpaid hall monitor earn me respect?
The idea that we “gain” something from that little clause about micromanagement while we lose the right to grieve LIFs is laughable. If I sit my kids in rows and the AP doesn’t like it, what’s to stop her from writing me a dozen letters on other trivial or trumped up matters to make me comply?
More and more, this blog has become a vehicle for the UFT higher-ups to slather lipstick on this pig of a contract of ours.
I urge everyone to vote NO. We CAN do better. Respect is when you are rewarded for the things you have accomplished, not for the things you agree to surrender.
8 mshalo18
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:08 pm
We must vote NO- and here are some reasons why:
1) The majority of teachers I have heard from- friends, colleagues, and on these blogs- are CLEARLY looking past the money and looking at the bigger picture regarding this contract; that in itself tells you what a bad deal it is.
2) I don’t see an end to micromanagement; what I see instead is an atmosphere of fear being created. A principal or assistant principal can now write you up for ANYTHING, knowing full well the grievance process is no longer in place. So rather than being made to look silly at step 2, administrators have been given carte blanche to do and say what they will about any teacher (perhaps, even, to set up a paper trail for a “U” rating so they can hire whomever they want- I see cronyism becoming more rampant than ever).
3) We are being put into postitions where we are exposed to students in potentially violent situations-situations that may very well lead to a false accusation.
4) Increased workload- I don’t know about you, but I have 3 preps already- it takes an enormous amount of lesson planning, organization, and diligence. I simply can’t, in good faith, take on an increased workload, because ultimately, the kids will be the ones who suffer.
5) More time in the classroom- sorry, but those 2 days at the end of August ARE a big deal to me- call me selfish, call me greedy, call me whatever you will- but under this contract, I no longer will have the option of enjoying Labor Day weekend with my family, because it will be spent planning for Tuesday, when the kids come back to school.
You know what? Considering what I will be losing, I have made peace with a salary freeze until a better deal can be negotiated. If it means waiting out the next Bloomberg administration, so be it. My quality of life is more important than few dollars. I implore you all to vote NO. This is not “the best we can do”. We deserve better- and the only way we can get better is to wait it out. I’m not nervous or anxiety ridden over the fact that the old contract expired. I am worried about life under this new contract. You should be too.
9 redhog
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:10 pm
We are all familiar with the “big lie”. If one is ballsy, deafening, and echo enough, it’ll eventually catch on and by some pernicious alchemy,steal the identity of truth. Something similar happens with the “big no!” An unsuspecting visitor to these threads might conclude that the vehement opponents of the new Contract are in the majority. In fact, it’s an infinitessimal number, even allowing for the multiple screen names, who are monopolizing this all-embracing forum. The Contract will be ratified. Randi’s negotiated agreement deserves an “honorable mention.” First Prize goes to the Contract of the Impossible, settled in a fictional place, with figmentary benefits. In the real world she has done the best that could be done. Try walking out and losing your contract, your pay, your benefits, your shirt, your pride.
10 Schoolgal
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:52 pm
REALITY CHECK:
I already serve on the Professional Development Committee and GUESS WHAT?
BIG SURPRISE…
THE PRINCIPAL IS STILL PICKING THE TOPICS FOR OUR MONDAY MEETINGS!!
Good staff development should be based on what the teachers need to benefit the students. So much for agreeing to the extended Mondays!!!!
As for SBO, last year the committee fought for a selection that the principal didn’t want, and the committee won. What will happen this year?
Is this the professional climate you are talking about?
Please stop the spin and focus on the reality.
If you really think this is a wonderful deal, then let us vote on it before Election Day!
11 Persam1197
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:54 pm
I disagree with the opinion that the contract will be ratified. I’m basing my opinion solely on the sentiments of my school, but I haven’t met anyone who will vote “yes” on it. For what it’s worth, it is a horrible contract for all of the reasons stated above and beyond.
If it is true as Redhog says, that “in the real world she has done the best that could be done,” it’s time for new leadership. This contract is onerous for new teachers who are already going insane with taking college credits after work and getting in mandated PD hours. Those of us who have been in the system for some time aren’t going to settle for it either.
If the UFT were so sure that this was a done deal, we would be ratifying the “contract” this coming week, not after elections when the real sheetrock will hit the fan.
12 NYC Educator
· Oct 9, 2005 at 7:41 pm
It’s Orwellian that the UFT, which once boasted of the transfer plan, now boasts equally of its abolition, and that the UFT, which once proudly announced the end of lunchroom duty, now just as proudly announces its resurrection.
I will vote NO, as will the majority of teachers in my building.
13 get_me_a_contract
· Oct 9, 2005 at 8:30 pm
Maisie–
You wrote, “But a contract cannot fix everything. Ultimately, a contract is a piece of paper…. A contract cannot cover every eventuality. You wouldn’t want it to. Sometimes problems can and should be solved by the individuals in each school.”
I just read about the awful situation at Brooklyn Tech…..
Do you think that the problems there can be solved by individuals? Do you think that the principals there can be trusted?
I think the new contract will screw all those who work there and in schools like it.
Earlier I said that I would vote for the contract. Now, I am not so sure….the union’s flippant attitude is scaring me.
14 Jackie Bennett
· Oct 9, 2005 at 9:09 pm
Schoolgal – I think you are misinformed. We are voting before election day. I’m a chapter leader. The union sent an update several days ago that the ballots would be out to the schools on October 21.
Of course, had the union done it any faster, it is quite probable that those whose agenda has nothing to do with the contract would accuse the leadership of trying to “ram it through” without debate.
Frankly, I’m not really sure why anyone would be dying for an answer before the election. A yes vote helps Bloomberg, and hurts Ferrer, and few of us want that. A no vote doesn’t help Ferrer either, since voters are not about to switch over just because the teachers don’t like Bloomberg’s deal. What’s more, a no vote doesn’t hurt Bloomberg in the least. Every paper in the city has supported this deal, or thinks it hasn’t gone far enough. Between the press and his 6 billion glossies, Bloomberg would have no incentive whatever to deal with us before the election.
For that matter, if we hand him a “no” vote, he wouldn’t have much incentive to deal with us after the election either.
Another four years at current wages? Takers anyone?
15 Schoolgal
· Oct 9, 2005 at 9:29 pm
Jackie,
I’ll take it!
Oops! commercial over. Back to the Yankees
Gotta go!
16 Chaz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 10:30 pm
When I first heard about the contract I felt Randi tried to do the right thing but the final contract was putting the classroom teacher at risk. Even with the horrible givebacks I still was on the fence. However, while the core values, were protected, they were certainly nibbled at. For example the elimination of grievances and the reinstatment of unprofessional duties, (cafeteria, potty, & hallway, etc.), the stealth sixth period, and the 90 day unpaid suspension for sexual misconduct (a very vague term for a variety of all type of actions).
However, after reading the propaganda by non-classroom teachers and their failure to respond to questions (Leo Casey for one) I can only assume that the UFT does not care about the rights and concerns of the classroom teacher.
Therefore, thanks to people like Leo Casey I will be voting NO! Further, I will be telling many of my fellow teachers to do the same.
17 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Oct 9, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Who do you think you are kidding Chaz? Casey put up an answer to your question a good two hours before you wrote this, and also explained why you did not get an instant answer. The only propaganda here is the endless numbers of mindless comments saying the same thing over and over and over again.
18 Jackie Bennett
· Oct 9, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Tell you what, Chaz. While you are at it, why don’t you tell them to bite off their noses to spite their faces, too?
I have a student. She got a tongue ring just to make her mother mad. Her mother didn’t really get that mad. Now, the poor thing is stuck with a tongue ring.
When you “tell” them to vote no (talk about propaganda!), I hope you’ll at least make some attempt to mitigate the misinformation you seem intent on spreading. To take just one example, the changes in grievance and with letters in file are big wins for the members. Take it from a teacher (yes, Chaz, a classroom teacher) who has been through the letter in file mill — about six times in about two years, under one miserable principal intent on destroying the chapter leader. This grievance changes are a major win.
19 Chaz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 11:46 pm
I do not know of any teacher who does not support zero tolerance for sexual relations or abuse of a student, no matter how old the student is. Teachers found to have committed such acts should be sent to prison! However, that was not the questions I asked HS Shop Teacher! I was talking about the term sexual misconduct and questioned it’s meaning and the consequences for false allegations. Maybe if you and Leo Casey would read rather than insult you could have composed an intelligent answer to my questions like jd2718 did.
Calling my very valid questions and statements mindless only shows your own shortcomings.
I understand that when you are not a classroom teacher, this is not important to you. However, in the secondary schools it is important to us.
20 Schoolgal
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:12 am
Hey Jackie,
I’m back and happy about the Yanks! Would have liked to have seen Bernie hit one.
Thank you for letting me know about the date. My rep did not inform us. Also having been a rep, I know this will not be an easy time for you unless you have a
normal principal. I take it your teachers are voting yes.
For me this is not about the election because Bloomberg was going to win. Has the UFT endorsed Freddy? (and I am not a fan of Freddy)
I did vote for McCall against the endorsement of the UFT to back Pataki. (Another bad call from this union.)
If this contract is approved, I gain because I will be eligible to retire within the next few years. But, I will also report to lunch meetings when my principal calls them (and she does) and I will do whatever it takes to make sure I never receive a letter (only because I would personally hate to have one in my file.) And as you know, I am not going to sell my soul for a better pension.
I have to tell you that my principal, even with her violations, is one of the better ones. However, if and when she decides to retire, and I hope she is still around until I retire, I would not want to teach under the new breed of principals coming down from the Academy.
Even my AP does not like this contract.
As for HS SHOP TEACHER, I wish both sides of this issue would refrain from name-calling. In fact, HS teachers have it better than we do. Our clusters can go 6 in a row before their first break. Try having 4 Pre-Ks and 2 Kindergartens in a row! Also clusters run up and down the staircase to bring classes to lunch or pick them up from lunch.
As a classroom teacher, I teach all subjects and have to so much paperwork. I now have to prepare for a new state math test that doesn’t follow the city’s program. And I am still waiting for word on what topics will be on that test so I can plan accordingly.
Do they give Regents in Shop class? How much paperwork do you have? Do you go to Columbia University during the summer? Do you have to vacuum the carpet? I do, even though the UFT says the custodians are supposed to clean them and wash them. That hasn’t happened yet. Do you stand on lines in the summer at your local Teachers’ Store and at Staples? Last year I spent $300 over Teacher’s Choice.
I can think of more “meaningless” questions to tick you off, but I won’t. I just want seniority rights as well as due process protected. I was shocked when a Tier 1 teacher who is retiring this year told me she was also voting NO.
And, excessed teachers deserve better treatment. Having been both excessed and laid off, I know the tremendous sadness that goes with it.
So HS Shop teacher, this is the only forum where we can discuss this issue. It would have been nice if my rep called a meeting to get our take on this contract before she goes to the delegate assembly. After all, the reps are supposed to be representing the opinions of their teachers rather than Unity.
21 R. Skibins
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:12 am
To take just one example, the changes in grievance and with letters in file are big wins for the members
Big wins? That’s just like our government claiming that we “won” Vietnam. And saying that our calls for a “no” vote are propoganda? And what do you call the New York Teacher, giving one-sided coverage of this landmark sellout? A thousand times, No No NO!!!!
22 redhog
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:29 am
R. Skibins: With all due respect ( and I do not demean you, despite our being at loggerheads on the issues and the tone with which we are addressing them),your observation about “one-sided coverage” isn’t logical.Edwize, for instance, is an official, institutional blog. It differs from all such other organizational web logs by its striking tolerance and even solicitation of points of view that are not only critical, but sometimes flamingly hostile to its adopted policies and leadership. Isn’t it a vindication of sorts that the UFT has set up this forum, at such a delicate and volatile time, out of respect for its membership? There is impeccable balance here and in all other arms and avenues of the UFT’s operation.
23 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:24 am
I heard the Daily News photo was upsetting to Randi. Now she knows why the contract is upsetting to the membership. She should show her strength by omitting the spin and allowing the union to delegates to say no.
24 Persam1197
· Oct 10, 2005 at 10:26 am
I’m not sure about the “impeccable balance” redhog mentions. I’ve worked hard in the UFT as a delegate and as a chapter leader. I don’t feel that Randi and the Unity Caucus are necessarily doing wrong by us, but I do feel that it’s time for the rank and file to give the other union political caucuses serious consideration.
I also think that the corporate level salaries has created a comfort zone for our union leadership. The salaries and perks for UFT personnel should be what we all get. If the president and vice presidents and other honchos got a max of $81,000 after 22 years on the job, they might work much harder for us.
I don’t believe that our “core values” are protected at all by this contract. I’ll vote “yes” right after they eliminate the new 6th period, maintain the current grievance procedures and seniority rights, restore the lost vacation days, and put real teeth in the micromanagement clause.
The 15% is nothing but a COLA with serious give backs.
25 realitybasededucator
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:06 am
According to the Daily News, Randi chided Chancellor Klein for “gloating” about the sweeping work rules changes he’ll be able to wield against teachers after the contract passes BEFORE the tentative agreement was ratified.
Accroding to the Daily News, Weingarten said Klein broke the “cardinal rule of negotiating,” which is don’t open your mouth until the deal is signed.
Holy cow, both Randi and Joel know how bad this deal is for teachers, yet only Randi has the discretion to keep her mouth shut about the sell-out.
Klein, on the other hand, is already bragging about his victory and drooling at the unprecedented power the union has conceded to the DOE.
How can this be such a “fantastic” deal, as Randi characterized it yesterday in a Daily News op-ed piece, when Chancellor Klein is chomping at the bit to get these work rules changes through so he can start really hammering teachers under the new contract provisions?
Also, note how Randi says in today’s Daily News article that she is worried that the tentative contract deal will go down to defeat when the rank-and-file vote on it.
She should be worried.
The more teachers learn about the contract particulars, the less they like the contract and the less likely they are to vote for it.
In just seven short days since Randi and Joel were kissing at City Hall (and how’s that for an unforgettable Dickensian image of unfathomable terror?), the press and the union leadership have gone from saying the contract will be ratified despite the misgivings of some union members to saying the contract could very well go down to defeat when it is voted on by the rank-and-file.
Despite the desperate spin of Ms. Weingarten and her UNITY propagandists and Edwize “bloggers” (e.g., Leo Casey, Peter Goodman, et al.), the contract is losing support, not gaining it!
The road to final defeat of this contract abomination will be long and hard.
There is no assurance that Randi’s “education” efforts upon the rank-and-file (i.e., propagandazing) won’t shore up flagging contract support and allow for a squeaker victory.
But as of today, we can say with certainty that this contract batttle Randi brought upon herself by agreeing to so many concessions for so little money is no longer the certain “slam-dunk” she and her UNITY caucus figured it would be.
The UFT rank-and-file are beginning to realize that just because Randi Weingarten says something’s a good deal doesn’t make it so.
26 divina
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:27 am
After reading ICE’s website, and the salary charts they posted…. feh… a great majority of UFT personnel make under $40K.
27 Maisie
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:27 am
Get-Me-A-Contract:
Yeah, the Brooklyn Tech situation is bad. My point about what contracts can and cannot do, however, still stands. McCaskill’s reign of terror has taken place under the existing contract. It hasn’t stopped him. Opposing him requires more than grieving letters in the file. Teachers have to find their voices and fight. There are a lot of ways — involve the press (see Jim Callahan’s great savaging of McCaskill in the latest New York Teacher), involve parents, confront the regional administration, stand up to the guy. We are in a terrible climate. We are in a walking test case for municipal union busting and corporate-model school administration. Those who think we should vote ‘no’ so we can get a better deal do not understand this, at their peril. Trying desperately to hold on to “the way things are” while the floodwaters are rising is never a good strategy. The way to fight McCaskill, and Klein, is not to bicker through contless grievance procedures but to completely change the conversation about schools and the status of the teachers in them. For example, the reason the SBO hiring plan works well is because teachers have a major voice in hiring. We are not giving up the SBO plan. Actually, SBOs are good example of what I’m trying to say. Rather than look to the contract to defend us in every eventuality, maybe we should look at it more as a tool to put teachers and staff on an equal footing with administrators in the schools. And I’m suggesting also that people stop the gush of fear and disinformation and try to see that this is our best possible deal for now, and move forward.
28 TeacherTeacher
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:37 am
It’s The Best That We Can Do????
“We won’t get anything better” is a mindset rooted in defeatism. I refuse to believe that the majority of our membership is that resigned to being the abused, bastard step child of education. Some day, and maybe the time is now, the well-meaning, hard-working, “non-political” teachers of NYC will be enough in number to wake this city up. We will stop the brow-beaten and tired colleague from whispering scary thoughts in our ears. We will listen to the voice of reasonable dissent; we will think for ourselves and form our own opinions. We will think. We will speak. And we will act. And when we do – we will achieve. For now, all you have to do – is vote No.
29 Schoolgal
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Maisie,
You do know that the MOA states that principals have the FINAL SAY on SBO transfers. The way you describe your principal, do you really think your committee’s recommendations will count????
The truth is, nothing will change the attitude of principals like yours.
Had this deal called for concensus building, it might have had a chance.
As for disinformation, the union is putting out the spin too.
Why don’t you talk to teachers at 86Q who lost a marvelous principal because their LIS wanted her friend in the position.
Why don’t you talk to the teachers at 161Q who canceled their end-term party?
Did your principal come from the C-30 selection? If so, then blame your committee for not seeing the truth. When I served on that committee, the right questions gave great insights. Even our Superintendent was amazed by some of the answers.
A teacher I know who is voting Yes told me a story about her Queens principal. If a teacher goes to her with a concern, she give the “time-out” sign and walks away. Her other famous comment is, “You’re not a team player.”
BTW she is from the Leadership Academy. Do you really think the Chancellor will find fault with any of her decisions?
Didn’t he just hire back the principal who told parents to lie on their Title 1 lunch applications? (He was Leadership too.)
If teacher committed such an action, what would happen to them?
I hope for your sake, you are right about changing your principal. On the other hand, if your principal gets worse, I wish you luck when you apply for an SBO transfer.
30 firefly
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:52 pm
When I read these posts I keep noticing how most people are afraid of the Letters in File issue and potty patrol issues because they essentially feel that their principals are power hungry monsters who are out to get them. I have also known a principal or two who adhere to the “gotcha” philosophy of dealing with teachers.
This, to me, seems like the bigger issue. Since I entered the DOE I’ve noticed mostly huge contention between administration and rank and file teachers. As someone who came from a former career I’ve always found this ludicrous. Who are these people who become principals? Why do they hate teachers so much? Weren’t they teachers themselves? Why is there this sort of hostility between administration and teachers when we should be working as a team to educate our youth? Does anyone else view this all as highly dysfunctional?
Perhaps the issue is with WHO is being chosen for administrative positions? Perhaps this is something our union needs to consider and speak with the DOE and principals union about. Perhaps aspiring AP’s and Principals should have to fulfill more requirements…like 10 years of teaching before applying for a position, or perhaps some Professional Development or courses on how to encourage teachers to do their best in a “positive” rather than “gotcha” manner. Maybe the rule book needs to be rewritten from the top down. This seems to me like something we should be protesting with more than just a “response to a letter” or “grievance”.
It’s silly that everyone is so afraid of insane power-mad principals and AP’s. If that weren’t an issue, aspects of this contract would be much easier to digest for many teachers.
31 Frank48
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:03 pm
One of Klein’s union and contract busting goals is to create many more charter schools here.
A friend of a friend recently was hired by a charter school in Brooklyn – there is no pension in the deal.
The charter model is for low paid young people to read scripts to the kids – no union, no pension, no nothing.
This is what privatization means for teachers. This is what Bloomie and Klein WANT !
For people to say : “This is the best we can get” is waving the white flag to total destruction !
In a DOE which makes layoff king JACK WELCH of all people an educational guru , the members better think twice before approving this contract – a contract which severely weakens individual classroom teachers.
Everyone reflect for a second on THE REALITY :
1. Mayor Bloomberg is the richest mayor in NYC history. He’s already spent 50,000,000.00 of his own money to win the post again. He is so secure in his decision making that he closed fire houses in post 911 New York City. He’s hated to this day about that – but he is a man who gets what he wants.
2. He hires Jack Welch, corporate titan, as an educational guru, mentoring and speaking at Bloomberg’s Principal Academy. Welsh’s main mgt. strategy at G.E. was to constantly harrass and fire 10% of his staff at any given time.
2. Newly minted “graduates” of this vaunted academy have demanded “U” quotas from their APs in certain high schools. Principals are actually mentioning to their APs how many “U” ratings are expected each semester. If it’s happenning there, it will be happenning at a school near you soon.
Not a surprise since this is the stated policy of Welch , Bloomberg , and Klein. They want more “U” ratings to reflect the poor results in the system. Bloomie has stated this publicly for years now.
Of course, we teachers know that MANY other factors contribute to the poor numbers. Bloomie , Klein, and Welch only blame staff for these problems.
They now seek to use scientific and ruthless management theory as a rubric in managing and assessing the work of NYC teachers .
These MBAs conveniently factor out all of the other variables in this equation – the many challenges of the student population.
The answer, for them ultimately is a cheap, young workforce who will probably be transient in nature. A constant turnover will be good for the machine anyway – no more UFT, no more pensions, no more anything.
This is what the charter model, ultimately means to the average working teacher across the country.
Hey, these are the guys who “don’t think twice” about shipping out middle class jobs to India and Pakistan – do you think they give a crap about you ?
It’s true, these wealthy managers and capitalists are only looking at the bottom line here and want to shed payroll wherever, and HOWEVER they can.
Most veteran teachers to Klein are merely pampered and puffy liabilities. You’ve had it too good, for too long, and the party is OVER – and besides – the results are terrible.
Before handing over valuable chips to a crew intent on your destruction – think twice before you capitulate. For this is simply the law of the jungle at this point.
Members – with this crew in power – is this the time to lose so much for so little ?
32 Frank48
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:04 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.
33 Kombiz
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Frank – Copying the same comment, which is just an article and not part of the discussion, onto multiple threads within seconds of each other is called spamming, please don’t do it.
34 Frank48
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Spamming is about selling something commercially. My comments are on topic and apply to each thread .
Actually, anyone attempting to sell this crappy deal to us is spamming, pal.
35 Kombiz
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Sorry Frank, but taking a litany a litany of thoughts and pasting them into a comment and then taking that comment and pasting it on multiple threads is spamming seconds after each other is spamming. The best way to determine whether it’s spam is to imagine if everyone on the blog did the same thing in comments, then there wouldn’t be a discussions – it’d just be everyone’s litany of points.
36 bronxenglish
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:50 pm
to yomister:
you are an exception to my opinion on fellows. Congratulations–i am proud of you and i am proud to be your colleague!
37 Leo Casey
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Chaz:
You posted your inquiry late on Thursday evening; I spent virtually all of my day in schools on Friday, and did not come across your question until Friday evening.
As I already noted in a comment elsewhere, posted before you announced in six different threads that I would not answer your inquiry, I was waiting to answer you until I had received clarification on a key question. I was aware that there had been discussion of changing both the DOE regulations and the law, following a high profile case of a teacher engaged in sexual misconduct who was not dismissed, and I wanted to determine whether or not those changes had actually been completed. [The short of it was that the proposed changes would prohibit any sexual act between teacher and student, regardless of the age of the student.]
I sent out e-mails to the folks who would know the answers, but have yet to receive a reply. I am not going to call them on the weekend. It may surprise those who spend every waking hour on this comment board, but some folks treat weekends as weekends, and I feel guilty enough about the time this blogging steals from my own family without taking time from other folks’ families as well. And this was no exactly a time urgent matter, where the answer on Tuesday would not do as well as the answer on Saturday.
I took it for granted, perhaps mistakenly, that you knew that you could google the regulations the DOE had on their web site, but I am not certain that they are up to date. And I think it is essential, when someone such as myself from the UFT gives out information, that it be correct and up-to-date, since people rely on that information.
If you want to vote against the contract agreement, which appears to have been your predisposition since you first started blogging here, by all means do so — it is your democratic right. But kindly do me the favor of not pretending that it was because I was not able to supply an instant answer to your inquiry.
38 outraged
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:54 pm
frank
On 10/14/2005 the new inflation stats will come out. Everyone should tune into BLOOMBERG NEWS and get a dose of reality
39 Lucy2024
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Unfortunately, fear has been a tactic used by the DOE in recent years. It wasn’t like this when I started.
Everyone is afraid from the top down. The Chancellor is afraid of the Mayor, Superintendents are afraid of the Chancellor, the Ris’s are afraid, the Lis’s are afraid, the principals are afraid, the Assistant Principals are afraid, and finally the teachers are afraid. (the students are not afraid because if they don’t learn, it’s the teachers’ fault).
The DOE thinks all this fear is supposed to make teachers work harder, be more productive and magically make the children smarter. As usual, they are wrong.
I don’t think principals and assistant principals begin their careers intending to frighten, intimidate, embarrass and humiliate teachers. None of the administrative classes that I attended encouraged any of these tactics.
Once you have witnessed these things, experienced this madness, you can definitely understand that there is reason to be afraid. If the DOE treats its Principals and AP’s as replacable commodities, it makes it easier to understand why Principals and AP’s treat the teachers as such. After all, they are doing what their bosses told them to do. (I think I have heard that before…ummm).
In recent years, I know of three good principals forced out of the system because they refused to worship the self proclaimed educational gods in the DOE.
The DOE has knows that the majority of the teachers are afraid and I think that the UFT leaders are afraid as well.
An educational system cannot run on fear. It is too disfunctional and it will not serve to educate the children of NYC.
Teachers, we cannot give in! Even if we are afraid, lets not show it by agreeing to this contract proposal.
40 bronxenglish
· Oct 10, 2005 at 2:10 pm
to redhog (and others who support this conract):
you have made it very clear that you are for this contract. Can i ask you a few questions?
1. How long have you been teaching?
2. What do you teach and where (you don’t need to be specific to location.)?
3. Do you live in the same borough you work in?
4. Do you have a family–thus needing child care?
i ask these 4 questions because I want to know about the people who support this contract and why it will benefit them.
I oppose this contract vehemently–as do MANY other teachers in my building and in this city. I have said my feelings about this contract in other posts, but i will say it again. This contract doesn’t really hurt me.
1. I have been doing this for 7 years, since I have been 21. The 50/25 rule means nothing to me. I will be 46 when i have reached 25 years of service. Since there will never be a 46/25 rule-this is moot. I am also tenured and i do not worry about unfair letters in my file. My principal is fair.
2. I teach English in a Bronx high school. My 37 1/2 minutes will be spent grading papers, making phone calls, surfing the net, reading, whatever i want, really. Our kids just will not come to after school tutoring.
3. I used to live in the Bronx. My husband and i bought a BIG house over an hour away. We were willing to sacrifice (commuting time) for a house with property and lots of closets. He works for the District, his hours will not change. We drive in together anyway. Even with the extra time, I will still wait for him to finish his day.
4. We have no kids, so child care is not an issue.
See, the contract is okay for me. But this contract is NOT about just me. It is about 80,000 plus teachers. How DARE i vote yes on something that will hurt tens of thousands of teachers, just because it is good for me. I am just not that selfish. This is why i will vote no and encourage others to do so.
41 Maestro
· Oct 10, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Lucy, don’t feel too bad for the principals and APs out there. They long ago sold out their rights for money. Now, they make much more and work much more–AND they have the fear of termination as well. I hope the CSA is happy with the deal they made with the devil. Hey, at least they got more money for selling out than this lousy MOA calls for.
What annoys me most about about administration is that they were ALL UFT members at some point. Some who were the most vocal about their rights when they were teachers are the quickest to violate yours now that they’re on the other side of the ball.
Let’s also not forget that they are still union members…CSA. Many don’t give a hoot how they violate our contract, even as they try to negotiate their own. I’m sure some are dancing with glee at the thought of uncontested LIFs and other gifts from Kleinberg that can be used against us.
We have no one to rely on but ourselves, which means our union. If we agree to this lousy contract, we won’t even have that.
42 Jack
· Oct 10, 2005 at 3:53 pm
This contract (if that is what you wish to cal it) is every teachers worst nightmare. I vote no and i think we need to really ask just whose side Randi is REALLY on. I notice that we give back MORE and MORE with each new “shamtract.” We need to understand that whenever you give time for money it is NOT a raise. A raise is given for a job well done with no strings. I wonder what Randi will give back in 2007. VOTE NO and tell both Randi and the union that these back room deals have to stop. This raise won’t even keep pace with the cost of inflation and forget about all those give backs. Is the cash really worth doing hall,cafeteria, or potty patrol? NO!
43 firefly
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:15 pm
From what I’ve heard at my school and from other teachers I’ve spoken with at other schools it seems that 95% of them will be voting YES to this contract. It seems as though people want a raise now and aren’t willing to wait another 4 years given the spectre of inflation.
They feel that our quaulity of life at school won’t be that much different in any case and that a no vote is only keeping any sort of raise at bay.
I have to agree.
44 Lucy2024
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:44 pm
It’s a good thing that this 95% was not living during the American Revolution. We would most definitely be speaking the Queen’s English.
Any teacher mediums that can convince Thomas Paine to say a few words?
45 Islandgrl63
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:56 pm
I am blown away by this “tentative” contract and will vote a big “NO!” I first heard about it last Monday at work, and everyone was all a buzz at the supposed good news, until we heard the details and then it didn’t sound so hot. Talk about givebacks and concessions-the union sold our souls to the devils(Joel Klein and Hizzoner). All Mayor Doomberg is sniffing around for is an endorsement and to win the election. Just about every colleague I talk to is very disappointed with Randi, she has let us down-it’s not all about the Benjamins, which is what we have been saying all long. This fight has been about a fair contract and respect-which this contract represents neither one of these things. You think teacher and staff morale is low now-wait until they pass this contract-you’ll see more qualified and caring teachers leaving the system in droves-there will be an exodus to the suburbs for sure and the ones who have their time in will wait it out and just retire.
46 Islandgrl63
· Oct 10, 2005 at 6:04 pm
What I find so scary is when the New York Teacher profiles administators like the ones who hold the reins at Brooklyn Tech, this is exactly the type of contract that will give them carte blanche. If you put power in the wrong administrators hands, it’s like that saying “absolute power corrupts, power corrupts absolutely”. They are driving out teachers who have been there for years, who can’t take the abuse and tyranny anymore. Where is Bloomberg and Klein when this is going on?
How come this hasn’t been brought to the attention of Richard Condon’s office at 65 Court Street? Brooklyn Tech for many years has been the one of the top high schools in the country, and now it’s been relegated to a place where teachers don’t even want to teach at and students can’t have a positive learning environment.
47 Teacher31231
· Oct 10, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Every posted story is pro-contract. You know the union is pushing them up! I have read most if not all responses, 95% are negative. Where are some negative stories?
48 Persam1197
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:56 pm
My principal announced the new “contract” on our Monday torture session…oops, I mean professional undevelopment session. The members gave a resounding boo, to her surprise. Like most of the new schools, the members are for the most part quite new. I’m the third old fart on the seniority list at a paleolithic 13.5 years. I can’t believe that any school with educated personnel could honestly vote yes to a contract like this one. I’ve seen better crap in the toilet.
49 Maisie
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:30 pm
Schoolgal, firefly, Lucy2024:
Yes, I know that under the terms principals would have veto power on teacher transfers. That is not the same as “all the power,” though. While they can say no, they do not select at will. That can allow for a collaborative process. Similarly with C6, the principals have some new powers, but they are not unlimited. They don’t assign teachers at will, and the teachers have choices.
A rotten principal, and a terrorized staff, can kill those balances, it’s true. But even if we could alter some contract terms that won’t change a McCaskill. You can vote the contract down, and there are reasons to vote no. But that won’t fix what’s really going on. The situation requires strategy, not just passion.
Many people share your disgust with abusive principals. The situation cannot last. There are too many people speaking out about it–not just teachers either. We need to establish the union as a driving force for school reform and shake the rap that we are self-serving and hold back change. Passing the contract shows we’re willing to make reasonable changes, and brings new respect for the teachers’ voice.
You could argue that if we don’t sign the contract we’ll force a crisis sooner, but we wouldn’t carry the public. The contract terms we’re being offered are 15% and just not that draconian.
Signing also puts the ball in DOE’s court. They will be put in the position of defending their management decisions, whereas before they just blamed the union whenever anything went wrong.
What happens after that? I think over the next two years the schools will hit a wall. Test scores will plateau, many small schools will fail, the class size issue will sharpen, and principal abuses will be uncovered. Klein doesn’t have an education community or a political base, and Bloomberg’s base is thin. They will not be able to maintain their hold on the schools.
And when their model of school management does not deliver as promised, that will shift the climate in schools farther in favor of teachers and strengthen our influence. At the same time it will undermine the influence of the LISs and administrators. Once that occurs a McCaskill will not have the tools of fear and silence any more. Meanwhile, the union remains a force for good education–in fact, the only force left. I don’t know where the economy will be in two years, but a good guess is not expanding. We’ll have our 15% locked in, though.
50 outraged
· Oct 11, 2005 at 12:09 pm
What would be the FUTURE value for the current contract if the number of charter schools increased substantially?
Last night Bloomberg announced his plan to double the number by next year and he will lobby for control, not only of the schools but also the removal of the cap on them. He stated that the students score better than the ones in the city schools.
No joke it was on the News
51 Disillusioned_in_NYC
· Oct 11, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Regarding the Daily News photo of Randi being hugged and given a kiss on the forehead by Klein——she’s using that excuse as a reason that the contract might not get approved? How about lousy negotaiting on her part? Could that be the reason?
Let’s have this contract propposal be a stepping stone to a better one.
52 Schoolgal
· Oct 11, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Am I supposed to believe that Bloomberg has a thin political base?????
If that’s so, then we should wait it out.
But, I don’t believe it. I think this election will be a landslide. Even my students told me they have been getting phone calls from his campaign.
C6 choices???? My principal is toying with the idea of rotating lunch duty (including classroom teachers) and my Rep didn’t even blink an eye.
Now Randi may be coming to my school–interesting.
You know, at first I didn’t mind the extra time and days, but the more I think about it, I am not going to like it.
I usually spend the last week in August visiting my family. I hope I can next year too!
53 Schoolgal
· Oct 11, 2005 at 9:39 pm
Maise,
I am not gambling that this city will ever treat teachers better in the future. Every contract we give up more and more.
During the last contract a new teacher asked Randi during a delegate’s meeting if he would have to look fwd to increased time in our next contract. She answered NO!
Now I hear Randi herself is going to grace the halls of my school because of all the emails she has received from the teachers accusing her of selling us out. Do we need to bring out the red carpet????
Are all of you at Unity going to be making the rounds because of the 5% (according to Firefly) that are not happy with this contract? That’s a lot of muscle for 5%.
54 Jack
· Oct 12, 2005 at 4:34 pm
My AP told me today when I asked him about the contract that if he were still teaching he would “vote it down” he then went on to say that “when you give stuff back it never becomes a raise, but rather a concession” Now if an AP tells you this then you know there is something rotten in Denmark mainly Randi and her sell-us-out sham of a deal. VOT NO!
55 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 12, 2005 at 6:24 pm
Sanitation just got 17 per cent for a 51 month deal. There is nothing outstanding about our deal at all.
56 Kombiz
· Oct 12, 2005 at 6:31 pm
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.
57 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 12, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Thank you Kombiz,
What I don’t understand is how New Yorkers who despise Bush are now ready to re elect Bloomberg, the man who brought the RNC to NYC and turned it into a police state last year and who donates millions to the Republican Party? A man who totally supports the war in Iraq. Where Bloomberg varies from Bush is just taken out the issues in the Republican party that just can’t fly in NYC, abortion righta and gay rights, other than that Bloomberg is the Republican agenda served in a way to get New Yorkers to eat it.
58 achillesmj
· Oct 13, 2005 at 11:59 am
It is all very simple. The Union gets its fees whether or not you join. It is my understanding that a strike would end the automatic fee payment. If true, this is the union’s number one concern in my opinion. Bloomberg/Klein’s main concern is cost control. The best way to accomplish lower cost is by having a young staff that stays young at lower salary levels through teacher turnover. One way to accomplish that is by making the job unpleasant and unprofessional. As an added bonus it also reduces, or in the extreme, eliminates pension obligations.
I have no doubt that politicians know its not the fault of teachers for student failure. If politicians really believed it was our fault, they would offer much higher salaries to attract top graduates and not rely on programs like “Teach for America” to get teachers with only a two year commitment.
A yes vote on this contract is another step to making this job more difficult and unpleasant, and will most likely further increase the already high turnover rate of new teachers. Exactly what Bloomberg/Klein want. VOTE NO!
59 mvplab
· Oct 13, 2005 at 12:49 pm
achillesmj:
While you may be right about the Kleinberg policy of lowering costs by keeping turnover rates high, you’re wrong about what is the number one concern of of the union. Sure dues check off is eliminated automatically if you go on strike. But don’t leave out the fact that the deduction of 2 days pay for each day we’re on strike also starts.
So what do you have when you vote “NO” achillesmj? Do you have a new chance at a 25/55? Do you have to make additional tradoffs to get more money? Do we have to sell out our future members? What do you have? Another chance at the bargaining table? With this mayor? So you want a strike? How many in your school would hit the bricks? Everyone I hope!Including you! Are you ready to pay 2 for 1? I am!
But, I suggest that we take this 15 percent and get one step closer to suburban pay and then help the Democrats take back City Hall!
60 sstamatis
· Oct 13, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Achillesmj:
You’re right about one thing-the chancellor and his coroporate mentality is trying to teacher-proof teaching. That’s why there’s little regard for our professionalism and why they proscribed a lockstep workshop scripted model of teaching.
But I fail to see how you can make a logical leap to vote “no” for this contract. Voting “no” doesn’t change that or any of your other concerns.
Beside the obvious 15 percent increase in salary — the time for money swap is about 4.2 percent, there is according to the NYPost an almost guaranteed agreement on a 25/55 retirement plan. History shows that when the city and the union have agreed to support legislation, it is almost always enacted. That’s big!
This contract has negatives, but the pluses bring us closer to compatiblity with the suburbs. And 25/55 brings us ahead of them!
I’m voting yes for this contract.
61 NYC Educator
· Oct 13, 2005 at 3:12 pm
You fail to point out some of the other points of this contract.
1. It fails, by any standard, to keep up with the 4.1% ny area inflation rate.
2. the unprecedented sixth class, wheich will inevitably be transformed to a full one in the next time for money swap
3. the precedent of the last two contracts that we don’t get a raise unless we pay our selves
4. 3 extra days of listening to Klein’s flunkies pontificate and
5. the grab-bag of goodies you give Klein, for a contract that’s less than cost of living
I’m voting no for this contract, as are most of the people in my biulding.
62 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 13, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Voting no doesn’t mean a strike, That didn’t happen in 1995. The problem is we have so man tyro verdant teachers they can’t recall that. Vote No Randi will go back to the table and get at least one or two non menetary concessions and maybe even a percentage or two more money like sanitation just got.
And vote for Freddy too. Don’t give up yet!!1
63 firebrand
· Oct 13, 2005 at 6:09 pm
yeah vote for Freddy. We need Bloomberg out. Even Randi thinks Bloomberg will win…she said as much at the DA. She referred to it as “when he wins” not “if he wins”.
It ain’t over til it’s over.
Geez I’d love to know what Freddy thinks of this tentative contract. If he really wanted a surge in votes he’d come out and say it’s crap. His wife is a teacher (I suspect and administrator and not a UFT memeber) but still….If he’s so “for” teachers he should come out and slam this piece of crap that was “negotiated”.
By the way I am unclear as to whether the ballots will be mailed to the schools or our houses. Does anyone know which it is?
64 Jack
· Oct 13, 2005 at 7:40 pm
I agree! We ALL need to vote this crap of a contract down and NEVER let it see the light-of-day. What will Weingarten give up in 2007 since she practically eviscerated our basic core rights. The right to grieve is the very foundation upon which “unionism” was founded upon. If you remove this principal right you remove the very reason the union was founded. VOTE NO! I too am curious to know what Fernando Ferrer thinks of this piece of garbage they are trying to ram through. He has been strangely quiet on this, but maybe we have Randi to thank for this too, after all she never endorsed him when it would have meant something. She needs to go back and kiss Klein again because I bet he would kiss her again based on this crappy contract.
65 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 13, 2005 at 11:16 pm
I’m glad to see so many teachers get it and finally realize we need Democrats in office. We forgot that and many of our members not only voted for Giulianni but actually liked the man. A lot of us are so dumb we’d vote for him again. The cancerous, adulterous bastard is still amazingly popular. Giulianni’s endorsement was the final shoo-in for Bloomberg in the last election. So many of us only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in these days. Giulianni could never have won withou teacher votes. Maybe Bloomberg seems more honest than some Dems, yeah but he stole everything BEFORE he got into office.
66 Jack
· Oct 15, 2005 at 10:01 pm
So 95% of teachers are voting for the contract now eh. I never knew we had Science Fiction writers posting on this site. I have made the rounds and have found way MORE than 5% who are voting this “sham” deal down. Randi I hope you are reading this post and ALL the others because you can show up at schools and try to dazzle and impress, but the emperor will still have no clothes. Your deal is going down.
67 Islandgrl63
· Oct 15, 2005 at 10:20 pm
I have talked to fellow UFT’ers, both who work at other schools, one is a chapter leader and the other is a delegate. They said they think this new contract is a pretty good deal and are voting yes. I know they are entitled to their opinions, but-I keep hearing how everyone is so dissatisified with this stinker of contract-including myself. I make no bones about it and am very vocal about my disgust about how we got sold out. It’s a degrading, and all the twin bookends(Bloomberg and Klein) are looking to do is break the unions. You don’t have to look far-look at how the negotiations have been going with other unions.
68 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 16, 2005 at 1:04 am
I just don’t see how this piece of crap is any good. Are people about to hit the exits? Are they thinking only of themselves with this? I am in my 29th year and yet in conscience I can not vote for this piece of garbage.
69 Jack
· Oct 17, 2005 at 4:51 pm
I also think that we should try and get the word out to our colleagues at our respective schools and encourage them to VOTE NO! I know I do every chance I get, and I have even gons so far as to tape up a sign in my building as to why this is not in anyones best interest excepts Randi’s (we all know she has future political aspirations no matter what she says). Think about it if this deal was so good and Randi so confident it will pass then why is she making the rounds visiting certain schools? Anyone have ICE’s and Teachers for a fair contract website address? I think I’ll join and definitely try and get Randi out of office next time around!