There is a lot of concern about Letter in File (LIF) grievances in the new tentative accord between the city and the UFT, but the issue doesn’t add up to a hill of beans. Here’s why:
There are several hundred LIF’s every year and the percentage won at grievance is very low because the burden falls on the grievant to prove that the claims made in the letter are “inaccurate” and “unfair.” Even if a letter makes it all the way to arbitration, the burden continues to fall on the grievant to prove that the supervisor’s judgment was based on inaccurate information and unfair conclusions.
As a chapter leader and arbitration advocate, I have argued many of these letters and though I had some surprising victories for members, I’ve had more “wins” by resolving the conflict between the parties.
Many times the grievance is generated by the hurt feelings of teachers who after long and satisfactory service get their first negative evaluation of a lesson. I know it feels like an insult, because I’ve gotten those letters, too.
After 10 years of satisfactory service, I was observed during a middle school poetry class. I read a poem by eecummings to students so I could mimic how a poem should be read, especially a cummings poem. Well, that was enough for the supervisor and he found that because I read the poem first and not a student, the lesson was unsatisfactory. So I appended my rebuttal to his observation letter. A few days later, the principal called me to the office and said that she agreed with my reasoning and removed the letter from the file.
That was instructive to me as a chapter leader and later as a grievance advocate for the union.
By the way, I understand why many chapter leaders would like to have a LIF grievance in their chapter building toolbox. It helps unify their chapters against the administration but nine times out of ten, it does little for the members who received the letter. Most chapter leaders who are successful in getting letters out of members’ files, are the one’s who know how to negotiate and resolve conflict between a teacher and an administrator.
So here’s what you have now: You get a letter in your file; you can informally discuss the letter with the supervisor; you then grieve and you lose; the letter stays in your file forever even after you retire or leave the system.
In the tentative agreement you have: You can’t grieve a letter in your file; you informally discuss a complaint with the supervisor; if there is no disciplinary action taken within three years as a result of that letter, the letter is removed. You can not receive a disciplinary letter in the file regarding bulletin boards, the duration of your lesson in the workshop model and the seating arrangement of your class room.
In my view we’re ahead of the game with the new tentative contract!
67 Comments:
1 doubletake
· Oct 5, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Congratulations on a hard fought for contract. As much anger and talk is out there, the reality is, you and the negotiating team did it, for the troops, not with the troops. I am really glad you brought this is as it will avert a strike and bring some stability to our lives. The numbers are good, we broke into the nineties, the next contract will go over 100. If you do per session, it will go over 100,000 for many even now. I know there will be much talk, but when all is said and done, I didn’t see the masses ready and willing to walk, I didn’t see the masses ready for a long and bitter day outside, so to come in with a package speaks of hard work and miracles. I have a large school with many younger teachers, many of whom were afraid to take action. They will support this package and be very happy you were able to win it. Even those who grouse will see that this is the best deal we could have gotten, and has prevented management from doing what they intended. I have a feeling the day it is ratified, you will see all the furniture in my place changed to a pattern of their choosing not the region’s. Sometimes people forget it’s a package not simply one piece. In our place, we proudly hold on to two letters written by the principal in the 70’s. One from a teacher who only retired 2-3 years ago and which said something like : you and your ilk are undercutting me by your refusal to wear a tie and you will not be here in September. He stayed about 25 years. The other letter chastised someone for their clothing during a faculty conference. So much for the professionalism of the principal. So much for the majority of letters. They hurt emotionally but not always vocationally, when they are not legit in the first place. And I am sure our U-Rating Advocates will now have even more reason to attack each and every letter remaining in the file at a U-Rating hearing. Easy? No, but it never was before anyway. The reality is we didn’t win all that many letters and the ones we won, we will still get tossedaat a hearing should that arise. We will survive this and move forward to win back anything we gave up that was meaningful. While people will not be happy coming in the two days, even in Queens giving up BQ day was not much of a discussion on Monday, understanding our colleagues never had it, but there was relief that the coverages remain the way they are.
So be sure there will be those at the DA who will have their diatribes; let them have their minute. we know who they are: they advocated such deadly and divisve actions as illegal sickouts that would drag us all into a strike we didn’t want. They talk about not marking homewrok, but as my former DR once said, I’m certainly not going to come in and teach all day and still get fined for not makring some homeworks. Duh! Let these guys talk, then let the rest of the DA approve it as we will with thanks to you and team for reaching this contract now and averting the need for a strike where I believe we truly didn’t have the numbers to make it work. People can talk all they want, but if they weren’t going to go out, I’ve asked them what they expected and they don’t have a better answer. Looking at it and out opportunities in a cold light, this is the right deal at the right time and should be accepted by membership.
2 R. Skibins
· Oct 5, 2005 at 5:23 pm
This “contract” is a piece of garbage sellout. Sign my petition.
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/UFTContract/
3 Schoolgal
· Oct 5, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Thank you Doubletake for explaining the LIF issue. You made so much sense.
Now can you explain the loss of senority rights and why it is a good thing that excessed teachers may become “subs” (regardless of the amount of time they have put into the system) if no other placement is found? Just how long will that teacher remain a sub, and how will that help pay the rent and college loans?
Also can you explain the financial structure of the new pension plan? I am really interested in knowing what those changes will be since UFT.org doesn’t address this issue.
And you seem to know the inner thinkings of our union, what givebacks should we be prepared to vote Yes on 4 years from now?
Thanks again!
4 NYC Educator
· Oct 5, 2005 at 5:53 pm
I beg to differ. You’ve never worked for a crazy principal. I have. The UFT bvrought him up on charges, but by the time they were sustained, he head tenure. I watched this man harrass a young new teacher who was covering a class until she cried. Only then did he start talking about letters.
Perhaps the reason so few grievances are won is this: they are fought in the same half-hearted, defeatist manner that accompanied our contract negotiations.
The myopic nature of those who support this contract could only be possible in the brave new era of Fox News and unquestioned propaganda. The time for money swap was a bad idea in the last contract, a worse idea now, and will become egregiously costly when the next contract is signed, and we have a full sixth period instead of the “small group” precursor.
If the ability to challenge these letters is meaningless, why did Klein want it? If the “lead teacher” doesn’t lead to merit pay, why did Klein want it? If the ten minutes doesn’t lead to a sixth teaching period. why did Klein want it?
Please don’t tell me he’s an idiot. He’s certainly snookered my union representatives fairly well.
I am amazed at the lack of foresight reflected in this contract proposal. We are better off with no raise and no givebacks.
Only those who agree with Mayor Bloomberg and the upper echelons of the UFT that our time is worth nothing should support this contract.
All others should vote “no.”
What a disgrace that the UFT declines to endorse the opponent of a mayor that’s treated us, for four years, like something he scraped off the bottom of his shoe.
How noble of Carl McCall to stand up for us after we stabbed him in the back for the last contract. How unfortunate no one informed him what a poor deal he was standing up for.
5 transcend
· Oct 5, 2005 at 6:56 pm
I received my first negative letter in my file after eight years last June. The reason? One of my 34 students was wearing a hat in my classroom! Thanks to filing a grievance, this ridiculous letter was removed. These letters can obviously be so petty and ridiculous. Schools are going to need extra storage for them.
How long before the first student in a lunchroom or bathroom reports a claim against a teacher? Teachers will have to deal with harassment from students and will have to worry about being accused of who knows what. That’s why we have deans and security. Maybe we can use those two days of staff development to learn how to properly deal with unruly students in lockerrooms, cafeterias, and bathrooms, since that’s now part of our job.
Also, I would like to know how many school aides will be losing their jobs since teachers are going to be expected to do their jobs. School aides, deans, and security are the backbones of our schools. Putting teachers in these situations is potentially dangerous on so many levels. Instead of making photocopies, meeting with my supervisor, or helping students I will have to spend that precious time patrolling hallways, breaking up fights in cafeterias, and dealing with attitudes from students when I ask them for their programs or take their hats off… after all I don’t want another letter in my file!
6 firebrand
· Oct 5, 2005 at 8:48 pm
NYC Educator and transcend…I know exactly where you two are coming from. I have worked for insane principals (got one removed in my first year of teaching because I kept a log and grieved every God damned insulting and abusive thing that the bitch did to me, and have had letters (from children no less) removed from my file after a psychotic AP with a fear of intelligent younger teachers who asked questions and kept track of contradictory “helpful criticisms”.
I have won every grievance I ever filed…all of them. I must be a rare bird indeed.
This tentative contract is an insult. No it’s a litany of insults.
7 MichaelB
· Oct 5, 2005 at 8:52 pm
You overlook a very important point. If teachers were losing 98% of file-letter grievances,it might be because principals wrote mainly legitimate letters, knowing the grievance procedure would undo the bad ones. This would be a reason to keep the grievance procedure in place, not to get rid of it.
Now, principals have free reign to write whatever nonsense they wish as often as they please. Does anyone doubt the number of file letters written will greatly increase?
8 jesse
· Oct 5, 2005 at 9:00 pm
Yes, there are two reasons. There are safegards against harrasment, and if the letter is going to mean something it can be grieved.
9 R. Skibins
· Oct 5, 2005 at 9:03 pm
In my school, a teacher received a letter in her file for, amongst other things, her the level of posted student work was not up to grade level. Her class, by the way, was comprised of students who had learning disabilities and were not receiving services, thanks to the decimation of special education sevices in New York City. Another teacher received a U rating for a lesson because a student made a mark in his folder without permission. Another received a U rating which bemoaned the fact that a few students didn’t complete their homework. Now, thanks to Weingarten, these cannot be grieved.
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/UFTContract/
10 Alum32K
· Oct 5, 2005 at 9:17 pm
Seems to me that most of the folks here write very well. I would expect that teachers in the system write just as well. We need to use these writing skills to respond to any negative letters that may make their way into our files.
If we are on top of our game, NO letter should make it into any of our files.
What if the principal is out to get us you ask?
Well, what if the Chapter Leader is a great negotiator? What if the Chapter is behind the Chapter leader when she/he takes on the administration?
With a strong Chapter Leader, a functioning Chapter Committee and a Chapter that is united, “crazy principal” will think twice before trying to take on a UFTeacher.
11 redhog
· Oct 5, 2005 at 9:33 pm
A savvy chapter leader with a united, loyal,and courageous staff, can rip an abusive principal to threads by means that are extra-contractual. The sweetest victories have always been won by such legitimately devious means. Surely one need say no more!
12 Jackie Bennett
· Oct 5, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Okay, I’ll bite on the LIF question. I’ve had six letters in my file and I was successful at arbitration, and I still support the change, so I think what I say might bear some weight.
But first, in response to Michael B, I’ve seen many letters from many principals, and I know that “writing a good letter” – one that will stick even through arbitration — is not the same as writing a truthful letter. If we don’t win a lot (and I’m not so sure that is true with discipline letters, though it is certainly true of observations), it is only because the principals are thoroughly coached, and have become better at beating the system.
But, to get to my point. I know about letters, and I know about vindictive principals. After ten years without incident I moved to a new school and eventually ran for chapter leader. The day I became chapter leader, I got two disciplinary letters in my file. They were followed by another (4?).
I was a nice girl. What on earth was happening?
Of course, we all know what was happening. And the notion that I would have been able to get those letters out through an informal process is simply not realistic. That will work when you work for someone who is interested in truth and good schools, but it will not work when the real agenda has nothing to do with that.
Now, eventually, with the help and hard work of the UFT, those letters came out. I’m not sure (I have a new principal and a bad memory) but one line of one letter may remain.
Now, in spite of this horrible experience, I think the changes are good.
Why? Because three years if finite, while a loss at arbitration is forever.
Why else? Because if the principal had ever had the chance to make a move (U rating, termination) those letters would have been part of the disciplinary process anyway, and the truth of them subject to scrutiny. In other words, just because it’s in your file, doesn’t make it true.
Why else? Because grieving kept the letters alive for me every day. Better to write a response and move on, than to feel stress and anger as I waded through step after step of insulting losses and outrageous decisions from the superintendent and the chancellor, only to win, finally, two years later when I got to the independent arbitrator. The whole thing wasn’t healthy.
So, so far at least, that’s what I think about that.
13 Chaz
· Oct 5, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Let’s see. During a hot June day at my school (no air conditioning except in the administrator’s offices)I am doing hallway duty and two female students start to fight. I have three choices. I could tell them to stop and not put myself in harm’s way and get a letter-to-the-file that I cannot grieve because I did not break up the fight. I could physically break up the fight and besides being hurt myself, I could be charged with corporal punishment with a 3 month suspension without pay or worse. Or, better yet, being a male teacher, I could be charges with sexual misconduct when one of them claims I touched them and maybe arrested & fired! Thanks Randi I can’t wait until this new contract goes into effect.
14 R. Skibins
· Oct 5, 2005 at 10:22 pm
What happened to my blog, and to all of the other anti-sellout blogs on blogspot.com? Did Bloomberg/Weingarten sabotage them? If so, they will hear from the ACLU.
15 Kombiz
· Oct 5, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Sikbins – blogspot seems to be completely down for some reason. Even popular blogs like oxblog.blogspot.com and atrios.blogspot.com seem to be down. It’s most likely a server issue with blogger, and it has nothing to do with us, or even Bloomberg. It happens every now and then.
16 JRY
· Oct 5, 2005 at 10:34 pm
This proposal is a huge black hole.
The schools now have many new teachers, energetic, scared, and VERY veasily intimidated. There are also way too many schools with ineffective chapter leaders. Chapter leaders who enjoy the extra preps and perks, many blessed with out of the classroom programs- and want to keep them, who are very slow on the uptake…
This contract will not help the huddled masses, without “SAVVY” chapter leaders, too scared to fight back, because this contract will leave them out in the cold.
Our union should be there for the intimidated as well as the strong.
How does…
-Working an extra 6-7 days
-Not even a fair cost of living increase
-No raise (COLA’s are not raises. These salary %’s do not keep up with our higher paid suberbs. By the way- A “raise” is a reward for hard work. Don’t NYC teachers work hard`enough as is?)
-Loss of seniority/retention rights
-Bathroom, lunchroom, and hall patrol with all the legal liabilities that can come with them
-Zero gains on class size reform
-Give backs of decades of hard earned contract negotiations
…work well for teachers?
I guess the “lucky” schools can vote for the contract in the hopes that they “always” can get a “SAVVY” chapter leader and stay lucky.
I’m not a gambler.
The final outrage? NYC Educator is right on point mentioning the the UFT actually endorses Bloomberg after his obvious contempt for us!
17 Edwize Admin
· Oct 5, 2005 at 10:35 pm
R.Skibins:
We have no power over blogspot.com and I don’t think Bloomberg has purchased it. I’m sure your site and the other sites will be up and running very shortly. The message I get at blogspot.com is:
“Blogger is temporarily unavailable due to planned maintenance.
This downtime will last 2 hours from 5pm – 7pm (PST).”
18 hypatiaNYC
· Oct 5, 2005 at 10:45 pm
I’m pleased that the new contract contains a limitation on how long a negative letter or observation can remain in the file. Years ago, when I was a new teacher, I received a letter chastising me for not turning my grades in on time. The letter was 100% correct and ungrievable, but I still resented having it in my file. As the years passed, I would wince whenever I thought of that letter memorializing my one silly transgression. It’s ridiculous for a letter to sit in a teacher’s file for 10 or 20 or 30 years. As I vote for this contract, I will be waving goodbye to that letter at last. Of course, we still retain the right to respond to all material for the file, and if a letter is used for a U rating, the letter can still be grieved.
19 paulrubin
· Oct 5, 2005 at 11:24 pm
The only concern that really bothers me on the letter issue comes simply from doing the obvious which is to put myself in the principal’s shoes. Especially knowing the kinds of nonsensical vindictive directions that rain down on his or her head. Principals think twice about putting a letter in the file now because unless it’s legit and provable, it’s going to be grieved and principal’s hate grievances. Sure there are some who don’t but the vast majority don’t want to get involved with that unless it gets personal or totally out of control between s/he and the teacher in question. Now the gloves can come off. We had something and we gave it away. Yes the three year rule is nice. And for most of us, this is likely never to be a major issue of contention. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that by 2010 at least 1/4 of the CURRENT uft work force who lasts that long is going to look at this one issue and say what was Randi Weingarten thinking about when she gave in here. Just as so many of the powers that be put their heads in the sand about establishing so many bad precedents in these last few contracts not to mention handing over control of the system to direct Mayoral oversight on a silver platter, they are putting their heads in the sand on some very serious precedent issues that will bite us on the behinds again and again and again which is why Bloomberg fell over himself to get this deal done.
-A second time for money contract firmly establishes this as the only way we’ll be getting raises in the near future.
-We just lost a big weekend of vacation in September. July 4 weekend is next when they seek to extend on the other end.
-We exposed our jugular on this letter writing issue.
-We agreed to a contract that wasn’t fully retroactive.
-We established a new type of teacher salary that will lead to variation in pay by subject, grade level and “merit” in one of the next two contracts (not that I’m personally against that).
-We exposed ourselves to career ending lawsuits without pay to properly defend ourselves.
-We continued the tradition of going years without a contract.
I can go on and on. The point is, while yes the majority of the rank and file will probably vote for this because they too have been brainwashed by the media and our own chapter leaders and union leadership, there are still a lot of us out here with brains and foresight who can see the road we’re being led down. I want that $5000 of retroactive money. God knows I need it. And I need that 15% too. But I’d sooner shoot myself in the head than establish all those negative precedents with a yes vote for such a deal. Spin this however you want but we’ve just set ourselves firmly on the road to pre-union days. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing for me personally but it’s hard to believe I’m seeing it with my own eyes. I’m beginning to wonder now whether in my final years of teaching I’ll be negotiating my own contract and work rules as a free agent.
20 Alum32K
· Oct 6, 2005 at 6:55 am
We can go on and on about how this may be setting bad “precedents”. But, I have yet to read what the benefit would be to go on STRIKE.
Do we actually think we will be better off?
A strike would take ALL of this OFF the table.
Would we rather work as “free agents” with an 8-PAGE CONTRACT and a 4.17% increase over 3 years?
21 mets6986
· Oct 6, 2005 at 8:40 am
In three, or six months, or maybe a year our economy is going to “go South” … inflation, a diving stock market, unemployment and city budgets bleeding …try negotiting a Contract with the City on the verge of going broke! The just negotiated Detroit Teachers Union contract calls for a wage freeze on base pay, a suspension of differentials, “loaning” the city five days pay, and giving up five sick days!! The alternative was laying off 20% of the work force.
We should take this Contract in a “NY minute.”
Too many of my fellow bloggers must live in caves. How many current DOE services currently performed by our members can be turned over to private companies at lower costs? Jeff Kaufman says he teaches on Rikers Island … why not contract his services to a private company? school secretaries? psychological services? and on and on … turning down this Contract does not mean we can simply negotiate a better Contract – it moves the conflict to another level – the issue of LIF or lunch duty will become truly insignificant … and for our younger members the possbility of a 25/55 pension system is huge … let me balance this – retiring five years earlier or the right to file a grievance on a letter in my file that I may never receive …
22 Peter Goodman
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:43 am
I served as a District Representative for almost three decades (I began as a mere youth!) and was an original arbitration advocate and have argued many score arbitration cases. One of the most frustrating parts of the DR job was arguing LIF cases. They went on for months, sometimes more than a year and poisoned relationships – and in the end, despite my brilliant arguments, we usually lost! Sometimes I succeeded in getting a few words or a damaging paragraph removed, the member was never happy. By the end of the process anything less than a “pound of supervisory flesh” was unacceptable.
The District, whether they liked or disliked the Principals felt obliged to support them. I eventually worked out an “unofficial” procedure – we would “freeze dry” letters – hold them in suspense for an agreed upon period of time and if the “precipitating incident” was no longer relevant we expunged the letter. Without a series of grievance steps passions frequently cooled and the parties went about their business.
I have written innumerable responses to LIF (usually on the letter that is returned to the Principal!). A well reasoned cogent response, to which the Principal cannot respond, is the most effective way of dealing with a LIF.
Effective CL “wins” grievances PRIOR to Step 1. CLs who use the grievance procedure to flail their principals is not doing a service for the members in their schools. Rather than attacking Principals by filing grievances better tools are Chapter Newsletters, relationships with parents, local elected officials and local newspapers.
Under current rules LIF travel with a letter to future schools and remain in their file for eternity – which is a long time. The vast majority of letters do NOT result in disciplinary charge and opportunity to expunge simply based upon a calendar is a substantial benefit.
We have four decades of arbitral precedent and every Region employs an attorney who is available to review letters prior to placing in a file. Flawed letters are extremely unusual.
The union negotiators turned “lemons into lemonade.” The new LIF provision will be beneficial to our members. The Union continues to train our CL. If your CL does not produce a regular Chapter newsletter, hold Chapter meetings, minutes of consultations with the Principal, works closely with parents, as a member, you should raise your voice within your Chapter.
The UFT Grievance Department is a vigorous advocate for our members but grievances should not be used as weapons – they should be used to correct wrongs.
23 NYC Educator
· Oct 6, 2005 at 5:39 pm
JRY,
While I agree with most of what you say, it was not I, but a responder on my site, who stated the UFT was endorsing Bloomberg. That was not true.
Nonetheless, in exchange for this contract proposal, the UFT is obviously declining to endorse his opponent.
24 steadyeddieg
· Oct 6, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Our union officials should also be subjected to term limits. In addition, they should be made to teach at the end of their terms for a period of least 10 years. They should only teach under the conditions that they are advocating for the rest of us.
No more seniority transfers? We will go directly to teachers getting positions based on favoritism and cronyism. Believe me, even if you’re a phenomenal pedagogue, you will go nowhere if you have no political pull.
What makes the public think that teachers get students to behave better when they’re in the halls or in cafeteria watching them? There is so much mayhem in too many of our schools. The police need to be called in.
What will happen to the aides who did this work? Will they sit and do nothing as pay back for Lillian Roberts’ endorsement of the mayor?
It’s time for a separate bargaining unit for guidance counselors, family assistants, evaluators, secretaries and psychologists. While these people are a vital part of the school system, they should not be voting on items that will directly affect teachers.
Dathan was ready to lead the children of Israel back to Egypt. Now, unity caucus is ready to bring the pedagogues back to making conditions unbearable to work in our public schools.
Teachers did not go to college and earn master’s degrees to do cafeteria and hallway duty.
Heaven help New York City teachers if this contract is ratified.
25 JRY
· Oct 6, 2005 at 7:27 pm
NYC Educator,
Sorry for the mix up and thanks for the correction! I am relieved to hear there is no endorsement for Bloomberg. Whew…
26 dismayed
· Oct 6, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Randi negotiated this contract in the best interests for Bloomberg and Klein and for herself! When she is forced out as UFT President, her reward will be a position with Bloomberg’s administration.
Make no mistake – Vote NO!
27 Frank48
· Oct 7, 2005 at 7:16 am
You’re telling me : “Lose the right to grieve – no problem ! ”
Yeah – and the moon is made of Swiss cheese .
Ms. Weingarten and other UFT hierarchy are to blame if staff fear BOTH the ghoulish Kleinberg regime- AND the UFT guided by Ms. Weingarten.
Can you blame them?
Heavy handed union and contract BUSTING have been going on in clear view for years . . . and heaven help the staff who were in the way !
Staff doesn’t respect or trust most UFT personnel these days. They have as much respect for most union people as they have for political hacks/ henchman like Rose DePinto.
Most schools now have weak, passive chapter leaders who look to scram from their main objective – protecting the contract on behalf of the working union member.
Readers – do you doubt that teachers share information ?
The union has been in a period of covert collusion with the DOE in certain areas and certain individual schools.
Examples…?
Tellecommunication HS in Brooklyn, touted as a “model school” had the UFT Chapter leader as the acting APO – for YEARS ! Imagine going to your UFT leader, who ALSO is the acting APO ?
This person was infamous for relating recent teacher conversations to principals – cute, eh?
This school was also infamous for heavy handed treatment of staff over the years -scoffing at the contract. For years, UFT people used the word “immoral” when speaking about situations like this one – but did nothing to fully enforce the contract.
Another recent UFT chapter leader has become the APO of another high school.
There are many other examples of collusion , or at least unseemly close ties between UFT and the management hierarchy throughout the system.
There is also a record of the few “good” or “strong” union people being dogged by unsatisfactory ratings, and “letters in the file.”
Teachers HEAR about all of this – there is a growing grapevine of “stories.”
People are exploring class action suits against BOTH the DOE and the UFT.
Many AP jobs are now given out in complete denial of contract rules dealing with who should REALLY get the interviews. Many have paid their dues for decades , but never get that interview for a management position. Cronies , and political appointments have abounded in many schools. In some schools, these new appointments seem like henchman to staff.
These examples are just a few examples of how the union hierarchy has abandoned certain parts of their constituency. Also, Weingarten used the “strike” word much to early in her negotiations – making it an empty threat.
So, if the contract is denied, and we are where we are – the UFT leadership needs to own up to their neglect of their brothers and sisters.
28 KatieL
· Oct 7, 2005 at 8:49 am
I was speaking with my husband. We are both teachers. He came home from work and asked me what I thought about a certain scenerio. A Principal puts a letter in a teachers file saying he does not like her bulletin boards, timing of the lesson or room layout. The teacher says you can’t write me up for those things. The Principal says well go ahead and grieve it, if you are successful I will remove it. Now that staff member is completely irrate after she speaks to her union rep who says letters in the file can not be grieved.
We all know of principals who have it out for a teacher. Who would go after them with nonsense just to incite them. Heck do it to the chapter leader on the first day of September just to set the tone. No one likes to be commented about negatively. When the teacher or chapter leader gets pissed off enough and says or does something then it becomes insubordination and a new letter is put in the file for that charge. Now maybe the letter about the bulletin board ect. will be removed later on but the more serious insubordination charge could stick.
The only recourse someone will have is contacting a lawyer and claiming slander. No one wants a bunch of silly lawsuits but I guarantee that is what is going to happen.
It use to be that a file remained in the school and did not follow you. In the last contract or the one before we gave that back and files follow us. So we have less chance for a fresh start. Some may say oh the good letters follow you too. Hey dummy you could take copies of those and ask the new secretary, with the Principals permission to put them in your new file.
That is all IF
29 KatieL
· Oct 7, 2005 at 9:02 am
That is all IF you get a transfer. I really do not like the idea that we all lose the ability to transfer in the middle of a year. At least if we could have one more shot at a seniority transfer before this takes effect those who had been wanting one, but postponing it could get one last chance. I have sat on SBO committees and the primary purpose of that committee (which I sat on) was to keep the current staff members and find a way not to take the person trying desparately to come to a school closer to their home.
Now that Principals are in charge of their budgets, are they going to chose the more expensive senior teacher or the just as adequate junior teacher at 1/2 the price? What happens to people coming off an extended medical or childcare leave and no one wants to hire them? Do they go in the substitute pool? Can they be sent anywhere. It use to be that at least when you were planned on returning if your former school did not have a vacancy you could at least try for a transfer to a school that you would be happy with. Now what. I am sure a principal will not hold against you the fact that you have medical issues or young children when he/she has the final decision to hire you or not.
30 steadyeddieg
· Oct 7, 2005 at 11:23 am
Dear Mets 6986,
The legislature will never enact 25 years and age 55 to retire. Forget it. There is such a teacher shortage now. Only morons will stay, once this horrible contract is in effect. Whoever can, will run next June or in ‘07. Younger people, who leave within 5 years, will also go. They will not be able to take it under the suggested conditions.
There will be such a teacher shortage that, if anything, the legislature will up the age and years requirement. Thank G-d I retired 4 years ago.
31 steadyeddieg
· Oct 7, 2005 at 11:28 am
Dear Mr. Goodman,
Your name sounds very familiar. How many years have you been out of the classroom? All my years were in the classroom, I had no compensatory time job.
Those who advocate this contract must teach under it.
New York City teachers continue to give the best years of their lives to the students. This is their reward?
If this monster contract goes through, the Department of Education had better set up health stations to treat collapsing teachers.
32 steadyeddieg
· Oct 7, 2005 at 11:40 am
No 32K. A strike is out of the question. Just continue to work under the current contract.
It took so many years to gain what we did from the Board. In one swoop, this is all gone.
Remember, anything lost will never be brought back to us.
Allowing this horrendous contract to go through will allow the Department to make the following demands next time.
5P.M. dismissal.
Schools open on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This will force certain personnel to use their personal days up.
Cutting of sick days all together. Instead of 2 for 1 at retirement, do I hear 3 or 4 to 1?
Cancel the CAR all together.
Further reduction in health benefits.
Sabbaticals after 25 years of service. You will have to come back for 5 years after the sabbatical.
If schools remain open until 5P.M., teachers will do supper duty in the cafeteria.
Teachers must give 1 year notice prior to retiring.
….I’m not kidding. Things will only get worse. After Austria, it was Czechoslovakia and then Poland. The world woke up too late. The UFT is going down primrose path.
By ‘07, you’ll hear the familiar chant of
33 steadyeddieg
· Oct 7, 2005 at 11:42 am
I didn’t finish my thought. By ‘07, you’ll hear the familiar chant of “this is the best we can do under such circumstances. Bloomberg is term limited, the next mayor will only want to worsen things.”
34 mets6986
· Oct 7, 2005 at 11:44 am
steadyeddieg:
The NYS Constitution prohibits any reduction in pension benefits – that’s why a strong united union is essential – many conservatives want the legislature to convene a “constitutional convention” to amend the constitution and reduce benefits. Retiree health benefits are negotiated with the City and subject to change – Randi chairs the Municipal Labor Committee – while every contract is important a strong, united union is much more important.
Achieving a 25/55 retirement system is NOT out of the question – we achieved Tier 1 under Lindsay – a Mayor who hated us and wanted to “buy” us back …
35 MONTYPYTHON
· Oct 7, 2005 at 3:54 pm
quick question on grievances- do you also lose the right to grieve an unsatisfactory observation- people at my school are wondering and my chapter chair isnt sure
36 steadyeddieg
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Wrong. Mayor Lindsay was giving the city away. Remember the 1966 transit strike? This was when teachers could have gotten 20 and out. Many of us were pleading with the late Mr. Shanker to get this. Unfortunately, he didn’t. Naturally, when Koch came in years later, everything started really going anti-teacher.
They can’t get teachers now. Forget the 25/55 idea. Bloomberg and Pataki will never go for it.
You call this union strong after such a settlement. The local cockroaches are stronger
The time for action is now. This contract must be defeated. Ms. W must be ousted at the next election.
When I came into the system in 1969, there was already the 1% automatic dues increase. This also has to stop. The top brass of the union must not get a second pension. Do teachers get a separate pension from the union?
We may even be better off with Lil Roberts taking over the UFT. Her members will be remaining on the job,as teachers relieve them of cafeteria duty. Can you imagine even saying that? Her workers will be in essence collecting in-school welfare while the duped take cafeteria duty. Maybe, Randi should have endorsed Bloomy last spring.
37 steadyeddieg
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:18 pm
The next contract: Addendum: Teachers may only serve jury duty in July and August. If you are on a case that goes into September, you will be docked for the days that you miss, regardless of days in the C.A.R.
2. Return to strict handling of plan books. Plan books to be graded weekly.
3. Why hasn’t unity caucus demanded that teachers be paid over-time for open school night? As a result, there will be one open school night each month. Parents may bring attorneys with them at these conferences. Teachers may not be represented.
4. Teachers assaulted on the job will lose days for being absent.
5. Students may now write teachers up. Teachers cannot grieve what a student has put in writing.
6. Teachers to work on Saturday or Sunday. This shall depend on religious persuasion.
7. At the end of a teacher’s sabbatical, a 500 word composition must be submitted to the regional superintendent showing what was learned both educationally and academically during the sabbatical. Failing papers will be returned and must be resubmitted. If the second paper is deemed unsatisfactory, teachers will receive a u-rating for the year and forfeit the money they received while on sabbatical.
8. The UFT will begin thorough observations of the membership. Unsatisfactory observations will be submitted to the school principal.
38 TeacherTeacher
· Oct 7, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Why I’m Voting No to the Contract Proposal
(For the sake of brevity I have concentrated on 3 core issues: job security, additional time and salary increase)
The elimination of job security is unacceptable. During my first 3 years of teaching I was excessed twice. These are the dues you pay when you are the new kid on the block. I took my lumps knowing that with each year I gained seniority and was closer to job security. This new contract proposal takes me back to where I was when I was 24 years old. Only now, I have a mortgage and other grown-up bills, and my right to a regular teaching position, in a system to which I’ve dedicated almost 17 years, is now abolished. The new contract proposal ignores my 17 years of satisfactory service and places me as a substitute teacher if my school should be reorganized at the whim of the chancellor. Job security should be a union’s first priority when negotiating a contract. The Mayor’s press release states the following: “…teachers who are excessed for budgetary reasons or due to a school’s closing and are unable to secure a position will be offered substitute positions in their former school or district. They will not, however, be able to displace more junior teachers.” The NY Times reported, “veteran teachers seeking a position would no longer be able to bump junior colleagues.”
The new contract proposes that we begin work in August as the suburbs do, yet we continue to work the last week in June while our suburban colleagues are on vacation (let’s not forget about ‘snow days’ as well). No one acknowledges that our increased class size means we do more than our suburban colleagues (more PIP’s, more Eclass, more DRA’s, more teacher reflections on baselines, more portfolios, etc…).
The elimination of PD Mondays is certainly a plus. However, the DOE is combining that time with the additional 10 minutes, so we will now have an additional teaching period of 37 ½ minutes four days per week. This is the Mayor’s way of saving on per session. He is looking to save money by eliminating after school programs.
Now let’s discuss the money. A close examination of the 15% reveals the following:
• It is 14.25%, which compounded equals 15%
• From May 31, 2003 (when our contract expired) thru Nov 2003 we get 0%. That is 6 full months w/out an increase.
• From Dec 2003 thru Nov 2004 we get 2%
• From Dec 2004 thru October 2005 we get 3.5%
From the time our contract expired until today we get a total of 5.5%. Bloomberg wins. His stall tactics worked. We get 5.5% over the course of 29 months. This is a 2.3% increase per year. When our contract expired in May 2003, Bloomberg offered us 5% over 36 months. That would have been a 1.7% increase per year (2.3% per year vs. 1.7% per year). Both are unacceptable.
• November 1st we will get an additional 3.25%.
• October 1st 2006 we will get an additional 5.5% (that’s one year away)
When all is said and done our compounded raise equals 15 % over 52 months and 12 days. This is less than 3.5% per year. It is even less, if you factor in the additional time. When you add up all of the additional days and minutes, you are now working
6 ½ days longer. This is a 3.5% increase of our time. Is the 15% still appealing to you?
If this contract is ratified we will never get back what we are giving away. Two years from now we will be right back at the negotiating table. Get ready for another time for money swap. The precedent will have been set – 2 contracts in a row with significant givebacks. For those of you planning on retiring this year or next, I can fully appreciate your desperation at wanting a settlement. However, for the rest of us, I need to ask: Are you really that desperate? Are you really that afraid to stand up for your rights – for what’s fair? Are you willing to sell your soul for 14.25% compounded?
39 hypatiaNYC
· Oct 7, 2005 at 9:54 pm
Steadyeddieg-
As you continue to enjoy your retirement, I suggest that you pursue writing fiction. In fact, reading your most recent posts, I’d say you have a flair for fantasy. Your imaginary contract that bears no relationship to the current Memorandum of Agreement, would be a bestseller with the Bloomberg set. Perhaps you could be a consultant for them? As for me, I need to work for a living. I don’t have the comfort of a Tier I pension. I need that 15% raise, even if it costs me 10 minutes a day. You may think it’s a fine idea for us to vote down this contract and wait at least 7 ½ years to get a raise. After all, your COLA is automatic. You may even think a strike is the way to go, but you’re not the one who will have to give back 2 for 1. I find it interesting that there are so many retirees posting here urging us to reject the only deal we’ll see under this administration. Let me suggest that all in-service teachers read the Memorandum for themselves. Many of the “facts” written here are just no true. Randi has done a great job re-working the original fact finding report into something we can live with until the political climate changes. Don’t let people who have nothing to lose (or gain) influence your vote.
40 Frank48
· Oct 8, 2005 at 8:50 am
Randy damned us in not preparing to have this contract vote quickly – within the next week or two. Why ?
Kleinberg comes off looking to much of the public as having given teachers a “raise” and preventing a strike – even if the contract isn’t ratified after his election. This HAS to be worth mayoral votes, no? She completly takes him off the hook here – at least involving ed. issues. This is a passive endorsement of the mayor by Weingarten.
Worse yet, if he wins, and we vote this down, he has no motivation lift a finger on the contract for the next four years.
41 jd2718
· Oct 8, 2005 at 10:52 am
MONTYPYTHON asked if we lose the right to grieve an unsatisfactory observation.
A U-observation is grieved as an unfair/inaccurate letter to file, so yes, this grievance would be eliminated.
These letters could be removed after three years. Our District Rep told us that we should have our members keep track of when their negative letters should be removed. However, if it were not removed, I would not be sure how to grieve it, since there would be no Material in File grievances….
The administrators still have the obligation to show us what is being placed in our files. Your members should know that they would have the right to append a response to the U-observation.
Perhaps someone who has more experience fighting U-ratings can tell us, if the U-observation is in the file, and the principal decides to go for a U-rating, would having a response appended to a U-observation help in fighting the U-rating? Would not having it hurt?
Our DR told us that we would be filng Article 23 harassment grievances if principals are clearly going after a member, ie, throwing tons of junk in their file. These may be hard to win, but carry far harsher penalties. This could be the way to rein in a principal who sees the revision as a signal to load up files with letters.
Under these changes, we would need good, knowledgeable chapter leaders, and our members would have to know at least a little more than they do now.
The worst part of this, I think, is that the threat of a letter in file grievance probably stops many principals from writing some bad letters, but with the threat removed the number of letters is likely to increase. (Not that we won letter in file grievances, just that they were a hassle for the administrators)
But the difference here is marginal. LiF is not why I am voting no.
42 PsychoMikeUSMC
· Oct 8, 2005 at 12:09 pm
I just got back from operations in some of Iraq’s finer cities. We have been losing many Marines to insurgent activity. These young men have been dying so that people such as ourselves can enjoy the freedom to challenge the powers that be. You need to vote “no” on this contract. We would be fools to vote yes on something that originated from nonbinding arbitration. I can’t understand why the UFT is weaker than any other union. Especially the blue collar unions. Police officers have rowdy protests. Firemen get arrested when they protest attacks on the hard won rights. Verizon employees cut phone lines in man holes and stand in front of scab vehicles. One gave his life doing so. This all gets the attention of the powers that be. I am not an advocate of criminal activity, but when you return from a place where young men are laying at your feet in pieces, men who would have had the courage to vote “no” to this contract as a member of this union, men who are no longer able to exercise that right for eternity, well, you look at the panzies in this union as being on the same level as SonderKommando of the Nazi death camps. Camp Capos. Selling out your own people in order to ensure your own pathetic and meek future. I would rather swallow a gallon of blood than an ounce of pride. Semper Fidelis to all Marines who are in the education system. I doubt one of you are voting yes. We know what pride is.
43 PsychoMikeUSMC
· Oct 8, 2005 at 12:59 pm
“Pride costs more than hunger, thirst and cold.” Thomas Jefferson
“Nothing has been purchased more dearly than the little bit of reason and sense of freedom which now constitutes our pride.” Friedrich Nietzsche
“A competitor will find a way to win. Competitors take bad breaks and use them to drive themselves just that much harder. Quitters take bad breaks and use them as reasons to give up. It’s all a matter of pride.” Nancy lopez
“Pride will have a fall; For pride goeth before and shame cometh after” Unknown author
“If you can once engage people’s pride, love, pity, ambition (or whatever is their prevailing passion) on your side, you need not fear what their reason can do against you.” Lord Chesterfield
“Pride slays thanksgiving, but an humble mind is the soil out of which thanks naturally grow. A proud man is seldom a grateful man, for he never thinks he gets as much as he deserves.” Henry Ward Beecher
“Idleness and pride tax with a heavier hand than kings and governments.” Ben franklin
“Man is a feeble creature, to whom only submission and worship are besoming. Pride is insolence, and belief in human power is impiety” Bertrand Russell
Be proud! Vote no!
44 hypatiaNYC
· Oct 8, 2005 at 1:35 pm
PsychoMike,
Somehow, I doubt that marines are giving their lives in Iraq to preserve my right to challenge a letter from a supervisor criticizing my lesson plan. I thought it had more to do with the Bushies and oil. Obviously, you’re unaware of the last binding arbitration that the UFT entered into. Long ago, in 1987, the arbitrators decided, in a binding contract, that all teachers hired after that date would have to work more periods a week than teachers currently employed. That decision went against the UFT’s continued and steadfast refusal to sacrifice its newer members for the benefit of the more senior members (as opposed to the police union, I might add, which agreed to lower starting salaries for new cops to $25,000). The UFT resolved never to put itself, and its members, in that position again. I also reject your assertion that the UFT is a weak union. In fact, the current proposal gives us more money and contains fewer givebacks than any other city union that has settled to date. Your chronicling of the police holding rowdy riots, firemen getting arrested, and phone company employees being killed during protests, somehow doesn’t fit with my notion of early childhood teachers leading a hand-clapping song in a circle. Finally, your analogy to the concentration camps is insulting to the millions of people who perished there. Either you’ve been in combat too long, or you don’t have a realistic handle on the NYC education system.
BTW, interesting choice of name for a teacher. Personally, I’d rather work 10 minutes a day longer for a 15 percent raise than swallow a gallon of blood. You might want to think about re-upping.
45 Frank48
· Oct 8, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Hypatial – it’s weingarten’s fault that this offer may be the only one we get from Bloomie. From the onset she spoke of either accept their first offer, or strike – neither of these was a necesity. Couple that twisted logic with the fact that we can’t vote in this thing till after the election, you may be right. If we could vote on this next week, an entirely different scenario could have happenned.
Thank your leader for the crunch we’re in now.
46 Marc Korashan
· Oct 8, 2005 at 4:34 pm
PsychoMike seems to be posting out of both sides of his mouth; urging us to vote no as a matter of pride and then pointing out in a series of quotes the danger of pride as a governing emotion.
I am proud of all the brave men and women who have honored their committment to serve this country in the armed forces (be they Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force or Reservists), even though I believe they were sent by fools on a mission our country need not have undertaken.
I am just as proud of the hard work and professionalism of the teachers in this system and I am proud to have chosen teaching as a career. HypatiaNYC is correct on why we don’t submit ourselves to binding arbitration; we can lose more than we gain in that process. A fact finding (non-binding arbitration) process gives us results we can build on and allows us the opportunity to mitigate bad outcomes. Just look at how the extra ten unpaid coverages the fact-finders recommended disappeared in the final settlement offer.
Material will be placed in files; maybe more so now without the threat of a grievance, but the Klein administration’s unilateral decision to excuse principals from attending grievances at Step 2 and 3 in person made it much easier for them to passively defend their printed tantrums.
As a Union we will have to find ways to help members respond and grieve against abusive principals. Article 23 is one way to do that. In answer to jd2718, We will be able to grieve against letters not removed after 3 years as this is a clear violation of the terms of the contract. We may also be able to grieve letters that discipline teachers for the format of bulletin boards, the timing of lessons, or the arrangement of furniture, since the contract does not allow a principal to discipline a teacher for these issues, and a letter in file is a form of discipline. We will have to look to be creative in a variety of ways.
Most importantly, we will have to work together. Teachers will not be able to just sit back and ask someone else to represent them (and then complain that the Union is weak). We will need anecdotal logs and people willing to step forward and talk about abusive principals. We will have to use the New York Teacher to expose bad administrators and consistently challenge the Chancellor to justify their actions. We will have to become more united and more active as a collective, and in doing so we will become stronger as a Union and have the opportunity when the next round of negotiations begins to seek changes to address the problems we have exposed.
47 firebrand
· Oct 8, 2005 at 4:35 pm
vote no vote no vote no vote no vote no vote no vote no vote no vote no vote no
and those of you who live in NYC vote for Freddy. It’s our only hope.
We’ve lived this long with our expired contract and self respect…no reason why we can’t continue to do so.
48 Frank48
· Oct 8, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Are you telling me that we ALSO lose the right to grieve formal observation reports?
49 bstamatis
· Oct 8, 2005 at 6:15 pm
“… if the U-observation is in the file, and the principal decides to go for a U-rating, would having a response appended to a U-observation help in fighting the U-rating? Would not having it hurt?”
In response to MontyPython’s question:
All the evidence presented at a U-rating is reviewed and argued at a U-
Rating Hearing. The union receives a u-rating packet with the rating, and all the supporting documentation before the hearing. A U-Rating advocate then reviews the packet with the teacher and picks it apart letter by letter, document by document.
In my view, it is better to have the teacher’s response appended to the letter. However, teachers should wait a few days before writing this response and then only deal with statements and conclusions that were based on inaccurate facts or unfairness. This isn’t so easy to see if you’re angry.
All chapters should develop some expertize in responding to letters. Don’t let your opinion of the supervisor as an a-hole cloud your ability to parse the letter looking for inaccuracies and unfairness.
For example, inaccuracies of fact are damning: wrong room number; wrong date; wrong subject; wrong class are all obvious errors but throw the rest of the observation into doubt. “He said, I said” arguments are okay, but don’t hold much weight unless supported by an eyewitness. When you read a letter you can usually pick out what’s inaccurate pretty easily.
Unfairness, however, is another matter. For example, undifferentiated discipline is unfair. By that I mean you get a letter in the file because a supervisor claims that he walked around the building and saw some teachers holding Halloween parties. S/he then sends out a letter for the file to all staff that clasroom parties are prohibited. You did not have a party in your classroom during that period, so it is unfair that you received that letter. There are plenty of other
examples of unfairness.
50 bstamatis
· Oct 8, 2005 at 6:37 pm
Many of the comments here are off-topic. This thread is supposed to be about the grievance process. On Tuesday, check with you chapter leader who should have received this via email on Friday:
“RATIFICATION VOTE: If the Delegate Assembly approves the tentative contract agreement at its Oct. 11 session, rank-and-file ballots for school-based members will be:
* mailed to schools on Oct. 21
* filled out by members and sent by the chapter leaders to the American Arbitration Association by Oct. 28 at 4 p.m.
* counted by the AAA.
Any chapter leaders who do not receive ballots or enough ballots must contact their borough offices.
Non-school-based members and members on sabbatical or leaves should receive their ballots at home. These ballots, once completed, must be received by the AAA no later than Oct. 28.”
By the way, the count is open to members who want to observe it.
51 steadyeddieg
· Oct 8, 2005 at 8:19 pm
Dear Hypa-NYC
I don’t get a cola. You have to be 62 years of age and be retired for 5 years before that comes to you.
Hypa, why did I and so many others strike during our careers? Of course, we did it for ourselves, but we also did it for future teachers.
Yes, you’re right that this was no time to strike. It is also no time to give up hard fought items that the UFT successfully negotiated through the years. People need to progress, this contract is certainly the beginning of regression and the eventual end of the UFT.
Why should I bother to worry about someone like you who thinks only of the al-mighty buck anyway? I should be concerned that my health benefits remain intact. By the way, with working conditions worsening rapidly, pray for good health. Perhaps, one day you will work entirely for unity caucus and enjoy the double pensions that the hierarchy get.
I am not living in a world of fantasy. You are if you think that the contract proposed is good.
Enjoy cafeteria duty and the run up to the 4th floor, to your next class, when the bell rings. You’ll probably be able to make a deal with the principal and avoid that. Many others can’t.
52 jd2718
· Oct 9, 2005 at 1:31 am
Marc Korashon seems to be saying that there will be contract language to support removing 3 year old negative material from the file. Good, we will have article and section to grieve under.
Bill Stamatis talks about developing expertise in responding to letters (rather than grieving them.)
Look, I am still voting against the thing, and hope it goes down (6R, 37½ minutes, August 31, 2006 vs 15%), but
assuming it is ratified, maybe we need a single “continuing chapter leaders weekend” to go along with the 3 “new chapter leader’s weekends”
At least for LiF the alternatives seem like things that, with support and training, we can handle.
53 steadyeddieg
· Oct 9, 2005 at 10:45 am
Ms. Weingarten wrote an article today in the Daily News.
She talks about the victory for teachers under this contract. She conveniently does not mention cafeteria and hallway duty. She also announces that the union has been advocating an end to seniority transfers since 1995. What is she, personnel director for the Education Department?
Does she ever need to be term limited?
54 firefly
· Oct 9, 2005 at 5:48 pm
Wow PsychoMike, calm down. I understand that Beirut must have been tough on a young American man, but this is only a contract debate…certainly nothing worth going to war over.
But then again, nothing really is worth going to war over, is it?
55 steadyeddieg
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:39 pm
Dear Psychomike-
I am a retiree against this contract, but please don’t bring the holocaust into this discussion.
56 hypatiaNYC
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:37 am
Frank-
I suggest that you focus on the real enemy of teachers and the UFT: Bloomberg/Klein. Randi Weingarten worked very hard to mitigate as many of the onerous provisions of the fact finding report as she could sneak by the city negotiators. I applaud her for her efforts. If you think that she could have gotten us a better offer (a 40% raise and a 20 minute day, perhaps?), you are obviously blind to the current political situation we find ourselves in at this time. The only reason Bloomberg made us this offer was because of political pressure applied right before the election. Once he is safely ensconced in office, he will have absolutely no reason or desire to deal with us. Perhaps it’s all right with you to wait another four years for a raise, but most of our colleagues cannot afford to go seven and a half years without an increase – and even then there is no guarantee that another offer five years from now, from another mayor, will be any better. The world around us is changing. Anti-union sentiment is rampant. Recently there was a column in a local newspaper complaining that NYC teachers are overpaid. I truly believe that this is the best deal we are likely to see for a long time. It may not be all we wanted, but it’s the only game in town.
BTW, it’s my understanding that we will indeed be voting before the election should the measure receive the Delegate Assembly’s approval on Tuesday, although I fail to see how the results, either way, will have a bearing on the mayoral election.
57 PsychoMikeUSMC
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:56 am
Wow, censorship. What propaganda minister deleted my post? Just think, only the passive get to post here. God forbid that someone is not so meek.
58 PsychoMikeUSMC
· Oct 10, 2005 at 10:12 am
SteadyEddie is a sell out. People like you ruin any chance that we have of ever gaining the advancements that are possible. Why do you need that money so badly? You sell out your members for that? If you vote on a contract that is 0% for the first six months, that means that the last contract was not a 3 year contract. The actual increase on the last contract would be less over 3 1/2 years. That will set a precedent for them to offer 0% for the first year of the next contract. So, this contract will actually be 15% over five years. People like you allow this situation to occur. Did you allow the other kids to steal your milk money as well? You are like the prison inmate who becomes someone’s bit*h. You are happy that you are getting reamed just a little–not by all of the inmates. Did you ever think that some things are worth risking? Why not vote no? It won’t be like when you were in third grade. No scraped knees from being pushed around the school yard during recess. Those days are over for you now. You made it to the title of teacher. Oh boy.
59 steadyeddieg
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Mr. Mike- You misunderstood. I’m terribly against the contract. To me, it represents the end of every hard fought item the teachers gained in the last number of years.
What I did say was that bringing up the Nazi holocaust serves no purpose at this time.
I retired after 32 years in 2001. If I were still active, I’d be voting no all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!
60 PsychoMikeUSMC
· Oct 10, 2005 at 11:57 pm
I stand corrected SteadyEddie. However, look at Hypatia. “I truly believe that this is the best deal we are likely to see for a long time. It may not be all we wanted, but it’s the only game in town”. This is pathetic. This is what I am talking about. How is this the only game in town. How about you vote no shmuck. Does that change the game? The defeatist attitude prevails with this union. Cows to the slaughter. Any kid who becomes a member of the Carpenter’s Union is taught that the system works for them. They will slow things down if the powers that be get in the way of their pay scale. I had a job in Manhattan while working my way through college. The building hired non union wall paper hangers. Right away, there was a picket line outside. In two hours, a few huge guys came in and asked the non union to leave. When they said no, the union reps picked up their tools and threw them out of the building. The union delegates, as they called themselves, had badges and union cards that they flashed. It was an intimidating thing. They were huge guys. The advertising agency then had to hire union workers to hang the wall paper. They did shlock work but that is what they had to accept. It looked like good work to the average Joe. This union could use some huge guys walking around acting as if they are ready to call in the calvary. I will tell you this. When you act like sheep, you get treated like sheep.
61 cornell
· Oct 12, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Psycho:
I’m sending you in first, but don’t be embarrassed if when you look over your shoulder there’s no one behind you. Especially when you tear down bulletin boards and toss chairs and desks out the window. Hey, why not toss some kids out as well?
Be sensible man! I agree with the need to get tough, but that doesn’t mean we have to bang our heads against the wall or fall on our swords. As a military man, you know there is no shame in retreat especially when it’s necessary to protect your troops.
So we have assessed the enemy, and we have to yield on some fronts to maintain our position. We are not going to wage a full frontal attack in the face of machine gun fire.
I think it makes sense to do that.
So vote yes on this contract for the sake of the troops.
62 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 12, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Hey Cornell,
Sanitation just got a 17 per cent raise over only 51 months. It’s silly to think we can’t do better. This is the premiere city of the world’s richest nation.
63 hypatiaNYC
· Oct 13, 2005 at 1:43 am
More psychobable from psychoMike.
Members of the carpenters union do sub-standard work when they are unhappy with their rate of pay. Wallpaper hangers hire thugs to intimidate and evict non-union workers from job sites. And this pertains to our contract struggle…how? Are you suggesting that we hire some “huge guys” to threaten our colleagues, throw abusive principals out of buildings, maybe destroy a few classrooms? Somehow I don’t think this will help us get a better deal. We may not be totally satisfied with the contract proposal, but we need to be realistic, vote ‘yes’ and move on to heal the schism in our union.
64 Urban Elephants
· Oct 13, 2005 at 10:31 am
Elephant Allies
Elephant Allies
New York City political blogs
On the RightOn the LeftMedia Blogs
65 mvplab
· Oct 13, 2005 at 11:53 am
shouldhavegonetomeds:
Are you suggesting that we take the same kind of deal? One person trucks, reduce starting salaries for newbornes by $4,000?
I’m proud to be a UFTer because our senior members refuse to cannibalize our newest members!
Brothers and sisters we can disagree, but this is a contract that doesn’t sacrifice our future members. I hope no one is suggesting that we do that!
66 MichaelB
· Oct 13, 2005 at 1:23 pm
I have serious concern about the way this contract would affect newer teachers.
Since there is no more “permanent” state certification, new and incoming teachers will need to renew their “professional” certification every five years. To do so they must show that they have engaged in 175(?) hours of professional development during that time. As I understand it, the current weekly PD we do at our schools satisfies this requirement. (does anyone know anything about this?)
Since the proposed contract would take away weekly PD, newer teachers would now be forced to look outside the school for 35 hours of PD a year. This, of course, is a much more significant time commitment than staying late once a week, not to mention a big source of stress to have this new set of tasks on one’s “to-do” list.
If I’m correct about this, the new contract will be a disaster for newer teachers and we need to get the word out to them about it. Can anyone clarify the situation?
67 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 13, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Myplab
The pay reduction for new members at Stanitation is for six months only. Now you don’t need an MBA from MIT to realize that is cheaper than getting a Master’s degree.
Think about it. Vote NO!!!