No Contract

38 Comments:

• 1 EdBlogger Praxis
  · Aug 20, 2005 at 5:49 pm

  Edwize: United Federation of Teachers

  Brand new blog sponsored by United Federation of Teachers. Link: Edwize Blog. EdWize is sponsored by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) as a place where members, public education advocates and others can express opinions in an effort to establish …

• 2 a-realist
  · Aug 21, 2005 at 9:55 am

  I always find these contract disputes quite interesting. Management offers very little to their employees, usually well below the actual inflation rate facing most of us. According to the statistics directly taken from the United States Bureau of Labor, the inflation rate for the New York, Northern New Jersey, and Long Island area between July 2002 (close to the time that we last received a salary adjustment) and July 2005 totals 12.5%. This means that any salary adjustment at the minimum must be 12.5% only to keep ourselves even with the cost of living in the New York area to make up for the lost purchasing power. In reality, however, the lost of purchasing power is from our net pay (take home pay). Since most of us take home approximately 65% of our gross pay after Federal, State, city, and SS taxes deducted we would need a 19.5% salary adjustment to equal (yes, only equal) the loss of purchasing power from our take home over the last three years. We must stop referring to these salary adjustments as “raises.” They should be referred to as cost of living adjustments.

• 3 redhog
  · Aug 21, 2005 at 7:09 pm

  The statistics above are chilling and morally compelling. They must light a fire under our feet. We must act. The labor movement has picked up many bugs of misapprehension over the years. We can’t be responsible for those that attached themselves to it,fallen like ticks from trees. Let’s re-assert the sacred equation of an improved life for workers with the progress of the so-called American dream.For living memory it has been the birthright of every new generation to expand the legacies of the old. This has insidiously changed. We should not be content to fight and be thwarted, fight again, and be repelled, and then fight yet again, and be grateful, for all our weariness, for “advancements” that are really marches in place. Beyond the “cost of living”, there should be no contract ratified that is not a step up, in tangible terms, from the past. Every contract, all else being equal in the lives of those bound by it, should make the material existence of every builder of America, ( e.g. worker)resoundingly better. All else may be pragmatism. But it is also surrender.Check out risaac.blogs.com

• 4 Mytweetyy36
  · Aug 22, 2005 at 1:00 am

  Are we going to strike in September or not? How do I get more information on this issue?

• 5 a-realist
  · Aug 22, 2005 at 10:53 am

  Let’s face it Mytweetyy36, it is very unlikely that we teachers will go on strike. The leadership is not giving any signals that the strike is the road to take. Strikes hurt everyone, anyway. The great minds that lead our union and run our city must learn to sit down over a table (maybe as cup of coffee, too) and smooth out these differences. Both sides should be locked in a large chamber with a table and many chairs. Neither side should be permitted to leave until a reasonable deal has been reached that gives some satisfaction to both sides. Teaching is a fun and challenging job. Nevertheless, teachers deserve a cost of living increase.
  These loggerheads (UFT officials and The Bloomberg team)have got to sit down and get this contract done! Let’s go guys, get the coffee pot brewing and get this done.

• 6 realitybasededucator
  · Aug 22, 2005 at 1:31 pm

  The New York Times reported on August 11th that the NYPD will receive a 10% pay raise over two years while new police recruits will take a 27% pay cut (starting salary falls from $34,500 to $25,100.) Bloomberg referred to this deal as “productivity concessions” paying for the NYPD salary increase.

  Can you imagine just a month after 7/7 in London that Bloomberg is willing to gut the morale of the cops on the street and harm the recruiting ability of the New York Police Department as a whole by adding a two-tier pay scale to save a few pennies for the city coffers?

  Meanwhile a few months ago the Mayor of Money (as Mike Lupica in the Daily News calls him) was willing to throw $1 billion dollars to his billionaire buddy Robert Wood Johnson to build a Jets stadium on the West Side and another $2 billion dollars to extend the 7 Train 8 blocks and three avenues!!! (Cuz’ the West Side of Manhattan will never develop without a football stadium in the middle of it, you know?)

  So of course Bloomberg is going to demand givebacks from city teachers. After all, we’re not one of his billionaire buddies in real estate, sports, telecommunications, or investment banking. If we were, he’d get us a sweet deal with no “productivity” givebacks and plenty of “tax incentives”.

  But we’re workers and Bloomberg made his bones at his own compnay by screwing workers and busting unions for a living.

  So we lazy teachers need to give back seniority and tenure rights, start paying for our health care like everybody in the private sector does, and work a longer day for a “raise”.

  Oh, and don’t forget we have to teach another class too…

  Yeah, the city doesn’t have money for cops, firefighters, nurses, home aides, or teachers…but the Jets?

  Yeah, the city’s got money for the Jets.

• 7 curious
  · Aug 22, 2005 at 1:39 pm

  I think you all should give back seniority and tenure rights. You should also encourage merit pay and the reduction or elimination of licensure requirements.

  Also, this blog’s almost-exclusive focus on getting a raise is consistent with my fear that many people in the union are mostly concerned about money and not so concerned about improving our education system.

• 8 a-realist
  · Aug 22, 2005 at 2:57 pm

  Hello Curious:
  I understand your opinion in regard to teachers only being concerned with a cost of living increase (what most people call a raise)in their salaries. However, the facts are that the last increase we have had was in September, 2002. Factoring inflation into are salaries, we have lost a good deal of buying power over the last three years. Keep in mind that NY City teachers are not paid that well based on the cost of living in this section of the country. So, at this point, yes, most teachers are in need of a cost of living increase. As a result, it is utmost in everyone’s mind.

• 9 curious2
  · Aug 22, 2005 at 6:37 pm

  Thanks for the reply a-realist. A few other thoughts:
  1. I think you might be wrong about tax-adjusting the inflation rate. Since teachers always took home about 65% of their pre-tax income, raising the pre-tax by 12.5% would raise the after-tax by 12.5% as well. So you don’t need a 19.5% adjustment to maintain the same purchasing power. Agreed?
  2. Many of your union peers don’t have the modest COLA goal that you have. Just read some of the postings in this short list: “Beyond the “cost of livingâ€?, there should be no contract ratified that is not a step up, in tangible terms, from the past. Every contract, all else being equal in the lives of those bound by it, should make the material existence of every builder of America, ( e.g. worker)resoundingly better.” I hope you convince them to accept a 12.5% pay raise.
  3. Separately, wages aren’t the only issue facing our educational system. Almost every sector of our economy does not have tenure or seniority rules. Would you agree to get rid of them for teachers? If not, why? What makes education different than other sectors? Why can private schools thrive without tenure and seniority rules? Why does the union reject changes on these issues as if they represented the “third rail”?

• 10 InstitutionalMemory
  · Aug 22, 2005 at 9:15 pm

  Changes in structure would be OK … if the salary kept up with inflation. Get real, curious2!

• 11 EdWonk
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 1:49 am

  Welcome to the EduSphere! Good site, nicely done. I hope that some day that the unions to which I pay dues (N.E.A. and the California Teachers Association) will also sponsor a site that permits dialogue between members who hold a wide variety of viewpoints. Discussion is vital to the fostering of a strong and democratic organization.

• 12 EdWonk
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 2:11 am

  Out here in California, our salaries aren’t keeping up with inflation either. Expectations of higher teacher performance, however, continue to increase each year as determined by NCLB. If we ever want to attract the highest caliber people into the teaching craft, we must pay them more. Sadly, in our culture, job status is largely determined by the amount of compensation earned. The best people tend to go where the money is.

• 13 a-realist
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 7:30 am

  Greetings curious2:
  In response to your opinions, I can agree with numbers 1 and 2. However, I must disagree with number 3. Seniority/tenure in the work place is an important element and one that is earned. My past life experience has taught me a few lessons. Fresh from college in the 1970s and eager to start my career, I took a position with a large well known corporation. Being young and aggressive, I worked 50-60 hour weeks on salary (no overtime pay).
  When I divided the hours worked by my weekly salary, I was making minimum wage per hour. But that was not my main concern. What I observed was that the office manager was firing the senior workers and keeping the young, willing to work for little, fresh from college workers. In one instance, a senior worker came over to me and explained his plight. He stated to me that he had worked for the company for 15 years and had given them his best and most energetic effort. But his salary was three times my salary and the office manager was ordered to cut the budget for our office. The way to save the money was to get rid of the higher salaried employees and hire the fresh college graduates for 1/3 the pay. What we new employees lacked in experience we made up with our eagerness to please. Well, I can say that this observation made me realize that in 15 years I could find myself in a similar situation. I could be the one getting the pink slip because an office manager decides to hire two new employees at lower cost than keeping an older employee. So, eventually, I switch to another organization where seniority is almost everything. This was a totally opposite experience. Now, what assignment I had, what vacation period I was able to get, and who would be layed off first were solely based on seniority. No exceptions! Ironically, this made my positon as a supervisor that much easier. No, I could not assign the absolute best person for an assignment, I had to use the seniority list. In the end, this actually was a blessing in the work place. It eliminated any discriminatory charges or bad feelings between supervisors and employees. Everyone accepted this organizational culture.
  It was in stone.
  There were no accusations of favoritism by supervisors, discrimination charges,
  or angry employees. Yes, the seniority system worked best for the whole good of the organization. Of course, this is only my opinion based on personal observation.
  Now, suppose we eliminated seniority rights/tenure within our system. The DOE would be overwhelmed with discrimination charges against supervisors and principals. It could result in much strife in schools where supervisors and principals would weild this new power to reward their buddies. For you see, in theory it sounds great, but in practice supervisors and principals may assign jobs based on favoritism and the buddy system. You see, I am a realist and, therefore, am certain that this would go on because managers are human beings and will make decisions based on emotion.

• 14 curious2
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 10:31 am

  Thanks a-realist. I enjoy your frank and constructive approach.
  From you latest posting it sounds like you think that over 95% of the U.S. economy has it wrong. You say that “in theory it sounds great” but remember that almost every sector of our economy functions without seniority and tenure. Do you think Microsoft, Google, and Apple should use seniority systems? Why don’t they suffer from “favoritism and the buddy system”? What makes public schools different than other organizations? Also, why should you get paid more than other honest, hard-working people that are willing to do the same or better job for the same or less money? Why do you think you are entitled to a job and salary just because you have been doing something for a long time? Presumably, if you have done it for a long time, you should be better than the rookies and the system should be happy to pay you more because you deliver more value in educating our children. I think our primary goal should be to provide the best education possible to our children for a given amount of money spent. This requires us to get the best teachers for our dollars, not just the teachers with the most seniority. Finally, why do private schools do fine without seniority and tenure?

• 15 curious2
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 10:34 am

  Hi InstitutionalMemory,

  If the unions gave up seniority and tenure, every expert on the subject (including Randi) would agree that the Mayor would give on cost-of-living adjustments. I strongly doubt that Randi would be OK with the changes in structure that you and I think are acceptable (and I think are critical).

• 16 a-realist
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 10:57 am

  Hi curious2:
  Be advised that I can look at both sides of the fence. In fact, I have been on the management side and I have been on the union side of the fence. I have developed my opinions by actually experiencing and working on both sides. Because of time constraints I was not able to complete my earlier comments.I agree with the idea that poor performing employees should be removed from the classroom. Our students have enough difficulties in which to be concerned. I could agree with tenure being earned after five years as oppossed to the present three years. What I disagree with is the removal of people from the payrolls with every effort being made to retrain and prepare them well for the classroom. Yes, I understand your point in regard to the people working at Apple, Google, and Microsoft not having seniority rights. However, these industries are new and the people employed in them are young and have not yet been hit with a severe economic slowdown in our nation’s economy.
  When we next have a severe economic slowdown I am certain that many people in these young industries will be hit with layoff notices. Time will tell.
  But, anyway, curious2, I can see some bending in the structure rules if our union leaders negotiate with management and come to an agreement that is best for all. Let’s face it, though, neither side will get everything they put on the plate.
  In summary, I can accept and see both points of view and agree that there is some room for negotiating on these issues.
  One last point, if management wishes to rid the system of older teachers, then an “early out” retirement plan could be offered, as many large corporations do.

• 17 curious2
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 11:26 am

  Thanks again a-realist. A few notes:
  1. In the last twenty years, Apple has nearly gone bankrupt more than once. They have had to make significant layoffs more than once. They have definitely suffered, yet they never went to a seniority or tenure system. Now we all have Ipods. The overall technology sector has gone through terribly hard times including one of the greatest crashes of the last 100 years. Your points about this “new industry” don’t seem accurate even based on recent history.
  2. No one wants to “rid the system of older teachers”. Many older teachers are our best teachers. We just want to pay them because they are the best, not because they are old.

• 18 a-realist
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 11:47 am

  Hello curious2,
  I think we both have some good ideas. Now if we can get both the Mayor and Randi in a room exchanging their ideas perhaps we could one day soon have a new contract.

• 19 divina
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 2:41 pm

  Curious Wrote:
  From you latest posting it sounds like you think that over 95% of the U.S. economy has it wrong. You say that “in theory it sounds great� but remember that almost every sector of our economy functions without seniority and tenure.

  I think we would all love to live in a meritocracy. But that simply isn’t happening. As a matter of fact we are moving more and more into an Oligarchy. It is laissez-faire capitalism at it’s finest, albeit, without the fair.

  Sure 95% of our economy has seen ‘success’. However, are we really a success when only a minority of employees benefit from the success. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=4148885

  Wages for the middle class are in continuous decline. People are not being rewarded for better work, and more productivity, at least not those in the trenches.

  In the past, you went to work for a company out of high school, or college, and you worked there until you retired. The employer served almost as a patriarch to it’s loyal employees. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. Sure favoritism and nepotism still existed. But, as long as you were willing to meet expectations of your profession, you were assured a salary that kept pace with the cost of living, and a way to retire comfortably.

  Today’s employees do not have such reassurances even if they go beyond meeting expectations. They have no reassurance of a decent wage, or keeping a job, even if they do everything right.

  We should be working toward common goals. After all, the success of any organization, be it a school, or a mega-corporation is only successful because of the contribution (sweat) of those who work for it. In that sense, yeah, I will agree with you that 95% of our economy is doing great.

  While unions are not perfect, at least they afford protections that the private sector should have.

  The second article says it perfectly.

  This country needs to radically rethink our national priorities. The middle class is the backbone of America and it cannot be allowed to disintegrate.
  http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/04_sanders.html

• 20 a-realist
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 4:08 pm

  Divina,
  Not everyone has witnessed or experienced what it is like to lose one’s job after being dedicated and loyal for many years. I recall the 1974-1975 recession when white collar professionals who lost their positions were working in liquor stores and driving taxi cabs (off the books) to supplement their unemployment checks. Right now unemployment is low and times are on the good side. The high price of oil, if it persists, could easily have a negative affect on consumer and business spending throwing our nation’s economy into an economic downturn. Witnessing how a man is shattered when one day he is important and the next he is let out the front door like an alley cat, I’ll take the contract with the “no layoff” clause any day. Keep in mind that government workers usually earn less and receive less in salary increases in exchange for job security. That’s fine. I’ll take the steady paycheck any day!

• 21 a-realist
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 4:44 pm

  For anyone concerned about some of the information written at this discussion site, I offer the following:
  1) According to the US Bureau of Labor statistics, approximately 20% of the US work force are government workers. Therefore, the statement implying that 95% of the country’s workers are right because they are private industry workers cannot be accurate. 2) In addition, Apple Computer has never gone bankrupt.

• 22 curious2
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 7:08 pm

  Hey a-realist,

  1. I wasn’t considering the government in the percentage. I really should write “the vast majority of our economy, and almost all of our untroubled sectors”. I think my point holds though, even more strongly if one uses government workers to make the counterargument!

  2. I wrote that Apple NEARLY went bankrupt. Here is a typical summary of what happened:

  “By 1997, Microsoft’s Windows operating system was running on 90% of the world’s computers, but it wouldn’t run on Apple’s Macintosh. Apple was reeling. The company was consistently losing hundreds of millions of dollars each quarter. Massive layoffs ensued, and Apple was forced to drop its wholesale computer prices almost below cost. Presidents and CEOs came and went. Many in the computer industry began to worry if the pioneering computer maker would survive.

  To the delight of the Apple faithful, Steve Jobs reappeared. Armed with a cash infusion from none other than Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Jobs temporarily reassumed control of his ailing company.”

  After reviewing my posting and reading this, do you understand my point? I think it is an important one.

  In any case, I am concerned that you are attacking details (sometimes incorrectly) without addressing the points I am trying to make. I am really curious to understand why public schools are so different that teachers need tenure and need to be compensated and advanced based on seniority. Why can private schools function without these concepts?

• 23 curious2
  · Aug 23, 2005 at 7:19 pm

  Hey Divina,

  Thanks for the reply. I believe that without tenure and seniority, most competent teachers would make more money than they currently do. Incompetent teachers would have to improve or go into a less challenging field.

  Teaching is so extremely valuable to our society that I think it is largely immune to recession — people will still want to educate their kids when times are tough. I have never heard of a high-quality teacher being unable to find a job. Have you? Maybe they can’t find the exact job they want, but they can find a job.

  I think the union does teachers a disservice (unintentionally, of course) by imagining that they need protection as if they are unskilled laborers. If you are a good teacher, and I am guessing that you are, you will be much better off with a traditional merit-based system. Meanwhile, your concerns are most relevant to unskilled laborers. I have opinions on that, but they should be beyond the scope of this blog — we should be talking about how other professionals function.

• 24 a-realist
  · Aug 24, 2005 at 6:08 am

  I am afraid that there are too many people who continue to place the blame on teachers for the lack of significant improvement in the testing scores of our students. Are there poor teachers? Yes, of course. But perhaps the percentage of poor teachers equals the percentage of poor or incompetant lawyers, politicains, accountants, police people, doctors, computer repair peolple, nurses, software developers, and so forth. There are so many challenges facing our teachers and students which affect the learning process. We could begin this discussion here, or write a book on the subject. I have always maintained that if I can remove the 1 – 2 unruly students from each of my classes, I can increase both my teaching efficiency and the learning process by a minimum of 5%. Many of my students don’t do homework. Regardless of the many rewards I have offered, mostly the same students do the homework. Naturally, those students do better on classroom exams. In addition, some schools are located in noisy neighborhoods. Since most classrooms do not have air conditioners, the windows must remain open for ventalation. I first worked at a school close to a major bridge and two interstate highways. The noise level was unbearable. There were traffic helicopters and airplanes overhead regularly. During the warm days, neighborhood peolple would sit outside their apartments and play music through boomboxes. There were police and fire truck sirens racing through the streets almost once a day. Many times throughout the day the discussion at hand was interrupted due to the many disturbances in and outside my classroom. I can recall thinking to myself, “How the hell could any young person learn in this environment when I can’t keep my own train of thought.” Needless to say, this was a poor performing school that was on and off the SURR list twice during my ten year stay. I could go on with other reasons, but I hope that people understand that the problems facing this school system are many. We should face these many problems head on so that we can make each one less detrimental to the learning process. Does anyone remember or has seen the movie “Blackboard Jungle” with Vic Morrow? That movie showed what a rough New York City high school was like during the 1950s. Well compared to my first high school assignment, the high school in that movie would have been a picnic for a teacher in today’s rough NY City high school.

• 25 divina
  · Aug 24, 2005 at 7:44 am

  I am not a teacher. But I am a concerned citizen that is a) interested in Education, and b) extremely concerned about the direction labor is going in this country.

  The 1970’s was not the only time white-collar workers have been subjected to working in liquor stores.

  The current BLS data reveals that while the job market has improved (just barely keeping up with population growth), it has improved in sectors… well let’s just say sectors that require little skill and pay little money.

  Many argue that these just-above minimum wage jobs are stepping stones to higher salaries fulfilled by high school and college kids. But the demographics do not support that.

  Furthermore, the fact that many skilled, highly educated workers have found themselves unemployed for long-term is disconcerting.

  In the meantime, those who managed to keep their job, or get reemployed under the guise of ‘underemployment’, are finding themselves working harder and harder for less money.

  This may be successful entrepreneurship for those power brokers who command their own salaries and those who work under them, but this is not good news for your average college-educated Joe. And if it is bad for the college-educated, then it is certainly bad for those with lesser education.

  So is this what we are about? A race to the bottom? Are we trying to compete with the standards held in South Asia? We fall to the bottom compared to our Western European brethren when we should be, the innovator.

  The growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots is disconcerting.

  Indeed, without the hard-won protections of unions, we would all be working 80 hour work weeks (as the starting point), there would be rampant child-labor, no vacation or sick time, and little in the way of environmental standards in the workplace. Do you really believe employers would give this stuff away if it weren’t the “standard� everywhere? Make no mistake, whether you work for a union, or a non-union organization, our benefits and protections that we expect are a result of unions.

• 26 curious2
  · Aug 24, 2005 at 9:09 am

  Hey Divina,

  I agree that the hard and extremely brave work of unions throughout our history has resulted in many great reforms throughout our history. However, the current teachers unions have taken things too far. We are not asking for 80 hour work weeks and child labor. We want to eliminate a few of the outdated aspects of the contract: tenure, seniority, excessive work rules, etc.

  Meanwhile, your lengthy and eloquent posting, I think, is really about your general concerns about the labor movement. Most of your points are not directly relevant or currently true about the situation in the public schools. So while they are interesting points, I think they might represent a distraction in the context of our public school debate.

  All of the most difficult decisions involve balance — this is a matter of balance. One can believe in unions and still feel that the current union contract goes much too far. The public schools are an outlier in our society both in how they operate and in the honest disgust of citizens that have the best intentions of improving the education of our children.

  Please, divina, help us to get to a better balance.

• 27 curious2
  · Aug 24, 2005 at 9:16 am

  Hey a-realist,

  You write “Are there poor teachers? Yes, of course. But perhaps the percentage of poor teachers equals the percentage of poor or incompetant lawyers, politicains, accountants, police people, doctors, computer repair peolple, nurses, software developers, and so forth.”

  The difference is that law firms fire incompetent lawyers, bad politicians are subject to the voting process, incompetent accountants get fired, people stay away from bad doctors and can sue them for malpractice, and so on for your entire list. Of course there are incompetent people in every field — public schools are unusual (although not unique) in the difficulty in getting them out of the system. Our children and society pay the price.

  Meanwhile, I agree with you strongly that poor teachers aren’t the only problem in the system. I hope I haven’t given that impression.

• 28 Mytweetyy36
  · Aug 25, 2005 at 12:55 am

  Is there going to be a strike this September?

• 29 get_me_a_contract
  · Aug 25, 2005 at 11:21 am

  This is to “curious” and “curious2″–
  Please work a couple of years in the system and see what your attitude is then!

  Do you think that merit pay is the answer? What will happen is that teachers who teach the “harder to reach” students will not get a pay raise.

  How do you judge who gets a raise with merit pay? There is a great deal of favoritism in the schools already.

  Who will give the raise? The principal? Won’t that just create corruption? What if a teacher works really hard and isn’t awarded a merit raise? How do you decide merit pay for music teachers, physical education teachers, librarians?

  Would the teacher who is lucky enough to get the best and brightest in the school get the highest salary even though the teacher who teaches the almost truant crowd makes the most progress? How do you measure this progress?

  Also–think of this. A teacher works really hard and even comes in Saturday. His/her students don’t make as much progress on a standardized test (or whatever the criterion for htis raise is) as another class with more “gifted” students. The teacher gets disgusted and stops giving it his/her all? Or quits altogether in disgust? Finally, would you have teachers undermining each other in pursuit of that ever elusive merit raise?

  Merit pay doesn’t belong in the school. It will create strife and bad feelings among the staff. Morale will suffer and you will have more teachers leave the system.

  Children are not cogs and education is not just a science–it is also an art. You can’t measure progress just by a standardized test…

• 30 dr_dru
  · Aug 30, 2005 at 12:50 pm

  Anyone know anything about the contract for supervisors? I believe it is also past due.

  What about the two Unions joining forces against the DOE. Better yet, get DC37 and the Custodians to join us. Too often we are at odds with each other, while the main problem, (the mayor and chancellor) sit back and watch us bicker.

  Since Randi is Chairperson of the Municipal Labor
  Committee can’t she get something like this in motion?

  Imagine if we had pattern bargaining with all municipal contracts ending on the same day. All municipal employees together have a lot of power.

  Just some thoughts from the proletariat.

• 31 curious2
  · Aug 31, 2005 at 11:59 am

  Hey get_me_a_contract,

  You write “Please work a couple of years in the system and see what your attitude is then!” This is a typical argument that I hear from teachers that don’t want to address my points or answer my questions.

  In any case, I do think merit pay and advancement is part of the answer (not the entire answer, of course). In all organizations, judging performance is a difficult and important task. The vast majority of organizations in our country rely heavily on the judgment of managers to help make these decisions. All of these organizations have the potential to suffer from corruption or incompetence in these situations. Overall, however, the system works well. What makes public schools different? Doesn’t Google risk problems with favoritism? Should they move to a tenure/seniority/no-merit system? Doesn’t Apple have a risk of corruption? Doesn’t Whole Foods have a risk that a manager doesn’t realize that an employee has a particularly tough job? Meanwhile, how do private schools survive and thrive without these protections?

  Get_me_a_contract, what makes public schools special with respect to these issues, other than the off-the-charts customer dissatisfaction? Others on this blog point to very tough conditions and difficult students, but how does that justify seniority/tenure/no-merit? We can’t even get our best teachers into the most challenging schools.

• 32 DAVID BELLOWS
  · Aug 31, 2005 at 2:25 pm

  The City has not given the teachers a contract…hummm. The City does not allow teachers to live outside the State of NY. HUM….How can they expect teachers to live in a high priced city like NY and be able to make it. Let us MOVE to the burbs out of NYS so we can get by….

• 33 DAVID BELLOWS
  · Aug 31, 2005 at 2:29 pm

  Strike strike strike strike strike strike
  Strike strike strike strike strike strike
  Strike strike strike strike strike strike
  Strike strike strike strike strike strike
  Strike strike strike strike strike strike
  Strike strike strike strike strike strike
  Get the message! Give us a contract and no DC37 B@#$$sht ALLOWED!

• 34 a-realist
  · Aug 31, 2005 at 7:34 pm

  The only place there will be a strike this fall is when the Yankee pitching staff strikes out the ball players at Yankee Stadium during the next World Series.

• 35 mrirwin121
  · Sep 14, 2005 at 7:54 pm

  I wonder if anyone else saw this article on the NY1 website. Here it is for your information.

  “Arbitration Panel Recommends Double Digit Raise For City Teachers
  September 14, 2005

  An arbitration panel mediating the contract dispute between the city and the teachers union has recommended raises of 11 percent over three years.

  The panel’s recommendations are nonbinding, but both sides have said the findings were crucial in signing a deal.

  In return for the raise, the panel recommends that 10 minutes be added to the school day and that some seniority rights in staffing decisions be cut.

  Both the city and the union are giving the decision mixed reviews. The union had been pushing for a 14 percent raise.

  If a three year contract is approved, much of it would be retroactive to May 2003, when the last contract expired.”

  Isn’t it strange that there is no mention of this on EdWise or the UFT website? What’s up?

• 36 mrirwin121
  · Sep 14, 2005 at 7:57 pm

  Opps…seems it has been posted at the UFT site. A valuable lesson has been learned. Look before you press submit.

• 37 ingrafx
  · Sep 16, 2005 at 11:12 am

  REMEMBER THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS, REMEMBER WE HAVE:

  Bush
  Pataki
  Bloomberg

  Good luck if we strike.

  We are teaching those in our community whom these “leaders” could care less about.

  • Katrina response, energy policy, Iraq…
  • The overdevelopment of NYS for the benefit of the Governers friends and inner circle.
  • Billion dollar stadium, recent landlord free-for-all…

  We and our public have NO power in this country at this time.

  The Democrats can’t get out of there own way, AFL-CIO is falling apart, and our union is under the knee of the Taylor law (easily as unconstitutional as the Rockafeller drug laws).

  Wake up people, this is the end of the FDR American dream. We are headed for hard times and don’t think your pensions are safe either!!!

  The Zietgeist

• 38 stuyhigh
  · Sep 16, 2005 at 11:27 am

  The contract is as good as it is going to get without the strike option. It is amazing how people who have been in the system for several years are so lazy as to complain about 10 minutes more a day, or several more days work a year. Those of us who have labored in the system years ( meaning we have endured several labor strikes, lunch room duty, coverages…etc) listen to the new and many underschooled “new commers” complaints and think- what a bunch of jerks you are.