Charles M. Brecher, research director for the Citizens Budget Commission, a business-backed group, faulted Mr. Bloomberg for giving the teachers what he said was a generous raise without having first nailed down concessions on health costs.
“I think it’s a big mistake managerially,” Mr. Brecher said. “Why would they give up something now in the hope that they might get something in return later? Why is he putting all this money on the table and letting them walk away, hoping that they’ll be nice someday in the future?”
And:
But many principals voiced anger about the teachers’ deal because their union, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, has been without a contract since June 30, 2003.
In a letter to union members, the union’s president Jill S. Levy said: “There is nothing I can say to you that will minimize your sense of rejection and disrespect from the chancellor and mayor.”
“Teachers were very happy,” said Geof Sorkin, the union chapter leader at Intermediate School 259 in Brooklyn. “I heard an overwhelming, ‘Thank you. Wow, this is amazing. This is great.’”
“Politically, it’s a big win for Randi and I also think it burnishes Mike’s image as the guy who can get things done,” said Sol Stern, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “But to me the loser here is Joel Klein. Where is the push for reforms that he’s been talking about? There are no pushes in this contract.”
For art teacher David Klaw, the new contract means two things: more money in his pocket and peace of mind.
“I’m really excited that we’re getting something and not having to compromise too much,” said Klaw, 31, who works at PS/IS 217 on Roosevelt Island. “It seems like quite a victory.”
The research director of the Citizens Budget Commission, Charles Brecher, who advocates for restraint in government spending, was mystified, however, at what he perceived as the mayor’s weakness in the face of the union’s demands.
17 Comments:
1 Schoolgal
· Nov 8, 2006 at 3:52 pm
No reporter called our school where the feeling is we should have regained what was taken away. As for the survey, no question (except for “other” addressed the givebacks).
And again, we hope the UFT is not going to negotiate an increase in health costs after the vote and then say they had the right to sign off on any deal without a new vote. Please be fair and let’s put all our ducks in order before we vote.
2 Patrick
· Nov 8, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Leo,
What do you think of this quotation from the same Daily News article you quote above?
“In return, Bloomberg hopes to count on union President Randi Weingarten to stand by his side when he takes on Albany in two big battles: wrestling billions in aid from the state in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit and retaining mayoral control over the schools when it comes up for renewal in the Legislature in 2009…
…Weingarten may ease off her insistence that the money be earmarked for lower class size and other specific programs.”
Will the UFT now back the Mayor’s agenda for renewing Mayoral control without changes?
3 Schoolgal
· Nov 8, 2006 at 4:16 pm
P.S.
If the union does have authority to vote on health costs after this contract is ratified, I would like some idea of how this raise will be impacted. What numbers are being discussed? I asked this question before, but no one has answered it.
Hopefully the ATR deal will benefit them, however if they reject it, are their jobs still protected??
4 Just A Cog
· Nov 8, 2006 at 6:19 pm
This was our big chance to take back some of what we gave away. If nothing else, we should have fought for the reinstatement of seniority transfers, Circular 6 rghts, and the right to grieve LIFs. While we’ll never get the time back, we COULD have gotten those things if we’d tried.
Of course, it’s not too late, but I doubt Randi is going to change her demands at this point. What this contract will do is lock in the horrendous provisions of the last nightmarish contract for at least another two years.
When our principals try to get us fired, we’ll be so grateful to know that we could have hit that $100,000 salary mark, if only we had a union that fought back for us.
5 SOC ST TEACHER
· Nov 8, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Without anything in the contract to oppose, without a giveback, or more time, or a diminution in working conditions, the “always say no” crowd has to fear monger about health benefits.
The truth is that health benefits have been negotiated by the Municipal Labor Committee for decades, at least since the fiscal crisis of 1975; that Randi Weingarten is head of the MLC, and took that position in part to ensure that the interests of UFT members would be protected; that over the years that the MLC has negotiated health benefits on behalf of all municipal workers, it has won important gains for UFTers, such as health benefits for domestic partners.
All that this agreement does is reaffirm the fact that medical benefits will be negotiated the way they have been negotiated for decades.
6 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Nov 8, 2006 at 10:31 pm
The survey of the membership was developed with the full input of the negotiations committee, with representations of EVERY caucus in the UFT. If there was something wrong with the survey, one would certainly have expected someone to raise an objection when the negotiations committee considered it. But there was not a single objection — not one.
Now, in the mad rush to discredit a widely popular contract, an attack has to be mounted on the survey which over 25,000 members — the most in UFT history for such a document — filled out.
Desperate arguments by desperate people are transparent. This is about folks who could care less about the actual contract, and would have found a way to oppose it if the maximum salary was $150,000.
7 Leo Casey
· Nov 8, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Patrick:
I think that the fact Spitzer and Bloomberg are competing to win the UFT’s support in their battle over the CFE is a good thing, and can only work to the benefits of our members and our students. It has already been a major force in getting us a good contract, and I would be in favor of using it to get the best possible CFE settlement, with money for such essential things as lower class sizes.
8 Schoolgal
· Nov 8, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Please do not characterize me as desperate. I am asking for the facts.
If I am not allowed to have these facts, just say so!
I am also speaking for the teachers in my school who were surprised that this contract did not return basic rights. But we are all interested in knowing the final salary increase.
You must have some idea of the numbers being discussed? Why the secrecy?
9 mvplab
· Nov 8, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Hi Schoolgal,
Wages
• Total cash increase = at least 8% for all members
• Top salary exceeds $100,000 milestone
• 7.1% salary raise for every member next school year
– 2% effective Oct. 13, 2007
– 5% effective May 19, 2008
– applies to all rates and longevities
• Up front cash payment for every member
–$750 one-time lump sum payment (pensionable)
–payable Jan. 1, 2007
This is what I know so far. The complete salary charts for all titles and levels will be published in the next NYTeacher
10 Persam1197
· Nov 9, 2006 at 4:43 am
I agree with Schoolgal; more facts are needed before we jump in glee. The new five year longevity needs clarification. Does this new longevity mean that we have gone from 22 years to 27 years to reach the top of rate? Considering that many of the surrounding school districts top out at 15 years, this would benefit very, very few folks.
How does this new contract affect the CSA? They’ve been without a contract for 3 and a half years. Are we helping to dismantle that union?
11 paulrubin
· Nov 9, 2006 at 9:00 am
The interests of the CSA and UFT overlap in some areas but not in others. We can’t negotiate our contract with them in mind any more than they did when they agreed to lose their rights to stay in specific schools or work over the summer, etc. Are we being used to force a deal on the CSA? Probably. But the CSA has been there implementing the crazy nonsense from Central at our expense instead of working together with us to make sure we all worked at colleagues for the best interests of ourselves and our students. So why make it an issue Persam?
The health benefit issue is a non-starter. Such benefits are negotiated separately and have been for years. I fully expect to be sold out further but it wouldn’t impact my decision to vote for or against THIS separate deal.
And why all the handwringing. The nonbinding arbitration deal was confirmation that pattern bargaining will be used as a weapon against us until such times as it doesn’t suit the needs of the politicians. That means our efforts need to be focused on changing the politicians, moreso than on negotiating since these days DC37 now negotiates our contracts and we simply tweak their leftovers. You can’t find that without resorting to your ultimate weapon, your services themselves. Since these deal’s not horrible, why waste time mustering support that won’t be there.
All I can hope for is that Randi and company ASK US whether WE support Mayoral control of the NYCDOE and whether WE support politicians in favor or against that philosophy. I hope she didn’t promise something we have a philosophical argument with to further her own career.
12 redhog
· Nov 9, 2006 at 10:04 am
Randi wouldn’t negotiate premiums as an offset to layoffs-why would the MLC do it now?
13 xkaydet65
· Nov 11, 2006 at 11:19 am
The CSA is dead!! Jill Levy, despite her plaintive commercials has already jumped ship.I have no sympathy here. Bloomie and, especially, Klein are determined to destroy the CSA, by forcing an NLRB vote that would remove principals from the unit. Something New Action was always threatening to do with HS teachers.
This contract buys peace with us so they can focus on the CSA. It shows a complete lack of understanding of reality. Separating principals from CSA wins nothing about AP rights and responsibilities. Unless they are stupid(insert remark here) no AP union is going to surrender seniority retention in position. All the city and the principals will have won is making principals pure management without any real additional authority to do the job Tweed demands. Therefore the principals will be long on expectations and short on the authority to achieve them, and therefore very short on lifespan. My sincerest sympathies.
Maybe a few principals will succeed by actually working WITH the teaching staff and modeling the paradigm of a successful school
14 Persam1197
· Nov 12, 2006 at 12:23 pm
“This contract buys peace with us so they can focus on the CSA.”
We tell our kids to look at the bigger picture. It’s time for us as labor to the same. If we believe that the assault on unions including the CSA stops there, we indeed are drinking the kool-aid. Neutralizing the CSA is just the first concerted step in dismantling labor as a whole.
Once Bloomberg and company are finished with the CSA, you can rest assured that we are next. The Feds have redefined what constitutes a supervisory position to include any position where independent decision making is performed. That’s us, folks. The UFT is already weakened as a body with many of our senior colleagues having left and so many newbies entering without the institutional memory needed in the struggle.
I, for one, am not at “peace” because management has selected another opponent du jour.
15 xkaydet65
· Nov 12, 2006 at 1:36 pm
But we no longer make independent decisions. I just transferred back to my original school in Woodside. I knew it was an America’s Choice school, but the boss in my old school was blaming the faculty for everything but the Lindbergh kidnapping. I had a good relationship with the principal in Woodside and she asked me back.
Upon arrival I discovered that America’s Choice removes choice from the teacher. I post my aim, my mini lesson, my task, and my share out, oops that was changed Tuesday to closing. Heaven help me if I deviate. I teach Soc St, but the ELA teachers have their AC binders with the script, the questions, and which way they should turn when the ask a Q, and what tone of voice they should use. Student assessment is uniform. We all must have out TANs, unless it’s special ed, then it’s our SEANs. Teachable moments no longer exist, and we should all be on the same page. Independent decision makers? Hell we’re no longer even the lowest of professionals.
16 HS_ teacher
· Nov 13, 2006 at 12:41 am
This sounds like it can be brought up under Art. 24 or the new micromanagement detail in our contract . Have you contacted your DR
17 xkaydet65
· Nov 13, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Our chapter leader is one of the 300 chosen for the negotiating commitee so she has some pull in the union. She has not raised any objection to these supervisory excesses.
I’ve found out, since returning in Sept that senior teachers, great teachers, the kind you’d want your kids to have, were given Us for failing to be “standard setting”. I just got a counseling memo that my word wall was not interactive and that my agenda did not contain a closing.
No attention was given to the fact that the kids were actually working and lerning something. But I’ll look at Art 24 and see if it’s woth filing a grievance. Thanx!!