The UFT contract agreement has been the buzz in the educational blogosphere this week.
Much of the comments simply take note of the agreement and the discussion here at Edwize, as Education at the Brink does.
But there are some interesting commentaries and developments worthy of note.
Ms. Frizzle runs through the highlights of the agreement, taking note of the parts she likes [the lead teacher, the limits on micromanagement], and the areas where she has serious concerns [letters in the file, Circular 6R]. We have already addressed some of her concerns here, and will take on these topics again in the coming days.
Joel Klein made a cameo appearance in the blogosphere to comment on the contract settlement. A September 30 analysis of contract negotiations in the New York City civil service paper of record, The Chief, noted how Klein had scuttled a contract agreement a year ago because he was unable to eliminate from the collective bargaining agreement “work rules,” a code word for teacher voice and due process rights. Klein attempted the same maneuver in this round of negotiations, which The Chief described as “stamping his feet again,” but was unsuccessful. In the wake of the settlement, the Chancellor brought his Rumplestiltskin act to the Politicker blog to announce that he had, indeed, vanquished the “work rules” foe, because the lead teacher program was a form of “merit pay.”
That line may have worked with a person who does not know the particulars of the program, but it does not withstand minimal scrutiny. The lead teacher program has long been advocated by the UFT, and it has been a centerpiece of teacher career continuums developed by more progressive teacher unions around the nation. [See, for example, this excellent report on the lead teacher program pioneered by the teacher union in Rochester, NY.] The pilot program in the Bronx was started at the initiative of parent activists in the Bronx, the Community Collaborative to Improve District 9 Schools [or CC9], with the full support and cooperation of the UFT. Lead teachers are selected through a collaborative process involving parents, teachers and DOE officials; in exchange for a differential of $10,000, they agree to work in a low-performing, high needs school, serving half-time as a classroom teacher and half-time providing mentoring and professional development for new and novice teachers.
From the UFT’s perspective, the lead teacher program is important because it creates positive incentives for experienced, accomplished teachers to move to low-performing, high-needs schools, and it provides career avenues and opportunities for teachers who do not want to leave teaching. It has nothing to do with “merit pay,” no matter how loosely defined, and everyone in education recognizes this fact. That is why, when the New York Times looked at “merit pay” programs in education across the US yesterday, New York City was not mentioned. One could hardly imagine such a survey overlooking such a “merit pay” proposal here, if it actually existed.
But for those desperate to find arguments for a vote against this contract settlement, the argument that the lead teacher program is a form of merit pay is now being made. Such a remarkable convergence between the Chancellor and contract opponents on the very same completely wrong, entirely implausible description of the lead teacher program leads inescapably to the old existential question a teacher confronts when two tests come back with the same answer, ‘The Civil War was called civil because they didn’t use any violence’: “Who copied from whom?” Write in your methods for discovering who actually thought up this scatter-brained line of argument, and who just copied it off the blog next to him, to BLOG@UFT.ORG. Note that we belong to the old school of educational thought on the subject of marking, and would give both bloggers a grade of zero.
And speaking of scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments to oppose the contract settlement, did you notice the argument, all in CAPS, that one of the reasons for voting ‘no’ was that this contract contains a ‘zero tolerance’ clause on teacher sexual misconduct with students? Here at the UFT, we are proud of the fact that it was Randi who first proposed a ‘zero tolerance’ policy: teacher unionists come into teaching to nurture, not exploit, the youth entrusted to our care, and we believe that a teacher who is found to have sexually abused a student should be removed, without exception and as quickly as possible, from the schools and from the teaching profession. It is also essential that teachers who are falsely accused of sexual misconduct are made completely whole, and that the individuals who make false accusations are appropriately punished. That is why Randi and the UFT team negotiated those protections into the ‘zero tolerance’ clause. But with those protections present, there is absolutely no reason for teachers of integrity to provide anything but full support to a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ of teacher sexual misconduct with students. You won’t hear anything less from here.
UPDATE:
On the very subject of “merit pay,” Chester Finn’s Gadfly sends out this nugget on the contract:
According to frequent critic Andrew Wolf, Chancellor Klein was the big loser. “Two weeks ago, at a conference in Washington, Mr. Klein boasted of a ‘second term’ strategy that would provide for comprehensive merit pay differentials…[but] none of these merit pay proposals is incorporated in the contract.”
114 Comments:
1 CitySue
· Oct 6, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Even in the union’s willingness to take a hard line against sexual misconduct, there is a safeguard of due process. As I understand it, there must be a “probable cause” hearing to determine if there is enough reason to believe the charge before a teacher can be suspended without pay. So it’s a lot more than just an allegation that triggers this process. And of course, if the charges are not upheld, the person gets full back pay and interest.
2 NYC Educator
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Klein, despite your rhetoric, is not an idiot. He, unlike you, is looking to the future. You may repeatedly deny the characterization of this “lead teacher” thing as merit pay, but Klein’s got his foot in the door and openly plots to chip away at seniority.
Folks like you will no doubt give it to him, just as you’ve now given him 20 extra minutes of our time, just as you plan to give him ten minutes more so we,the people who actually do this job, can teach a sixth class.
Please deny openly the possibility that you will sell Klein another ten minutes in the next contract, so that every teacher in this system can teach an unprecedented six full classes.
And please, keep those snarky insults coming. How dare anyone disagree when you tell us what’s good for us?
3 luke
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:52 pm
NYC Educator,
It’s hard to believe you are one of the “we, the people who actually do this job.” When do you have time for it? You lurk on this site 24/7. You can be counted on to reply to anything and everything seconds after it has been posted. And it seems like your mission is to attack and spread misinformation. Are you….Chancellor Klein??
4 Kombiz
· Oct 6, 2005 at 3:55 pm
NYC Educator is a teacher, we’ve talked over email a few times. I’d think blogging so much would be weird if I wasn’t striken with the same sickness.
5 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Oct 6, 2005 at 4:18 pm
The problem is not that NYC Educator spends his days chained to his computer, but that for all of the space he consumes on this site, he never deigns to make an actual argument. Explain why a union proposed, union initiated and union supported program is “merit pay?” Of course not. Now maybe he doesn’t actually have an argument to make on the subject. But intelligent people generally shut their mouth when they don’t have anything to say. It is tiresome, to say the least, to have to wade through so much noise.
6 NYC Educator
· Oct 6, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Luke,
It’s gratifying to know I’m so visible.
Actually, my mission is to correct misinformation. The fact is Chancellor Klein endorses and adores this contract, as does the union-busting, teacher-bashing Daily News, which ran an editorial to that effect just yesterday.
Why do you suppose that is, if this is such a good deal for teachers?
Did the UFT give not twenty minutes in the last contract? Are they not selling ten more in this one? Are they not planning to have us come in two days before Labor Day? Is lunchroom duty for teachers not being reinstituted? Are high school teachers now not going to teach a 37.5 minute class of “small group instruction” four times a week?
Is the compounded 15% figure, less 4% for time, not 11%? Divided by 4.25, and ignoring, for now, the other givebacks, is that not less than 3% a year?
Kindly correct me if any of that is misinformation.
And thank you for your interest in my posts.
7 institutional memory
· Oct 6, 2005 at 5:18 pm
I’m amazed at the degree of squalling (mostly by HS teachers) over the idea of working a longer day.
Even a 6-period day for HS and middle school teachers – you’d still get a prep period and a lunch period – would be a shorter day than what’s expected of the rest of the working world.
In recent years, people in the U.S. have been working 60- and 70-hour weeks without any additional compensation. Quite a few of them make less than $90,000. Their alternative is to find another job.
And, do our brethren realize that elementary school teachers have been teaching 6 periods since the second prep was eliminated in the 1970s?
We need to increase our self-monitoring, or we’ll continue to look like entitled brats in the eyes of the outside world.
8 willimake30yrs?
· Oct 6, 2005 at 5:57 pm
I agree, I see some of the elementary teachers in May, and June…It’s “NOT PRETTY.” How any elementary school teacher would vote to willingly lengthen their day with young students is beyond comprehension. I fear ratification of this contract will increase the incidence of teacher “burnout,” especially at the elementary level.
How many of those people working “60-70 hour work weeks,” work in buildings that screen people with metal detectors each morning?
How many “60-70 hour private sector careers” have 40% turnover rates after 5 years?
9 paulrubin
· Oct 6, 2005 at 7:20 pm
I disagree with the whole premise that this Lead Teacher position is about Merit Pay or not about Merit Pay. Klein’s public statements may be that it’s a foot in the door on the issue of Merit Pay but it’s something else entirely and he knows what that something else is and he’s too smart to bring it up so I’ll do it for him. By accepting the creation of a new type of more highly compensated teacher, the real crack in the armor (and I happen to think it’s perfectly reasonable given the realities of today’s world) is that we’ve directly opened the door to paying teachers differential salaries on a variety of issues ranging from shortage areas like math and science to teachers who work in poorly performing and/or dangerous schools. The extra pay for the longer day was step one. Lead Teacher is step two. And our next contract will complete the process. Merit pay is a whole different ballgame that requires some sort of consensus that we’re not close to on what would constitute a teacher worthy of merit in ALL subject areas on ALL grade levels even when not directly linked to standardized test scores. That’s a different animal and we haven’t even begun to address the logistics. But once you pay one teacher more to do a slightly different job in school A (teach and mentor) there’s no reason not to pay another teacher in school B more to teach Math when math teachers are nearly nonexistent.
10 Schoolgal
· Oct 6, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Many elementary teachers work with students in the AIS program after school and on Saturday.
Do not gripe about the time or extra days.
Many elementary teachers come to work in August and stay late after school ends to catch up on work.
Jr. HS teachers voted for the extended Mondays when many elementary school teachers were against it. But it passed and we had to deal.
Get off the issue of extra time and days.
Let the public and media have some respect for us!
Instead, we should be focusing on the loss of due process and senortiy rights.
Anything else seems trivial.
11 Chaz
· Oct 6, 2005 at 8:51 pm
I strongly take issue with your statement that people who falsely accuse teachers of sexual misconduct will be appropriately punished. How??? My take is if it is a student the student will be placed in another class. This is appropriate punishment? That student should be suspended and charges filed by the DOE/UFT against the student and parents for false charges as a minimum. What about administrators who encourage the student to lie? What are their punishment? None, according to the new contract. Zero tolerance is one thing but to claim that false statements will be appropriately handled is bull!! never am I so angry at your spin.
12 NYC Educator
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:02 pm
paulrubin,
I largely agree, butI don’t know if it’s “perfectly reasonable” because not a single one of the best public schools in our area needs to resort to this.
Diane Ravitch wrote a blistering critique of merit pay that said as much, and blasted the principals’ “bonus” system as well.
13 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:07 pm
I agree with Chaz!! Anyone who thinks a “probable Cause” hearing with the DOEor DOI is a safeguard should talk to a few PRIVATE criminial defense attorneys not union lawyers. Remember you could well be charged with a very serious crime. Anyone who has seen “Capturing the Friedmans” or is well read enough to know about th l980′s criminal sex allegations against teachers and child care workers knows its beyond naive to make believe the charges will necessarily have substance to them at all. We often teach very emotionally upset children who indeed have been exposed to conduct in their homes and or personal lives that may leave them very scared.
See “Capturing the Friedmans” at least before voting yes on 3.46 annual raise that has this nonsense in it.
14 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:10 pm
Remember this a contract that both The Daily News and The New York Post likes. Think about that one before voting yes.
15 paulrubin
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:13 pm
It’s reasonable in that it is the only viable solution to a longstanding problem that needs resolution before the U.S. economy pays the price and drags us all down. Our children need the excel in math and science. People with expertise in those fields have other more lucrative opportunities and this situation must be addressed even if it only helps teachers who don’t even exist yet. And when that situation is resolved, and other shortage areas appear, there will be a need and a mechanism to address those needs as well. Whether it’s a hiring bonus system or a separate salary differential, or some other system not thought of yet, it’s going to be one of the main issues to deal with during the next contract agenda because other than sabbaticals, there’s not much else to give away for next to nothing.
16 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:14 pm
At the end of August the Mayor publically stated in the press and media that Randi was unavailable for negotiations because she was vacationing. It was an out an out lie. If that can happen to Randi in the public media at that how many false allegations, sexual and otherwise can be entered agains an ordinary teacher, even when the allegation like the one against Randi herself has absolutely no basis in fact.
Think about it before voting yes!!!
17 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 6, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Paul,
When the Scarsdale school district needs a math or science teacher they don’t have any shortage of applicants really they don’t. We have dozens of wonderful teachers ourselves right in the Bronx School of Science who would be happy to take any one of those positions.
18 Leo Casey
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Teachers are not autoworkers or steelworkers, and the notion that our solidarity depends upon a homogenized, deskilled workforce in which no one is ever paid any differently than anyone else could not be more wrong. We are professional educators, and we should be paid for what we know and do. What exactly is the current system of differentials, if not pay based on different amounts of education?
Unions have long fought for differentials for teachers who have National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification, an idea, BTW, of Al Shanker that was developed by the AFT and NEA. This industrial union talk of all teachers being the same, as if we all were undifferentiated assembly line workers, is fifty years out of date. It doesn’t even pay attention to what teacher unions have been doing for the last 25 years.
There is a significant difference between merit pay, in which a supervisor says you get this and you get that, or test scores give you this and test scores give you that, with a zero sum game system of winners and losers, on the one hand, and a system in which there are opportunities open to every teacher to demonstrate special competencies based on objective standards [such as National Board certification] or to take on extra responsibilities and duties, such as the lead teacher. That is paying teachers for what they know and what they do, not for whom they know or whom they flatter and please or whom they are lucky [or unlucky] to teach. Paying teachers for what they know and do is also quite different from paying teachers simply according to the logic of the demand for different subjects. It does not follow a ‘market logic,’ but a ‘service logic,’ paying teachers for the service they provide.
This type of differentiation based on professional knowledge and professional practice is the foundation of teacher professionalism. If one insists about this homogeneous equality of the lowest common denominator, one has foresaken any notion of teacher professionalism.
19 msfrizzle
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:04 pm
shouldhavegonetomeds: Where’s your evidence to back up that statement? “When the Scarsdale school district needs a math or science teacher they don’t have any shortage of applicants really they don’t.” I’m serious, will people PLEASE start referencing sources of information here?
Your handle would seem to make Paul’s point for him!
And just for the record, I’m a science teacher who is on the fence about paying higher salaries in shortage areas. I do think it is harder to find science & math teachers than it is to find teachers of other subject areas, and offering higher pay might lure some away from other fields. Then again, I’d feel a little weird getting paid more than a colleague even if we taught the same kids, just because we taught different subjects.
And as a science teacher in a “hard-to-staff” area, I wonder if I’d qualify for BOTH shortage area and hard-to-staff pay? In which case, I’m all for it! LOL
20 Leo Casey
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Over my years in NYC public schools, I have seen teachers who acted in sexually inappropriate and abusive ways with students, and I have seen students and even a parent which made false accusations of sexual impropriety. Both exist, and neither can be an excuse for the other: the fact that there are cases of false accusation is no excuse for having anything less than a ‘zero tolerance’ policy toward teacher sexual misconduct, and the existence of teacher sexual misconduct is no excuse for not making teachers falsely accused whole, or for punishing the maker of false accusations. I do not find movies or sensational media cases convincing counter-factuals to that reality. Our responsibility is to protect students against sexual abuse by teachers, and to protect teachers against false accusations. It is important to do both, and the foresaking of one in the name of the other is simply unacceptable.
21 paulrubin
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Scarsdale pays ALL their teachers what, $30,000 more than NYC teachers? Of course they can get what they want for their limited (size-wise) needs. So do other districts in the burbs. If NYC wants math teachers, they have two choices. They can pay everyone an extremely high salary and be competitive or they can pay for precisely what they need. Which do YOU think is the more likely scenario? Giving NYC teachers a 40% raise in a single year to bring them up to the level of districts that aren’t wanting for shortage area teachers OR finding a way to target a far more limited budget to their needs. If we wait for NYC to pay all its teachers like they’re paid in the richest suburbs we’ll all die and multiple generations of kids will lose out. But the argument is moot. When we agree to this deal, we’re agreeing that some teachers are worth more than others and the precedent will have been set. I’m not going to be in this system long enough more to honestly care but that doesn’t make me blind.
22 R. Skibins
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:23 pm
First of all, every elementary school teacher who I’ve spoken to is against this turkey of a contrct (my apologies to the turkeys).
As far as the lead teacher or merit pay: How pi$$ed-off do you get when a colleague whose nose is so far up the principal’s wazoo constantly gets praised for being a superb teacher? Their class has no behavioral problems or less-abled learners because thay have all been dumped in YOUR class. Now, who do you suppose will get the lead teacher position? The butt-kissers from your school days grew up to be the butt-kissers who teach along side of you, getting paid more for being butt-kissers.
Join together to defeat Bloomkleingarten’s contract.
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/UFTContract/
23 paulrubin
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:26 pm
By the way, I do not believe NYC will pay its existing math or science teachers more. Oh no. That’s too costly for cheapskate Bloomberg. What they’ll do is pay new teachers more in those shortage areas for perhaps a set number of years just long enough to suck them into the system. So for me, this isn’t about personal gain. I’m a NYC teacher. I work for food. On a good day.
24 indigo
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Why is the medical being put into the contract? This is going to be a big problem for us in the years to come. Randi is a piece of garbage who sold us out. This is garbage and we are getting f*cked. All these positive articles are so silly. We know they all come from the union.!
25 indigo
· Oct 6, 2005 at 10:54 pm
And it’s 14.25%. The only thing that is getting compounded is the give backs from contract to contract.
26 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 6, 2005 at 11:51 pm
Msfrizzle
People don’t normally reference a blog per se. However, it is often noted the prime Westchester districts receive close to a 100 applicants per position. What that means who knows. Do they even read all those applications? Anyone’s guess. Those rarified districts are often rife with corruption themselves consider Rosyln.
27 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 6, 2005 at 11:52 pm
Let’s stick to facts. It does work out to 15 per cent compounded. Those of us opposed only undermine ourselves if we are not accurate.
28 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 7, 2005 at 12:01 am
Of course if they really wanted to acknowledge professionalism and accomplishment why not something for our MA plus 60 people to say nothing of our MA plus 90 people. How about one or two thousand dollars per annum for out PhD’s? Isn’t the highest degree education can allot worth $25 bucks a week or so. What about a few extra dollars for our L 25 people?
NO, NO NO because such approaches while more then meritorious and used in some of the more excellent and finer districts that anyone serious about education would want to emulate, don’t allow for the favoritism, brown nosing,butt kissing,and nepotism the “lead teacher” position does. Civil Service was designed to eliminate these style abuses. He who does not study history is bound to repeat its mistakes.
29 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 7, 2005 at 12:21 am
Leo,
Read your comment “the existence of teacher sexual misconduct is no excuse for making teachers falsely accused whole, or for punishing the maker of false accusations.” Is that what you meant to say? If so it speaks for itself.
If not, you still have a serious problem here. For you to take a none too opaque swipe at “Capturing the Friedmans” is as desperate as a George W. Bush supporter taking a swipe at “Farenheit 9/11″ Both are deeply disturbing documentaries largely based on fact. (There simply is no contingent in Congress with family members in the Iraq War. No amount of Republican spin can change that.) I personally communiate with Jesse Friedman via e-mail. The whole thing he experience was just so so sick. Years later students who are now young lawyers, teachers, etc. are still coming forward in Nassau county testifying how absolutely no abuse took place at the Friedmans, but how their words were twisted and coerced at the time. Only a fool would not see that as very ominous for any teacher, any where any place.
The real test would be to see Randi try to sell this to a group of criminal defense attorneys, people who by dint of their professional day to day lives know exactly what does go on in situations like this. There is nothing particularly honest or trustworthy about the DOI. Why the last director of that office, Ed Stancik couldn’t even be honest about what he was sick with in the final years of his life. We all had to listen to that corny canard about heart disease. One chaplain I told that too at NYU (where Stancik died) couldn’t keep a straight face on when I mentioned it. Get the death certificate under the Freedom of Information Act and prove me wrong. You can’t of course.
Any savvy person, anyone who knows members of the private bar who works as criminal defense attorneys, anyone who READS real court transcipts, not pulp novelsm of sex abuse allegations knows there is much to fear here. But hey “Fools rush where angels fear to tread”
30 jesse
· Oct 7, 2005 at 1:54 am
Shouldhavegonetomeds – You should remember that when you bring up the Daily News and NY Post that their only intention is to get Bloomberg re-elected. They don’t get give a dime about education, teachers or students. They will say whatever makes Bloomberg look better.
31 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 7, 2005 at 2:27 am
Jesse,
When I say The Daily News and the NY Post support the contract of course I am being facetious. The very fact they support it should make any sagacious person VERY suspicious to say the least.
32 Leo Casey
· Oct 7, 2005 at 10:44 am
The phrase should have said for NOT making teachers falsely accused whole. I will correct it in the original.
Any policy that is based on Hollywood movies, whether their conclusions fit one’s prejudices or not, is a policy seriously bereft of supporting evidence and rational argument.
33 fedupsecretary
· Oct 7, 2005 at 12:04 pm
TO ALL TEACHERS,
I have been reading some of the postings on this site with reference to the tentative contract. It seems like most of the teachers posting on this site are against the contract. This contract is not as bad as some are making it out to be. Majority of teachers don’t have negative letters placed in their file. It seems like the teachers that are worried about letters being placed in the file, are the ones that should think about changing their profession anyway. The fact that the Board of Education, or a Principal, can get a teacher who sexually harrasses students, et cetera, out of school without pay immediately is a good thing. That is the best thing that could happen, and I am thinking about this from being a parent’s view. If the charges aren’t true, it will come out, and the one making the accusations will be punished.
From what I hear from being a secretary in a school, the biggest gripe about this contract, is the fact that teachers have to go back on lunchroom and/or hall duty. Yes, lunchroom or hall duty stink, but wouldn’t you rather do that and get 15% instead of waiting another 4 years for Bush to get out of office (BECAUSE HE WILL BE ELECTED AGAIN) for no money. For the most part, teachers don’t take care of the bloody knees, or the kids that fight when they are on lunchroom duty. I have seen firsthand that when a teacher is in a lunchroom on duty they are really there to supervise the school aides who are really supervising the students.
There is one good thing that happens for secretaries when teachers settle a contract: they benefit money-wise, but in the past years, secretaries gain money but lose in other ways. The more money and the higher teachers’ salaries become, (including a secretary’s salary)the more money a principal has to spend out of their budget on salaries. When all the money in the budget goes on salaries, that is when the principals decide that they can’t afford two secretaries, and then one secretary in the school has to leave. This is not fair. The one secretary ends up doing the work of two, and the raise she was given doesn’t nearly cover the work that she has to take on.
I have heard from other secretaries, and it happened to myself, principals are using school aides to do the job a secretary because their salaries are lower. The Board of Education, I should really say the UFT, is letting this happen. The UFT takes the union dues out of a secretary’s paycheck, and I really feel in the long run, they are really fighting for the teachers.
When the UFT stands up to the Board of Education and Principals, and gets them to stop principals from turning 2-secretary schools into 1-secretary schools, then I feel that the UFT is on the side of its members, SECRETARIES.
At this point in time I feel that the UFT has given up on secretaries because they can’t win this battle. They have dumped a lemon into the laps of secretaries. Most of the time when a school goes from 2 secretaries to 1 secretary, the job of the secretary that was let go is either done by the secretary that is there or a school aide.
When the secretary that is there, complains about the siutation, she is told by the UFT to “Put in a workload grievance.” Are they kidding? How does that help? In a rare case would a workload grievance help. The principal will most probably get even for putting in that workload grievance. The only thing the principal has to do is tell the existing secretary to do the work herself, if she really doesn’t want the help of the school aide.
So, to all you teachers out there that are thinking about saying no to this contract, please reconsider. Think about how long it will take, another 4 years or more for Bloomberg to finally be out of office because on 11/7 he will be Mayor again, and the teachers will be getting “Zero” and Randy will be in jail, because there won’t be anything left to do, but strike.
34 kenn261
· Oct 7, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Congrads to Randi and all concerned.Those who complain do not have a clue as to what the life a teacher was like in the
60′s and 70′s.
By the way, It was a nice piece of yellow journalism for the NY Post to list top salary at end of contract with current salaries in the surrounding area.
35 Monalisa Vito
· Oct 7, 2005 at 2:49 pm
How unbelievable that Randi was able to negotiate such a decent contract with players as mean-spirited and “unionbusting” as Mayor Mike and Bozo the Klein! The salary is better than ever imagined, the ten extra minutes are backed by heavy grievance machinery, the lunch/hall duties are carefully crafted to protect members’ rights, and the Department of Education got so little out of this. In this day and age, the UFT rules AGAIN–just like it did when Shanker and Feldman were at the bargaining table. Kudos and accolades to Randi and her Teammates!!!!
36 paulrubin
· Oct 7, 2005 at 2:55 pm
The whole notion of parity with surrounding districts is a joke as well. What this contract does is obtain near parity with the average salary in the lower paid suburban districts, a statistically meaningless comparison. And typically even those contracts achieve maximum in 15-20 years. It’s really time to get off the parity debate because it’s a battle that was lost many years ago. Suburban school kids are children of parents who purposely go out of their way to pay 5k to 20K a year in property taxes to fund their local schools properly and their home values are directly related to the perceived and real notions about those schools. If you want to work in more pleasant conditions with smaller class sizes and with children who generally are college bound offspring of involved parents, why are you even working in NYC. It’s time to accept the reality of your situation and simply try to do the best you can within the limitations of the finances involved. If some day there is access to those billions of court mandated funds, maybe then we’ll get closer but the operative word is closer, rather than THERE.
37 NYC Educator
· Oct 7, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Paulrubin,
I understand your point. Your points about those in the suburbs who choose to pay for quality education is well-taken as well. It’s the UFT, though, that’s hawking this contract as closing the gap with the suburbs. And if you went back about 5 years, they’d be right.
Your further point “there’s not much else to give away for next to nothing” is the one that truly disturbs me. Time is precious. Without a COLA clause in the contract, these piddling increases are likely to be wiped out by inflation, particularly in the hands of a union with a demonstrated history of hawking years of zeroes to its members.
I continue to be incredulous at the shortsightedness of those who sell our time on the cheap, and their audacity in openly insulting anyone who’d question their judgement as “ignorant.”
It’s a good thing we rejected the UFT “best we can get” offer in 95, or it would take us all 25 years to reach maximum.
By the way, rather than my definition, or yours, or Leo Casey’s, here’s the first definition of Merit Pay you get on a Google search:
Merit Pay: An incentive plan implemented on an institutional wide basis to give all employees an equal opportunity for consideration, regardless of funding source. The merit increase program is implemented when funds are designated for that purpose by the institution’s administration, dependent upon the availability of funds and other constraints. .
38 paulrubin
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:07 pm
I’m not sure everything you’re commenting on has to do with my posts in particular but the bottom line is that this contract and the last contract cover what, about an 8 year period of time where raises for some worked out to about 33% and others, substantially less. But even working with those numbers, we’re talking 4% a year and I’m going to totally discount the extra time because suburban teachers do work about the same number of hours as what this latest proposal gets us to. The simple fact however is that while NYC teachers were getting their 4% a year with the times and with the givebacks, the suburban districts were doing much the same thing.Perhaps 3% some years. More in others. If there’s been a gain, it’s marginal at best.
39 institutional memory
· Oct 7, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Where is it written that a raise in pay is guaranteed to all employees on a regular basis?
Was I absent when everyone else signed up for the entitlement plan? I don’t think so.
The unpleasant reality is that most Americans receive absolutely no pay increases at all unless their employers magnanimously decide to share the wealth, and you can count these instances on the fingers of one hand. Very few, if any, urban teachers have seen their economic situations prosper in recent years.
Who wouldn’t love a bigger raise? However, in this anti-labor and anti-teacher era, it’s a remarkable achievement just to keep up with inflation.
C’mon folks … face the reality of our situation. Randi Weingarten has done a fine job squeezing a few extra bucks out of Joel the Prosecutor and Mike the Media Maven.
40 cardozosci
· Oct 7, 2005 at 6:27 pm
I would like to know exactly how much more the suburbs pay? I have friends who are now in Jericho, Plainvew/Old Bethpage and other districts on the Island. I know they reach top pay in 30 years with a PhD. I think Jericho tops at about 125k. I also seem to remember that the difference between a PhD and not having one was substantial (pay wise). Additionally, from what I understand a very small percentage of teachers in their schools are actually at top pay. Please provide a link to other district salary schedules.
41 Chaz
· Oct 7, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Leo:
Let me inform you that nobody justifies sexual abuse or tolerates perverts in the school system…..However, please define sexual misconduct to me and how it will be implemented by DOE? Further, please describe the punishment students will receive when the charges are found false. I must have missed it in your article.
42 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 7, 2005 at 8:59 pm
I think it is very good that we are at least discussing the burbs and what they pay. I personally own a home in Wappinger Falls New York and they are in the midst of a four year contract adding 20 per cent to the schedule not 15. It too expires in 2007!!
Now it is funny some say we should take the money and run because times are so bad. OK. But haven’t all the Republican politicians who so many of our members vote for (or else they couldn’t win) been telling us what a good job they are doing. I mean isn’t Mike Bloomberg running on a record of how great the city is doing, the prosperity, et al. I mean doesn’t a one bedroom apt. in Harlem rent for close to 2K a month if not more? I mean isn’t that how we just know everything is coming up roses? I mean Mike’s a shoo-in for re-election because everything is going so well am I not correct.
On a more serious note, starting nurses at NYU with a BSN earn 70K. I would never say a nurse’s work is easy. But frankly for that they work 3 shifts a week of 12 hours each. The get paid holidays, benefits, vacation, pension, etc. A nurse willing to work Christmas and/or New Years will be deemed a saint by her superiors and readily given the second week in January off or similar, when a ski trip or cruise or Caribbean vacation could well be less than half price compared to Christmas week when teachers are free to travel.
When teachers have fallen far behind a traditonal field of overworked and underpaid women like nurses you know our union leadership has been asleep at the switch to put it charitably Intelligent thoughtful responses most welcome.
43 R. Skibins
· Oct 7, 2005 at 10:04 pm
Anyone who thinks taht a contract laden with givebacks is a good one, or even the best that we can get, is a fool. If you think, Randi, that this is the “fair” contract that we all want, then please do us a favor and resign. And that goes for your disciples, too. Also, stop the propoganda that only a small vocal minority is against this deal. My friends and relatives who teach in various districts throughout the city have all reported that a vast majority of their colleagues are against this “contract,” and will not fall for your propoganda. In my school with over 70 UFT members, I only found one person who likes the deal. When the sellout contract is defeated, please, all of you, resign!
44 paulrubin
· Oct 7, 2005 at 11:33 pm
I’d like to agree but my initial “survey” is that the over 50 crowd is quite satisfied with the agreement and the 20 somethings just want some money. The teachers in the middle (35-50) are more mixed but there are so few of us that it probably doesn’t matter. If that’s the consensus in the middle schools the contract passes easily because we’ve seen before that the K-5 crowd pretty much does as they’re told and there’s more of them than HS teachers. Needless to say, being in a HS or Middle School lunchroom is a far worse fate than being with the younger kids just on the danger issue alone but it’s not a dealbreaker for most. The younger teachers already know they’ll never last in this school system so they’re not all that concerned about transfers and long term issues. NYC will continue its role as farm system for the suburbs.
I suspect that like the last two contracts, the devil will be in the unknown or unanticipated details on both sides. All I know is that I ended up with way more than 10 kids at times during the first two years of the last contract despite the wording limiting things to small groups by being one of two teachers in the room. Hopefully that little loophole is gone.
45 TeacherTeacher
· Oct 8, 2005 at 7:03 am
It’s the fall that’s gonna kill us stupid! You base a pro contact argument on the fact that we didn’t get merit pay?
Job Security:
Proposed: ELIMINATION of seniority rights. If you are excessed or if your school closes down, you are a district sub unless you can find your own job. (In other words, if the chancellor decides to reorganize our school as he has done with the high schools, we are all district substitute teachers.)
Additional Time:
Proposed: additional time will be a 37 ½ minute teaching period every day except Friday.
Proposed: Report to work Thursday and Friday before Labor Day
Difference: 2 additional days (for Bronx, Manhattan and Staten Island and 3 add’l days for Brooklyn/Queens)
Professional Duties:
Proposed:principals can assign any teacher to lunch, hallway, bathroom and bus duties.
Salary Increase:
14.25% compounded which equals 15% over 52 months and 12 days.
• June 2003 thru November 2003: 0.00%
• December 2003 thru Nov 2004: 2.00%
• Dec 2004 thru Oct 2005: 3.50%
• Nov 2005 thru Sept 2006 5.50%
• Oct 2006 (contract expires 10/07) 3.25%
Total: 14.25% over 52 months and 12 days
average yearly increase (compounded)is less than 3.5%
Letter in the File Grievances:
Current: all teachers have the right to file a grievance if an “inaccurate” or
“unfair” letter is placed in their file
Proposed:
•teachers can no longer file such a grievance
•letter(s) will be removed after 3 years if you aren’t brought up on disciplinary charges
•the “inaccurate” and “unfair” standard no longer applies
Difference:
•we no longer have recourse against spiteful, retaliatory administrators
•an untruthful, negative letter will only come out of your file if you aren’t brought up on disciplinary charges after 3years. There seems to be no provision that accounts for the “accuracy” or “fairness” of a letter.
•I’ve read nothing about a burden of proof.
46 divina
· Oct 8, 2005 at 7:34 am
Nurses also risk being infected by AIDs and other horrendous diseases a lot more readily. And I could be wrong, but $70K is not the starting salary for all nurses. I think there are distinctions between RNs, LPNs, LNs. I think your data is pretty off the mark however.
http://www.allnursingschools.com/faqs/salaries.php
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos083.htm
http://www.payscale.com/salary-survey/vid-45662/fid-6886
47 Lucy2024
· Oct 8, 2005 at 7:52 am
Will this lead teacher position exist in the elementary schools? If not, I resent that only the MS and HS teachers had the opportunity to earn $10,000 more.
I worked in one elementary school for years and we never had a Union meeting, never got any Union info, etc. We were simply told things-including how to vote.
When I transfered to another school, I was shocked–monthy Union meetings, a constant flow of information, a great Chapter leader who would fight tooth and nail for the teachers.
I am sorry to say that (1)in many schools nobody wants to be Chapter Leader (2)some of the Chapter Leaders have only a few years in and have no idea what teachers went through years ago and really don’t care (3)many Chapter Leaders do not attend any meetings and keep the teachers uninformed (4)some Chapter Leaders are best friends with the administration in exchange for perks (5)some Chapter Leaders are quasi-administrators.
What can be done about this?
Question:
What happens if no one in a school wants to be Chapter Leader?
48 Persam1197
· Oct 8, 2005 at 8:40 am
One of the AP’s at my school remarked to me quietly about what an awful contract this is for teachers. An AP!
The CSA now has to deal with negotiations for their own contract and you know there will be pain involved. One principal that I know took her retirement because she feels that the DOE has turned the job into a nightmare. The principals once had tenure, real vacations, and worthwhile benefits. They sold out on their principles for higher salaries and now we have principals who are inexperienced as adminstrators and as educators. The senior principals who were on the way out took the pay increases, loss of tenure, merit pay, longer work days, loss of vacation, etc. because they retired after their extra monies were pensionable.
I surely hope this does not happen to us. This contract is the precursor of something ugly for our union and its ideals.
I can’t see why the union would begin eroding due process with the elimination of grieving letters in the file. The average principal today has no clue as to what it means to be a teacher. Many of them taught for a couple of years and became adminstrators before they were seasoned teachers. Some of them are products of this so-called “Leadership Academy.” I’m only teaching 13 years and I’ve seen “colleagues” who were not even tenured as teachers become AP’s and principals. I have nothing against these folks, but they are NOT teachers; they are educrats and I don’t trust them as professionals to be totally honest and respect our union members with integrity.
The 37.5 minute “tutoring” session is a pilot program for a 6th period. I don’t really mind the additional time in the school if it means additional time spread out during the school day in the form of slighly longer classes. I would still have the same student load and I could get more instruction in. Anything else other than direct instruction is bad news. Why can’t all schools absorb the time into the existing format (such as multiple session schools)?
49 Alum32K
· Oct 8, 2005 at 9:09 am
Lucy 2024
I think YOU should be the Chapter Leader. Your best qualification is your concern about the issues you raised.
Go for it!
TeacherTeacher
Principal won’t be able to assign ANY teacher to lunch duty.
If you choose homeroom, your done!
Of those that remain without HR, only those whose programs could accomodate a professional period during a school’s lunch period would be at risk.
I just went through programs at our school. A half dozen folks are at risk of being eligible for Lunch duty out of a teaching staff of 80. With four lunch periods, we are talking about possibly ONE person per period.
It’s not as catasrophic as it’s being made out to be.
When negotiating, CL should not allow for more than 1 teacher per lunch period.
VOTE
Lucy 2024!
Chapter Leader
50 cardozosci
· Oct 8, 2005 at 10:30 am
I did some research and found theat Scarsdale has about a dozen teachers in the district making 120k and 166 make over 100k. In all of Westchester about 1000 teachers make over 100k that comes out to 1 in 9 teachers. These figures are about 2 years old.
51 Taliesin
· Oct 8, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Letter to the File
The problem with the unexamined and un remediated letter to the file and its removal after three years is that its purpose is not do much to report an infraction regarding the teacher.
The main problem is it being used as an instrument of behavior modification that may involve a legitimate difference in ideas about learning and teaching between an experienced teacher and an inexperienced administrator.
It removes the debate therein and shuts off consideration for the teacher’s professionalism. It can also be an arbitrary way of forcefully conditioning the teacher to be unduly subservient to this factory style management.
Seeing the levels of fear that exist in administrators, this behavior is not conducive to supporting teachers or students.
52 outraged
· Oct 8, 2005 at 3:27 pm
For those who think the 10K for a lead teacher is just gravey should know it requires 5 days prior to the start of other teachers and 4 hours a month of additional time. With the added responsibility, it appears they don’t give away ice in winter. However it is the only part of the contract where your expertise is rewarded.
And PaulRubin, regarding parity, losing a battle years ago don’t mean it should not be fought later. Fact is NYC is richer than the suburbs, it will give property tax rebates, it had a $3 billion surplus, the job in the city is much more difficult then the surrounds, Bloomberg did not agressively pursue the CFE funds, the prior contract was for 28 month with 16% negotiate during a recession, the city economy is booming, the inflation rate is increasing (compounded to 8.8% from may 2002 thru august 2005). The increase per the contract to august 2005 is only is only one half of the amount 4.4% With the inflation rate at 5%+, what was the wisdom to settle a longer contract other than making it appear Randi got something to show for a poor effort. Its like having a leak in you tire without a fix. Eventually a big problem. You know, the clerks got 1000 on salaries of 30k plus or minus for the first year. If you were making 70k the 2% for the first year would only be 700, since the first six month you got nothing. I don’t know about you but this should have been a big win, not a surrender, especially with the carving up of the CFE funds in the fact finders report. There will be no pleasant surprises in the future because the contract was extended one plus years. Its almost like the one that was settled before 2 years elapsed with no raise. Shortly afterwards, the Pres of UFT became pres of AFT and everyone in the city shared the prosperty due to a vibrant economy, but not the teachers. They settled for 5 years.
53 frogmugsy
· Oct 8, 2005 at 5:17 pm
All I know is, if we accept this contract, there won’t be anything worth fighting for in 2007. And that’s all I have to say about that.
54 Chaz
· Oct 8, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Leo:
I’m still waiting for you to answer my two very simple questions:
First, how is sexual misconduct defined in this wonderful new contract that the UFT has given to their grateful classroom teachers? You must have specific examples of what is and what is not sexual misconduct.
Second, what happens to a student that is found to falsely accuse a teacher under this great contract? Are they suspended and court action taken by the DOE/UFT? Or are they simply removed from the teacher’s class?
Zero tolerance is fine, the school system should never protect staff who sexually abuse or have sexual relations with students. However, the term sexual misconduct is a loaded gun and the UFT must have agreed with the DOE on specific examples of this…., right? Please inform us what they are so that we classroom teachers (are you one Leo?) know what is and is not sexual misconduct?
I’ll be waiting for your response.
55 msfrizzle
· Oct 8, 2005 at 5:46 pm
Not that it’s really the main point of this discussion, but here’s what the Bureau of Labor Statistics has to say on the subject of a teacher shortage in certain areas:
“Currently, many school districts have difficulty hiring qualified teachers in some subject areas—mathematics, science (especially chemistry and physics), bilingual education, and foreign languages. Qualified vocational teachers, at both the middle school and secondary school levels, also are currently in demand in a variety of fields. Specialties that have an adequate number of qualified teachers include general elementary education, physical education, and social studies.”
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm
So, many, but not all, districts have a shortage of science & math teachers. My guess – and this IS just a guess – is that even those districts that receive many applications for every vacancy still get fewer applications for science & math jobs than they do for social studies and other non-shortage positions. That means that although they might not have trouble filling their positions, there would still be evidence of a shortage. Claiming that they get 100 applicants per position doesn’t look at the finer-level detail where evidence of a shortage may still be apparent.
56 Taliesin
· Oct 8, 2005 at 9:01 pm
It seems to me that some blogs have been removed from this website that were clearly not offensive.
57 Taliesin
· Oct 8, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Does the new teachers’ contract serve the teachers and children?
Micromanagement and the Decoration of Facilities
The rallying cry of the teachers union over the past four years has been
“LET TEACHERS TEACH”
The new contract does not address the systematic teaching of math, reading and writing devised by contracted publishing companies. These unproven methods prevent intervention by the teachers and is damaging both to their profession and the education of children. Such closed systems are ineffective at best and corrosive and violent at worst. Are teachers retiring in droves and leaving the system only due to salary levels? The union management is out of touch with its membership.
The issue of micromanaging bulletin boards and classroom facilities is a small part of a larger picture and indicates the alienation between administrators and their perception of higher management’s requirements and lack of experience.
Professional Development Days and Extended Days
Her we have three more days where teachers are “trained” to do closed system scripted programs. It has nothing to do with understanding how children learn. The school day is to be extended ten (10) minutes. Is this necessary and what is the maximum amount of schooling that a child can tolerate? This is factory-floor thinking.
Master Teachers
Creating “master teachers” would seem to be a good idea, having older teachers help younger teachers. Since this new position would provide a salary premium, these “master teachers” would become a new layer of administration beholding to the principal for their position. Is their loyalty to the teacher or the principal? These master teachers would become “coaches” to be sure that the systematic scripted programs are followed as well as the relentless test prep throughout the year. It must be assumed that master teachers are not there to share ideas about learning theory.
Test Prep
What happened to the hue and cry that teachers can’t teach and children can’t learn because of the constant test prep throughout the year? Test prep should be available sixty days prior to the test and no sooner.
Teachers Can Not Grieve Letters to the File
How can there be no accountability in a timely manner regarding an administrator’s letter to the file?
This will encourage principals to write frivolous complaints about teachers without accountability will follow them forever.
Teachers should vote down the contract and seek relief with a new administration
58 aharmon
· Oct 8, 2005 at 9:11 pm
I AM VOTING YES FOR THE CONTRACT!
As an 18 year veteran teacher, I can say that I have seen a lot being in the trenches. I have seen many changes from the BOE/DOE, but the one thing that has remained the constant in the UFT. Our union that fights everyday to keep the core values of the union in tact. I have scrolled though many of the comments posted and have only concluded that our members have not had a chance to read the language of the agreement being proposed. If we all look at the language of the agreement many of the questions will be answered.
I think Randi and the negotiating team did a good job with this contract considering the current climate of the city and the board of education. Need I remind everyone of the what we started this process with 2 1/2 years ago.
Remember the board wanted to
elimate
Sabbaticals
59 R. Skibins
· Oct 8, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Taliesin:
My comments were deleted from Edwize. I made a post which blasted Randi for being a lousy negotiator. In it I told how three years ago I stated that it was a bad idea to pass the contract with extended time because it would lead to more time-for-money “raises” in the future. Weingarten’s brainwashed minions claimed that it would be a one-time deal. WRONG!
I also compared Weingarten’s propoganda rag, the New York Teacher, to the Nazis’ propoganda machine. I guess that I hit too close to home! Keep deleting, and I’ll keep posting!
60 Kombiz
· Oct 8, 2005 at 9:49 pm
Your comment wasn’t deleted because it was critical of the leadership, it was deleted because it was off topic and abusive. I have deleted one other comment on this blog for comparing someone to the Nazi’s. We can have this discussion without comapring people we disagree with to Nazi’s, or alluding to Nazi crimes. Your comment was offensive.
Taliesin’s comment was put into comment moderation for wordiness. I had not approved it immediately, because it was not part of the discussion but an article. I’ll let it go the second time, but I’d like people to stay on the topic of the post. The comments here that are critical of the tentative agreement are part of the discussion, and the back and forth. I moderate the blog, and I’m willing to give commenters a lot of leeway, but I draw the line in a few places.
61 R. Skibins
· Oct 8, 2005 at 10:35 pm
By only presenting a heavily skewed version of what this “contract” has to offer, you are doing a disservice to the membership, especially the new teachers who aren’t as savy as us veterans in the ways of the Unity caucus. What is really disgusting is that after republishing articles in the New York Teacher detailing what Shanker, Cogen and others had done to build the UFT and win rights for us, you guys work out a second straight sell-out, giveback agreement, and have the nerve to tell us all how great it is.
62 Kombiz
· Oct 8, 2005 at 10:51 pm
I’m sorry you feel that way. We have an open comment section, and when people have posted questions, or emailed me questions about the contract I’ve tried to get them answered. It’s obviously the weekend and the contract is somewhat complicated, but we’ve worked to correct mis-impressions about the contract, and answer people’s questions on the blog.
63 indigo
· Oct 8, 2005 at 11:34 pm
We can’t do much about this contract. It will pass, let me add “I think.” I am angry. I am angry at our union and angry at the other members who are weak. So I have ended my COPE payments. Hey they are adding in the fight for legislation “seek 25 years in and 55 years old to retirement.” I advise all of the angry members to do the same. Send a letter to COPE, at the UFT head quarters. I sent 4-certified letters before they responded. Then I got a letter telling me to fill out the enclosed card and send it back in the enclosed envelope. Guess what? No envelope or card was in it. And I had a friend also do this and the same thing happened. End your COPE payments!
64 indigo
· Oct 8, 2005 at 11:37 pm
Does anyone know how this will change medical in the future? Why is medical being put into the contract? Will it become a negotiation point in the future? I know most other unions in the city shy away from medical being included so it doesn’t become a bargaining chip. Somone with a bigger brain please look into that and post on it. Is this the trojan horse that is looks like?
65 Kombiz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 12:23 am
Lucy,
regarding your question about lead teachers:
“Yes, of course elementary schools are eligible for lead teachers. In fact, in District 9 that’s where most of them are at the moment.”
Paul,
regarding enforcement of 10 students rule:
“A new accelerated grievance process enforces the 10-student rule, and the DOE can be fined for infractions.”
66 aharmon
· Oct 9, 2005 at 1:30 am
VOTING YES!
Part II
2 1/2 years ago the board proposed an eight page document to begin the negotiations with in that document they proposed to do away with tenure, sabbaticals, they wanted the ability to transfer teachers at will, they wanted to eliminate seniority, and so on.
Considering how far this contract has come from where we strated again, I think Randi and the neg. team do a fine job. Unless you are sitting at the negotiation table you have no idea how hard it must have been to keep the core values of the union in tact, and to make comments like I have seen posted on the blog regarding our union’s leadership is sad. I am confident that everything possible was done to get the best possible deal.
I look at the fact finders report that only proposed an 11.4% increase retroactive to March of 04, and how the neg. team was able to get 15% retroactive to December 03.
How the fact finders report suggested that teacher do 10 free coverages a year, and how the neg. team was able to get that totally off the table.
The length of the contract proposed by the fact finders would put us right back into negotiations in a few months, but the negotiation team was able to extend the contract and set the bar for the next round of city negotiations.
The team was also able to convince the DOE to work in partnership to lobby legislation to change the “62/30″ (my tier) to “55/25″
And to top it all off 15% is not a bad deal to me. I am not a “minute counter”,
but if the agreement calls for a little additional time. I can live it.
Hopefully now that the contract is reaching members homes, they can read the language for themselves and make their decisions.
The agreement answers many of the questions I have seen posted.. like the one about homeroom and professional activity. The contract states “teachers performing homeroom fulfill the requirement of the professional period..”
Or like the question about administrators and micromanagement. The contract cleary states that “the following issues shall not be the basis for discipline of pedagogues: a) the format of bulletin boards b) the arrangements of clasroom furniture; and c) the exact duration of lesson units.”
I saw one question on the blog that asked how and which students will be selected… My response, let the administrators figure that out.
I am voting YES and I am encouraging all my friends who are Chapter Leaders and Delegates to do the same on October 12th. Thereafter I intend to encourage our membership to do likewise.
To the comment about withdrawing cope funds, I think that is a silly and childish move… you want to take your ball and go home. Cope funds help us to keep the pressure on in the political arena and we need that.
YES YES YES YES YES YES TO THE CONTRACT
67 aharmon
· Oct 9, 2005 at 1:47 am
My last comment said October 12th should have been the 11th.
68 R. Skibins
· Oct 9, 2005 at 2:41 am
I’m glad that you can live with it. However, most of us cannot. First of all, 11.4% over 3 years averages to 3.8% a year. 15% over 4 years averages to 3.75%. So Randi blew that one (I guess most math teachers are in the high schools, which tend to support ICE or TJC). Next, the city isn’t giving up anything. We, however, are losing vacation days, the right to grieve, circular 6, and must work a longer day. Many of us predicted back in 2002 that the giveback contract would lead to future contracts with time-for-money schemes. Weingarten’s minions all said that it was a one-time thing, and it would not lead to future time-for-money givebacks. WRONG!
69 Jeff Kaufman
· Oct 9, 2005 at 8:47 am
As the true information about the proposed contract is being disseminated the reaction of Union members, city-wide, is unambiguous. This proposal hurts us as teachers, paras and other support staff in the schools. This proposal fundamentally hurts our Union.
The Union leadership is going into panic mode. They are fearful of a repeat of 1995 where the membership rejected the proposal and they were forced back to the bargaining table.
A notice was sent out from the Union warning of an alleged campaign to disrupt the meeting. This, like the leadership spin, “accept this proposal or strike, now” is just another scare tactic. We don’t need to disrupt anything. When the members hear the truth and read the proposal for themselves it is clear. This proposal must be rejected.
The Union just sent out, by Express Mail, a leadership-spun summary and proposed salary scale to all the delegates. They did not send out the proposal. When you read the proposal, available on the UFT web site, it is clear this must be rejected and our contract really negotiated.
Inflation is at an annual rate of 4.1% according to the U.S. Department of Labor for our area ending August 2005. When you calculate the annual rate of the proposal it equals 3.7% and that’s with the givebacks. Rates for new teachers, per session and coverages are even lower.
So, who does this proposal benefit? Not anyone working in a school. However, if you are an elected or appointed union leader receiving a salary from the Union I guarantee you will be getting a 15% raise in the very near future if this passes.
All UFT members are entitled to be present at Delegate Assembly meetings where a decision will be made about this proposal. Arrangements are being made with the Union leadership and Marriot hotel staff to accommodate as many members that come to the meeting.
We need as many members as possible. Come down to the Brooklyn Marriot on Adams Street as early as you can make it on Tuesday. Tell our leadership we can negotiate a contract that doesn’t hurt us or our Union.
See you there.
70 Frank48
· Oct 9, 2005 at 8:48 am
How are they preserving “union core values?” WHAT union core values are being preserved – that you continue to be a very wealthy union which has lost touch with the lowly classroom teacher?
You have sold our right to grieve – the very essence of union , down the river.
This contract is a blatant way for mgt. to get around tenure, and in the future will result in a major bloodletting of staff – especially the older people.
The city wants an endless stream of low salaried younger people to take this job. They want in the long run to rid themselves of costly pension plans, and this is the beginning of it. What we give up on this contract will never return.
They want to privatize all of it, and use the charter school/ private model as much as possible in the public schools. Charter schools do NOT give pensions. Charter schools such as Edison use low paid “teachers” to read from a script all day. These “teachers” have no real benefits compared to what we HAD.
Members, you pass this, and you’re placing yourself into the cold new world of education.
You’ll deserve what you get for a bare boned COLA increase in salary. Even the Corections Dept. did better than we’ll do under this new pact – this is hideous.
71 Chaz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Leo’
Thank you for making up my mind for me on how to vote on this contract. Before reading your summary of the contract I was a fence sitter. However, your failure to respond to my questions suggests that either you don’t know or care what the proposed contract really means to the classroom teacher. Do you teach in a classroom? I suspect not. Otherwise, you would know the answers. You should follow the example of Kombiz who makes a point to respond to questions.
My vote? NO!!!!
72 aharmon
· Oct 9, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Frank,
Questions what core values?
We have not lost the right to grieve. In fact the process is being addressed in the agreement. Read #12 of the agreement.
What core values?
We still have due process
What core values?
We still have tenure
The is a mechanism the agreement speaks of regarding grieving C6 “any teacher may grieve the failure to follow the terms of this provision….” see #8 last paragraph of the contract proposal.
The grievance procedure being prososed in the contract elimates step II which was only in my opinion a rubber stamp of what the principal wanted to do anyway. the new procedure being proposed state “If the grievance is not resolved at Step 1 the union may appeal from the decision at Step 1 to the Chancellor..”
Voting YES
73 jd2718
· Oct 9, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Chaz,
sexual misconduct is defined as
“the following conduct involving a student or minor who is not a student: sexual touching, serious or repeated verbal abuse of a sexual nature, action that could reasonably be interpreted as soliciting a sexual relationship, possession or use of illegal child pornography, and/or…” [some stuff I don't understand follows - jd].
If a student charges sexual misconduct and the charge is found to be false, “absent compelling and extraordinary circumstances the student will be permanently reassigned from the employee’s class.” There is no other consequence specified. Presumably the Discipline Code would pick up the slack.
K-5 A35. (This is anti-bullying, but includes: “…seeking to coerce… a staff member … to do something; engaging in … verbal conduct that threatens another with harm…” The penalties for A35 range from Parent Conference to a one year suspension. I found this in a minute and a half for kindergartners; it must exist at the higher levels as well.
I think this should be sufficient, as long as the chapter and chapter leader need to be on top of it.
I would be more concerned about the suspension without pay. This begins when a hearing officer finds probably cause. This means, I believe, the Chancellor’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) finds probable cause. Not exactly an impartial arbitrator.
The MoA addresses the length of suspension without pay: “The 3020-a hearing should be completed within two months, but the suspension without pay shall be extended one additional month if the hearing has not been completed … The suspension without pay shall also be extended until a criminal action is resolved and any 3020-a proceeding is also completed.”
Is this a loophole in the three month maximum?
74 Kombiz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 2:09 pm
There’s been a little back and forth on the excessing process as something that’s a negative in the contract. It’s anything but here are the details:
Excessing:
The Chancellor’s desire and plan to terminate excessed people who could not find a job on there own after 18 month was completely defeated. Under the old system a person would fill a vacancy in their own district or could be placed by the DOE in a vacancy CITYWIDE. Under the new system a person can apply for a job anywhere THEY want. If they want to stay in their own district or region they can. If they want to seek a job in another district they can do that also. If they don’t find a job on there own the DOE can place them in a vacancy in their District/High School Superintendency or region. Or the DOE can place them as an ATR in their old school or district/High School Superintendency. They can NO LONGER be moved by the DOE to a vacancy citywide. This new system gives people much more mobility options while limiting where the DOE can place them.
75 Kombiz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Jeff posted an article, that he cross posted on his site. As the person who administors this blog, please refrain from posting articles in the comment section, it’s happened recently on both sides of the contract debate.
The comment section is meant for discussion, and articles and diatribes short circuit the back and forth. A lot of people have strong opinions, but please keep on the topic. Secondly, if you have questions feel free to email them to me at blog@uft.org and we’ll try to get them answered. If someone hasn’t answered a question you asked it may be that they haven’t seen your comment, or are away from their computer. It is a holiday weekend afterall, and while a few us, myself included, measure the blog cycle in 30 minutes, some people are spending their time with their family.
Finally, rhethoric concerning a wish for a crisis at the UFT is just that, rhethoric. I work at the UFT, and we’re pro-actively answering questions about the contract. The packet that DA’s received contained the full MOA.
Please read the entire MOA at the website.
If you have a blog, and wish to indicate you’re talking about something we’re talking about on this blog use the trackback tool, located at the top of the comments.
It’s also a little silly to accuse the UFT of spin, when we have a blog with open comments.
76 Taliesin
· Oct 9, 2005 at 5:02 pm
To follow the exact thread of the blog is to limit new ideas to explore and they should not be censored.
The union had the administration on the ropes and could have supported the Ferrer administration and helped cmapaign for it.
Have we forgotten how badly we were treated by this administration and where our grievance process became so unwieldy as to be a joke.
Do we look to take our modest salary increase and forget about the dignity that we preached with our “Let Teachers Teach” mantra.Promises and respect can not be expected from past experience.Promises regarding retirement and micromanagement can be ignored. What are you going to do about it? use the grievance process that requires a law suit to enforce.The union has become like a battered wife who is lost on how to extricate herself from the humiliations of the past.
She is uncomfortably satisfied with a new dress.
77 madmatt151
· Oct 9, 2005 at 6:23 pm
I have been reading all of these posts for a while and have some comments. First of all I am a HS teacher and in a school with multiple sessions so all that the extended time will do it put an extra minute into each period. This is reallyy not a big deal to me, as it wasn’t in the last contract. BUT, when I saw what these extra minutes did to my friends in the prmimary and intermediate schools, I was ashamed of myself for voting yes last time. This contract will make my colleagues in the PS and IS schools even worse off than the last one. I can’t believe intelligent people who are supposed to be representing other intelligent people are using the “best we can get” argument. I mean, this is a disgrace. The best we can get it something that is fair and the givebacks are evenly distributed. I do not mind giving things back, if it seems that the other side is as well. What is the city giving back, a lousy 3% per year? Yes, I do agree with the statements that 10 minutes isn’t a big deal, but that is for me and myschool and situation. If this is a big deal for others in thier schools and situations, then it must be re-examined. High school teachers are not badly affected by the time givebacks in his contract, but the removal without pay for a CHARGE is downright anti-American and against our constitution. DOn’t confuse me for agreeing or backing a child molestor etc. but as a HS teacher I have heard many allegation that wound up being found false. If the teacher had been removed without pay while those investigations were being conducted, most of those teachers would have lost thier homes, assets etc. Will the union pay our mortgages? Will they feed and clothe our children? I would like to see more done with regards to this particular item in the contract. Zero tolerance for offenders is fine, but only for proven offenders, not alledged or accused. Will we get scarlet letters along with our no pay? It seems as if our union some time ago was using some harsh language against the leadership of DC37 for thier apparent selling out of thier members for a lousy 3% raise? Am I the only one who remembers this? I agreed with the union then, and still do. Shame on you if you become hypocrits! Don’t sell us out like you said DC37 did to thier members.
78 Chaz
· Oct 9, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Thank you JD**** for your clear response to my questions, at least somebody sees fit to look into the sexual misconduct issue. Yes, it is scary that the UFT is going to depend on DOE/OSI to determine probable cause (guilty, guilty, gulity, you can bet on it for the vast majority accussed).
That is the majority of teachers accussed of sexual misconduct can count on a 90 day unpaid suspension.
I also agree there is no real consequence to a student filing a false allegation since that student would not want to be in your class in the first place and reassignment is not a consequence.
Shame on the UFT for allowing DOE to put teachers in danger of a 90 day unpaid suspension due to false allegations with no consequences to the student.
79 Leo Casey
· Oct 9, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Lucy:
You do not seem to be aware that the lead teacher was piloted only in elementary and middle schools, since it was done in CSD 9 and the CSDs had not high schools connected to them. It will now be extended to high schools, but if anyone has a right to be offended, it would be them.
Chapter Leaders are elected by the members in a school, and if there are not doing their job, the members have a right to recall them. There will be Chapter Leader elections this coming spring, and it is important to ensure that someone you trust to represent you and do the job well runs for the position. The central UFT does not have the power, nor would it want it, since this is a democratic union, to remove Chapter Leaders solely on our judgment that they are not performing their jobs. That is something the members in the school need to do.
80 JackRabbitSlim
· Oct 9, 2005 at 8:25 pm
My fellow teachers:
DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE!!!
Maybe I’m wrong, but in researching the number of hours we’re going to be working under this new joke of a contract, we’re REALLY making pennies more, in relation to our current status!
I’ve done the math, and I want to spell it out for my fellow teachers. I’ll use a new teacher with a starting sal. of 39K to make my point.
“Ned Newbie” is a NYC teacher. His current salary is 39,000. He works 182 days a year. His current school day is 6 hours and 20 minutes. Ned also has to perform 50 minutes of professional development a week for 40 weeks. Let’s figure out Ned’s hourly wage.
1) Ned works a total of 187 school days (including PD). So let’s divide Ned’s salary of 39,000 by 1183.71 (total # of hrs worked) to get an hourly wage of 32.94
Under the new contract, Ned’s salary eventually goes up to 42,512. However, he is now working THREE extra days a year, plus an extra 100 minutes a week (37.5 mins/4 days a week). That’s an extra 10.5 days of school, for a total of THIRTEEN EXTRA DAYS!
Now, Ned is working a total of 200 School days. Using 6.33 hrs a day as a guide, that’s a total of 1266 hrs a year.
Under the new contract, Ned makes 42,512 dollars a year. Based on his hours working, he is now making an hourly wage of 33.58. His actual salary increase is 64 CENTS AN HOUR!!!
64 cents an hour. Is it really worth it.
81 redhog
· Oct 9, 2005 at 9:11 pm
It is said that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Some of the above venom-mongers should moonlight as statisticians. There is an insatiable market for liars. Why don’t you guys go pace up and down with a sandwich board advertising yourselves on Chambers Street?
82 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Oct 9, 2005 at 11:26 pm
There is nothing that annoys the hell out of me like people insulting the intelligence of teachers. Look at JackRabbitSlim’s Math, where he manages to add the additional twenty minutes performed under the current contract to the extra ten minutes done under the proposed contract to lower the actual increase.
And we are supposed to be stupid enough to not realize that you went through all of those contortions because you want to say everything but the simple truth — this is a 15% compounded increase.
I have seen more clever three card monte dealers on the old 42nd Street.
83 R. Skibins
· Oct 10, 2005 at 12:25 am
Open your eyes. 100 minutes a week in the last contract. 50 minutes + 3 days this contract. What’s next? With the pattern set, Randi will say “The two days before Labor Day worked out fine. Let’s make it a full week, plus another ten minutes a day.” Eventually, we will work from 8-5. Then Randi will allow principals to assign us to dinner duty, as the transformation of teachers into babysitters becomes complete. Are you ready to sweat in the summer heat as our school year extends from August 16 to July 15? Retiring soon? Don’t worry. When you drop dead from a heart attack in the heat, the city will just hire 2 fellows to replace you. Good. More dues money! And all the while, Randi will insist that the suburban teachers work longer than we do, even though they go from the beginning of September to only the third week of June, and work only 6 hours, 15 minutes a day!
84 JackRabbitSlim
· Oct 10, 2005 at 8:36 am
Doesn’t anyone get it? This isn’t a raise!!!
A raise occurs when you are working the same amount of time, and you are given more money for that time.
I worked for GEICO for a while. Every time I got a raise, there was no increase in my work day. When my salary went from 25k to 32k, I still worked the same amount of time.
I teach guitar lessons on the weekends, one of my three side jobs to pay the bills besides teaching. I just got a raise, but I don’t have to make my lessons any longer.
Call it contortions, call it statistics, call it what you will. The “simple truth” is that this is not worth it.
85 IteachAPE
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:13 am
I feel the reason we should Just Say No to this contract is the givebacks.
What would the NYPD, NYFD & NY Dept. of Sanitation do if they had to extend their shift times each day & lose 2-3 holidays?
#1 Their unions would not even consider it
#2 Their unions would not tout such give-
backs as a victory but what it truly
is -union breaking.
#3 There would be huge media coverage of
their union leaders stating how the
proposed contract is unacceptable
The mayor & Klein are trying to rid the DOE of veteran teachers & make it a system of newbie teachers that will fear for their jobs & will not think of standing up against what is proposed by the DOE.
I find it a bit disturbing that our union
leader is supporting this. How could she even entertainsuch a poor proposal?
These proposed givebacks are the DOE’s second step in working towards year-round school. If we give in again it is over & just a matter of time before that plan is in effect.
Just vote No!
86 Frank48
· Oct 10, 2005 at 10:35 am
That is correct teachAPE. These are facts, not doomsday scenarios.
One of Klein’s union and contract busting goals is to create many more charter schools here.
A friend of a friend recently was hired by a charter school in Brooklyn – there is no pension in the deal.
The charter model is for low paid young people to read scripts to the kids – no union, no pension, no nothing.
This is what privatization means for teachers. This is what Bloomie and Klein WANT !
For people to say : “This is the best we can get” is waving the white flag to total destruction !
In a DOE which makes layoff king JACK WELCH of all people an educational guru , the members better think twice before approving this contract – a contract which severely weakens individual classroom teachers.
Everyone reflect for a second on THE REALITY :
1. Mayor Bloomberg is the richest mayor in NYC history. He’s already spent 50,000,000.00 of his own money to win the post again. He is so secure in his decision making that he closed fire houses in post 911 New York City. He’s hated to this day about that – but he is a man who gets what he wants.
2. He hires Jack Welch, corporate titan, as an educational guru, mentoring and speaking at Bloomberg’s Principal Academy. Welsh’s main mgt. strategy at G.E. was to constantly harrass and fire 10% of his staff at any given time.
2. Newly minted “graduates” of this vaunted academy have demanded “U” quotas from their APs in certain high schools. Principals are actually mentioning to their APs how many “U” ratings are expected each semester. If it’s happenning there, it will be happenning at a school near you soon.
Not a surprise since this is the stated policy of Welch , Bloomberg , and Klein. They want more “U” ratings to reflect the poor results in the system. Bloomie has stated this publicly for years now.
Of course, we teachers know that MANY other factors contribute to the poor numbers. Bloomie , Klein, and Welch only blame staff for these problems.
They now seek to use scientific and ruthless management theory as a rubric in managing and assessing the work of NYC teachers .
These MBAs conveniently factor out all of the other variables in this equation – the many challenges of the student population.
The answer, for them ultimately is a cheap, young workforce who will probably be transient in nature. A constant turnover will be good for the machine anyway – no more UFT, no more pensions, no more anything.
This is what the charter model, ultimately means to the average working teacher across the country.
Hey, these are the guys who “don’t think twice” about shipping out middle class jobs to India and Pakistan – do you think they give a crap about you ?
It’s true, these wealthy managers and capitalists are only looking at the bottom line here and want to shed payroll wherever, and HOWEVER they can.
Most veteran teachers to Klein are merely pampered and puffy liabilities. You’ve had it too good, for too long, and the party is OVER – and besides – the results are terrible.
Before handing over valuable chips to a crew intent on your destruction – think twice before you capitulate. For this is simply the law of the jungle at this point.
Members – with this crew in power – is this the time to lose so much for so little ?
87 Frank48
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Some final thoughts – how’s THIS for a realistic scenario ?
1. Teachers vote DOWN this offer resulting in stalemate.
2. In due time Ms. Randi Weingarten begins to demand a fair COLA increase in pay, for no givebacks – since these givebacks are Draconian in nature and are unfairly foused on teacher inferiority as the sole reason for system failure.
Randi must do a much better job of illustrating the system’s successes during this time. She also has to be a much better communicator of what ELSE is needed BESIDES a lockdown on teachers. Make a socioeconomic, class warfare issue out of this – which is what it is ! Keep fighting for the state funds NYC classrooms are supposed to receive. We need more school psychologists, reading instructors, after school programs, laptops, smaller classes, vocational programs, alternate settings, new suspension rules, institution of 600 level type schools, many more sunset academies, and many more fill in the blanks . It’s NOT all the teacher’s fault here.
3. Bloomberg will probably refuse to negotiate for awhile, 6 months to a year. But all during the year, he will be advertising improved test scores, and other improvements he has implemented. Randi continues to harp on the fact that it is the teachers who are implementing the better results for Bloomberg, and ALL the other points mentioned above.
4. After some time, we’ll get at least our COLA increase . Bloomberg will look REALLY bad if he doesn’t even give his teachers a COLA increase while results are improving.
Let’s face it – we’re barely getting a COLA with this new piece of junk tossed at us – while giving back MAJOR givebacks. Strip down our demands in this “political climate” and mount a PR campaign over the next year. Currently we have little or no sympathy from the general public, and if we accept this horrible pact, we’ll be telling the public that Bloomberg was right all along – the teachers of NYC don’t deserve any respect at all.
88 Leo Casey
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Frank:
Do you know of any union that has a COLA? Can you site just one other union with a contract that has such a feature, much less one other public employee union, much less one other public employee union in NYC?
It is remarkable to me how much of this discussion, especially from folks with reality in their monikers, belongs to Thomas More’s Utopia.
89 Leo Casey
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:29 pm
There are two time for money swaps left in the contract agreement, with the coverages proposed by the fact finders having been dropped. One is the additional 10 minutes, which is a 2.5% increase in time [10 minutes/400 minute day]. The other is the additional two or three days, with is a 1.08% or a 1.62% increase in time 2 days or 3 days/185 days].
At the very most, therefore, for folks teaching in Brooklyn and Queens, the time for money swap is a little over 4%; for those teaching in the Bronx, Manhattan and Staten Island, it is closer to 3.5%. For the entire city, it is less than 4%.
That means that 11% of the 15% is raise.
You don’t need a degree in statistics to figure that out. My daughter, in the sixth grade, just did it all by herself.
90 Leo Casey
· Oct 10, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Chaz:
You posted your inquiry late on Thursday evening; I spent virtually all of my day in schools on Friday, and did not come across your question until Friday evening.
As I already noted in a comment elsewhere, posted before you announced in six different threads that I would not answer your inquiry, I was waiting to answer you until I had received clarification on a key question. I was aware that there had been discussion of changing both the DOE regulations and the law, following a high profile case of a teacher engaged in sexual misconduct who was not dismissed, and I wanted to determine whether or not those changes had actually been completed. [The short of it was that the proposed changes would prohibit any sexual act between teacher and student, regardless of the age of the student.]
I sent out e-mails to the folks who would know the answers, but have yet to receive a reply. I am not going to call them on the weekend. It may surprise those who spend every waking hour on this comment board, but some folks treat weekends as weekends, and I feel guilty enough about the time this blogging steals from my own family without taking time from other folks’ families as well. And this was no exactly a time urgent matter, where the answer on Tuesday would not do as well as the answer on Saturday.
I took it for granted, perhaps mistakenly, that you knew that you could google the regulations the DOE had on their web site, but I am not certain that they are up to date. And I think it is essential, when someone such as myself from the UFT gives out information, that it be correct and up-to-date, since people rely on that information.
If you want to vote against the contract agreement, which appears to have been your predisposition since you first started blogging here, by all means do so — it is your democratic right. But kindly do me the favor of not pretending that it was because I was not able to supply an instant answer to your inquiry.
91 NYC Educator
· Oct 10, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Leo Casey compares union members unfavorably to sixth graders, ridicules their names, and resorts to Orwellian language to explain why a sixth class is not a sixth class. I can’t help but wonder whether this same approach led to our current contract agreement
Of course I agree with the math that puts the increase at around 11%. Divide that by 4.33, and it comes to around 2.54% a year, if I recall correctly. Included in that figure, according to the fact-finders, are things like the prototype sixth class, lunch patrol, and enhanced discretion among principals. So the “raise” is even less than that.
Nonetheless, Edwize is great. I’m going to agree with Redhog that it’s very brave of the union to institute a blog at this time, and openly elicit comments form the members. It’s our union, isn’t it? Hopefully, there are those individuals in the union who actually want to hear our opinions, and the very existence of Edwize supports that assumption.
Hopefully, when this contract is rejected, the UFT will apply its courage toward securing a fair contract for teachers, and let the city know that while we’re open to change, the city must pay back the zeroes we bought these changes with, rather than expect us to simply give away the store.
92 Bklynteacher
· Oct 10, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Randi (and everyone else) knows we’re upset thanks to our ability to express ourselves on this site. That’s a good thing.
Sure there are a smattering of posters voting Yes but it’s obvious to me most are planning to vote NO.
I’m sure that’s why she was in the Daily News today saying that Klein’s smile and kiss made her look like his “patsy”.
Randi, don’t blame Joel. You did a fine job of things all by yourself.
Give us a little credit for being able to figure things out for ourselves.
93 firefly
· Oct 10, 2005 at 5:31 pm
From the teachers at various schools I’ve spoken to it seems apparent to me that the vast majority of people are voting YES…for the money alone.
And, by the way…does anyone who is supposed to be as educated as we are really read the Daily News? Do you read the Post as well? C’mon, certainly you can find a more literate paper with better reporting!
94 Bklynteacher
· Oct 10, 2005 at 6:04 pm
Tsk, tsk, Firefly.
It sounds like I hit a nerve. Resorting to insults is not very becoming of a fine educator such as yourself….
95 Schoolgal
· Oct 10, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Firefly,
Why did Randi write a commentary in the Daily News if we shouldn’t be reading it?
BTW she gave them the comments about the angry teachers, not the other way round.
You really need to tell her that you have inside information that 95% of all teachers are voting yes.
Got to go, I’m in the middle of a very interesting article in THE NEW YORKER. I just love their cartoons.
96 aharmon
· Oct 10, 2005 at 9:59 pm
I’ve spent the weekend surveying friends in the school system, (elementary, JHS and HS teachers and paras) and although most have said it’s not the greatest contract, the majority have said that they can live with it and will be voting yes.
With the current rising costs of everything, I personally don’t want the neg. team to go back to the table. Who knows how long it will take to get the parties to come back, with all the city and the mayors delay tactics, it could be months or perhaps years.
We have an opportunity to secure something for our members, I say we take it.
97 firefly
· Oct 10, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Well, I guess she felt she had to write something for the Daily News because that’s where she’d be sure teachers would read it. I’m just commenting on the sad state of where people get their information. Most people who’ve been commenting on these boards neglected to actually read the proposed contract and read the summary from the News and Post instead. Sorry if I hit a nerve…I’m sure she’s reading these blogs as well.
98 outraged
· Oct 11, 2005 at 9:23 am
Wrong firefly!
Its not just the words but its the senarios attached to them which the reveal the true meaning of this contract. You must learn to comprehend and not just repeat.
99 Bklynteacher
· Oct 11, 2005 at 4:30 pm
By the way, I got all my information on the contract from the UFT. org site.
Some of us can actually analyze and interpret information we read very nicely, thank you.
100 Schoolgal
· Oct 11, 2005 at 10:25 pm
I read the MOA as well and all other material as well on UFT.org.
101 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 11, 2005 at 10:49 pm
There is a lot neo-Orwellian thinking going on in the reasoning here. People say letters in the file don’t mean much because the union doesn’t win any of them anyway. Forgive me all you apologists for the union and the just negotiated contract, wouldn’t the solution here be to insist the hearings be fairer, say to the point that the grievant is sustained 10 to 15 per cent of the time at least at each and every level of grievances.? (To those who understand statistics that means by the time you got to Step 3 you have a good chance of winnning.)
However, even an unfair, odious grievance procedure can help you in a strange way. Let me give you one example: you end up at a 2030a hearing with your letters in the file. However, even in denying your grievances administrators contradicted themselves on their own salient points (saya at Step 2 vs. Step 3). You have a chance of winning on a technicality. Good lawyers look to EXPLOIT the weaknesses and errors of their adversaries. That indeed is a big component of lawyering very often. Any wonder Klein an attorney is gleefully trying to take this away from teachers/ He is a cruel, vicious bastard and he understands the legal underpinnings of grievance, even when they are clumsily and crudely executed and the grievants are being treated unfairly. They themselves create a paper trail which can cut both ways and not always in the admininstraion’s favor even when they think they have stacked all the cards for themselves.
Intelligent comments welcome here especially from experienced, veteran teachers.
We are giving this right away here for essentially nothing!!! I beg you all Randi included to think about this.
102 madmatt151
· Oct 12, 2005 at 3:24 pm
I totally agree with shouldhave… I spebnt this long weekend visiting my best friend who is an employment attorney for the Federal Gov’t. He looked over the new contract with me and was very interested in some of the wording. See he is the lawyer who helps keep the people whom have been fired FIRED. He loved the wording of some of the contract items mainly because of the vagueness. He easily could exploit these items and warned me about them. He also hates unions, and loves to bash them and break them up, a problem in our friendship sometimes. If he thinks this contract is bad news imagine. The minute he saw the part about no grieving letters he went crazy wishing he could get that into some gov’t contracts.
103 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 12, 2005 at 6:37 pm
Madmatt,
Thank you so much for your comment. As I said anyone legally sophisticated would no this is no small point here.
A number of years ago I was at the point of possibly litigating the Board of Ed. Things were less horrible than now but still I hired an excellent private attorney. It costs thousands. My attorney was very interested in EVERY step of grievance and parsed every particle our adversaries wrote. He looked for every sign of contradiction or deviance as we went from step 1 to step 2 to step 3. He was a master. It is true that in any given year we have very few teachers who actually have to deal with something like this, but as years pass and you stay with the system, your chances of eventually having something like this increases to no small degree. (Anyone who understands statistics would understand why that is true as well.)
There is simply no doubt that having the ability to grieve a letter in the file, even though itself a very unpleasant experience, can also help one to retain or even improve their employment.
104 Bklynteacher
· Oct 12, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Thought I’d share-
My colleague’s husband is a police officer. He said without a doubt, given our contract, he would have rejected it out of hand! Not surprising, is it?
105 Spedmus
· Oct 13, 2005 at 1:06 am
INDIGO !
You have a choice !
Vote NO – on the contract…
why is it you think you can’t ?
I really respect your tenacity in chasing down the COPE stop payment – please keep me updated on the saga of it all !
106 Bklynteacher
· Oct 13, 2005 at 8:41 am
From the Daily News this morning:
“Some workers will go solo on trucks that boost and unload Dumpsters. Workers who take on that assignment can earn up to $16,000 extra annually…”.
That sure beats out a “lead” teacher’s extra pay…and they don’t need 2 advanced degrees for that career. I’d say they did pretty well. The Mayor sure is a man’s man.
107 Teacher31231
· Oct 13, 2005 at 2:04 pm
I’m with INDIGO, I am ending my COPE. We don’t need to contribute to politics any more. We will put all the political stuff in the contract like 25/55 which is the point of COPE>
108 aharmon
· Oct 13, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Bklynteacher, in your comments about how “well” the sanitation workers did in their negotiations, you forgot to metion the other aspects of the Sanitation contract that called for a reduction of about $4,000.00 for their new hirees.
You also forgot to metion that their work shifts would be longer.
You also forgot to mention that their routes would be longer, and they would loose some of their guaranteed overtime.
You also forgot to mention that they are also looking at a four year + contract.
I guess it is a matter of perspective in terms of what one considers well.
I dont think that they did well, but their negotiators came up with something for their membership in light of the current administration of this city.
By the same token, I think our agreement is one that can be worked with. It may not be pie in the sky, but it is one that did not short change our new members, and got the 15% across the board.
109 aharmon
· Oct 13, 2005 at 10:34 pm
By the way, did I forget to mention, I’m voting YES
110 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 13, 2005 at 11:19 pm
The sanitation contract is for a period of shorter duration. Not much know but 3 per cent more for less time and no Master’s degrees required.
111 Bklynteacher
· Oct 14, 2005 at 6:54 am
By the same token, I think our agreement is one that can be worked with. It may not be pie in the sky, but it is one that did not short change our new members, and got the 15% across the board.
And you forgot to mention:
-that we ALL lost out with an initial 29 months of only 5.5%. Our backpay is a lot less than that of the NYPD and Correction Officers who have a 10.5% increase for the same period of time.
-4.3% of this 15% “raise” is paying for our givebacks (according to the UFT literature I received in the mail yesterday)
We are all giving back but as mentioned above, these other unions don’t have to pay for their Masters and 30 above to get to maximum. That eats away alot of our “raise”.
-
112 Bklynteacher
· Oct 14, 2005 at 6:56 am
The first paragraph of my previous post belongs to aharmon. The rest is my response to the post.
113 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 15, 2005 at 9:49 pm
It is just so cruel to tell people they will have to sell themselves in the new contract just like in the real world. The purpose of a union was to sacrifice your youth and early years at low wages, pay your dues literally and figuratively and in exchange have a significant amountof protection in your later years. Now that is being seriously eroded. Last Spring Forbes magazine, the sort of thing Kleinberg’s crowd would read noted that the chance of a white male, with an A one pedigree, Harvard Business School, Wharton, etc. getting a job after 50 was very small. Sure age discrimination is illegal but just try and prove it. After all how many of us teach great Civil Rights lessons and then go home to live in non integrated neighborhoods? Be honest. This seniority transfer strikes at the very heart and purpose of a union.
Older people are not valued in our society. Can a leadership academy principal graduate necessarily match Mr. Loewe with Mr Lerner? Probably not!! Could they tell you how Wall Street got its name? Not necessarily! Would they want an older teacher, the school marm type who knows those things? I wouldn’t count on it.
It is silly to think you are going to get a position because you are skilled and have a good track record. Was Julie Andrews allowed to play Eliza Doolittle in the movie, “My Fair Lady”? Was Carol Channing allowed to be Dolly Levi in the movie “Hello, Dolly”? Of course, the younger teachers don’t understand these things. The young always have the cure being brave and being sure. But ultimately that is no solution at all. To me that this contract could be decided by people too young to comprehend the dangers here is veritably frightening.
I welcome intelligent response to this.
114 madmatt151
· Oct 18, 2005 at 11:14 pm
I really hate being compared to sanitation workers or any other “trade” union. No offence to these other workers, I have great respect for them and come from generations of carpenters. My problem is that the union made a great mistake when they tried to compare us with other unions and workers. Or when we get compared with the average worker in corporate America. We cannot be compared to a trade union that does a specific job, which is measurable in number of units made or built or fixed etc in a set amount of time. When they have to work an additional 10 minutes or so they just work that 10 minutes extra an go home. We have papers to check test etc and our day does not end with the bell We as teachers all know this, but our union leadership has put it into or minds to think of ourselves as “workers”. We are a bit more than that. We are required to get a certain amount of education, rightfully so, and required to keep fairly current on our resepctive subjects. We are a union of Professionals, isn’t that what the UFT website says? To try and compare us to trade unions is doing all of us a disservice. Now, while I am preaching being treated like professionals, we must act like professionals. I don’t think that arguing over how much our raise really is will get sympathy from voters and citizens of NYC. What I do think will get us support is to show how we are not being treated as professionals and some of the givebacks that this contract is proposing! These are the real points which must be addressed. These are the points which will have us treated less than professionals. These are the items I think we as a union should be addressing. Personally I would rather have a little rasie and no givebacks. The givebacks are what will permanently damage us as a union and us as professionals.