Klein shows vision, and we do not. We’re embroiled in a chess game in which we consistently fail to look ahead.

Given who Klein is, and what he does, the current situation was entirely predictable. Furthermore, given his recent statements about the 44 unfortunate APs, not to mention those about the teachers, it’s entirely predictable he will loudly call for the dismissal of these teachers.

And then we will really be in a tough spot. For all I know, they’ll break up my 250% capacity school and I’ll be among them.

You’re certainly free to characterize me as simple-minded and contrary. Still, when you say things with which I agree, I’m the first to admit it. I praised your piece on Nicole Byrne Lau as better than that of the NY Times, or anyone in fact, and featured it on a Carnival of Education.

You’re also right about the Clinton documentary, and I agree with you on most things political.

But it’s a fact that our rights were seriously diminished under that contract. It’s also a fact that you were aware of what DC37 received, that PERB had endorsed lockstep bargaining, and that you failed to anticipate the sort of contract we received.

Before you introduced this contract, I was very supportive of the union, and had been published in NY Teacher on at least three occasions, not including various letters.

One of my letters in Newsday got me a personal letter from Sandy Feldman.

As for your “obvious” point, it seems to have eluded Jonathan as well. I can tell you for sure it’s eluded the ATR teachers who’ve written to me.

However rare the clause may be, and however valid it was, we gave it away, along with a host of things for which I and every working teacher took zeroes, for less than nothing.

I’m not a businessperson by any stretch of the imagination, but even I know that’s bad business.

There is a reason Klein, the Post and the Daily News regularly point to this contract as a model. There’s a reason why Klein denies the AP union a contract, pointing to the teacher contract as a model of the sort of sacrifices they need to make. Can you honestly maintain this is because the teacher contract was good for working teachers?

I’ve been working 22 years and I’ve never seen anything remotely like that contract.

Thank you for your response, which I did not expect at all.

This is akin to ask someone if they promise to stop beating their spouse.

The fact is that the NYC contract has what amounts to a ‘no layoff’ clause which protects every excessed members, whatever the reason for excessing, from layoff, and that this clause is very, very rare in teacher union contracts across the US. If you really believe that the first duty of a union is to protect a member from layoff when they are excessed, you would at least grant this fact. But the agenda here is to attack, attack, and attack, and to never concede even the most obvious of positive parts of the contract.

I agree entirely with NYC Educator here. Further, while we agree that

The first and most important obligation of a teachers union with respect to excessing is to see that members do not lose their livelihood…

it is with considerable displeasure that I note that you limit your comments to issues of excessing.

I also fail to see any improvement over previous contracts in this regard.

Lastly, the UFT has extra responsibity here. We failed to adequately counter the Board of Education’s massive high school restructuring, and in some cases even bought in to the nonesense that successful small schools could be mass-produced. Excessed teachers get caught paying for our inaction.

There are schools that are finishing their phase-outs this year. How many of them should become ATRs?

Jonathan

Love your new sideways ad-hominem approach. Let me give it a try:

A fair minded person would also weigh the fact that the people who like this change are both patronage employees making more than any working teacher, and notably beholden to those who pushed the contract. They’ve also both signed loyalty oaths.

How’s that?

Now let me get to the issue, which you, pointedly ignore:

The first and most important obligation of a teacher union with respect to excessing is to see that members do not lose their livelihood…

Couldn’t agree more.

Under this system, which you call an improvement, veteran teachers are being demoted while new teachers are being recriuted.

I regret the implications of that escape you, as they did City Sue. Once again, I assure you it they haven’t escaped the thousand plus working teacher in the sub corps.

Are you prepared to assure teachers in the current ATR pool that their jobs will not be eliminated in future contracts?

The first and most important obligation of a teacher union with respect to excessing is to see that members do not lose their livelihood, and their ability to support themselves and their families, simply because the school district closed down or reduced their particular school. New York City is among a very small minority of school districts in the US that has that protection written into its collective bargaining agreement. Ours is not an ideal system of excessing, and no one here has ever said it is, but it has some very important positive features, and that is one of them. On this count, it is an improvement over previous contracts. I think that a fair-minded person would readily recognize this fact.

First, Klein was not Chancellor at the time. More importantly, the chancellor was not concurrently hiring new teachers while demoting working ones.

Frankly, City Sue, I find it remarkable the implications of that escape you. I can assure you it hasn’t escaped the thousand plus excessed teachers who’ve done the painfully obvious arithmetic.

And the UFT, of course, had seniority rules that would have protected 25-year vets like the one whose letter I posted here. And for those who’d make the assumption that individual is a bad teacher, there’s no indication of that whatsoever.

This teacher’s only proven crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time under the “open-market system,” so revered by Edwize columnists like yourself. Perhaps you should re-read that post before commenting.

Now, City Sue—are you prepared to assure teachers in the current ATR pool that their jobs will not be eliminated in future contracts?

If not, City Sue, it’s fairly obvious who’s “waxing poetic” here.

First, how many of these transfers were for excessed teachers? Do we have an age breakdown?

CitySue:

The spin you spun is unbelievable. All the ATR’s are in fear of losing their jobs under the next contract, not singing happy days are here again. the fact that they are still in their home school only reminds them how precarious their position is. Just look at the sadness and fear on their faces.

I agree with schoolgal about this being a sad day for our union.