Comments on: UFT Delivers A New Contract

By: HS_ teacher

HS_ teacher — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:36:39 +0000

The sad peice about this is that it is a great deal but because groups of peopledecided to lie to people to create a great distrust about evrything including what has been done for 40+ years. They didn’t say anything about it until it was too late and that is why they are so vocal now.

By: jelfrank

jelfrank — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 04:08:11 +0000

Several I spoke with that were on the negotiating committee said it was a sham; that their opinions were never part of the real process. They were astonished that Randi took off in her own direction and came up with a settlement.

Why else was the leadership having focus groups, quietly asking teachers about two year extension and 6 – 8 percent increases, unbeknownst to the negotiating committee early in October.

By: paulrubin

paulrubin — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:04:32 +0000

It’s a 5 year longevity increase, not a 27. It doesn’t figure to impact veteran teachers at all other than direct money that could have been used at the top to fund teachers closer to the bottom in a futile attempt to retain them longer as though intelligent people would change their career plans for a few hundred dollars a year after taxes spread out over 24 checks.

And this deal was agreed to quickly because the deal was foisted on us by DC37. That’s the strategy and it’s not in our control.

By: Persam1197

Persam1197 — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:52:20 +0000

The City is expecting a windfall in tax revenues especially from Wall Street. If this was the first offer, we could negotiate for a better settlement that at least covers the rate of inflation and/or improved working conditions. It would seem as if we’re rushing this process.

This new 5 year longevity is problematic at best. If it’s what it seems, we’ll have to wait 27 years to reach the $100,000 milestone. Compare that with 15 years in the surrounding school districts.

I’m just not sure about this strategy of let’s take the money and run.

By: DB

DB — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:17:26 +0000

Peter Goodman,
-Where is the response to the survery? Perhaps it was the largest response to show how satisfied the the rank and file are.
-From what I heard about the Oct. DA meeting much of the time was used by someone giving a presentation. You are allowed to voice your opinion only if the leadership wants to hear it and agrees with it. If you are in the opposition you are not given a chance to speak.
-Please clarify what retired members can and cannot do pertaining to the voting and decision making process.
-For something that happened so fast how “heavily involved” could a 300 member team be?

By: apapercut

apapercut — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:17:34 +0000

Peter Goodman,
“* retirees DON’T vote on the contract – only active members.” I wrote, “I would be nice if the retirees did not have a say in present contracts.” And they do have a say.

“* a 300 member negotiating team that cut across the union by division, by gender, by age and by political caucus was heavily involved in the process.” I wrote, ” It would be nice to have a voice that is heard by the people we vote for to represent “us”. The key word here is HEARD.

“* the response to the survey was the largest that the union ever had!!” The response may be the largest the union has ever had, but what was the percentage? Very small if I’ve heard correctly.

“* the October DA allowed members plenty of time to voice opinions – it was a huge crowd.” Again I say, It will be nice when the rank and file starts telling their representatives in our union what they expect from them and what they will not tolerate from them.

“* I know for a fact that Randi is not responsible for today’s lousy weather, she may be powerful, but not that powerful.” I agree that she is not responsible for the weather.

apapercut

By: MichaelB

MichaelB — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:03:33 +0000

I agree with oz about the lack of improvements to our working conditions. There’s nothing in this agreement that will make my life easier or enable me to become a better teacher. Sadly, new teachers, many of them quite talented, will continue to leave the system in droves. I’m outraged as a public school parent as well as a teacher that Bloomberg and Weingarten are willing to perpetuate the status quo.

So much for all those heartfelt suggestions we put on the survey this summer.

By: Peter Goodman

Peter Goodman — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:25:25 +0000

apapercut

* retirees DON’T vote on the contract – only active members.
* a 300 member negotiating team that cut across the union by division, by gender, by age and by political caucus was heavily involved in the process.
* the response to the survey was the largest that the union ever had!!
* the October DA allowed members plenty of time to voice opinions – it was a huge crowd.
* this afternoon delegates will have the opportunity to raise questions and voice opinions.
* I know for a fact that Randi is not responsible for today’s lousy weather, she may be powerful, but not that powerful.

By: mvplab

mvplab — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:13:48 +0000

Educat, You have the dates wrong. Nov 8 is the DA when delegates can review the Memorandum of Agreement and either recommend it to go before the membership for ratification or to turn it down and send the negotiating team back to the table. That ratification vote should take a few weeks.

By: Educat

Educat — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:02:40 +0000

ratificatation by membership nov.8?? wow! very speedy indeed. however, i remember the last deal we were told it would take WEEKS for it to reach membership ( till after the election). we all suspected a game was being played, maybe this confirms it?