[Editor's note: UFT President Randi Weingarten sent this letter to Mayor Bloomberg on Jan. 4 objecting to his inclusion of teachers in his plan to reduce by 20 percent the number of parking permits issued to all city employees.]
Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
It was deeply troubling to learn – through media coverage – of your plan to reduce by 20 percent the number of parking permits issued to all city employees.
On the numerous occasions we have raised the need for more parking for teachers, we have been repeatedly told that this is a collective bargaining issue. If increasing parking availability is a bargaining issue, then clearly, reduction is as well. Now you have apparently chosen, by fiat, to move forward a plan that would penalize the hardworking men and women who teach our city’s kids.
Teachers in New York City public schools receive permits that enable them to park on a portion of their school block, during school hours only. Taking away these permits at a time when we’re making strides to attract the best and the brightest to teaching (the NYC education workforce is the highest-qualified it’s been since the fiscal crisis of the 1970s) makes absolutely no sense. Many city schools are difficult to reach by public transportation, many teachers travel between schools and available parking is clearly one incentive to attract teachers to high-needs schools.
Teachers do not clog areas such as lower Manhattan. Teachers are not abusers of parking permits, and to publicly suggest that they are is deeply troubling. Holding abusers of parking privileges accountable for their actions should not be done at the expense of teachers whose jobs are hard enough already.
I urge you to reconsider your position and would like to meet with you on this as soon as possible.
Randi Weingarten
UFT President
31 Comments:
1 MichaelB
· Jan 7, 2008 at 5:14 pm
While I’m not surprised Randi is demanding to negotiate this issue, I’d feel a bit better about this letter if it were accompanied by a statement of support for congestion pricing and a pledge to help it pass. Otherwise, the UFT is helping to defend a disastrous status quo. This isn’t going to help our public image.
Automobile traffic has terrible effects on urban neighborhoods and the children who live in them. Teachers who drive – even those who need to do so – are part of a very serious problem.
Furthermore, as a non-driving UFT member, here’s my beef: If free parking is a collective bargaining issue, and therefore a form of monetary compensation, where’s my piece of the pie? Shouldn’t the rest of us receive transit subsidies or bicycle vouchers? Why are drivers the only ones rewarded?
Finally, a twenty-percent reduction in permits is hardly drastic. I’ve known many teachers who commute by mass transit from places from where other teachers insist they must drive.
2 Schoolgal
· Jan 7, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Why is Randi surprised by this action? It goes with all our other givebacks.
Why a teacher chooses to drive is not the business of government or others. Why is this reduction aimed at teachers? How about police and firefighters?
As an elementary school teacher, I am always hauling charts, plants, decorations and tons of paperwork with me. Last January I had to purchase a new carpet for my classroom. Was I suppose to lug that on a train? I live in a 2-fare zone, and my school is not that close to the station. I need to take a bus and two trains to get there. The days I do take mass transit, it takes an hour to travel a few miles away.
Even with parking permits, teachers do not always find a spot. Custodial and lunchroom personnel arrive before we do and take up spots. Many teachers arrive before 7am just to get a spot.
Yet there is one whole block where no parking is allowed to 4pm. That is suppose to be for buses, yet I have seen buses double park in front of our entrance too.
Teachers in the suburbs do not have to worry. Spots come with the job. We, on the other hand, are not treated with the same respect. Let’s hope that all new school construction comes with appropriate parking lots.
I also believe in transit subsidies, but believe congestion pricing will put a lot of small-sized companies that deliver their products and services out of business. Other solutions should be investigated.
Let’s call this action for what it really is–anti-teacher!
3 MichaelB
· Jan 7, 2008 at 6:57 pm
The reduction is for all city agencies, cops and firefighters included.
Traffic congestion adds a lot to the cost of doing business in the city. Small businesses would benefit from the reductions in traffic.
4 MichaelB
· Jan 7, 2008 at 7:08 pm
To make my last post clearer – I was referring to the reduction in traffic that would be caused by congestion pricing.
I raised the issue of congestion pricing because I’m concerned about traffic reduction. But let’s talk self-interest: Are we, as public employees, going to oppose a plan that directly places hundreds of millions of dollars in the city’s coffers while generating billions in increased economic activity?
5 Schoolgal
· Jan 7, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Not small businesses that need to make deliveries.
And even if the city did benefit financially, teachers never see it in their paychecks.
City workers are not respected under this plan. If anything, they should be exempt.
btw, does the B stand for Bloomberg?
6 R. Skibins
· Jan 7, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Dear MichaelB:
Where is your “piece of the pie,” you ask? Don’t you get the pre-tax TransitCheck?
As far as congestion pricing, studies show that there really won’t be much of a financial gain. Also, the high- asthma communities, such as Harlem and Bushwick, will see an increase in traffic as commuters will park there and take the subway into midtown and downtown Manhattan.
7 Civil Servant
· Jan 8, 2008 at 1:30 pm
How about trading parking permits for a bigger raise.
Similar to giving up the two work days before Labor Day for a raise.
8 MichaelB
· Jan 8, 2008 at 4:01 pm
R. Skibins,
I get the TransitCheck, but not because of our contract. Any employer, public or private, can participate in the plan.
As far is congestion pricing is concerned, there is no evidence that any neighborhoods will see an increase in traffic. Most of the arguments raised by opponents have been thoroughly debunked.
I hope our next contract does eliminate parking permits. We should ask for a comparable transportation subsidy that is equally distributed among all teachers. Those who want to use it to pay for parking can do so, others can use it for transit fares or bike expenses.
I think the UFT’s position on this issue makes us look a bit selfish to the transit-riding public that pays pay our salaries. Also, I’m a little disappointed no one from the union is weighing in here. Is Randi a global warming skeptic or are teachers simply not part of the solution? It seems that social responsibility is taking a back seat to narrow self-interest.
9 MichaelB
· Jan 8, 2008 at 8:00 pm
This issue is being discussed on Streetsblog. I hope these links work:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/01/08/at-ps-161-in-harlem-the-sidewalk-is-the-parking-lot/
http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/01/07/weingarten-teachers-are-not-abusers-of-parking-permits/
10 Schoolgal
· Jan 8, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Wow! There’s a blog written for people who hate car owners who happen to be teachers???
They make the Conservatives sound normal.
And all the misinformation.
“Teachers choose where they work”
No, we get appointed unless we are lucky enough to get an “in” with the principal.
Most new teachers and Fellows are assigned to the most hard-to-staff school in outer neighborhoods not near public transportation. And there is also a safety factor.
There was also misinformation on housing prices in NYC. These people should check out the Real Estate Section.
Many schools start at 7am, and as a person who claims to be a teacher, Michael should know that many HSs are now a multiple sessions. My school goes to 6pm due to after school programs.
And to deny police and firefighters the right to park when these people risk their lives for each and every one of us–totally nuts! btw, they also get assigned to where they work.
If teacher parking and where we live is such a problem, the answer is easy..
Get each of us our own limos.
11 RSchwaber
· Jan 9, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Dear Schoolgal,
On Jan. 7, 2008 you stated,”Last January I had to purchase a new carpet for my classroom. ”
As an employee, you should not be required to purchase anything for your classroom and certainly you should not be required to transport a carpet to your school.
If this is standard practice at your school, you should inform your Union rep. that this is unacceptable.
12 Schoolgal
· Jan 9, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I purchased it and lugged it to school, but we all used our TC money.
Mini-lessons require a carpet and our CL did not say otherwise.
The contract also states that every Spring the chapter meets to discuss cluster positions. Our CL decided against it because she felt the principal should decide that and has the power to do so. As a result we lost a position and the position the principal wanted no one applied for. So the least senior person got it.
Unfortunately their are many chapter leaders who ignore the rules to suit their purposes. Case in point: Many of the topics we wanted discussed at consultation were never brought up.
Instead we got a Union newsletter telling us we were very naughty, and if we missed any union meeting we did not have the right to find out what was discussed.
Her defense: She doesn’t want our principal to retire and upsetting her might lead to her leaving. Boo hoo.
13 Gotham Gazette - The Wonkster » Blog Archive » Parking Permits a Perk of the Job?
· Jan 10, 2008 at 10:56 am
[...] UFT blog Edwize reprinted Randi Weingarten’s letter to Mayor Bloomberg, objecting to his plan to reduce city-issued parking permits permits. [...]
14 Civil Servant
· Jan 10, 2008 at 11:21 am
Should parking permits really be a priority issue for us.
15 MichaelB
· Jan 10, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Schoolgal,
I don’t think Streetsblog is a blog for people who hate teachers who drive any more than Edwize is a blog for people who think an absence of parking lots adjacent to 19th Century, urban school buildings indicates a lack of “respect” for teachers. You didn’t really address any of the issues raised by the blogger.
In fact, I’m wondering where you found the quote “teachers choose where they work”. I looked at both sets of comments again and couldn’t find it.
Maybe this is the part of the post we should be discussing: “No one is proposing eliminating teachers’ permits. Rather, there just needs to be a more centralized and rational system for distributing parking permits based on real need. And there needs to be real enforcement. Hopefully Weingarten and the unions will realize that they are better off pushing for a parking “cash-out” law like California’s than fighting to maintain their oft-abused parking privilege.”
I’m willing to trade for cash my right to special parking privileges and I bet a lot of other members would, too. http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/cashout/cashout.htm
Let’s hope the UFT pursues a policy such as this one – one that benefits all members.
16 Schoolgal
· Jan 10, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Look at the comments again.
17 Civil Servant
· Jan 11, 2008 at 11:20 am
As Michael B said, “I’m willing to trade for cash my right to special parking privileges and I bet a lot of other members would, too. ”
I feel similarly that salary and matters such as class size and school safety should be of greater concern.
Other than Manhattan, there is probably a lot of on street parking available. Many teachers probably never use their permits anyway. I do not see any further disrespect other than what already exists.
18 Schoolgal
· Jan 11, 2008 at 2:36 pm
“Other than Manhattan, there is probably a lot of on street parking available. Many teachers probably never use their permits anyway.”
If this were true teachers at my school would not have to get there by 7:00 for school parking. Street parking is so hard to find that teachers are forced to shell out $100 for private parking. But I can understand why someone who supported the ‘05 givebacks for more money in his pocket would support this too.
19 Civil Servant
· Jan 11, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I never supported the ‘05 givebacks. If anything I still feel a loss over the 2 day loss pre Labor Day which was given back by us.
I am just concerned that this parking issue does not become a collective bargaining matter. It does not belong there,
In view of so many other issues that we have, I think this concern with parking is an unnecessary over reaction,
20 Schoolgal
· Jan 12, 2008 at 10:40 am
That’s your opinion. But for those of us that do drive and need the parking, it’s a giant giveback.
21 jd2718
· Jan 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Parking is a real issue in many of our outer borough schools as well.
Congestion pricing is akin to buying indulgences – driving in Manhattan below 60th street will become a luxury. Far better to close off more streets, more lanes, at more hours. Better for all drivers to bear the burden than to support a regressive tax.
The arguments about congestion pricing being revenue positive or negative, economic activity positive or negative, are silly. Congestion pricing is designed to decrease pollution, and it would do so. The supposition about people parking in Bushwick and Harlem is also silly.
In the meantime, many teachers do need to drive (better, carpool) to work. Cross-borough mass transportation often stinks. Teachers from outside the city often have no option, unless their school is convenient to the right railroad or bus station.
The system should be improved, but teachers should not be asked to bear the burden in the meantime.
Michael, your motivation seems genuine, but you are advocating bargaining away something other teachers use. You should not be doing this.
Finally, look at Schwaber’s comment, and click to see his Chapter Leader’s website. He’s right that teacher’s shouldn’t be buying supplies with Teacher’s Choice (or out of pocket!), but unfortunately the right option (getting administration to buy what it’s supposed to) often seems impossible where the chapter is weak or where the buy-er is used to just taking care of things on his/her own.
Jonathan
22 MichaelB
· Jan 13, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Jonathan,
I’m not proposing that we bargain the permits away, I’m merely suggesting that we trade them for something that will benefit all members equally.
I strongly disagree with your contention that congestion pricing would be regressive. Not only do drivers, on average, earn significantly more than the bus and subway riders who would benefit from congestion pricing, but virtually no poor people would pay the congestion charge. On the other hand, lots of poor people would benefit from the new revenues that would go to mass transit. Furthermore, the congestion charge wouuld not be a “tax”, but rather an easily avoidable user fee. 80% of those who would be affected have a mass transit option that would get them to their destinations within 10 minutes of their normal driving times.
There’s nothing “silly” about discussing the economic benefits of the plan. Are you familiar with the data?
Even better than the mayor’s plan is the Kheel plan, which was outlined in a Daily News Op-ed this week. For a $16 congestion fee, charged 24 hours a day, enough money would be raised to make buses and subways free. Think about how that would benefit the average public school family!
Schoolgal, I’m not sure why you expect us to be moved by the fact that some teachers pay $100 (monthly, I assume) for parking. That’s comparable to a monthly metrocard and much cheaper than taking the train from the suburbs.
23 jd2718
· Jan 13, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Michael,
when everyone gets charged the same, regardless of ability to pay, that’s regressive.
On the trip into Manhattan (not all bus and subway riders make that) mass transit users probably have an income comparable to that of drivers. I think you forgot the railroads. In lower middle class ring suburbs and outer borough neighborhoods, many are automobile dependent. Further, it is those who have lower paying jobs who are more likely to need to move from place to place within Manhattan.
Congestion pricing appeals most to those who can afford to pay it – it will keep others off the roads. It discriminates on the basis of wealth.
Reducing capacity (making streets pedestrian only, knocking out moving lanes for bike lanes, etc, etc) will force drivers to decide if they really can endure the delays. It discriminates on the basis of need.
I’ve got good teeth, but I won’t suggest that we trade away dental benefits. Why would you let Bloomberg play us against each other?
Jonathan
24 Civil Servant
· Jan 14, 2008 at 5:14 am
To All !!
Our health care costs have increased as per our labor agreements.
Our hours of work have increased as per our labor agreements.
Parking permits have been a privilege to some, not a right, and have never been subject to any labor agreement.
How we get to work is an individual choice, and should not be any part of any collective bargaining agreement.
To do so would minimize the importance of salary, class size and school safety.
25 MichaelB
· Jan 14, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Jonathan,
Bloomberg did not attempt to play us against one another. He simply responded to the demands made by opponents of congestion pricing, who argued that before proposing congestion charges, the mayor should reduce the number of parking permits given to city employees. The existence of these parking permits is widely accepted as the reason city employees are twice as likely to drive into the congestion zone as other workers, so this was not an unreasonable demand. In fact, those in favor of congestion pricing (business groups, environmentalists, advocates for the poor, transit advocates, unions, etc.) generally agreed with it.
It doesn’t matter if we agree on the meaning of the word “regressive” as long as we agree that congestion pricing would result in a downard transfer of wealth. If you don’t believe me that drivers make more than subway riders, look at the data: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/insidethebudget154.pdf
Reducing road capacity is a great way to reclaim public space. Unfortunately, without a pricing mechanism in place, such a plan would serve to worsen both congestion and pollution, the two problems the plan is intended to deal with.
Civil Servant: True, parking permits are a minor issue for teachers, but an important public policy issue. The city loses billions in economic activity each year due to traffic congestion. Parking permits are a big part of the problem.
26 Schoolgal
· Jan 14, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I think the point is that the city can take away teacher parking without ever having to address the important issues you bring up.
In fact, history has shown that they don’t care about those issues.
So to support any giveback, is, well giving in to givebacks.
27 jd2718
· Jan 15, 2008 at 7:14 am
Michael,
we do not agree about transit policy. We do not agree about congestion pricing transferring wealth.
You cite a report from William Street. It is self-serving (for the mayor and the wealthy, not you). Any congestion sort of study that does not use the cordon counts is iffy. And their data is aggregrated at the wrong level. It is a report written with a conclusion in mind (iow, politically motivated).
Reducing road capacity takes cars off the road. But then those that stay on stay on because they can tolerate delays (out of necessity), not because they can afford it.
Finally, most of our teachers, including those who drive, neither live nor work in the CBD. But outer borough parking around schools can be horrendous.
Jonathan
28 MichaelB
· Jan 15, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Jonathan,
I’m perplexed by your mistrust of census data. Could you elaborate? Not even the parking-industry front men who are leading the fight against congestion pricing have questioned these numbers.
29 jd2718
· Jan 15, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Michael,
most teachers neither live nor work in the CBD. Right?
Jonathan
30 MichaelB
· Jan 15, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Of course.
31 chaz
· Sep 21, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Please give me a break, the parking permit entitles us to park on school regulated days and times. How can that be abused? Think think, you can’t park in front of a hydrant or bus stop.
Leave a Comment