You can count on The Chief-Leader, New York City’s independent civil service weekly, and its brainy editor Richard Steier for some of the most informed analysis of municipal collective bargaining.
An unsigned editorial entitled “UFT Panel’s Public Service” in the Sept. 23 issue of the newspaper argues that the independent fact-finders’ report for the UFT contract offers a framework to get to a fair deal.
The editorial makes two key points about the report that have often gotten lost in the debate raging in the city tabloids and the blogosphere:
1) The fact-finders set out to craft proposals that would be in the best interest of New York City schoolchildren and the public.
2) UFT President Randi Weingarten deserves kudos for not seeking generous pay hikes for incumbent members at the expense of future hires, an exchange that was a pernicious feature of nearly every other municipal contract in this bargaining round. Her laudable stance, however, meant the fact-finders had to look for trade-offs elsewhere in order to give UFT members more than the DC 37 pattern of 4.17 percent over three years.
After itemizing the various recommendations, the editorial contends that the UFT did not get everything it wanted under the proposal, but the city would also have to pay more than it wanted without getting dollar-for-dollar savings.
“It’s time for both sides to use this solid road map for where the contract should be to get to their destination,” the editorial concluded. The editorial is reproduced below.
There is a distinct contrast between the winners under the nonbinding arbitration proposal for the United Federation of Teachers contract and the binding award issued three months ago for the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association. The PBA award was good for incumbent cops and for budget-minded city officials who were pleased that the 10-percent raises those incumbents got were significantly offset; by a sharply reduced pay scale for future officers; the UFT proposal if it becomes the blueprint for an actual deal would be good for the public.
There has already been some squawking by Teachers- at least some of whom are part of a dissident faction of the UFT- that the fact-finders’ recommendations require the union to give up too much in return for 11.4 percent in compounded raises over 37 months.
UFT President Randi Weingarten seemed less concerned by the griping from within than the silence from Mayor Bloomberg’s end of the conversation. Notwithstanding the fact that Labor Commissioner Jim Hanley has apparently been reaching out to her about the proposal, she clearly wants some sign that City Hall shares her feeing that, while not perfect, the panel’s recommendations are a good starting point for a deal.
It might seem that the arbitrators frustrated the UFT’s hopes by using the District Council 37 contract, covering a three-year period, as a benchmark in deciding on the wage increase.
The panel used the 4.17 percent of the basic DC 37 increase not offset by productivity savings as its compass. It then swelled the package to 11.4 percent by, among other things, requiring Teachers to work three additional days—two just before Labor Day—and spend an extra 10 minutes per school day in intensive classroom instruction for the students who need it most, and changing regulations regarding both disciplinary procedures and where and how often Teachers can be assigned to additional duties.
For some Teachers, the extra two days just before the start of school will pose little hardship because they are already coming in that early to get their classroom ready. The additional 10 minutes of daily instruction also does not figure to greatly inconvenience Teachers.
The disciplinary changes include extended suspensions without pay for Teachers charged with having a sexual relationship with a student or other minor. Right now, the longest a Teacher in such circumstances can be suspended is two months; after that, under the current contract, they return to work until they are convicted
Frankly, neither the union nor the great majority of its members benefited from the old setup, which was easy pickings for editorial writers looking to trash the UFT. The arbitrators proposed the protection that makes the indefinite suspension acceptable: in cases where a Teacher is exonerated, he or she will receive full back pay for the time on suspension, and unsubstantiated charges will be expunged from the individuals’ files.
The fact-finders also proposed ending seniority transfers, under which senior Teachers and those being “excessed” from their jobs at one school could move into positions held by new Teachers somewhere else. In addition to tougher penalties against alleged sex offenders, this had been a priority of Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, who wanted to be able to keep good young instructors in place.
The recommendations would also give Principals greater flexibility in assigning Teachers to cafeteria or hallway patrols and in having them “cover” the classrooms of absent colleagues. This, too, was a priority for Mr. Klein.
The raises are backloaded, and implemented on a somewhat delayed basis, compared to the DC 37 deal and the PBA award, which covered only two years. The first hike of 2 percent would not take effect until the end of the first year, the second one of 3.5 percent would not be in effect until the end of the deal’s second year, and the final 5.5 percent raise would be implemented midway through the third year, this Dec. 1. Those delays and the fact that the biggest increase is prospective mean the back pay owed to UFT members would amount to far less than the $13,000 or more that PBA veterans received; by the union’s estimate,senior Teachers would get $3,500 in retroactive money, and a third-year Teacher would be receiving about $1,700.
But Ms. Weingarten’s intent was not to get generous pay hikes for incumbent members at the expense of future hires, and the panel honored her wishes. By doing so, it spared the city the future recruitment problems that it will almost certainly have as a result of the PBA award, in a case where union President Pat Lynch made clear he was willing to sacrifice the unborn to take care of officers already on the job.
The union clearly didn’t get everything it wanted, and grater generosity in areas like bonuses for working in hard-to-staff subjects and tougher schools, as well as for lead Teachers, made it into the panel’s proposal as needs to be addressed if and when the money from Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision is finally available.
The city under the proposal would have to pay more than it wanted without getting dollar-for-dollar savings. But Mr. Klein and Mayor Bloomberg from the outset emphasized the need for greater powers in the areas of discipline and Teacher assignments knowing those gains couldn’t be measured strictly in dollars.
It’s time for both sides to use this solid road map for where the contract should be to get to their destination.
44 Comments:
1 NYC Educator
· Sep 22, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Screw their ignorant souls. 6 periods a day, plus lunchroom duty, plus 10 minutes, plus 3 days, plus no appeal to letter in your file, plus 12 free coverages…
How dare the UFT present this as a “fair deal.”
2 NYC Educator
· Sep 22, 2005 at 4:23 pm
It’s nice to know the UFT is “on the public’s side.” It’s my fond hope that one day they’ll come to the teachers’ side as well.
3 Ms. Demeanor
· Sep 22, 2005 at 5:11 pm
The editorial says the report provides a roadmap to a fair deal. No one is saying that the UFT would accept it without some changes.
The UFT leadership is fighting for the best deal it can get for teachers, but we can’t wish away reality. A terrible wage pattern of 4.17 percent over three years was set by DC 37 in this bargaining round and the fact-finders concluded that the UFT, like every other municipal union out there, has got to use that as a benchmark.
What do you think of the choices that the other unions made? Would you sacrifice the well-being of future teachers to enrich yourself?
And shouldn’t we consider the impact of the fact-finders’ proposed changes on the children we teach? If we don’t, then our critics have every right to dismiss us as just another special interest group.
But let’s not forgot that this entire debate is academic if we can’t get the city to the bargaining table to even discuss the report.
That should be the focus of everyone in the UFT right now.
4 institutional memory
· Sep 22, 2005 at 5:21 pm
It’s time to stop posturing as though there’s any possibility of squeezing a “fair deal” out of the Bloomberg administration. There is absolutely, positively no chance of that.
If we accept what will ultimately be offered, we’ll get a mediocre new deal. If we reject it, we’ll keep the old deal. And, if we’re totally, mindlessly, militantly obstinate, we’ll get the sh** kicked out of us. If you don’t understand this, you’re in deep denial. Me, I’m not suicidal.
Face it: we’re in the worst possible bargaining position. Our best strategy is to cut our losses, either accept what they offer or refuse it, and remember that revenge is a dish best taken cold.
5 NYC Educator
· Sep 22, 2005 at 5:58 pm
As easy as it is for the writer of this shallow, blatant propaganda to underestimate our intelligence and self-righteously defend the bilge that each of the 100,000 UFT members pays $991 per year for, I never suggested sacrificing the “well-being of future teachers” to enrich myself.
It is she who suggests we sacrifice the well being of not only future, but current teachers as well.
And if we “have got to” use 4.17 over three years as a benchmark, what the hell do we need you for? We are better off with nothing. And the idiotic pattern you establish in this and the past contract will only be replicated in the next. You have no foresight whatsoever.
You’re selling our rights for a pittance. You value our time not at all. If you had any shame, you’d be ashamed of yourself.
6 letter in the file
· Sep 22, 2005 at 5:58 pm
That unsigned editorial is nowhere near as damaging as an opinion piece entitled, “The Teacher-Pay Myth,” written by Jay P. Greene & Marcus Winters from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, which appears on page 37 of the September 22nd New York Post:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost_teacher_pay_myth.htm
Mr. Greene and Mr. Winters make the ridiculous assertion:
“But, if we make the generous assumption that the average teacher in New York works the maximum 6.6 hours a day allowed by the union contract for the full 181 school days, that works out to $44.38 an hour.”
Next, they “justify” their statement with the following train of “logic”:
“So, if teachers are underpaid, then workers in other professions are badly underpaid, too. But there’s no clamor to raise the pay of computer scientists, dentists or engineers.
But don’t teachers spend a great deal of time grading papers and creating lesson plans while away from school? Some do — but the comparisons here are still fair — because other professionals do work away from the office, too. Engineers and computer scientists are certainly no strangers to long nights working at home.
Nor do teachers spend all of their time at school in the classroom. In fact, teachers spend fewer hours actually instructing students than many recognize. Stanford’s Terry Moe worked with data straight from the nation’s largest teacher union’s own data — and found that the average teacher in a department setting (that is, where students have different teachers for different subjects) was in the classroom for fewer than 3.9 hours out of the 7.3 hours at school each day.
With several hours set aside at school for course-planning and grading, it strains plausibility that on average teachers must spend more hours working at home than do other professionals.”
# # #
Read the full opinion piece in today’s Post or at the above link, and share your thoughts here. If anyone would like to contact Mr. Greene and Mr. Winters directly, here’s the information:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/greene.htm
jpg@uark.edu
mwinters@manhattan-institute.org
Here is some interesting information about Mr. Greene contained in a July 28th article in the Arkansas Times:
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=cd9493de-5c3d-4466-a8f0-b8d3bab24024
Mr. Greene has written a new book. Has anyone read it?
http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/5208.htm
7 Kombiz
· Sep 22, 2005 at 6:28 pm
I’m sorry to jump in here, the article above is the editorial, it was written by The Chief, which is the major newspaper covering labor in NYC. One assumes that like The NY Times Editorials it’s the editorial opinion of the paper. It was a different perspective and since the Chief doesn’t have a website, Demeanor decided to reprint the article in full since they’ve been covering all the contract negotiations the city has engaged in.
I’ve talked to several commenters here over email, including NYC Educator and while I think some back and forth is going to be par for the course, I don’t think that he (NYC Educator) was implying that newer teachers should be cut short for more veteran members. From my understanding the benchmark is set every negotiating round by the first contract signed.
As far as the article linked above, I think someone is writing a reply to the article for the blog.
8 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Sep 22, 2005 at 9:59 pm
I do not like the new contract at all. Indeed the more you are in it on some level the worse it is. Our starting proposed salary would be close to competitive with surrounding districkts. But our top salary less than $91,000 is no where near the surrounding burbs. Brown v Bd of Education occured over fifty years ago. Why can’t the Black children’s teachers be paid as well as those of white children in very nearby burbs.
9 firebrand
· Sep 22, 2005 at 11:25 pm
shouldhavegonetomeds….
do we have to got THERE? There are plenty of black children in the ‘burbs being educated by teachers with high salaries there are plenty of white children in NYC being educated by teachers with the salaries we have…go to Townsend Harris, Edward R Murrow, Benjamin Cardozo High School and take a good looka around. Then go to South Huntington High, Elmont Memorial Junior and Senior High,Freeport, Hempstead High etc. Those schools are predominantly black and latino or at least close to being half black and latino in terms of student body. The teachers there clean up compared to us.
The color of the children we educate has nothing to do with our salaries…stop trying to make it a racial issue.
It’s an ego issue. Klein and Bloomberg want to leave (be it in ’06 or 10) with the reputation of having busted up one of the strongest unions the city has ever had. They don’t give a fat rat’s as to what color the membership is or what color people the the people they serve are.
I’m surprised an educator would say something like that.
10 redhog
· Sep 23, 2005 at 6:31 am
Since this post is about the UFT and the public, it is a fit time to spotlight the perceptions about the union held by persons other than our members. In this case it’s Diane Ravitch, the great historian. (See http://risaac.blogs.com/blog/2005/09/ravitch_and_the.html)
11 mets6986
· Sep 23, 2005 at 12:08 pm
The assault on public education and their teacher unions is just beginning. As I listen to harsh, oftentimes nasty critics within the union I imagine the smiles on the faces of other enemies. If you think that an extra “ten minutes” or an extra “ten coverages” is worth destroying the union you are sorely mistaken.
I doubt the City will offer us anything … and we will have to grapple over whether a strike is the “answer.”
Private alternatives to public schools are starting all over America … vouchers and tax credits and charter schools … and NYC is NOT immune.
If we strike will we alienate our core constituency, the parents of our children? If we live under the current contract can we effectively thwart attacks on public schools teachers/unions?
In the near term the answer is to defeat Bloomberg. Are you willing to spend the hours necessary? Typing on this blog and bitching in general is oral *********** … the union has six weeks to create a movement to topple the tyrannical Bloomberg … are you ready?
12 The Wake-Up Call
· Sep 23, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Ravitch and the UFT
Read what Diane Ravitch has to say! SheÂ’s AmericaÂ’s best-known and respected educational researcher and historian. She is independent and works for nobody but the truth. Author of seven best-selling books and more than five hundred articles publishe…
13 NYC Educator
· Sep 23, 2005 at 3:38 pm
I’m sure Ms. Ravitch, whom I admire greatly, is absolutely correct.
In fact, I agree with all of what she says.
Unfortunately, that fails to take into consideration this piece of crap contract for which the UFT, inexplicably, contemplates striking.
And no matter how much you write, you fail to address the:
-12 coverages
-3 days
-lack of remedy to vindictive principals
-30 minute class, which will inevitably become a sixth period in the next contract
-lunchroom and potty patrol, hardly a worthwhile activity for teachers
and whatever other goodies I forgot to mention.
If you think Klein will give up one of these things, you haven’t been paying attention for the last four years.
14 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Sep 24, 2005 at 10:57 am
firebrand,
Right after 9/11 George W Bush started talking about Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. He repeated it over and over again and over and over again. Karl Rove his brilliant strategist orchestrated this. And it worked. He got the war he wanted at least and to a good chunk of the public it doesn’t even matter that there were no weapons of mass destruction even if close to 2,000 American soldiers are now dead. Saddam wasn’t nice, never mind that there were and are far worst dictators all over the world that the U. S. loves.
Of course, there is much truth to what you say. Yet, the reality is many people still see the burbs as more white, than city schools. They really don’t necessarily know a Wyandanch from a Sayville per se or even a Bayside from a Bayshore. I always emphasize the racial disparity in conversation and invariably when put that way the other party always cedes NYC teachers should be paid more often noting the worse working conditions as well. It doesn’t hurt either when you highlight the mayor is a billionaire and Jewish and would never send a fsmily member to public schools no matter what he says. Ultimately, no one thinks it is fair a teacher in Great Neck gets a great salary and a teacher in Little Neck gets a little salary.
Again, the veritably wise person knows you can learn from your adversaries. A la George W. Bush if you repeat something over and over again it is true in enough people’s minds to make a difference.
Frankly, too, there is a lot more verity to noting the racial disparity that still does exist between NYC and many of the higher paying but nearby burbs than there ever was to Mr. Bush’s canard about WMD, a total out and out lie, with no basis in reality at all.
It’s our top salaries that are a real disgrace. Nothing passed MA plus 30, nothing passed 22 years. Syossett a largely white burb to take but one example has a top of $120,000 RACE LIKE SIZE MATTERS
I hope this response offers you food for thought
15 steadyeddieg
· Sep 26, 2005 at 12:42 pm
It’s about time that Diane Ravitch, Unity Caucus and Ms. Demeanor get full time jobs in the classroom.
Folks-Salary raises shall mean more money for the same work done.
It is outrageous that the UFT brings such proposals to its membership. Teachers shouldn’t have to give up what was fought for in the 1960s.
How can you attract teachers with such working conditions that are proposed? The few veteran teachers left will retire and the new people will leave in record numbers.
To the moron above, who brought race into the issue, you are a fool! This has nothing to do with the situation. If you really feel like that, please resign. I can imagine what your classroom is like.
If the membership foolishly votes for a contract like this, they deserve everything they get.
Wake up fellow colleagues. Time for new leadership!
16 NYC Educator
· Sep 26, 2005 at 3:46 pm
I agree 100% that all those folks talking about the advantages of this contract ought to get jobs in the classroom. I’ve spent the last few days blitzing guidance counselors to do program changes they promised weeks ago. My ESL students are reluctant to speak for themselves, and their parents, knowing little Englsih, can’t help them either.
How dare the UFT endorse a plan to send me back into the lunchroom. Anyone who tells you that’s a valuable service is lying. Are we teachers? Or are we just here to break up food fights.
My principal is big on “dress for success,” which works well for me because I always wear a tie. When they put me in the lunchroom again, I’m gonna buy a pair of overalls and come to work dressed like a hog farmer.
The only difference will be the hog farmer probably gets paid more than me.
17 fromthemainland
· Sep 27, 2005 at 7:58 pm
I don’t know to whom NYC Educator refers when he says, “I agree 100% that all those folks talking about the advantages of this contract ought to get jobs in the classroom.” All I keep hearing is that there is a single benefit to the recommendations of the fact-finders – to provide a way to jumpstart talks again. That’s providing Bloomberg and Klein are willing and serious, of course. I have no faith in either of them. Bloomberg should be booted – and Klein goes with him! By the way, NYC Educator can wear any clothes he wants into the voting booth to do that!
18 thedude
· Sep 29, 2005 at 12:41 am
There are plenty of Unity members in classrooms. Others spent many years in tough classrooms. I spent 33! Randi simply wanted to use the report to get the city into meaningful negotiations. At no time at the DA did she say that she agreed with the entire report. In fact, she has regularly and publicly, often stated that we lose many teachers to the suburbs and elsewhere because of the working conditions and pay disparity that exists between NYC teachers and others.
19 WebMachiavelli
· Oct 1, 2005 at 12:43 am
I recently had a conversation with someone who was part of management and he informed me your benefits are 42 percent of your income. Is this true?
20 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 1, 2005 at 2:14 am
The fact remains if you do a regression analyis for those who know what a regression analysis is ( I know NYC has a shortage of licensed math teachers) and how to do one reasonably well, the more Caucasion the school district in the 100 miles or so surrounding New York City the higher the salary and the better the working conditions. There is a real correlation there. And yes some integrated districts in the burbs also get paid better than we, but not as well as you Cold Spring Harbors, your East Hamptons,etc.
And don’t tell me those places are richer. We are the only place in the US that has million dollar studio apartments and more millions per capita than anywhere else in the region to boot
21 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 1, 2005 at 2:21 am
Webmsvhiavelli,
We do have good benefits for now and your question is fair game. However, if you really understood economics you would know that school aides, paras, janitors, etc. get most of the same benefits teachers do. Hence a teacher doesn’t get five cents extra health insuracne than a school aide, even though a college degree and Master’s today needed for the teacher’s job but not the aide’s could cost close ot $150.000!!
Of course too police and fire personnel with just high school diplomas get every benefit teachers get without needing to spend any of the requisite money on degrees. Now even if you don’t have an economics degree from MIT you can see who gets the better deal by far.
22 WebMachiavelli
· Oct 2, 2005 at 3:49 am
shouldhavegonetomeds
I’m not going to get into any sort of discussion about what an officer or fire fighter get paid but I am a little curious as to what those aides are getting paid. I guess I need to call up some people and find out.
Okay so here are soem basic questions I am wanting an answer to. As you contract stand now.
How many personal days are you paid for?
How many sick days do you get?
How many days are you required to work in a twelve month period?
I’m sure there are some things I am missing on asking here so please feel free to detail for me the exact number of days you contract requires of you to put in at the “office”…thanks
23 QueensHSDean
· Oct 3, 2005 at 5:41 pm
OK……its looks like we finally got something….but what??
Is this “15%” in return for NO retroactive pay? And for how long is this “new agreement” for? 4 to 5 years? So the next Mayor in 2010 have the headache of negotiating the next deal…
I wanna see the fine print and details in all this….. More to follow..
Let’s hope this is something we can actually vote on….
24 paulrubin
· Oct 3, 2005 at 5:47 pm
I’m sure we all don’t have the full story though why it’s on the radio and on the newspaper web sites but nothing here or uft.org is disgusting. That can only mean they’re hiding something nasty.
According the the consensus of the various newspaper articles, looks like the arbitration award plus 15 months for 3.something % more. Looks like one less staff development day than the proposal. No mention of coverages. No mention of not paying teachers just for being acused of molestation. No mention of changes in retroactive pay which were already unacceptable since year one is essentially a zero and year two was going to be 2 therefore diddlysquat retro money. Beyond that it looks like the rest of the givebacks are in there so unless there’s a pleasant surprise like more retroactive monies, I fail to see how this agreement is acceptable but the arbitration award is not unless you operate under the optimstic notion that we’re going to see another contract during the Bloomberg administration. I’m under no such notion which means 3 years of nothing after this “thing”. But again, let’s see the details. Maybe it’s not so bad.
25 NYC Educator
· Oct 3, 2005 at 6:58 pm
The Times says 3 days. I think the 2 days fails to count the holiday that will be devoted to additional BS from Tweed.
The increase is 14.25, and becomes 15 when compounded.
26 firebrand
· Oct 3, 2005 at 8:02 pm
you did..shouldhavegonetomeds…you did…thank you
27 QueensHSDean
· Oct 3, 2005 at 9:57 pm
Well….goodbye Brooklyn/Queens Day..
the only perk for teaching in the outer-boroughs is now gone…..for what? An extra day of PD? Gimme a break! I’d rather do 5 more free coverages than lose that day off….
28 firefly
· Oct 3, 2005 at 10:16 pm
I was never quite sure what Brooklyn/Queens Day was for? Anyone know? I work in Manhattan so it has always been a school day for me…theis time the kids won’t be in attendance and we’ll be bored at PD. Better than coverages to me.
29 tfbob
· Oct 3, 2005 at 11:50 pm
Teacher’s Contract = fuzzy math = Bullsh
The contract is fuzzy math. We get 15% over 4 years(3.75 a year), starting from when the last contract expired. For new teachers, about $42,000/yr accounts for the full 15% raise.
The UFT Prez obviously sold out! We have to work 10+ days extra (adding all those 10 minutes and PD days, and school days) and lunch duty, bathroom or hall duty for a little more than $3000, which is supposedly our raise. Raise? NO WAY, it’s MORE WORK!
Somehow this supposed to be a good deal… Thanks Bloomberg for nothing. Voting for Ferrer can’t change things now… I have trouble voting for either one.
Angry New Teacher
30 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 4, 2005 at 12:11 am
Once upon a time when our schools were more Waspy -there really was such a time-Brooklyn Queens Day was a day for students to celebrate the end of their religious instruction for the year.This was not unusual. If anyone knows the story of the General Slocum, the boat was largely a church outing. The tragic fire that ensued was immortalized forever in James Joyce “Ulysees”
One of the sad ironies of what Kieinberg has done to the school is robbed them of much intellectual capital as experiencewd teachers flee i horror. Hence it is a lot easier to find a teacher today who is startled to hear that New York was once a Dutch County with a thriving slave business than it is to find one who has a clue about the General Slocum.
Just for fun next time you are talking to a new teacher, ask them how Wall Street got its name or for that matter how Times Square got its name. you might try asking one what an automat was. I am really saddened by the plethora of tryos in our school who however well intended have essentially no knowledge about New York’s great history.
31 paulrubin
· Oct 4, 2005 at 1:07 am
It’s actually pretty amusing. The DOE now has to attract new teachers with one of the lowest starting salaries in the region AFTER the raise to a job that becomes that much more undesirable in every way. Good luck. And they wonder why it’s hard to keep veteran teachers in the problem schools. They’re lucky to keep warm bodies.
32 firebrand
· Oct 4, 2005 at 7:00 am
glad you can laugh Paul. This fifteen year veteran is glad she had one year of law school under her belt before she started teaching. She will go back to law school and leave this bull**** in the dust.
If I am going to work ninety hour weeks I will be paid well for it.
33 bartholian78
· Oct 4, 2005 at 8:22 am
This is an outrage! Randi has done what all the veteran teachers I know said she would – SOLD US OUT TO BLOOMBERG! Make no mistake about it, he wants to destroy this union and she is helping him reach that ultimate goal with this contract. At the same time she has the insolence to make statements to the press assuring this will be ratified. Does she remember that we pay dues which pay HER salary? Does she remember that we have the right to vote on a contract that will affect our lives and families? She should be begging her teachers to ratify this garbage that she has brought to our table, not placating Bloomberg by offering an endorsement by default.
Urge your delegate and every teacher you know to VOTE THIS DOWN! After you do the real math (calculate how much you will actually be making an hour with added instruction time plus lost days, include cost of living increases since our last contract and expected increases over the next four years) you will see we are getting nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, while giving up plenty in return. This agreement is neither fair nor adequate if we are to maintain a decent standard of living in the current economy.
We should vote this insult of a labor agreement down so we can work to get rid of our true problem, Randi Weingarten, and the pathetically weak, ineffective leadership she has provided during her tenure as our president. We need a strong leader who is willing to fight this anti-union, corporate-minded administration, and who is on OUR SIDE, then we stand a chance of getting what we truly deserve. If we don’t stand and fight now our union (and the NYC public schoool system) is doomed. Let this contract be the beginning of the end for Randi’s presidency, not our union. She is a disgrace and she has hurt those she is sworn to protect.
34 Ronrego
· Oct 4, 2005 at 9:48 am
Randi is the new “Stanley Hill”…a sellout to the Mayor.
How sad it was to see Joel Klein’s arm around Randi Weingarten in today’s New York Times.
15 % over 4 years, we were working on 19% over 3. More work time. Another 10 minutes a day?
What kind of negotiator is she.
Let’s get this straight…Bloomberg stalls for nearly 2 1/2 year, then she gives in on back pay for the teachers, settles for 14.25 % over 4 years (which works out to only 3+% a year increase, slightly more than a standard of living increase) and gives the mayor an election year boost in the process.
Who is she working for? Randi, you have done the damage. Your time is past. It is time for you to go.
She even lets ratification go until after the election, so Bloomberg is assured of good news…and won’t have to see a split vote.
Randi, you are a sellout. It’s time to resign, you have shown yourself unable to negotiate properly and keep the union together.
35 Frank48
· Oct 4, 2005 at 12:17 pm
When you calculate total time increase ( 4.4% ) with total yearly pay increase ( 3.75 % ) – we’re getting screwed on money.
And THAT”S WITHOUT ANY OF THE GIVEBACKS !!!
THEN to remove our grievance rights in a mgt. hierarchy which has adopted JACK WELCH OF ALL PEOPLE AS A GURU !!!
We are getting SCREWED BIGTIME HERE !!!
We’re walking into a professioanl Auschwitz if we ratify this contract. ! VOTE NO!! Keep what you have, vote Ferrer, and get rid of “RANDI” – that Smiling Jack of a con artist.
36 nycteach
· Oct 4, 2005 at 1:33 pm
To add to this disaster they call an agreement.
1. Work and I mean Work an extra 371/2 minutes per day, without being paid = give back!
2. Let the principal choose assignments for teachers? = abuse!
3. Not being able to grieve a letter in your file? = sellout!
While I was in the U.S.P.O. our union sold out to management and abuse exploded in the P.O. Now that randi has been bought out by bloomberg, just wait and see what happens to us. Oh they will tell you that they will “protect” you from abuse but they won’t and they can’t. I only hope that the 30 pieces of silver that they took isn’t to heavy for them to carry around. DUMP RANDI NOW!
37 WebMachiavelli
· Oct 4, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Wow what a bunch of whiners. You have one of the best benefit packages of any group and you still think you are underpaid. Seriously most lawyers starting out don’t have that going for them. Get a grip already.
38 firefly
· Oct 4, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Is anone else here at all insulted by the fact that we have no real thread to respond to converning yesterday’s deal? Is it surreal or is it just a purely manipulative play on the part of the UFT to keep us from discussing it. At first I thought no one was home at the blog, but saw that just an hour or so ago the site administrator scrapped some comments on a new teacher thread for being “off topic”.
Well, Mr. Admin Man….I would actually like to see the entire proposed agreement (not just the “highlights” as edited by the UFT on the web site) AND would like to know how my collegues feel. Why is this site preventing us from communicating about it?
39 devils_advocate
· Oct 4, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Perhaps because the union is closed (just like NYC Schools) for Rosh Hashanah.
40 firefly
· Oct 4, 2005 at 8:05 pm
I would agree with you devils advocate, but the site admin was here at 3 pm to delete some messages about the contract that were left on another thread. Also, what about last night? I don’t know but this sudden and yet to be ratified contract agreement between the mayor and Randi IS big news isn’t it? I’m just continually disappointed that I have to get my real news from the NY Times and not this web site.
41 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 4, 2005 at 8:26 pm
The problem isn’t the contract per se, considering the economic times and what is happening to other unions. That could be almost bearable! What gets me is that we have given Bloomberg almost our torturer and jailer for the last few years a de facto endorsement for a raise of less than three and half per cent per year: remember the agreement covers 4.3333 years! How much have tolls, subway fares, fuel, etc. increased since our last raise? How much do they go up over 4.333 years?
I”ll vote no on the contract and a great big yes vote for Freddy from me!!!!
42 bartholian78
· Oct 5, 2005 at 9:10 am
This is an outrage! Randi has done what all the veteran teachers I know said she would – SOLD US OUT TO BLOOMBERG! Make no mistake about it, he wants to destroy this union and she is helping him reach that ultimate goal with this contract. At the same time she has the insolence to make statements to the press assuring this will be ratified. Does she remember that we pay dues which pay HER salary? Does she remember that we have the right to vote on a contract that will affect our lives and families? She should be begging her teachers to ratify this garbage that she has brought to our table, not placating Bloomberg by offering an endorsement by default.
Urge your delegate and every teacher you know to VOTE THIS DOWN! After you do the real math (calculate how much you will actually be making an hour with added instruction time plus lost days, include cost of living increases since our last contract and expected increases over the next four years) you will see we are getting nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, while giving up plenty in return. This agreement is neither fair nor adequate if we are to maintain a decent standard of living in the current economy.
We should vote this insult of a labor agreement down so we can work to get rid of our true problem, Randi Weingarten, and the pathetically weak, ineffective leadership she has provided during her tenure as our president. We need a strong leader who is willing to fight this anti-union, corporate-minded administration, and who is on OUR SIDE, then we stand a chance of getting what we truly deserve. If we don’t stand and fight now our union (and the NYC public schoool system) is doomed. Let this contract be the beginning of the end for Randi’s presidency, not our union. She is a disgrace and she has hurt those she is sworn to protect.
I am voting NO to this contract and NO to Mayor Bloomberg and as soon as she is up for re-election, assuming she doen’t resign in disgrace as she shouild, NO to Randi!!!
43 Spock
· Oct 6, 2005 at 2:37 am
Baritholian76: Did you read the fact finding? I think Randi did a great job considering what the fact finders recommended and also in view of what other unions got from the city. You can vote how you want, but I will be telling anyone will listen to vote YES! The people I have spoken to think the offer has pluses and minuses but it offers more on the positive side. Thanks for your hard work Randi!
44 firebrand
· Oct 8, 2005 at 4:44 pm
well you ARE from a different planet, aren’t you?