What’s up with the five Executive Board members who at this late date want to change the contract ratification election process that the Executive Board and the delegates overwhelmingly–80 to 20 per cent–approved on October 11?
What’s up with a resolution that they presented tonight for a vote at the Executive Board that called for space in the next New York Teacher when they knew full well that the next New York Teacher would be published after the election process was completed?
What’s up with some Executive Board members who want to usurp the democratic tradition of this union by trying to run roughshod over the will of the delegates and the rights of chapter leaders to conduct elections in schools?
You know what’s up? They’re trying to exploit these difficult times for working people for their own benefit not yours. They are trying to roil the waters for their own political purposes while the leadership has the constitutional obligation to represent the facts – the pluses and minuses, the gains and the tradeoffs and the repercussions of the decisions we as a union make.
Please read the Fact Sheet to get a quick overview of what the MOA contains.
Please read the Memorandum of Agreement in the New York Teacher or online at to make up your own mind. The full version of the facts is there!
And finally, take a look at the Salary Chart to see what you will be making by October 2006
35 Comments:
1 Chris J
· Oct 17, 2005 at 11:22 pm
After the DA, I’m not suprised to read any of this. It’s nice that someone is at least stopping the spin that lands into my mail box after an executive board meeting.
2 R. Skibins
· Oct 17, 2005 at 11:26 pm
What’s up with Unity trying to prevent democracy from being exercised within the UFT?
What’s up with Unity still claiming that the vote was 80-20, when it was really 60-40?
What’s up with Randi Weingarten negotiating a contract which tosses away our right to grieve letters in the file and “u” ratings? Which ends seniority and SBO transfers? Which fails to include a no layoff provision? Which extends the school day and school year, taking away OUR time, and further extending our working hours for more money, making us the equivelent of McDonald’s workers? Which returns us to hallway and potty patrol, and returns us to the lunchroom? Which further infringes upon seniority rights by in effect placing teachers in schools which are closed out of work, regardless of how many years they have been employed?
I did read the MOA and the propogandized “fact sheet,” as have thousands of others, who oppose this contract agreement made between lawyers masquerading as educators.
3 cornell
· Oct 17, 2005 at 11:36 pm
What’s up with those who can’t believe their eyes when they see the picture of the yes vote at the DA?
What’s up with the tired arguments from THEM?
What’s up with the fact that THEY don’t have a plan?
What’s up with comparing our work to a McDonald’s worker who would eat a hundred burgers a day to get a 15 % increase in pay?
4 southbxda
· Oct 17, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Skibins – I was at the DA, where people opposed to the contract shouted down the Randi. I was also there when the people opposed to the contract shouted at two of the people making the affirmative. I was in the back of the auditorium when people were shouting facsist for fun. I also saw both votes, and 80 percent is a conservative estimate. You can propagandize all you want, but none of us want to deal with trying to wrestle a contract after the election. In fact, If you want to make a difference vote for Ferrer. We’ll be handing out literature on Friday afternoon.
5 Chaz
· Oct 18, 2005 at 12:09 am
What’s up?
1. What’s up with a union that gives us a 15% increase for 54 months while sanitation gets 17.1% for 51 months?
2. What’s up with a union that accepted a 6 month delay for retroactive pay while the other unions get full retroactive pay?
3. What’s up with a union that agrees to weaken due process?
4. What’s up with a union that freezes per session pay for 22 months?
5. What’s up with a union that that keeps exchanging time for money and still can’t keep up with inflation?
6. What’s up with a union that, despite all the terrible givebacks, still can’t narrow the salary gap between the city and suburbs?
7. What’s up with a union that exposes the classroom teacher with a 90 day unpaid suspension based upon allegations that DOE/OSI can simply say has a probable cause with no consequenses to the student who file false claims?
8. What’s up with a union that puts the classroom teacher into such rewarding duties as potty patrol, hallway duty, and cafeteria call?
9. What’s up with a union that didn’t include existing classroom teachers in the negotiation of this contract?
10. Finally, what’s up with a union that has lost it’s way representing the main body, the classroom teacher?
It is of little interest to me whether the DA vote was 20%-80% or 40%-60% since many of the DA’s must tow the line. However, if the proposed contract is defeated or barely passes, the union leaders should resign and let in people who truely represent the schools not the UFT educrats.
6 bstamatis
· Oct 18, 2005 at 12:10 am
I thought rskibins could at least see the truth! You may not like the deal we got with the Mayor, but you can’t agree with what the five exec board members did tonight to deliberately manipulate a situation when they new full well that their resolves were so impossible that there was no choice but to vote them down or rule them out of order!
Here’s their first resolve:
“RESOLVED, that UFT work with editors of the NY Teacher to provide prominent space in the next issue of the NYTeacher for opinion columns both for and against the proposed contract;”
Sounds fair, right? But they fail to tell you that the next issue of the paper will go to press after the voting period! So this is a trumped up charge!
And what about the second resolve:
“RESOLVED,that the UFT instruct chapter leaders to have chapter election committees, not chapter leaders, conduct the referendum on the contract as per the “How to Run a Chapter Election Guide procedures.”
Sounds fair, right? But they fail to tell you that the Delegates already approved the voting process.
So if you really want to talk about democracy, then what is it that those five exec. bd. members really want to do? The delegates voted fair and square in a public show of hands.
And if you want to quibble over the score! You can’t quibble over the fact that the five exec bd members don’t speak for the majority! And, you can’t quibble over the fact, that they shamelessly used the executive board forum to deliberately create a situation so they could have something to spin!
They have nothing else to contribute!
It was a shameless display of their disregard for our members,their colleagues and our delegates.
7 southbxda
· Oct 18, 2005 at 12:17 am
For what Chaz? For negotiating a better deal than any other labor union could? For not daring to win everything every member of the union could possibly want? Your notion is completely silly, create a list of 10 things you’re dissapointed in and begin the tirade. I’m dissapointed in the leadership for not being able to stop the Iraq war.
8 cornell
· Oct 18, 2005 at 12:49 am
Hey Chaz:
What’s up with a “strong” uniformed union that could have buried us in garbage in week, that traded by extending their agreement for another year and by reducing new employee’s salaries by $4,000 smackeroos? By the way, they’ll be making $1,000 more than new cops? And by the way, they agreed to reduce their workforce through attrition by plenty.
Hey, in my mind, that trumps everything you can say about the economics of our deal, even retroactivity!
What’s up about due process?
I still have negative letters in my file from more than 30 years in the schools that I have no chance of getting out now, even though all them were grieved!
This is an instructive quote from Ben Franklin:”The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
What’s up with some one who misrepresents the facts about inflation? Except for an aberrant spike , inflation has hovered around 2.25 to 2.50 per cent and is projected to stay within that range for the next few years.
What’s up with a person that forgets that the negotiating team was made up of both union officers and classroom teachers?
What’s up with a person, who secretly wishes to wield power at the UFT and who would misrepresent the truth to do everything s/he can to unseat the leadership during this difficult time for union workers across this nation? Who is s/he for?The delegates who voted 80-20 to recommend this contract to the members? Who is s/he for municipal workers, or Walmart employee’s, or for those who lost their pensions at Enron or WorldCom, or teachers in California who face the Terminator, or, as s/he reveals in his last statement, is s/he simply for Chaz and everyone else be damned?
9 R. Skibins
· Oct 18, 2005 at 7:06 am
Cornell:
Prove that the “picture” was actually taken during the vote on the contract and not during the vote to suspend the usual order of business. Besides, hotos can be manipulated. And speaking of manipulated, it was disgusting watching Randi manipulating and lying at the DA. No wonder there were shouts from the floor. And having that pro-sellout contract woman speaking at the anti-sellout contract microphone was another manipulation. Shame on you, Randi!
10 institutional memory
· Oct 18, 2005 at 7:17 am
The anti-contract fanatics continue to amaze. What world are they living in?
These ostrich-like entities think that we’re going to get a 1970s-style “give away the farm” contract from the current Republican, pro-business adminstration.
I take solace in the fact that their objections have begun to sound more and more strident, bordering on irrational. Desperation is in the air.
11 cornell
· Oct 18, 2005 at 7:53 am
RSkibins:
Here’s what I’m going to prove: ICE showed its true colors when it deliberately proposed a resolution that it knew only had value as spin!
12 outraged
· Oct 18, 2005 at 8:22 am
whats up with the per session increases? does it affect the summer school payments?
you don’t have to do coverages but the increase in per session rates are much less than that of contract salaries.
what up with the selective presentation of the contract? will there be other surprises?
whats up with the statement that 3% contribution to pensions over 10 years remains. it would need legislation to change, so why is it presented as a win in this contract, when the only win was to extend the 2 years service credit to tiers 1 & 2. YOU TOOK credit for the 3% ten year at the last contract. whats up with having no retractions on misleading statement? Is that the only way you could sell such a bad deal?
13 roseba
· Oct 18, 2005 at 8:33 am
R Sibkins,
You have a lot of faith on our ability and willingness to manipulate photos.
It is easy enough to pull up the original, unreduced in pixel size photo, and do a check on the photo properties. You don’t even need special software to do so.
In it you can find, date picture taken, model of camera etc. You don’t want to go there, because I know for a fact, that the photos were taken when they said they were taken, and that they haven’t been altered.
I would quit before the evidence leaves pie on your face.
14 Frank48
· Oct 18, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Let’s face it …”Randi” is rushing this contract through, so she can take over Feldman’s ( RIP ) job , or another “bigger-better” deal.
She’s just so predictable. I can just hear her now : “I got the NYC teachers OVER A THIRTY PERCENT RAISE over the last five years – the HIGHEST raises EVER!
This as she slithers out of sight and sets back this “union” decades. She, and all of her “hacks” are pathetic.
VOTE NO ON THIS PATHETIC SELLOUT !
15 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Oct 18, 2005 at 12:28 pm
What is really interesting is that the UFT is using the exact same procedure for contract ratification it has used in every contract ratification, including 1995, when the first contract was voted down. But if you don’t have an argument on substance, you make up stuff about how undemocratic everything is. Alibi your losses before they ever happen.
16 outraged
· Oct 18, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Frank 48
I agree, the last time a contract was rushed was when Sandy F convinced the union to take a deal with no raise for 2 years. The deal was signed up before the 2 years was up. Right after it was signed, she went to the AFT.
17 Frank48
· Oct 18, 2005 at 3:37 pm
If this contract passes, Weingarten will be making like OJ Simpson in his old advertisement – running and jumping over the bodies of crippled teachers, as she leaps over to Feldman’s new vacancy – it’s SOOO obvious. Feldman was the one who got her in as UFT head . What was Feldman thinking ? Did Feldman regard Weingarten as a brilliant litigator, laywer, negotiator, or what?
The only remaining question will be how long Weingarten waits for the ink to dry on this piece of crap – if we have the misfortune of it passing.
18 NYC Educator
· Oct 18, 2005 at 3:56 pm
After you check what you’ll be making next year, you might want to see how our suburban colleagues did last year:
http://nyceducator.blogspot.com/2005/10/how-do-we-measure-up_17.html
19 R. Skibins
· Oct 18, 2005 at 5:28 pm
It’s funny how you can call us “anti-contract fanatics” when it is you and your kind who blindly follow anything that Weingarten and Unity say and do. Free-thinking independents like myself can see that the emperor has no clothes, and that this sellout contract would leave us with “no clothes” when it comes to LIF, seniority, lunchroom duty, loss of summer vacation days, and an even longer work day.
Did your Unity spinmeisters tell the easily brainwashed newbies that this contract offers no layoff protection? They can vote “yes” and be rewarded by sitting in the unemployment office, along with a 20+ ear veteran who was excessed when their school was restructured, another Weingarten victory.
20 Bklynteacher
· Oct 18, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Thanks, NYC Educator, for that information of our suburban colleagues.
I just ate dinner and I now have a stomach ache…
21 Bklynteacher
· Oct 18, 2005 at 8:15 pm
What’s up with this?
“Based on a recommendation of the Fact-Finding Panel, the parties have agreed to eliminate the practice by which transfers were based solely on seniority. Principals will now be able to interview all prospective candidates. Furthermore, teachers who are excessed from their school for budgetary reasons or due to a school’s closing and are unable to secure a position will be offered substitute positions in their former school or District. They will not, however, be able to displace more junior teachers.”
Quote from NYCDOE website
I really find this offensive. Under this new contract, a displaced senior teacher could actually be relegated to SUB work rather than displace a first year teacher. Are you kidding me?
I’ve been a Union member for 28+ years and the thought that this could actually happen to one of my colleagues is revolting!
Vote your conscience on this one, guys.
22 Chaz
· Oct 18, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Cornell,
Could you tell me who the “existing” classroom teachers that were directly involved in the negotiations were? I do not mean teachers who are no longer teaching in the classroom?
Why the freeze on per session pay and a 6 month delay in retroactive pay?
As for inflation, wake up, interest rates were hiked six consecutive times and the 2 – 2.5% inflation rate is a thing of the past. Most economists expected an inflation rate for 2006 to be between 3.75%-4.25%, we will receive a 3.46% annual raise. That means our raise will average for the next 3 years (2005-7) 0.5% below the annual inflation rate! Great contract!!!!
Finally, I have no interest in running for chapter leader so why would I want to obtain higher office? Is that what you did?
23 HS_ teacher
· Oct 19, 2005 at 12:36 am
It didn’t occur to me until very recently. Those rants opposing the contract aren’t about the contract proposal, or the “members’ rights” or because they really believe in some of the glimpses of true conviction. Rather it is clear this is about politics. For them this is about their own personal gain for the next UFT presidential election and finding someone else to yell at. I didn’t say it when the FAct Finders first came out, but now I can very well see them reject anything that Randi supported. It was clear again at the Executive Board as they could find nothing better to do than try to change what the ENTIRE Executive Board passed (except those same 5 members) and what the vast majority of the DA voted for. It is the baby that cries when not getting what they want but worse uses that as an excuse to lie and insult all of the hard working leaders in this union (Chapter Leader, Delegate, & Officers included). After Jeff Kaufman asked the president to “say something” about personal attacks about other caucuses (meaning himself and James Eterno), Randi suggested, since she has never seen this on a non-election year with the propaganda and name-calling, to call a type of truce (which she called for in Sept-Dec ’04, May ’05, June ’05, Sept ’05). He said he “would take it into advisement”. It is clear that they won’t. Consider the diatribes on this page, their own webpage and all of the e-mails they have stolen from Chapter Leaders, District Reps, and innocent fellow union members.
“R. Skibins” & “Chaz”: your bitterness is clear but try stick with reality. Everything that is not in this Memorandum of Agreement is still in tact.(Article 17F of the Teachers’ contract, similar in all other functional chapters). Despite the DOE’s attempt to try to be able to “layoff” or “get rid of” paras, secretaries and others this was kept.
As for the 6 months retroactive pay, you claim other unions got it in full, YOU ARE WRONG. Most other city unions got a one time, un-pensionable, not compounded for interest, $1,000 for the whole first year. The fact finding report suggested after the first 364 days (1 day less than a full year to deny us a raise that year). We got it in 6 months. That is what negotiating does and that is what we were able to get.
As for Circular 6 with your “potty patrol” and all of the others, it is clearly done by a menu of preferences not by selection. So you choose 3 things from the menu which can be expanded and then the positions are filled. All of our rights for not getting what is in our preference are still in place except that they can fill needed positions with the least senior person if no one else chose it and then those assigned can’t get again the next year (the # of positions needed to be filled are worked out with the Chapter Leader for limiting the odds you getting it if you don’t want it).
“outraged”:As for per session and summer school you are right they are not as much as the rest but as is the case with the budget of any school, you must do everything to save the main program of the school. The “overtime” per session is secondary if it means a sacrifice to the program and it does not affect everyone.
“Frank48” and “outraged”: get a grip! I am glad your scruples are in place to talk about those who have passed on. Sandy did not run for President of the AFT last year because of her illness and someone else was elected (see http://www.aft.org). She held no official title when she passed away. Nice.
“NYC Educator”: Thanks for inflaming everyone’s feelings but even you admit on your blog that of those salaries “most require 60 credits beyond the Masters”. How many of us have 60 beyond the Masters? (And by the way we have for several contracts tried to get additional differntials for this and/or doctorates and guess who has always said no? Do you think it was those who were offering us 5 percent for 3 years with many more give backs?)
“Bklynteacher”: These senior teacher subs that you are making everyone panic about is nice. How long do you think a principal will sit without classes being covered before a parent, the media, the ROCs, & the UFT make a stink about this? I can see 40 teachers sitting in Region 5 as “senior teacher subs” while 18 schools have missing teachers (remember no forced transfers).
If people are talking about “Randi” and “Unity” or the next election or the president “resigning”(and many other choice names for people) keep in mind what the real intention is. The next UFT President’s election is in 2007. In 2005 we are voting for a contract proposal.
24 Bklynteacher
· Oct 19, 2005 at 6:53 am
HS-Teacher
You know, if this contract passes one day in the future you just might find yourself somewhere you don’t want to be because you weren’t able to bump a brand new teacher. Then give me a call and we’ll talk…
I know what I’m talking about because it happened to me 20 years ago. I had 7 years in, appointed under a particular license. They cut my position and I got excessed. Never mind that a brand new teacher got to stay. We were equally qualified and licensed.
It ended up being the best thing for me, but still…
25 outraged
· Oct 19, 2005 at 7:39 am
what up with the letters for the state representatives? they both said nothing. they would review the proposal of 25 years at 55 years old. This means nothing. if the proposal is approved, then something will be taken back. both would happen in the next contract. SO, don’t try to sell this point unless it is a guarantee in this contract with no cost offsets.
these efforts to fool the union members send the wrong message.
26 Frank48
· Oct 19, 2005 at 7:42 am
WRONG HS Teacher…I have no tool to grind here politically. I’m reacting to a “union” which has progressively folded over the last five years or so and has failed to fulfill its primary function – protecting the everyday classroom teachers AND their contract.
I can cite you SO many specific examples to back this up, but no time this morning. The fact that you don’t know this proves you are detached from this reality. You say that you’re a working classroom teacher? That’s hard to believe judging from your tone.
Your UFT has sold out and crumbled in a mad dash to collude with the DOE. Enforcing the contract forcefully is a thing of the past.
Funny, when I posted some specific names of schools and admins. awhile back – these posts were removed from this site.
One glaring example HS Teacher : How can a chapter leader ALSO be the acting APO in a so called Brooklyn “model” high school ? This went on for years . This cretin regularly backstabbed teachers in this building as she took their information and ran to the admin. of this building with any sensitive info.
This is YOUR “union” HS, not mine. The fact that you are so detached proves that you are not reality based in these matters – so take a seat on the sidelines.
27 outraged
· Oct 19, 2005 at 7:49 am
HS teacher
I never wrote that sandi ran for office last year or held an office last year at the AFT
SHE DID LEAVE UFT and BECAME PRESIDENT OF AFT DIRECTLY AFTER NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT WITH NO INCREASE FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS.
THE DEAL WAS CONCLUDED BEFORE 2 YEARS PAST> WHAT WAS THE RUSH>
28 outraged
· Oct 19, 2005 at 7:57 am
what up with a contract that
1. doesn’t keep up with inflation
2. only gives a portion of what it takes back.
3. does not respect teachers
4. was poorly negotiated
5. was long on hours
6. a prelude to a 6th class
7. and mostly represented as gold when in effect is carbon and flawed.
29 devils_advocate
· Oct 19, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Outraged:
1) Are you sure about the inflation rate? Or are you just complaining… (AGAIN) Statistics are a great way to back up your gripes.
2) In other words, an improvement even if not as large as you would have liked to see
3) And the contract proposal somehow created this situation? Or has it been this way for awhile? What miracles do you expect?
4) I would say getting a better deal than the fact-finding, and many other unions is a well negotiated deal.
5) Long on hours? 10 minutes a day extra? Most professions work longer official work hours, work unofficially at home, work summers, and get 6 holidays per year. Oh, and 2 weeks vacation.
6) Gross pessimism. The language doesn’t say a 6th class and you are just propagandizing to fear-monger.
7) Not represented as gold. Representing the good points is not representing something as gold. And the things you complain about are relatively small compared to the things that you retained.
30 Bklynteacher
· Oct 19, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Re: Sanitation Contract
“The principal features of the settlement, including compounded wage increases of over 17% during the contract for incumbent Sanitation Workers, are as follows:
*5% effective November 23, 2002
*5%, compounded, effective
November 23, 2003
*3%, compounded, effective
March 2, 2005
*3.15%, compounded, effective
March 2, 2006″
Compare this with our contract percentage increases:
(0% / 2% / 3.5% / 5.5% / 3.45%)
I guess their 3R’s (Reducing, Reusing and Recycling) meant a little more than our 3R’s to our Mayor.
31 CitySue
· Oct 20, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Bklyn teacher, you’ve given us a 5 year contract. There’s no zero year. And one-man rucks are equivalent to your teaching 60 in a class. For 2% more.
32 Bklynteacher
· Oct 20, 2005 at 7:08 pm
City Sue
The 0% is conveniently left out of the NYCDOE website also. The 6 months we receive no raise COUNTS for me even if it doesn’t for you. It also COUNTS for the City or we wouldn’t have to wait until December for our big 2% raise to kick in.
Get the facts, Sue. The one man truck is elective and they get more money for doing it. It’s offered to the more senior sanitation workers first.
Apparently seniority still counts if you’re picking up garbage. (No offense intended).
33 NYC Educator
· Oct 22, 2005 at 5:26 pm
HS teacher,
It’s fairly ridiculous when you criticize me for telling the truth. Who has 60 beyond the masters? Well, I have three licenses, and I’m pretty sure I do, actually.
And if you worked anywhere that paid for it, you’d be an idiot not to. That’s why I chose that point. If it’s any solace, many of those districts offered 100K for a masters plus 30, and will probably almost all surpass 100K with an MA plus 30 by the time we hit 90.
Thanks for letting me know that you tried to get that differential for us, though I don’t see exactly how boasting about yet another of Unity’s failures is supposed to impress me.
It’s the UFT that kept talking about parity with the suburbs, and the fact is, even with this giveback-laden contract, they’ve failed. They’ve gotten us the extra time, an unprecedented sixth class, highly diminished seniority rights, though.
You need dark glasses and a cane if you can’t envision ten more minutes and a full sixth class in Unity’s next pact if, God forbid, this one passes.
34 Bklynteacher
· Oct 22, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Just for the record, I have had a Master’s + 60 credits for the last ten years. Just think of all the money I have lost working for the City of NY rather than a suburb! Oh well…
35 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 24, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Speak truth to Power Vote NO!!!