I spoke with a union official from one of the uniformed services and asked him what was his opinion about the proposed teachers contract with the City? Predictably, he was not too happy with the terms of the contract and believes the City got off lucky in getting the teachers union to agree to the contract out to 2018.
Bloomberg Legacy:
He started off by blaming the contract woes on Mayor Bloomberg and his refusal to give the teachers union the "City pattern" that almost all other unions received back in 2009-10. Moreover, he told me the Mayor deliberately defunded the Labor Reserve Fund to make sure the new Mayor could not use any money from the fund for retroactive raises. The union official also brought out the over the years when the Mayor claimed the City was running a deficit. Magically, by the time the budget was passed, there was a surplus. Of course, Mayor Bloomberg used the City's surplus to spent billions of dollars for high priced consultants and programs that never seemed to benefit the public. Even now this uniformed union official was told by many financial people that the City has large hidden surpluses and that their statements that the City doesn't have the money for significant raises as well as retroactivity rings hollow.
Pay Raises:
He belittled Michael Mulgrew's statement that the City doesn't have the money for everything. He believes that the proposed teachers contract is inadequate and unacceptable to the uniformed unions of New York City. The very idea of receiving 10% for seven years (1.43% annually) is insulting. This union official believes the arbitrators would have awarded the teachers union their two 4% raises and the retroactivity that goes with it. Especially, since the City's economy has improved markedly over the last few years. Finally, none of the uniformed unions will accept "zeros" as the UFT did in the two year 2011-12 period. Instead, it will be more like the TWU contract that has at least a 1% raise annually from 2012 and with full retroactivity.
Two Tier System:
He was very dismissive of the teachers union acceptance of the reduced rights for the ATRs. He said a union should never have different rules for the same job title. Its not good for union solidarity in the long term. According to him, there is no similar two-tiered system in any of the Municipal unions that is being accepted by the UFT.
Retroactive Pay:
He understands that the retroactive pay was the major reason for the union to agree to the inadequate raises and the deferrals. However, he doesn't understand how the union could agree to allowing the City not to pay members who worked in the 2009-10 school year their retroactive pay if they resign, get terminated, or die in service? He thinks that's terrible and that somebody will be filling a lawsuit to get that money they earned.
News Media:
Interestingly, the news media supported the proposed contract but of late has changed their minds. This union official believes that its simply a ploy to have the other unions agree to this contract as a "City pattern".
Conclusion:
This uniformed union official said that the proposed teachers contract will not be the new "City pattern" and that the raises will reflect the improved economic condition of the City which can support more substantial raises and full retroactivity.
The part that I feel needs more explanation is on the following:
ReplyDelete"the Mayor deliberately defunded the Labor Reserve Fund"
How did the former Mayor defund it? The members need to understand the underhandedness of Bloomberg and his Machiavellian administration of the city. Did our union leadership know about the defunding of the Labor Reserve Fund? If our union is part of the MLC, why wasn't this mentioned before?
I share this with the members on my listserv.
Nice piece Chaz. I'm going to make a point and ask a question. The 20 year rule which is known as Article 17 - Rule 10. Do you know it? It specifically states that any teacher that hits 20 years of service in his or her license area is automatically locked in and cannot be excessed. It doesn't matter if you're in 1 building or multiple buildings. Spoke with a Queens rep who stated this rule is indeed in effect and has been for years. The city agreed to this way back and it has never been removed. If you have 20 years of teaching in your license area, you cannot be excessed. The only rule is if you are in the final year of a phase out school. If so, this rule does not apply to you and you can be excessed. So with this said Chaz, is it safe to say that if you are in a relatively decent school and you have 20 years if teaching service in your appointed area, then you are really golden? You really can never wind up as an ATR because this rule protects a teacher from being excessed. Would you say this is a correct statement?
ReplyDeleteThe follow up would be that the city purposely phased out schools in irder to create ATR's in the final year of phase out. If you couldn't get hired prior to that final year and you stayed, you were pretty much guaranteed to become an ATR. However, like I said, if you have the 20 years and you're in a decent school, you can never be excessed. True?
Every teacher who I have met who is dumb enough to vote "yes" is saying the same thing to me: "If we vote no, we will have to wait till' all the other unions make their deal and then there will be no money left" I keep trying to tell them that is not the way it works. There WILL be money left and if we wait, we would most likely get a better deal since the uniformed unions will never agree to the crappy deal we got. It amazes me how much the Unity machine can trick so many people with their propaganda. (And yes, I have no my best to enlighten these teachers but they don't want to believe the truth)
ReplyDeleteI hope the membership reads your article and votes NO. How can we let the city off the hook on this. Especially on getting the retro without interest. There are so mamy things wrong about this contract.
ReplyDeleteChaz many atrs are afraid to vote no due to the fact that they may be flagged in the system or that they would then be treated like an anti UFT person and who knows what kinds of things can happen while still in the atr pool. This is a problem and so many of the atrs might just vote yes to stay under the radar if you know what i mean
ReplyDeleteSo all of this leads to the question - why would Mulgrew agree to such an inferior contract?! It's more than insulting for senior teachers like me who have been thrown into the ATR cesspool. I was hoping to be pulled out of it, instead the union is giving principals the bullets to shoot at us, and put us out of their misery. I don't want to insult anyone, but you'd be a damn fool to vote yes for this contract. I listened to Mulgrew's Q and A yesterday and shook my head at much of what he said. Especially egregious was his explaining the city doesn't have enough money and the farcical explanation of "compounding" in which he mistakingly said interest. There is no compounding without interest, it's just a lousy itty bitty raise that's being dressed up to "play" the teachers. This contract if passed, will severely weaken the union. If ATRs are terminated because of it, we will have legitimate cause to get the EEO involved. This is what we pay union dues for? I want a refund! Mulgrew go f--k yourself.
ReplyDeleteVOTE YES TO THE CONTRACT.
ReplyDeleteDON'T BE FOOLED BY THIS BLOG AND OTHERS TO DO OTHERWISE.
Thats right vote yes so u can be taken advantage of and disrespected by the city. The city wpn on every issue and us teachers should take the abuse. We deserve it and clearly should be happy with it. Cant believe idiots like this vote but every year they complain how their bills are pili g up and we are underpaid and not respected.
DeleteDoes this mean that our retro pay colud be more frontloaded and a better pattern than 10% over 7 years? Chaz thank you for your hard work on this blog and keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteNow you are taking advice from Barney Fife. What exactly does Officer Kumpke know about Labor bargaining and municipal finance.
ReplyDeleteTo 8:14,
DeleteYou're referring to our wood shop teacher, Mulgrew? He'd be an ATR right now if he wasn't our union president. I'd take Barney and Kumpke any day over him.
Anon 2:44
ReplyDeleteThat rules only applies if you're in the same building in your license area for 20 years.
I noticed that:
My understanding is that every Mayor made sure the Labor Reserve Fund contain money to pay raises. Apparently Mayor Bloomberg made sure that he didn't leave any money in it for raises when he left office.
Thanks Chaz. Part II (follow up tougher question). 20 years in same building in same license area. I have that BUT my school phased out and closed and I was picked up my another school in the "building". No one can seem to answer this one. I have the 20+ years in my license area and I've been in the same building but in a different school now due to original schools closure. Did 17 years at original and now finishing 4th at new school (same building).
ReplyDeleteFor Chaz at 10:16pm-- as there is no money in the Labor Reserve Fund, our union still was able to craft a good package with the city. Of course, bc of Boomberg there is no money for the full 8%.owed us now. But we got it! We have to be patient and wait a little while longer. We waited five years for a contract. We now have one. Over the life of this proposed contract we will get all retro. We will also get a total of a 19.5% compounded raise.
ReplyDeleteIn this day and age, and almost any other age, this is more than satisfactory.
Its 20 years appointed service in license.you do not have to be in one school. You have rule 10 and you can not be eexcessed.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIts 20 appointed years in the same building, under the same license. If the school closes and changes names in your 19th year, you're gone unless you cuddle up and perform un natural acts with a Leadership Academy drone.
Yes this happened in my old school. It doesnt mean u cant be exceesed but you go to back of the list i had a music teacher with 20/10 teaching english classes since we had to excess all the english teaxhers who didnt have 20/10 first. Eventually in last year we excessed some 20/10 teaxhers but that was after everybody else went first.
DeleteThe 8:32 & 8:38 comments are contradictory. The question is, if you have taught 17 years in your subject area and your school closes but you remain in the building at another school, are you in the catagory of this 20 year rule if you are still in the "campus" building which takes you over 20 years?
ReplyDeleteSo really the question is, does the word "building" also mean "campus". Good luck finding that one out!
ReplyDeleteBuilding does not matter. It is 20 years appointed service under one license. You do not , I repeat do not have to be in one building for 20 years. Read the contract
DeleteIf the contract were to be voted down (and that won't happen) then they'll quickly renegotiate. The city has to do the teacher's contract first because it represents 40% of the city workers and will set a pattern for the other unions.
ReplyDeleteATR's need not worry about their votes being flagged. The system of balloting is designed so that nobody knows how you voted. The outer envelopes are opened and destroyed. The inner envelope with the ballot is then opened. Everything is done with lawyers from both the city and UFT present.
As for rule 10, I know of teachers who were in two or three schools but rule 10 protected them from excessing. The rule says nothing about being in one school.
If we went to binding arbitration, would NYC salaries be compaired with Long Island and Westchester salaries?
ReplyDeleteNo and we do not have binding arbitration nor do we want it. Rember the cops starting salary of $25, 000 as a result of binding arbitration?
Delete
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 2:44 pm
I think Article 17 - Rule 10 says a teacher needs to be appointed, not just in service (many teachers take a couple of years to be appointed), for 20 years to be "locked in".
That's a big a difference.
I voted no today. A lot of coworkers openly told me they voted no as well. I think this will be closer than Mulgrew thinks.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteLet the uniformed services set the pattern for NYC. They are fighters, we are, well, something entirely different.
Some teachers in the school I'm assigned to told me they voted YES. Their reasons were very similar and basically went like this: "If we don't vote YES on this contract, it will annoy the union and the City, and then the City will reneg a lot of the good things in the contract and offer us a worse one."
ReplyDeleteI had placed lots of the promo kit we made up of MORE documents with the actual year-to-year breakdown, the newspaper article quoting James Eterno et al, etc. on tables in the teachers lounge. One of the YES voters actually told me that the sheets were lies. Another of the YES voters removed the documents I had placed on the table by holding them at arm's length like she was handling dog waste or...a copy of the proposed contract. She actually made a face as though she were handling dog waste (or a picture of Mulgrew) while putting the documents on another table. What, the truth had cooties?
NONE of the YES voters expressed any concern for the horrific treatment of ATRs under the proposed contract, which was disgusting.
We are "NY's Weakest", as opposed to " strongest, Bravest, Boldest etc".
ReplyDelete100% on point comment. Chaz, please do an article in how teachers a reviewed as weak, unfortunately related to the 75% female pop within UFT. No one takes us serious as the feminism gets smashed opposed to Sanitation, Fire, Police, and Corrections.
DeleteI take PRIDE in my teaching
ReplyDeleteI am a great teacher
We are (obviously...
New York's Brightest!
sorry for going off topic!
Dear anon 1:06 a.m.,
ReplyDeleteIn NYCeducator blog there's an interesting piece on "learned helplessness". You experienced what it is to deal with people that have no ability to be independent thinkers. So to them all you can I'm so sorry for your ignorance. You did your best! Be proud of your effort.
This is the end, the one and only end, my friend.
ReplyDelete