It's no secret that many of the members are dissatisfied with the proposed UFT contract with the City but should they vote for it next week? Of course my answer is NO! However, lets look at the various aspects of the contract.
The contract eventually gives us the retroactive pay for the 2009-10 years when Michael Bloomberg failed to follow the "City pattern". The money owed to its members is significant. For recent retirees and members who retires before June 30, 2014 will get all their retroactive pay in one lump sum and have their pensions adjusted for the retroactive raises. All per session and coverage pay will be adjusted as well for the last two years.
All the retroactive raises are deferred and payments will start only in May of 2015 and end in October 2020. Moreover, the two 4% raises that the union claims they are receiving is really two 3% raises. See Steve Hiller's analysis. Additionally, the loan that we gave the City in not getting the "City pattern" does not include any interest as previously was done. Further, the union agreed to a "0 raise" for eighteen months and a toatl raise less than the inflation rate. Moreover, the per session pay is only paid for the last two years. Finally, the teacher evaluation system that requires termination for two "ineffective ratings" remain unchanged as well as no commitment to reduce class sizes.
Where do I start? First, the UFT has agreed to a member "caste system" with diminished due process rights for ATRs and no "mutual consent". Worse, are the 25% of the ATRs who were charged under 3020-a and found innocent of these termination charges. The DOE has decided that they don't have to offer these "untouchables" an interview of "provisional appointment". Shockingly, the union actually approved this attempt to punish the ATRs again. Second, teachers who resign or are terminated will not get the retroactive raises or payments even when they worked in those years. Finally, there is no change in the "fair student funding" that has resulted in principals hiring the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their students.
Note: Here is the updated version of Steve Hiller's analysis
To see the table, click the table picture and use view to make it even larger.