October 4, 2005

Taking Stock of the Contract Agreement

Filed under: Contract by Leo Casey @ 10:07 pm

After a long and difficult contract struggle that saw the unprecedented mobilization of New York City’s public school teachers, a much deserved agreement was finally won by the UFT yesterday. Given the extraordinary array of forces hostile to public education and teacher unionism facing us, from the President and the Congress to the Mayor and the Chancellor, from the New York City tabloid press to the Wall Street business elite, the achievement of a decent contract without the sacrifice of core union principles is an important, noteworthy victory. The improvements over the proposal of the fact-finders are especially striking. In these times and under these conditions, it is remarkable that the balance sheet of what we won and what we were able to turn back in the way of draconian demands from the Chancellor and the DOE, on the one hand, versus the areas where we lost ground, on the other hand, is tipped so dramatically in the favor of gains and rejections of DOE demands. Even where we lost some ground, the UFT was able to win significant ameliorations.

Perhaps most importantly, we turned back completely the efforts of Chancellor Klein to eviscerate the UFT, to eliminate democratic voice for New York City’s public school teachers, and to destroy meaningful collective bargaining. What he ended up with was a UFT stronger and more active than ever.

It is important to take a clear and precise inventory here, because there has already been some disinformation produced on the web and in the blogosphere. Important wins for the UFT which were in response to UFT proposals, such as the streamlining of the grievance process and the expansion of the lead teacher program, are being misrepresented as losses, and other purported losses are being created out of thin air. Perhaps it is a sign of how much the UFT was able to accomplish under difficult circumstances with this contract that we are now facing such disinformation.

Here is where we really stand.

WHAT DID WE GAIN?

A 15% compounded increase in take-home pay over the life of the contract, with a new maximum salary of $93,416.

When added to the 16% increase in the last contract, this increase has dramatically narrowed the salary gap between NYC and suburban teachers. What is especially important here is that Randi and the UFT negotiations team were able to obtain nearly 4% more than the 11.4% proposed by the fact-finding panel, and fix it in place for the first two years of the next mayoral term, without providing any additional “productivity” savings to the City.

This increase is important not only for New York City educators, who face the difficult challenge of living in the metropolitan region with the second highest cost of living in the US, but also for New York City school children, who need the experienced and accomplished teachers that a competitive salary can attract and retain.

In all of our surveys and polling, a significant increase in take home pay was cited by UFT members as their number one goal for this contract.

A 65% increase in retroactive pay over the fact-finders’ proposal.

Once the contract is ratified, a teacher on maximum will receive $5771 in retroactive pay; a teacher who started work in September 2003 will receive $2819.

An agreement from New York City to seek a change in state pension law would allow all UFT members to retire without penalty at age 55 with a minimum of 25 years of service.

This agreement will continue the important progress that the UFT has made in eliminating the differences among the different pension tiers, giving Tier 2, Tier 3 and Tier 4 members the same option for a 55-25 retirement without penalty now available to Tier 1 members.

New contractual language protecting teachers against micro-management.

Since the start of the DOE’s Children First program, teachers have been beleaguered with a torrent of directives governing everything from the appearance of bulletin boards to the arrangement of classroom furniture. This language strengthens already existing contractual language on the teacher’s professional authority over lesson plans and on the resolution of disputes between supervisor and teacher over professional, educational issues.

A new career rung for para-professionals who have received a Bachelors degree, with additional compensation.

The expansion of the UFT and parent initiated lead teacher program, with a $10,000 annual differential for participating teachers.

For many years, the UFT has advocated the development of a lead teacher position, to provide new career opportunities for accomplished, experienced teachers who want to remain in the classroom. This agreement will expand a pilot program begun in the Bronx, in which the lead teacher teaches half of the day, and provides mentoring and professional development for new teachers in their school the other half of the day.

While the Bronx parents in CC9 and the Bronx teachers had to push the DOE into doing the pilot program there, the Chancellor, desperate for some “victories” in an agreement which utterly demolished the agenda he set out in his infamous 8 page proposal, is now trying to claim the program as his own. Only the most gullible, those completely ignorant of the history of this initiative and the way in which it functions, could take seriously his outlandish claim that it is a form of “merit pay.” The very procedure for the selection of the lead teachers, which involves parents, teachers and DOE officials working in collaboration to make consensus decisions, shows just how little it has in common with the top-down, autocratic dystopia of Klein.

The adoption of a UFT proposal to streamline the grievance process by eliminating Step Two.

In recent years, the DOE has clogged the grievance and arbitration machinery with deleterious appeals and refusals to abide by precedents and clear contractual language. On the principle of “justice delayed is justice denied,” the UFT set about looking for ways to speed up the process, which can go on for months and years. By eliminating a redundant step of the grievance process, in which the superintendent invariably ruled against the grievant, we have made some progress in this area.

A number of important advances were made for functional chapters.

Nurses and therapists won a ten month year [reduced from twelve months], together with an 11.5% salary increase. School psychologists and social workers won a workload dispute process, similar to that now in place for secretaries and guidance counselors. This process will be vital for countering the exceptional pressures and burdens that the Children’s First program has visited upon psychologists and social workers, especially in the wake of the elimination of the education evaluator position.

There was no increase in health care premiums.

Since 2000, employer health care premiums have increased 73% throughout the US. The rate of premium growth in 2005 alone was three times the rate of growth in employee earning, and two and a half times the rate of inflation. Yet when union after union is losing ground in this area, we held the line: there was no increase for UFT members.

WHAT DID WE TURN BACK?

The DOE’s effort to take away tenure, and eliminate ‘due process’ in disciplinary procedures and dismissals.

The DOE demanded an end to tenure, an end to the ‘just cause’ standard for a teacher’s dismissal, and an end to having independent arbitrators hear and decide cases for a teacher’s dismissal. The Chancellor wanted the burden of proof in dismissal cases to be shifted to the teacher, who would have to demonstrate that she was a satisfactory teacher who should not be dismissed, rather than the DOE having to show that she was unsatisfactory and should not be dismissed. And the Chancellor wanted dismissal cases to be heard and decided by DOE employees, rather than by independent arbitrators. On all counts, the DOE’s demands were rejected.

Due process is a core union principle. We could not accept a contract in which it was not kept intact.

The DOE’s demand for the authority to lay-off teachers ‘ excessed’ from their schools.

The DOE sought the authority to lay-off any teachers who were excessed from a school, regardless of seniority, and were not able to find another job, on their own, within 18 months. This demand was rejected.

Seniority in lay-offs is a core union principle. We could not accept a contract which did not secure the rights of senior excessed teachers to a position in another school.

The fact-finders’ proposal for 10 additional unpaid coverages in the middle schools and high schools.

There will be no additional coverages.

HOW DID WE AMELIORATE LOST GROUND?

Part of the increase in this contract was financed through additional time, primarily through ten more minutes of time per day. In response to the many complaints regarding the lengthy professional development sessions which were not, in most schools, very useful, the professional development sessions were eliminated. We were able to secure a uniform school day, Monday through Thursday, of 6 hours, 57 minutes. Friday will remain a 6 hour, 20 minute day.

One of the issues that we have had to face in seeking salaries which are competitive with the suburbs is that suburbs work a longer school day – most suburbs have a seven hour day. As this contract brought us closer to the suburban salary, it also brought our work day closer to the suburban work day.

In order to ensure that the 37 minutes of time added to the Monday through Thursday workday is strictly limited to tutoring, test preparation and small group work, with no more than ten students at a time, an expedited arbitration procedure, with monetary penalties for violations, has been written into the contract.

Multiple session middle schools and high schools which do not have the space for the after school small group sessions and District 75 schools will have the extra time incorporated into their school schedules for a regular school day of 6 hours and 50 minutes.

The fact finders report called for three additional days of work, two before the Labor Day weekend and one holiday within the regular school year. We were able to use Brooklyn-Queens Day as the third day; it is been a holiday only for Brooklyn and Queens teachers, so teachers in Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island will only be working two additional days.

We won specific language that allocated the two additional days before Labor Day to classroom preparation, thus securing for teachers the time necessary to organize their classroom for the first day of school. As it now stands, many elementary school teachers are working days without pay before the start of school, simply to get their classrooms ready for their students. Now this work will be recognized as part of their paid work.

The contract calls for ending ‘seniority transfers,’ by giving the principal of the school into which a teacher wants to transfer a veto. Prior to this contract, a growing number of schools had been leaving the seniority transfer plan for the school based staffing and transfer plan, with about half of all schools in the school based plan last year. One would expect that these numbers would continue to grow with this contract. In fact, the 1996 contract had called for the complete replacement of the seniority transfer plan by the school based transfer plan, and it was only the bureaucratic incompetence of the DOE that prevented the implementation of that part of the contract.

The loss here is that the principal will have final authority but we were able to win language which specifically prohibited a principal from rejecting a transfer on the basis of “ age, race, gender, sexual orientation and union activities.” The principal will also be required to list all vacancies in his school [only one-half of the vacancies are listed under the seniority transfer plan], all caps and limits on the number of teachers who can transfer have been removed, and a teacher will not have to obtain a release from their current principal to transfer, provided that she does so before August 7.

Circular 6R is maintained, but supervisors have more leeway in assigning teachers to administrative assignments such as homeroom, hall patrol and cafeteria duty. Principals will continue to develop a menu of activities with the UFT Chapter Leader, and the teacher will select from the menu.

This agreement removes the right of teachers to grieve letters in the file, although the fact finders report clearly stated that teachers would retain the ability to challenge the content of those letters should they be used in a disciplinary or dismissal procedure against them. This is important, because the only real practical import of a letter is its use in a disciplinary or dismissal procedure. Any negative letter which is not used in such a procedure would be removed from the file in three years.

In practice, it was extraordinarily difficult to win ‘letters in the file’ grievances, since the labor relations standard which was used only allowed grievances on issues of fact and on the fairness of the conclusions which had been drawn. Supervisory judgment, such as whether or not a class was ‘teacher dominated’ or whether or not students were ‘actively engaged’ in a lesson, could not be grieved. The most effective response to a letter in the file was thus often a written response, and the teacher retains that right under this proposed contract.

Grievances over ‘letters in the file’ were thus mostly a symbolic way of challenging and ‘fighting back’ against an abusive supervisor. The UFT will now develop other avenues, such as the contractual procedures to deal with supervisory harassment, to address these needs.

A careful examination, therefore, shows that this is a contract which has real and significant gains, that it turned back the Chancellor and the DOE on vital core principles, and that it ameliorated the areas where we lost ground. It is a remarkable achievement, fully deserving of members’ support, given the extraordinary array of forces we face at this moment.

148 Comments

Comments are open for registered users and do not reflect the views of the UFT. Please read our general rules for commenters.

  • I am completely disgusted by the monumental piece of garbage that passes for a contract that was agreed upon by Randi Weingarten and the City of New York. While the previous contract sent Al Shanker spinning in his grave, this current proposal sends Sandy Feldman joining him.

    First, let’s take the extension of the school day by ten minutes. It will be extended by twenty minutes in actuality, as the 50 minute Monday extended day will be spread out evenly now. Add it to the other 50 minutes in additional time, it makes it a 30 minute extended day each day. Any salary gain for commuter teachers would be negated by additional child-care costs. Also, if the school day starts earlier, how can commuter teachers find a daycare center which opens before 6:30 AM? An 8:20 start is already too early. Just try to get you kids out and arrive before 8:00 on a rainy day, or if there is an accident. Additionally, adding days to the school year is inexcusable. We already work a longer day and a longer year than many surrounding systems, and once we give up days, we will never get them back.

    Circular 6 eliminated lunchroom duty and hall patrol in order to allow teachers to spend time with students. In this new proposal, teachers will be assigned to lunchroom duty and potty patrol. Does it make sense to pay someone up to $90k to guard a toilet, so that you can eliminate a job from a $10k a year school aide, and take instructional time away from the students?

    The agreement eliminates the right to grieve letters in the file. So what will happen when some jerk of a supervisor writes a trumped-up letter? I personally know of teachers who have received letters because a student made a mark on his folder without permission, and, get this: the teacher of a group of students, many with learning disabilities, received a letter in her file because the level of student work was not up to grade level. One teacher in my school even received a letter in the file which was a complete work of fiction. If this proposed contract passes, then all a principal has to do is place a few trumped-up letters in your file, and you will be terminated.

    Weingarten’s sell-out contract weakens the UFT considerably, as gains which were hard fought for are discarded as easily as trash. I can’t believe that after more than 2 1/2 years of protests and actions, that this is what she came up with. I call on the UFT membership not to make the same mistake it did in 2002. Reject this piece of garbage contract outright. Then we can concentrate on selecting new leadership for our union.

    Comment by R. Skibins — October 4, 2005 @ 11:27 pm

  • That’s essentially the breakdwon I was looking for that was not on the website. Can someone illuminate me on circular 6 duties, on the website, and better explained here it talks about the process, so that lunch duty seem more difficult to implement by the administration. Is that true? and how? What happens to the DC37 people who work the lunchrooms now?

    Comment by jesse — October 4, 2005 @ 11:39 pm

  • What took you so long to finally post? Is it because you needed more than 24 hours to spin the flaws in this agreement?

    This union started turning back the clock years ago when they endorsed the mayor in the takeover of the Board of Ed. Then they turned their back on McCall for governor–a friend of the union. Many teachers did not like the wording of the last contract that made us prisoners of “Detention Monday” rather than tutoring small groups of children. When you endorsed the SBO transfer plan, senority rights were eroded.

    Even the NY Post loves this new agreement.
    That should say it all!

    You may have saved tenure for now, but with your track record, that will be the next to go.

    You treat the issue of letters in file as meaningless. However it is an insult to any teacher who really didn’t deserve it. And any good teacher would hate to have to go through that experience. It also paints a bad picture if and when a new principal takes over within the 3-year period.

    If you want us back on lunch duty, then you should have insisted that an administrator also take on that responsibility.

    Please do not fool with the pensions of those of us on Tier 1 and 2. I have no doubt that this union will make our pensions worse. (No wonder some of you on the executive board are getting out now.)

    You can spin this any way you want, but the truth is, this union is weak.

    Comment by Schoolgal — October 4, 2005 @ 11:43 pm

  • There’s a few little nice tidbits in there that the media didn’t report. Not having to get a principal’s permission to transfer? That could turn out to haunt the DOE down the road depending on the real wording in the contract for the more qualified teachers in the system, especially in shortage areas. There has to be a catch there.

    Just don’t insult our intelligence. That last raise spread out over 15 months is basically 3% annually. It’s ok. I’m not upset with it. But it’s neither here nor there and doesn’t influence me in the slightest to vote for or against it.

    Half of our deserved retroactive pay is better than more like 1/4 of it. It’s still an insult. It sets yet another precedent that in my mind makes it critical that NYC teachers be told to prepare for a strike in October 2007. We have to stop caving in all over the place without a fight. We fight and lose, so be it. But wimping out should not be part of the next contract negotiations especially if those billions of additional money turn out to be at stake.

    I’d like some clarity on those two additional days before Labor Day. Are they for setting up our rooms or sitting through nonsense meetings. And if kids are coming back the day after labor day, then what this really is, is two additional days of teaching. So what is going on with that. In English.

    As to circular 6, what’s the bottom line. Sounds to me like homerooms and lunch duty are going to be in place for most of NYC’S secondary school teachers. Isn’t that what most principals would put on the menu and the least senior teachers stuck with that?

    Then there are some obvious questions like does per session go up as well. Will per session stuff be retroactive or will we basically be getting zeros on that. Is the Lead Teacher position really just for low performing schools. $10K for a quality senior teacher isn’t likely to get them to transfer until the last 2 or 3 years of their career for pension purposes. I don’t see the value in this for the vast majority of us. And then finally how do we stay at

    Comment by paulrubin — October 4, 2005 @ 11:46 pm

  • You write:

    “A careful examination, therefore, shows that this is a contract which has real and significant gains, that it turned back the Chancellor and the DOE on vital core principles, and that it ameliorated the areas where we lost ground. It is a remarkable achievement, fully deserving of members’ support, given the extraordinary array of forces we face at this moment.”

    You’re kidding, right?

    Here’s what teachers gave in this contract:

    A 37.5 minute sixth class of “small group instruction”, loss of seniority and grievance rights, return of pottyroom duty, two days of work before Labor Day (can’t wait for the next contract when Randi adds three more days to make it a full week in August!!!), 10 more minutes, harsher discipline rules, and higher medical deductibles and co-pays (sorry, Edwize, I don’t believe a word of what you wrote above about premiums not rising.)

    Here’s what teachers get in this contract:

    14.25% over 4 years and 4 months…just a little over 3.2% a year.

    This so-called “raise” doesn’t even cover cost of living increases for transportation, food, energy, rent, and prescription drug costs over the time period of the contract. And of course it is not a raise when you have to give back twenty years worth of contract gains in one shot.

    What you write above is pure, unadulterated propaganda worthy of Pravda or Tass News Agency. As usual, the UFT spin is how wonderful the union is, how wonderful Randi is, blah, blah, blah. Aren’t you embarrassed by all of this shameless propagandizing? Anybody who looks at the contract particulars can see you are putting the best face on a very bad deal in order to cover for Dear Randi’s negotiating incompetence and criminally negligent leadership.

    I am sick and tired of having part of my union dues go toward paying for this kind of propaganda at both this site and in Randi’s house organ, NY Teacher. If any reporters are checking out this blog, like they did after the PERB report came out, they should ignore the party line at UFT.org and Edwize and start visiting schools around the city. After they talk to working teachers, they’ll see just how unpopular this contract agreement is (my school voted the PERB recommendations down 78% to 22%) and how hostile much of the membership is toward Randi Weingarten and the union leadership.

    New York City teachers know they were sold down the river by the union leadership and our union leader, Dear Randi, and no matter how you folks at Edwize try to spin it, most working teachers in this system know this contract agreement is an abomination.

    If you give it an honest vote, it will go down to defeat. But you won’t. You’ll hold back the contract particulars for as long as you can, you’ll spin all the negatives as positively as you can, you’ll hammer home the propaganda for the next six weeks, and you’ll try to keep the membership ignorant of how truly bad this deal is until after the contract is already voted on and nothing can be changed.

    The way this union is run is as shameless as the propaganda that is printed above.

    Comment by realitybasededucator — October 4, 2005 @ 11:50 pm

  • The contract particulars are posted at the UFT website.

    Comment by Kombiz — October 4, 2005 @ 11:56 pm

  • congratulations to our union leadership for selling us out again– those who continue to vote for randi, you get what you deserve. first, 10 more minutes , what a wonderful idea- added to the other 20 minutes for those of us on the high school and you have 30 minutes, next contract will finish it off for a 6th period. good job randi. second, giving up an opportunity to grieve a letter in the file- this is a good thing, i think not. you are giving principals and ap’s a blank check to get letter happy since we will no longer be able to fight it. third, we fought hard to get rid of circular 6 items such as lunch duty and hall patrol for the last few contracts, now you’re going to give it back- wow that must have been one of the positives the union leadership kept bragging about. an extra 10 minutes on top of the previous 20 before for more money and the union justifies this as a 33% pay raise over the past few years. i don’t know who does the accounting and the math at the union but you do not give up time for more money and call it a raise. i only hope my colleagues throughout the system on all levels reject this contract outright. there is too much here that limits our rights not improves them. i for one know the majority of my school will reject it just like we did the perb findings (about 85-90% against)

    Comment by MONTYPYTHON — October 5, 2005 @ 12:10 am

  • Do people read the posts before they comment, or they just come in and comment whatever they meant to? Some of the above objections are talked about in the post. I do have questions, as the one I asked above, but it’s not redundant to what’s in the post.

    Secondly, some of us who have been been part of the progressive movement, and have read blogs, really get annoyed when people use language we’ve used to describe the preznit with other people who haven’t sent off our brothers to war, and destroyed the middle class in this country. It’s your choice to call Weingarten whatever you like, but please leave Bush paradigm for Bush.

    Thirdly, I’m not aware of any other union that has a forumn where I can type whatever I want in response to anything they write. You have no idea what pravada was -

    Comment by jesse — October 5, 2005 @ 12:15 am

  • I disagree with R.Skibins:

    Having argued LIF’s as a chapter leader, I always faced a hurdle called “supervisory judgment” and the limits of the grievance process which required the union to prove that a letter was inaccurate or unfair.Having received letters in my file, I often found that by appending a professional rebuttal to the case made by a stupid AP or principal, I was frequently rewarded with the removal of the letter. (You know they don’t want to look silly.)

    Now, what does a letter in a file mean?

    In one scenario, you’re a tenured teacher with 20 years of satisfactory service. You get a letter in your file that says you were carrying a cup of hot coffee in the hallways and that is a violation of school policy. Now your principal doesn’t use that letter for further disciplinary purposes for three years. The letter is then out of your file!

    If you’re untenured, well they can sack you with 10 days notice for just about anything already so the LIF policy either way won’t do you any good.

    The other scenario is that you accumulate several letters in your file and the principal choses to give you an unsatisfactory rating. You then have a hearing and can argue over all the letters in your file and try and prove that they are unfair and inaccurate.

    At least you can no longer get those bullshit letters about bulletin boards, your classroom seating arrangements and whether you exceeded the 8 minute model lesson! So go ahead an use 6 staples when ever you want.

    Comment by mvplab — October 5, 2005 @ 12:23 am

  • Let’s do some reality checking here, unlike self proclaimed reality based educator who has his own axe to grind.

    I welcome reporters to come and talk to teachers who are in the trenches and let them see how angry they are at Kleinberg administration and not at the union.

    Remember the #1 issue people said they wanted was cash, and while you can argue whether a cop, or firefighter or teacher can ever be paid adequately, this agreement does put cash in members’ pockets. There’s no getting around that fact. 14.25 or 15 per cent when it’s compounded is real money that will go a long way economically for members.

    You can grouse all you want, but this contract addresses the needs of the members. So this contract will be ratified no matter how much katzen-yammer we hear here.

    Comment by mvplab — October 5, 2005 @ 12:45 am

  • mvplab:

    I disagree with you 100%. No amount of money is worth giving up our rights. No amount of propaganda from Weingarten and her cronies can convince us that it is a fair contract. We give up seniority rights, grievance rights, circular 6, vacation days and serve for longer hours. What does the DOE give up? We can arrange our chairs and bulletin boards. Whoop-de-doo!

    My fellow teachers:
    Don’t believe the Weingarten lies. They won’t tell you the truth. Just like with the current contract, you won’t really know what’s in it until after it is too late. They won’t tell you the truth. I will. Reject this contract outright, and vote Randi out of office.

    Comment by R. Skibins — October 5, 2005 @ 1:02 am

  • MontyPython is comical. Does he mean to say that negotiations is a one way street? Oh, next time Randi negotiates she’ll do it with no one on the other side of the table.

    I think MontyPython should know that this was a deal hammered out by a bipartisan negotiating team that included school based members. Oh, I know that all they had to do was wish something and it would come true.

    We asked for 18 percent; we asked for 25/55 retirement plan;no layoffs;no disciplinary action for teachers’ decisions regarding classroom instruction;unused sick leave days may be donated to a bank to be used by persons suffering from catastrophic/long-term illnesses on a one-to-one basis.

    The UFT didn’t propose a longer schoolday that was the other side of the table!They wanted to take back tenure. They wanted forced transfers.They wanted absolute principal discretion on everything! They wanted to eliminate the contract!

    So if you want to get angry, point your finger at Kleinberg!and his minions across the table.

    Comment by mvplab — October 5, 2005 @ 1:09 am

  • Weingarten claims that this garbage contract preserves our core rights. That would be like eliminating the US constitution’s 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments, and claiming that the core values of the constitution were still intact. Excuse me while I go out and barf!

    Comment by R. Skibins — October 5, 2005 @ 1:10 am

  • Just because the arbitrators made a recommendation doesn’t mean that we have to follow it or accept it, as it was NON-BINDING arbitration. We could, as Nancy Reagan said, just say “no!” They said no to us being able to have autonomy in the classroom restored. They said no to one-for-one sick day donations. I say NO to longer days, longer years, surrendering the right to grieve letters in the file, elimination of seniority transfers, and having to patrol the toilet and lunchroom.

    Comment by R. Skibins — October 5, 2005 @ 1:17 am

  • R.Skibins:

    Let’s see: What does Kleinberg give up?

    How about 15 percent in cash and more than $5,000 retro by Nov 1 with no zero in the first year! Hmmm, I wonder what he’ll do now with the firefighters now that there’s no pattern left!

    I just saw the entire memorandum of agreement at http://www.uft.org (the top story) and it doesn’t look that bad to me. By the way, take a look at the salary charts!

    Comment by mvplab — October 5, 2005 @ 1:27 am

  • Many people here are so very unrealistic. Collective bargaining means that two sides have to agree on a contract. Collective bargaining does not mean that I tell you what I want and you have to do it. All contracts are a matter of compromise.

    First off, I consider myself a liberal to the highest degree. But I am also a political realist. This is the best we can get in this political climate. People who refuse to compromise usually get nothing. (And that is why the GOP will fail in the end).

    Most teachers I know usually come in early. Most teachers I know usually come in a few days before school starts to set up their room. I am not worried that I will be suspended without pay for molesting a child. I am not planning to have sex with any of my students the last I thought about it. As for a letter in my file, I once had one placed in it by a crazy Principal who ended up doing so many outlandish things that she was forced to give me a public apology. I really do not think that 90% of the Principals are out to get teachers. As for the other 10%, they usually trip themselves up in the end. As for seniority transfer, we all know that it has been used in the past to get rid of incompetent teachers. These teachers go from school to school making everyone unhappy. Maybe if a teacher is vetoed and is forced to stay in their school, the administrator will finally do something about this person instead of passing him or her on.

    I think it is more important that we keep our due process rights if charges are brought up. I think it is important that the core of our seniority rights are still left in tact. And I truly think that these marginal changes are worth a 15% raise.

    I do not think our union is worthless because when I lost my position as an Ed. Evaluator, the union protected my rights through an expedited arbitration process that prevented my involuntary transfer. And that is something that this contract preserves.

    Comment by agetzel — October 5, 2005 @ 1:34 am

  • R.Skibins:
    Really R- May I call you R? You can call me MVP. I think you’re going overboard here!
    1st amendment? free speech etc. are you kidding? you can write and append all you want to letters in the file.
    4th amendment? search and seizure? Let’s see, help me on this. How did Randi allow this to happen to you? What kind of stuff do you keep in your classroom anyway?
    5th amendment? Let’s see I think this is the due process amendment where you can’t be a witness against yourself or be denied due process of law. Okay?
    14th amendment? Is this the equal protection amendment? Okay you’re going to have to help me! So Randi is to blame for those perceived violations of Constitutional law? Wow!

    Come on R, go get some sleep!

    Comment by mvplab — October 5, 2005 @ 1:48 am

  • Here is my problem,

    I don’t want to attack Randi! I think she worked her heart out, our own personal Norma Rae, but ultimately we got a raise that is less than 3 1/2 per cent a year when you divide even 15 by 4.33333. the number of years the contract covers. A monthly metro card probably the best bargain in transportation now went up over 20 per cent in fewer than the last 52 months.

    Now there were givebacks of a serious nature, especially for the increasing number of teachers who communte long distances and those who as a point of honor don’twant pejorative and often unfair and untrue letters in their file.

    Now I could live with even this but what I can’t accept here is that for all this we essentially endorse Bloomberg. The unions best arguement is look at what we were up against, look how formidable our adversary, etc. Granting Randi and Co. their arguement 100 per cent I say fine now let’s work like the devil to defeat those who did this to us at the polls. the fact that someone even proposed an 8 page contract, which could actually be less then the lease for renting a house in the Hamptons when you think about it, and teased us for years means he should be defeated at the polls. I could accept if this is all the union could get, but now to endorse essentially the billionaire bastard behind all this. That is crazy.

    Comment by shouldhavegonetomeds — October 5, 2005 @ 1:52 am

  • Let’s remember what Freddy said about the odd very odd timing of this contract and let’s all go out and vote for him on election Day come what may!

    Comment by shouldhavegonetomeds — October 5, 2005 @ 1:53 am

  • When we leave the job, it should be better than when we came to it.

    Are we all really willing to take money in return for making the job worse for the next generation of teachers?

    Let’s see the fine print before we make final judgement, but as of now I do not think my conscience will permit me to vote yes.

    Comment by jd2718 — October 5, 2005 @ 1:55 am

  • There is another thing operative here. We are told to accept the settlement because considering the times this is good, But wait a minute!! Is not the mayor running on what good times we have in the City? Didn’t he say not to let Freddy paint a negative picture of New York? I mean this is New York 2005 everything is coming up roses and bright lights and low crime rates and daffodils and improving test scores and lollipops and more jobs and high priced boutigues and outlandish restuarants and everything is coming up roses and Santa Claus for me and for you.

    What’s wrong with this picture? You tell me?

    Comment by shouldhavegonetomeds — October 5, 2005 @ 2:02 am

  • MVP:
    Overboard I am not. I was simply making an analogy between this “contract” and a hypothetical gutting of our constitution. Get some sleep and re-read my posting. Then come back from the dark side. Nobody in their right mind should support Weingarten and her second sellout contract in a row!

    Comment by R. Skibins — October 5, 2005 @ 2:14 am

  • I have followed the union’s progress for years and I would like to mention some disturbing decisions made by the union, and presented in spin form to the membership.

    1. A contract which was settled without raises for the first two years and which had a five year duration. The contract was settled prematurely, before the first two years elapsed. Letter after letter was sent to the membership warning of layoffs. Especially in light of no raises for two years, what was the rush? Shortly afterward Mrs. Feldman took the job at the AFT and the city finances recovered. The long contract, negotiated with the premise of lean periods cost the union membership the chance to negotiate during better times.

    2. In my school district the school day is 6 hours and 30 minutes. They also end the year one week before the city schools and extend the holidays if snow days are not used.

    3. It appears that the union reps are willing to make it more difficut for the older teachers. They appear to be happy if the more experienced teachers retire. This would in effect leave enough money to hire 2 new teachers. It works well for the classroom numbers, and extremely well for the union who would collect twice as much in dues. Randy would be able increase her salary. How many have gone through the breakup of large schools in smaller learning one? The phaseout is stressful for the senior teachers.

    4. I love it when Randy says the strike word. Bloomberg loves it when she mentions the strike word. He knows its meaningless and it indicates the union is despirate. When will the teachers learn, no guts, no respect. Bloomberg is much smarter than Randy.

    5. Everyone knows the city teachers got perks instead of salary in past contracts. Everyone expected the city to buyback these perks with cash. Randy and company handed them back with for nothing. What could she do after being defensive at the hearings. Instead of telling them, you could buy back these perks for money, she tried to defend them at the hearings. It made her look silly. Stupid!

    6. How could one beleive that gap has narrowed with the suburbs? If the burbs have salaries 25% higher before the contract and the contract has a fifteen percent incease, then they are still, at this point 18.75 percent higher and at the end of the city contract, the burbs will probably make back most of it.

    7. If union polls were right and a majority of the parents felt the teachers deserved a big raise, then why didn’t Randy use that against Bloomberg? Bloomberg cried poverty but found enough money for property tax rebates. It would stand to reason that a majority would giveup the rebates. Another opportunity lost!

    8. Is it possible that Randy is looking towards AFT job which was held by Mrs. Feldman?

    Comment by outraged — October 5, 2005 @ 2:16 am

  • Vote No on the Contract. You can get a better one. Vote Yes for Freddy!!!

    Comment by shouldhavegonetomeds — October 5, 2005 @ 2:30 am

  • Randi knew we did not want any compromise on circular 6R. Further, she knew we absolutely did not want more time for more money. As a chapter leader, I was at many meetings where this was discussed with Randi. She knows what is called “staff development”is a waste of time. She also knows that no one hassuffered by 6R. Rather than the riots in halls and cafeterias that management had predicted, we have had more time spent by teachers in activity that benefits the student,and the job of babysitter has gone to newly hired aides who have done an excellent job in keeping cafeterias, halls and bathrooms safe. Does Randi realize that the proposed contract will throw some aides out of a job? I do come in early; I do stay late. I do come in at least 3 days before Labor Day to set up my classroom. However, I will no longer give more than the time set by contract nor will I spend my non contract time in tutoring. LET US NOT REELECT A LAWYER WITH A FEW YEARS OF TEACHING AS OUR NEXT PRESIDENT. LET US ELECT A CAREER TEACHER TO THAT OVERPAID POSITION WITH ITS LIMO AND OTHER PERKS.

    Comment by ChptrLdr — October 5, 2005 @ 3:33 am

  • Salary schedules, major portions of the contract, and an overview are now posted here(go to the bottom of the web site page):
    http://www.uft.org/news/teacher/contract_agreement/

    Comment by everyman2 — October 5, 2005 @ 5:55 am

  • I always convinced myself that I could never be rich working for the government. I always knew salary increases would be meager. At best, salary adjustments would only equal the inflation rate. However, as I enter the the era of my life in the mid 50s, I can say that I have never missed a paycheck. When the economy had its poor years and other workers were laid off (many permanently), I had my paycheck. My lifestyle did not need to be adjusted. I was able to purchase homes, cars, and travel at will. I had a steady and reliable salary. In addition, I have excellent dental and health coverage. I haven’t spent 10 cents for dental work over the past 15 years.
    Knowing what people are paying for health and dental coverage, I can easily add that to be worth an additional $10,000 per year to me.
    Now this deal may not be the best, but it was unlikely to be be significantly better
    without more givebacks. I think a teacher who will be officially earning $90,000 +++
    per year next month (2005) is earning a reasonably good salary for 9 months of work per year. Heck, throw in a few mental health days and personal days along the year, and I think you can make the deal work for you.
    This contract may not be the best, but I think a teacher must look at the 25/55 retirement possibility as a key element to the whole deal itself. Having the City of New York support the plan is quite important to getting it through the State legislature. Even if we need to wait until the present governor has left Albany, the possibility exist that within two years this could be law. This, alone, could be a significant breakthrough with this contract. But we will have to wait and see.

    Comment by a-realist — October 5, 2005 @ 6:21 am

  • In many Nassau districts, teachers without doctoral degrees were earning 90K 4 years ago. Take, for example:

    Baldwin
    Bellmore-Merrick
    Bethpage
    East Meadow
    East Roackaway
    East Williston
    Farmingdale
    Floral Park
    Garden City
    Glen Cove
    Great Neck
    Herricks
    Island Park
    Jericho
    Lawrence
    Locust Valley
    Long Beach
    Lynbrook
    Manhasset
    Merrick
    Mineola
    North Bellmore
    North Merrick
    Oceanside
    Oyster Bay (East Norwich)
    Port Washington
    Rockville Centre
    Roslyn
    Syosset
    Westbury

    Roosevelt was only paying 89.6 that year, so they didn’t make the cut. In any case, it’s comforting to know that with all those givebacks, we’ve finally achieved parity with our suburban counterparts.

    Four years ago.

    Now most of them max out over 100K.

    Just something to think about while you patrol that lunchroom.

    Comment by NYC Educator — October 5, 2005 @ 7:07 am

  • Some people are never satisfied. And some of your guys make ridiculous analogies. I’m a bit disgusted.

    What person in the NYC real world is getting guaranteed raises that are not in unions?
    Statistics show wages have stagnated. You are lucky to get raises at all. Many people do not have that luxury. And if they do get a raise, there is no guarantee when the next one will come.

    Are teachers the only people who have to put up with increased cost of living? Rent? Gas? Metrocards? I thought that is a problem that hits everyone. And EVERYONE, well they aren’t getting salary increases.

    http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/26/news/economy/poverty_survey/

    In last Sunday’s Times [June 7, 2005], David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.

    What person in the real world is not get pummeled with health care premium increases?

    What person in the real world has a right to grieve information in their human resources file? Most people have to just suck it up since it is their word vs. their bosses word. Guess who usually wins if push comes to shove? You can write a letter disputing the allegations, but sadly, the bad review stays in your file, period. It doesn’t get discarded after 3 years.

    What salaried person in the real world doesn’t have to work unpaid overtime? Most people do.

    What person in the real world has tenure? Most people can be sacked without notice. My girlfriend was sacked on Monday. She was paid till the end of the week and she got no severance. This, after five years of being a loyal employee, traveling from Jamaica, Queens to Jersey City daily. Oh, and may I add that her salary was less than the minimum teaching salary? (She too has a masters degree.)

    Seniority rights don’t exist in the real world.

    Most companies in the real world don’t provide pensions. And forget about retiring at 55. So many people work well past 65 because they have no choice.

    jd2718 says “When we leave the job, it should be better than when we came to it. ” That is correct, in a booming economy. We are not in a booming economy. We are supposedly recovering from one of the worst recessions in 60 years. (I haven’t seen much improvement.) Most of my friends are working for less money, and without benefits than they had 4 years ago. ALL of them, have advanced degrees. ALL of them make less than the average teacher. My own family makes 60% less than it did 4 years ago. Our expenses are 15% higher. My individual income is 6% LESS than what I was making in 2002. I’m talking in REAL dollars too, not inflationary dollars.

    Employment is currently at its highest since the 2001-2002 recession, which was the worst recession in 60 years. NYC was hit far worse than many other state economies. The improvement since 2002 is still low compared to the Clinton years.

    People may say the Mayor is running on “Good times” in NY. But anyone that follows economics knows this is poppycock. NYC is not in good shape and has only marginally improved since 2002.

    I’m always hesitant to call people whiners, but some of you, OBVIOUSLY, have never had a job without union protection and have no idea what a great deal you have, and are getting. The sense of entitlement is astounding. Working conditions are MUCH tougher for the average Joe in this economy, get a grip.

    The real world, SUCKS. Perhaps some of the compromises are distasteful to you guys. But you have it better than the average working stiff in NYC, and at least, recognize that.

    agetzel says it correctly: “People who refuse to compromise usually get nothing.”

    Be happy you have a union that can get you as much as you have. Many aren’t so fortunate.

    Comment by devils_advocate — October 5, 2005 @ 7:19 am

  • As I read the pros and cons above, I sit and meditate on this contract. I see both points and I’m trying to be open-minded, however, this “raise” leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

    I don’t think that the union in its present state can do better, so my gut tells me that we should go for it. My gut also tells me that we need to reevaluate the leadership of our union (and the DOE). Maybe it’s time to have seasoned personnel in management and the union. I’m not convinced that the folks who set policy nor the heads of the UFT really feel my pain and know my job. I may be wrong, but that’s what my gut tell me.

    Comment by Persam1197 — October 5, 2005 @ 7:27 am

  • Why you must vote “no” on the proposed contract

    Extra time
    • Teaching day extended monday thru thursday by 37½ minutes
    • Two less days of summer vacation (start date before labor day)
    • One less holiday (if you teach in brooklyn or queens)

    Grievance rights
    • No right to grieve letters to the file: supervisors can write an unfair and inaccurate letter and it becomes part of your personnel file
    • elimination of step ii grievances

    Professional activities
    • Lunch duty
    • Bus duty
    • Hall duty
    • Additional small group instruction period
    • Possible involuntary assignment to position at principal’s discretion

    Seniority rights
    • Seniority and SBO transfers eliminated
    • Excessing rights weakened
    • All transfers up to principal

    Harsher disciplinary rules
    • Absent/late tenured pedagogues- doe can file a notice for arbitration and arbitrators can impose suspensions, fines, loss of salary steps
    • If medical reasons are given for the latenesses/absences, releases for personal medical information must be signed over to doe
    • Full suspension without pay of tenured pedagogues if charged under criminal law or accused by special investigations of any type of sexual misconduct against any minor. Applies even for some verbal abuse.

    Creation of lead teacher
    • Creates a new group of teachers receiving merit pay- further weakening the union. Job posting is city-wide: placement and transfer city-wide.

    Salary increases (not for everyone, check salary schedule)
    • 0% effective June 1, 2003
    • 2% effective December 1, 2003
    • 3.5% effective November 1, 2004
    • 5.5% effective November 1, 2005
    • 3.25% effective October 1, 2006

    Medical and drug benefits
    • Higher deductibles and co-pays incorporated as permanent

    Do the math: with so much additional work time
    It is disingenuous to call additional pay a raise

    Reject the contract
    And tell your union there’s more than money at stake

    Don’t give back what took years to achieve

    Comment by Jeff Kaufman — October 5, 2005 @ 7:40 am

  • Jeff,
    Do not post 300+ word diatrabes in ALL CAPS. It is hard to read and it is considered extremely poor Netiquette.

    Comment by roseba — October 5, 2005 @ 8:27 am

  • Oh Randi, you screwed us again! You should remame the union the United Giveback Union. All you know how to do is to give up our rights. I am a chapter chairperson. What happens if a principal put a bogus letter in the file of a teacher who wants a comptime job, and the principal rejects the teacher on the basis of a letter in the file. How do I defend that teacher? Small group instruction? You must be joking. It didn’t work before, why would it work now?
    Last year, I and many others protested in the freezing cold outside the Staten Island Boro presidents office. I am sorry I was there, and I am ashamed of you. Professionalism you say? Toilet patrol, lunch patrol, hallway patrol??? Increased medical co-payments, increased union dues. Yep, I sure am a professional. Do me a favor, I have only a few years left. Negociate a deal that gives teachers early retirement. I need to get the hell out of here and away from the UFT.I admire your spin. Your spinning us right into the ground!

    Comment by puptiel — October 5, 2005 @ 8:34 am

  • I read all of the above postings with careful scrutiny and have come to the conclusion that we should all vote no on it. Randi says this is “not about politics” (her words not mine). I notice however that we WILL NOT be able to vote on it until well after Election Day. I wonder why? As for the letters in the file clause wake-up people of course the principal intends to use the letter against you if he places the damn thing in your file!!! VOTE NO, VOTE RANDI OUT, and most of all screw what she says and support Ferrer for Mayor.

    Comment by Jack — October 5, 2005 @ 8:39 am

  • We need a lawyer to explore whether teacher’s civil rights as US citizens are being violated with the provisions in this new contract offer.

    We lose the right to grieve letters placed in our file by supervisors and principals - no matter how outrageously dishonest they may be.

    Is this constitutional?

    Also, any student can make any statement accusing a teacher about innapropriate behavior. That teacher will now be SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY pending some hearing well into the future. You will now be GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

    IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL ?

    Considering that , under the new contract, we will now be in many more situations ( potty patrol, cafeteria, others ) where student teacher conflicts abound. You’ll now have exponentially more possibilities to have conflicts with unruly students.
    8:40 AM

    Comment by Frank48 — October 5, 2005 @ 8:44 am

  • Anyone who thinks this contract proposal is good is not a classroom teacher. I am sorry to say that working in a school, in whatever capacity, is not as difficult or stressful as being a full time classroom teacher.

    Anyone who has never been a classroom teacher can’t possibly understand what we go through on a daily basis for the sake of the children.

    What would be so wrong with just a cost of living raise and no givebacks? I didn’t go into teaching for the money. But I do need to pay for food, shelter and clothing, and gas.

    I must say I do like the 25/55.

    Comment by Lucy2024 — October 5, 2005 @ 9:04 am

  • I love some of these arguments. Others have it worse. Look at all the things we DIDN’T give up.

    Life sucks for everyone, so take what you can get and shut the hell up. Forget about a raise. No one else gets them, so why should we?

    Let’s ignore our suburban colleagues, who fail to fall under any of these categories and compare ourselves to Wal-Mart associates instead. Let’s pretend Nassau teachers don’t make 120K, THIS year. Let’s pretend they don’t exist and feel sorry for ourselves under bad old Bush and Bloomberg.

    Let’s be role models for our students and children by instructing them in the ways of total and utter capitulation. Let’s teach them how to settle for whatever comes down the pike and hope for the best.

    That’s our job, after all, if you believe non-teachers like the one who wrote this thread.

    Comment by NYC Educator — October 5, 2005 @ 9:18 am

  • The time to take back our union by voting no to this contract is now. Randi should resign. She has disgraced not only her union members, but all labor leaders in this nation, past and present. What would Shanker and Feldman have thought of this smack in the face to their rank and file?

    If Randi doesn’t resign, then it’s time for us to force her out. She can take her contract with her and get a cushy job with some Bloomberg corporate entity. Her capitulation to the Mayor is indicative of her complete inability to lead. Therefore we must take the reins and fight for ourselves.

    We must not ratify this abomination. By standing firm we not only protect ourselves and our hard fought for rights, we ‘teach’ other unions that fighting is still necessary and effective in these un-democratic times. It is harder to fight than to give in, but there are times when the easy road simply must not be taken. If it means we make our UFT delegates answer to us and not leadership, organize our own sick outs, picket the mayor’s office and make Randi’s phone/fax lines and email servers explode with the sound of our justified indignation, then that is what we must do.

    Imagine the power we could demonstrate if every teacher in the city stayed home on the same day. Would such an action be worth it if it means we get a fair contract? Are losing some sick days, or taking a few days without pay worth it when you think of providing for your family in the future? Are the children you want to teach, not patrol like a security guard, worth it? I will be voting for Ferrer, but if he loses, I would rather spend Bloomberg’s final years in office without a contract than ratify this one. Once we give up a right, we will NEVER get it back. And what have we received in return? 15% is NOTHING after you factor in the givebacks Randi agreed to along with cost of living increases over time. We have not gotten closer to parity with the suburbs, we have been further stigmatized as sub-par educators who can be treated with less respect than our fellow NYS teachers.

    If we don’t vote this down we are saying we are nothing more than service workers or babysitters. We are spitting on our own competency, education, and training. In other words, we will be no better than Randi, Joel Klein, and Mayor Bloomberg.

    Comment by bartholian78 — October 5, 2005 @ 9:58 am

  • I don’t blame Weingarten for anything but poor strategies executed over a long period of time and for the natural outcomes of precedents she mistakenly set in the last negotiations to come true.

    But in the end all this whining about UFT leadership is just that. Cause it was pretty obvious from where I stand that there was no unanimity on the idea of a strike and without that weapon in a union’s back pocket, you’re going into negotiations with your hands tied behind your back. If the last few contracts haven’t hit that message home, then nothing will so pick your collective buts up and all move away from NYC cause it’s not going to get better. The tax base will continue to erode. The infrastructure will continue to fall apart due to lack of funding. And there will always be a budgetary crisis because just about every urban area is under the same pressures. You want a real raise? You’ll have to fight for it and there’s just enough time between now and October 2007 to fight for a real raise that brings parity with the suburbs. You want $125,000-$135,000 (that’s what all those LI and Westchester districts will be fighting over from our $93,000). You’ll need a 40% raise in one year with no givebacks and no extra time. Think you’re getting anything like that without a strike? Hell you won’t get that with a strike either. Prepare yourself for a very militant set of decades in an anti-union environment cause that’s what it will take. So we can bitch and moan from today til tomorrow but none of it is to be taken seriously until the union takes a 2007 strike as early as possible. Otherwise the future is set. We’ll get partially 2% retroactive raises for 2007 some time in 2009 with further erosion of the rights that we hold so dearly. Those are your options.

    As to this particular deal, once 90% of your delegates sold you out to base the new deal on the fact finders decision based on the bad strategy of Weingarten and company, the die was cast and quite frankly I”m surprised at just how good a deal they negotiated. Goes to show that this was all decided in the back room long before the fact finders did their jobs but that’s another story.

    Here we had an arbitrator come up with a plan. From the plan what did the city get more? From the looks of things? Nothing other than the political joke of not putting the deal up for a vote til after the selection. What did we get? Another modest raise in an extra 15 months finally without any further givebacks, more retroactive money though hardly enough to EVER get my vote, the elimination of the free coverage issue, only 2 extra days for 1/2 the teachers (the rest get the full 3 days), and some wording without teeth about micromanging us but with unfettered letters flying into our files I hardly see us going head to head with our principals over anything. Better to keep a low profile and do as we’re told. But I guess Bloomberg buys some peace and quiet with these changes so it must be worth it to him.

    No this won’t get my vote. At full retroactivty, 4% a year without additional time, then we’ll talk about my vote.

    Comment by paulrubin — October 5, 2005 @ 9:59 am

  • After All I’ve read, I’m still not sure what the contract means. Is Circular 6 a menu for what we can do during prep time? Or is it a menu for where the principal can assign us when we would normally be teaching. I agree with an earlier post in questioning why it makes sense to pay highly qualified teachers to watch kids during lunch when lunch aids are far cheaper. If we’re talking about student achievement then having a teacher do anything besides teaching is just stupid!

    As for Devils Advocate who keeps saying the REAL WORLD.
    I live in the real world, too. Are you saying that teaching is not part of the real world. The real world walks into my classroom everyday when the latest political agenda becomes the standard for what I can teach. The real world is in my classroom when I have to find a way to help students who have every problem you can think of. I live in the real world when I have to pay over $3 a gallon for gas to commute to work and get slammed with fuel surcharges by my electric company. I could go on.
    Let’s not judge our contract by how bad things could be. The point of the union is to make things better. The fact that other people in other jobs may have it worse changes nothing for us. Our profession is undervalued. No matter how many “raises”, ie time for money they give us it never adresses the key fact that we work very hard outside of school everyday.

    A raise would be acknowledging the time we already spend and paying us fairly for it.

    If we can’t vote on the contract until after the election, maybe that’s a good thing. Vote for Ferrer and then lets negotiate.
    Finally this union better not come out and endorse Bloomberg! If it does then we should riot in the streets!

    Comment by laserjet — October 5, 2005 @ 10:15 am

  • Some of you posting on this thread are the poison in which ruin schools. I know your kind, hissing in the lunch room about the contract every minute you are there during your prep, professional and lunch periods.

    You talk about how “these” kids just can’t learn. You belittle every Professional Developer and development saying it is a waste of your time. While all you did during the session was gripe about something or read the newspaper.

    You complain non-stop about everything.

    Please - Retire! Take your money and run! Go to the suburbs you speak so fondly of.

    Don’t ruin your school, and try not to poison the minds of young teachers new to the system. I advise young teachers to stay away from your kind. You are nothing more then a malcontent who feeds off negativity. You are the same type that berates children and try to make them worthless so that you can feel good.

    The majority of us love this city and we choose to teach in it because we want to be a part of it. The majority of us have no issues with these givebacks, because we put the time in anyway. We do not fear letters in our file as we do our job the way it should be done.

    This is still the best job in the city. I have worked the 9-5 corporate shift. Shoot, I sit here writing this while all my friends are at work.

    Let us move on, let us figure how we can work with administration so that we can raise the level of education for these children so that we can give them the best education possible.

    Let us move forward.

    Comment by miso — October 5, 2005 @ 10:15 am

  • Miso,

    I have not said one cross word about any kid. I have said nothing about kids who can’t learn. I have not noticed any of my colleagues doing so either.

    Your comments are baseless and uncalled for. Your post consists mostly of ad-hominem name-calling rather than argument.

    Most posts here focus primarily on the contract, pro or con, rather than other posters. That is the way of civilized discussion, and that’s what I’ll teach my students and children.

    “Let’s move forward.”

    I couldn’t agree more. It’s quite sad this contract moves backward, particularly by abolishing things we paid for with zeroes in previous contracts.

    I love being a teacher, and I adore my students, for the most part. I can, however, make a clear distinction between my job and this contract.

    Comment by NYC Educator — October 5, 2005 @ 10:35 am

  • My fellow educators - or at least a large percentage of the ones who have commented in the past 12 hours - appear to believe in the “My mind is made up; don’t bother me with the facts” school of reality.

    I’ve been in the system for 35 years and recognize that this is the best we are going to do this time around. Period. End of discussion.

    The contract will be ratified, despite the crankiness of the unrealistic minority.

    Comment by institutional memory — October 5, 2005 @ 10:37 am

  • Miso,

    For you to equate exercising my democratic right to debate the merits and problems in the tentative contract agreement with “berating children” in order to make them “feel worthless” is a tad silly, don’t you think?

    Despite our differences on the contract agreement, I assume that every teacher who posts here at Edwize is a good teacher. I assume that we all treat our students with the respect and dignity they deserve. I assume that we are all responsible professionals who do our jobs to the best of our abilities and try to make the individual worlds of our students better each and every day we see them.

    I assume you are a good teacher, Miso. I would like you to assume I am a good teacher as well until I give you clear evidence to the contrary.

    Thanks.

    Comment by realitybasededucator — October 5, 2005 @ 11:01 am

  • “This is the best we’ll do…”

    We just received an hourly PAY CUT …( 4.4 % more hours vs. 3.75% pay increase )

    PLUS ALL OF THE GIVEBACKS !

    PLUS UFT ENDORSEMENT OF BLOOMBERG, since ratification takes place AFTER THE ELECTION !

    JUST VOTE NO - KEEP WHAT WE HAVE AND OPPOSE BLOOMBERG’S CANDIDACY !

    Comment by Frank48 — October 5, 2005 @ 11:11 am

  • After reading many of the contract posts maybe the critics are right … maybe public schools and public school unions have outlived their usefullness. If folks whine and bitch about 30+% percent increases over the last two contracts is there any hope? If the members turn down the contract maybe Bloomberg et al should start looking toward the Edisons of the world. In 1975 the UFT went on strike … 15,000 teachers were laid off … the union leadership settled and we came back after five days - and lent the City millions to avoid bankruptcy -it was very unpopular - and it thwarted the City plan to declare bankructcy and invalidate the contract! I’m amazed that Randi was able to wrest this contract from Bloomberg … if we do not have a contract over November 8th he’ll never sign a contract … why should he? and, he’ll do everything possible to drive us out on strike … the Bloomberg staffer who monitors this blogsite he must be chuckling and figuring how much they can save after we self-destruct? gee … those health plan benefits are awefully expensive … why should the City pay for prescriptions?

    Comment by mets6986 — October 5, 2005 @ 11:19 am

  • Frank, the 4.4% increased work load is constant throughout the contract while the $ increases build upon each other. At the end of the contract we will be working 4.4% more and receiving 15% more money. This is not to blind anyone to the realities of the givebacks and the increase in administrative powers, but to use the Math in the way you do makes us look foolish.

    Comment by xkaydet65 — October 5, 2005 @ 11:26 am

  • I cannot believe these comments. If you do not like the leadership of the union and want someone more radical–that is fine. You want a more liberal Mayor–that is fine also. However, under the present political climate, we are going to be stuck with Bloomberg and company for the next four years. He has the power of the media behind him because he is the media. Therefore, this is the best we could do under this climate. There are people in this country who want to totally destroy all worker’s rights–and they have political power. We must survive so we can fight another day. If we strike, Bloomberg could abrogate the contract (read the Triborough Law). He would be free to impose any type of working condition he wanted to. These are people who would fire the lot of us. Then where would we be? Our lives would be ruined and we would be unable to fight politically.

    I say take what we got, swallow the negatives, and now fight to change the complete political climate of this country. The economy will probably collaspe under the GOP and once more progressive people are in power in the next 4 or 8 years, then we can get a better contract. Four years from now, Bloomberg will be gone (thanks to term limits) and so will Klein. At that time we can fight for the election of a more liberal Mayor who will be more willing to negotiate a more liberal contract. In case you all forgot, because Dinkins refused to give us the contract we wanted, many did not vote for him and we got our wonderful friend Rudy instead. Therefore, no guarantee that we will get what we want even from our so-called progressive friends.

    People, wake up to political reality and stop living in a world of dreams. Politics and collective bargaining are all compromises.

    Comment by agetzel — October 5, 2005 @ 11:27 am

  • Most of us will never warrent a letter in our file, but it doesn’t mean that many won’t be placed there. Many of us have worked in at risk low performing schools for years and do not race when the opportunity comes along every May to bump a newly appointed teacher out of a rosier position. There are so many myths that erroneously support why these givebacks won’t hurt the rank and file; they are meant to do one thing and one thing only-to give more power to administrators. Many of the people that I know that have become administrators over the years have been those who either hate teaching or feel that they were never very good at it. Some come in from business and flatly state that their goal is to be in charge of a school, never to teach. In other words, this contract is meant to further empower those who do not do what we do. This contract is an insult to every educator that has placed their life behind their job - VOTE IT DOWN!!!!!! And by the way, VOTE FOR

    FREDDY FERRER.

    Comment by Dfreecity — October 5, 2005 @ 11:29 am

  • You’re right mets6986….it’s amazing that we got anything out of Bloomberg…he knows we would never strike and that we don’t have a leg to stand on. I don’t like the contract either, but our time for fighting passed a long time ago…we should’ve called a strike during the first September without a contract. This contract will be ratified, not matter the givebacks and we will continue giving back for every subsequent raise in the future. Sorry to say, because I certainly would’ve taken action, but I think we’ll have to live with this. In the mean time we might actually try to reorganzine our own union and elect a fighter for president.

    Comment by firefly — October 5, 2005 @ 11:29 am

  • MISO,

    you are obviously a fellow. let me give my opinion on the majority of fellows.

    FROM THE MIND OF A FELLOW:

    “i got bored/tired in my current 9-5 job. i decided to change my career. What shall i do? i know–i’ll be a teacher. After all, the city will pay for me to get a degree and i won’t have to work as hard as i do at my current 9-5 job. So what that people who went to college to be teachers have to pay for their own masters degrees? So what if i have ZERO classroom experience? I will go into the room and be the best teacher ever. I will show all these dedictaed professionals what it REALLY means to be a teacher. What it means to really care about these kids. So what if i only started to care about them now? So what if i only care about them now, not when i first started out after college–when i took a high paying job instead of a noble one.

    So I will go into that school and I will tell these “teachers” that I am better than them because I care about the kids more than my living. After all, i have a savings account and money from all the time I put into my 9-5 job. I have no problem commuting, since i already live in NYC. I didn’t have to scrimp to buy a house over an hour away. So i don’t care about staying later. Not a problem to me if i get home at 7 pm. I never will. i can just get on the train and be home+. SO what if i don’t see my kids–I am either too young to have any (therefore I can afford to stay up later) or I am too old and my kids are already grown. After all, adults with children don’t just up and quit a job to be a fellow. That would be stupid.”

    I have been a REAL teacher for 7 years. I have seen fellows come and go. They can’t handle it, it isn’t for them, etc… I am sure I will see this happen more and more. However, i think Randi, Bloomberg, Klein, want a city full of fellows. Screw the people who are expereinced and trained in their craft. Get the people who will do whatever the admin says–they are the future of this city.

    This contract will do just that. If it passes, it will pass due to the incompetance and foolishness of the teaching fellows.

    NOTE: there are some excellent teaching fellows. I just think that they are few and far between. However, I still think that it is wrong and unfair that they get a free ride as an educator when I, who knew what i wanted to do from 5 years old, have had to scrimp and save to be a better educator. I was already good since I had the desire to do this from the beginning.

    Comment by bronxenglish — October 5, 2005 @ 11:31 am

  • I agree that this contract will be ratified but people still need to vent and express their displeasure.

    My guess is that miso is a teacher new to the system and has been brainwashed into thinking that the DOE really cares about the education of the children.

    The education classes do a nice job of selling the new teachers on the idea that the reason that the DOE is such a mess and that so many children are failing is because of the non-working, cranky old teachers. And that if a new, young, vibrant teacher is willing to buy into the newest educational BS, DOE mandates, professional development and spend 16 hours a day on school work, everything will come up roses.

    This is all wrong because you are taking the accountability away from the DOE and the responsibility for learning away from the children. Without the accountability and responsibility for learning you then give the children permission to fail and permission for the DOE to blame you.

    Those of us who write on here may be a little crazy but we are passionate about education. Many of us have been around the block and see the writing on the wall. There is no way that I am going to send my fellow teachers down the river just because I am single, have nowhere to go after school, and don’t have an immediate family to support.

    This contract proposal should be examined from everyone’s perspective; from the seasoned teacher to the newest of teachers. We need to try to understand where people are coming from and forgive the newbies, they don’t know any better. There are so many things to consider that to just sign on the dotted line would be careless.

    But like I said before, I think it will pass.

    Comment by Lucy2024 — October 5, 2005 @ 11:38 am

  • Bronxenglish,

    I am a selector for the Teaching Fellows. Before you make comments, why don’t you do real research and stop basing your opinions on anecdotes. Most fellows happen not to be young rich kids or independently wealthy businessmen. Most happen to be minorities who want to make better lives for themselves and others. Also, we have become pretty good at weeding out those who will not stay in education. The statistics show that most fellows do stay for the long haul. This is all a matter of public record in case you are interested in facts and not bias.

    Comment by agetzel — October 5, 2005 @ 11:39 am

  • I notice a lot of people who have posted in support of this contract are people with more than 20 yrs of service. Although I have no evidence about the intentions of any of the posters, I do know in my school a lot of the older veterans are only concerned about their pensions. They are voting for this to get the additional money to increase their pensions. They will only have to live with the more onerous components of this agreement for a couple of years at most. Than they will say “bye bye.” Younger teachers should be wary of any “50 something” colleague trying to convince you to vote “yes.” Their interests very likely are NOT YOURS! This contract has work rule changes that will make it very difficult for many people to complete 30 yr. careers.

    Comment by willimake30yrs? — October 5, 2005 @ 11:54 am

  • For the record, I have a BA in Education. I started out in the classroom and taught for 8 years before leaving education.

    I was disgusted with the whole system when I left. I was burnt out and had had enough. I decided to try my hand in the corporate world only to find that what I did best was educate kids. Besides, I loved having summers off. I have had the opportunity to have traveled the world because of it.

    I am good at being an educator! I expend a lot of energy trying to make every student successful! I know the system is not perfect, but has got better in the last 4 years. Better than any other time in which I have been in the system.

    Some of you take offense to my comments, but every person who has been in the DOE, ( or BOARD of ED as some of you wish it still were ) knows exactly the type of person I am talking about. We don’t need you! You are poison to the system!

    Young teachers, take note: AVOID THESE PEOPLE AT ALL COSTS! They find every fault with the system, but if you try to engage them in a pedagogical discussion, they can’t have one. They do not believe in pedagogical technique. They don’t believe that you can refine instructional technique. They have been teaching the same way they were teaching 20 years ago and refuse to accept any constructive criticism. They could care less.

    I recently bought a home in New York City, after debating about moving to the suburbs, I refused! Born & raised in The Bronx, I decided to stay and raise my family here.

    So I am more concerned with the schools in which my children will attend. I am proud to say I voted for Mike Bloomberg. I am proud to say we should reelect him as our Mayor! Although I don’t agree with everything he has done, he has most importantly made significant change in New York City Schools for the better.

    For those of you calling for Freddy Ferrer, he did little as Bronx Borough President. He is a bumbling Politician which set our city back more then 30 years to the time of John Lindsey.

    For those of you who have a personal stake in New York City schools, ( I mean who will have children who attend, or will start a family in NYC - Not you Tier 1 & 2 who live outside NYC and only care about your pensions and could care less about the NYC kids ) Let’s stay our course. Let us be part of the significant change happening in the schools. Let us be partners in making this the most dynamic educational environment in the most dynamic city in the world!

    WE CAN DO IT! But that means giving ground to gain ground!

    Comment by miso — October 5, 2005 @ 12:09 pm

  • as person with very close to 30 years who on principle will vote no, I agree wholeheartedly with willmake30yrs! I will be thinking of the younger teachers when I vote no!!!

    Comment by shouldhavegonetomeds — October 5, 2005 @ 12:13 pm

  • argumentum ad hominem

    Comment by NYC Educator — October 5, 2005 @ 12:14 pm

  • Ad hominem
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally “argument to the man”), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

    Contents [show]
    1 Ad hominem as logical fallacy
    2 Usage
    3 Validity
    4 Subtypes
    4.1 Ad hominem abusive
    4.2 Ad hominem circumstantial
    4.3 Ad hominem tu quoque
    5 Taxonomy
    6 See also

    [edit]
    Ad hominem as logical fallacy
    A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

    A makes claim B;
    there is something objectionable about A,
    therefore claim B is false.
    The first statement is called a ‘factual claim’ and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an ‘inferential claim’ and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the positive aspects of the person for the truth of the conclusion are discussed under appeal to authority.

    Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Comment by miso — October 5, 2005 @ 12:23 pm

  • Miso can you please go back to your job campaigning for Bloomberg and stop assuming you know anything about the teachers, myself included - teaching 3+ years with an MSEd if you must know, on this blog? The only poison I see around here is coming from your comments.

    You left teaching, our contract doesn’t affect your ability to put food on your table. Your lack of pedagogical knowledge shows when you say Bloomberg has made schools better? Better how, are you judging that by test scores that still aren’t scaled on a percentile basis to give parents accurate knowledge about where their children really stand academically? Or perhaps you are basing it on the corporate programs such as America’s Choice that he has brought into our classrooms, despite the fact that they are unproven in school systems such as NYC and force teachers to adhere to pedagogical practices (your favorite word) that are not always effective given the background and current skill level of the students we are struggling to educate. And most teachers Miso actually do believe their students can and should learn so they don’t end up working at WalMart or in jail. That’s why we fight for things like better pay and smaller classes and why we work our butts off long after our 7.5 hour day is over.

    Please stop insulting us and tell your buddy Mike that we are not listening.

    Comment by bartholian78 — October 5, 2005 @ 12:42 pm

  • miso,

    I’m glad you now know what you’re doing. It’s gratifying to see you acknowledging your own argument as a “logical fallacy.” I hope you base your next post on reason and logic rather than unwarranted name-calling. Then we’ll actually have something to discuss.

    Your success notwithstanding, it’s sad that we, as a society, subscribe to ad-hominem nonsense. It’s a favored technique of the far right when they wish to prey upon our ignorance.

    It’s tragic when shadowy groups succeed in accusing Senator Max Cleland, a war hero who lost two limbs, of being a coward. It’s sad when a shadowy group is able to label John Kerry, another war hero, a coward in order to insert a president who assiduously avoided combat.

    When O’Reilly says teacher unions are not good Americans, many people believe him. When he advocates “right to work” conditions for teachers, which would effectively eviscerate unions as bargaining units, many people believe that too.

    When US Secretary of Education Rod Paige, who was never an educator called the NEA a “terrorist organization,” a lot of people believed that too. Fortunately, there were people willing to speak out and now he’s history.

    It’s high time we raised the level of discourse in this country. It’s our duty to speak what we beleive to be the truth.

    I respect your right to speak in support of this contract. In this country though, even under President GW Bush, we who differ have the same right to oppose it.

    Comment by NYC Educator — October 5, 2005 @ 12:50 pm

  • I am a secretary who is currently working in a high school. I was a secretary in an elementary school for 9 years which I loved, but the principal decided that her budget wasn’t that great and in order to save some money, she couldn’t afford to have two secretaries. So she decided like many other principals do, that a school aide can do the job of a pupil accounting secretary. I was the one with the least seniority and was excessed. I ended up in a split position in two small schools until one of the principals was able to keep me full time. One of the schools didn’t have a computer for ATS, Payroll, etc. so I had to go to a third school and use their computer.

    Where was the UFT then. They were taking my dues, but I was told to put in a workload grievance. That’s the answer the UFT has for secretaries. Instead of fighting for secretaries and stopping principals from using school aides to do the job of a secretary, the UFT has secretaries put in a workload grievance. Doing this doesn’t help the situation. The UFT is just letting the Board of Education and Principals get away with this. This issue should be part of the contract.

    With reference to the new contract, I am not exactly thrilled with it, but it’s better than nothing at this point. Bloomberg will be elected again, and if we say “No” to this contract where are we? If we strike, Bloomberg wins, not us or the kids. He gets 2 days pay for every day that we are out. He would just love for the UFT to strike. He really gains if the there is a strike. After he takes all that money and puts Weingarten in jail and has the union pay a fine, then he’ll give teachers, etc. a 4.25 raise, which he wanted to begin with.

    I understand the point of teachers, the stress of being in a classroom all day, but having a teacher in the lunchroom makes a different. Yes, school aides are handling the job, but lunchrooms ran more smoothly when a teacher was present. At this point in time, and with this mayor, you have to give up something and do a little extra work to get a raise. Bloomberg won’t give a penny unless teachers, etc. do extra work for it. He runs the schools the way he does his business.

    On the otherhand, if Ferrar would become mayor, there is no guarantee that he would give us a better contract. He can say he would now, but when he’s in, it could be a whole different ballgame.

    I didn’t vote for Bloomberg in the past election and I definitely won’t vote for him this time, but it sure looks like he will be voted in again, and then where do we stand. I am a single secretary who can’t afford to strike and lose two days pay for every day we are out. I know that I have to support the union, and if everyone wants to strike I would go out on strike, but in my opinion, this contract doesn’t look that bad. Teachers, etc. aren’t giving up that much.

    With respect to going back on hall duty or back in the lunchroom, I know what it is to serve lunch. When the school that I work in first opened, we didn’t have a full cafeteria. We had 150 students and had lunch delivered to our school daily. We didn’t have anyone from Food Services that would come in daily to serve food, the one school aide that we have had to serve the lunch. When she was out sick, I, a secretary, had to serve lunch. I am so happy that we have a full cafeteria now, and a kitchen worker who serves the food.

    I didn’t like doing it, but it didn’t kill me. It won’t kill teachers to rotate amongst themselves and do hall duty or cafeteria duty in order to get a contract settlement. From what the mayor was saying before, the givebacks he wanted, were a lot worse that what he’s asked for in this tentative contract.

    Comment by bloomyhater — October 5, 2005 @ 1:07 pm

  • Miso,

    I think you are well intended but frankly out of you mind with good intentions. No matter what you say about Bloomberg and company and let’s face it he couldn’t be in there if many teachers didn’t feel like you and vote for him- he would NEVER NEVER NEVER send his children or anyone in his family to public schools nor would any of his friends even CONSIDER it. Have you even heard of Dalton? Sacred Heart? Collegiate? Trinity? Saint Davids? Saint Hilda and Saint Hughes? Calhoun School? Nightingale Bamford? Horace Mann? Marymount so proudly facing the Met on Fifth Avenue? Fordham Prep? Ramaz? If you are like many of our new teachers those places may not even be part of your ken. (IF you really know and love New York so well here is a pop quiz: Of the schools I mentioned above, which two did the LAST mayor send his children to) If you are like well over 95 per cent of NYC’s younger/newer teachers you can’t answer that question correctly because you are not well read enough to know the answer. (yes, we old farts don’t all know the answer either, but we are more likely to)

    Tragically, no one who is anyone sends their children to New York City public schools these days. (If you consider New York Presbyterian Hospital what per cent of their physicians send their children to New York City public schools would you say?) If you consider Skadden, Arps, (if you know what Skadden, Arps is) what per cent of their attorneys send their children to New York City public schools?
    The answers here are simply risible!! It is an indisputable fact of life? Nothing Michael Bloomberg did or does will ever change that!! You are simply delusional at best if you can’t acknowledge that.

    Indeed, in many ways he has made it far worse. I myself always attended Catholic parochial schools (and no I would never send a child of mine to a public school anymore than Mike Bloomberg would) so I had not had much exposure to Jewish teachers in my youth. When I first entered the New York City school system I was very impressed by the large number of Jewish teachers and their great love of learning and education. If they had faults, it was that they saw education, that they so loved, as a panacea of everything and perhaps didn’t always understand why all other ethnic groups didn’t see education as the passageway from oppression and poverty. These highly literate, well read people have largely left the system and often worked to assure that their children made their contribution elsewhere. For that matter Randi’s mother was a teacher. Maybe that’s why Randi made sure she went to law school and her sister went to medical school. They weren’t going to suffer like mom for such pennies.

    In their place are a vertiable plethora of well intended tyros like yourself (although I shouldn’t use the word tyro because our newer teachers often can’t define it, then again they may not be able to define plethora either) who can’t readily give you the dates of the American Civil War anymore than they can