The sentiments on the blogosphere, Twitter, and Facebook regarding the proposed new contract are pretty clear. Most members don't like this contract proposal. I don't either, and the main reason for my disdain is the treatment of ATRs. If unions don't protect their weakest members, what good are they?
To be honest, if not for the ATR proposal, which will lead to the termination of many fine teachers, I would likely vote in favor of this contract. Not because I like it, but I know that voting no presents a problem.
The last, and only, time teachers voted down a contract was in 1995. Being an old timer, I remember when this happened. If you want all the details, you can read Kit Wainer's account on the Ed Notes blog. The tl;dr of it is simply this: We voted down the contract, and were given another proposal that was only slightly less odious than the one we turned down. It sailed through the second time.
The current proposal faces the same "No" problem. If we vote it down, what will be the outcome? Will we get more money? I doubt it. Maybe the city would agree to move one of the retro payments up a year, or the $1000 signing bribe would become a $1200 signing bribe, but that would be about all we'd get. And the revised contract would sail through, just as it did in 1995.
I'm not advising anyone to vote yes for this proposal. I still intend to vote NO myself. But let's not kid ourselves. Voting down this proposal will not save the ATRs because most teachers don't even know what an ATR is, much less give a damn about saving them. The main concern of most teachers is their own pocketbooks (and in this economic environment, who can blame them?)
So by all means, vote no if that's how you feel, and I hope that is how you feel. But let's not kid ourselves about what the upshot would be. We'd be drawn and quartered in the press, and we'd end up settling for a contract that isn't a whole lot better than the one we're looking at now.
Showing posts with label contact negotiations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contact negotiations. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The Two Per Cent Solution
We have passed the two year mark in waiting for a contract. PERB is nowhere to be found, and the UFT has apparently decided to enter radio silence mode as not a single article in NY Teacher talks about our lack of a contract.
The UFT has apparently decided to "wait out" this mayor on the theory that we will get a better deal from whoever takes the reins when Mayor4life's 12 year siege on the public schools finally comes to an end in 2013.
Bad idea.
First of all, the union has often said that we should wait for a new mayor to get a better deal. We waited out Koch for 12 years, Dinkins did little for us for another 4, and Giuliani screwed us for 8. Now, ten years into the Bloomberg administration, we are supposed to wait another two years for our shining knight to come through and shower us with the money we deserve.
It's not gonna happen. We can't afford to wait this mayor out.
Let's do the math. We rightly want the 4% per year that other unions got in the last round of contracts. Let's assume that unions get the measly 1.25% that's been budgeted for unions over the next two years. That would mean that if we wait for Bloomberg to leave office before we negotiate, we will be 10.5% behind where we should be. Does anyone really think that any new mayor will give us a 10.5% raise as soon as he or she walks through the doors of City Hall? Do you believe that in 2013, we will receive all that money retroactive to 2009? No way in hell that will happen, even if Michael Mulgrew is elected mayor.
Apart from all that, can you wait another two or three years for a raise? I know my family is feeling the pinch right now.
I have a solution that might work--a two percent solution. Let's forget the 4% that we are never going to get no matter what. Let the mayor break the pattern, and we can once and for all break the bonds of pattern bargaining that has suppressed teacher salaries for too long. Let's ask for 2% retroactive for each year to 2009, and 2% for this year and next. That would be a total of 8% by 2012 when this mayor is set to leave office. It's not 10.5%, but it is close.
Would the mayor go for this? I think so. It's a pretty easy sell. He can claim that he gave us half what other unions got. In addition, we give him the Danielson framework that he wants and is going to get anyway eventually. He can then claim that his shrewd negotiating is what led to him being able to claim all that Race to the Top money, which he can't get without union support. In return, we get 8 of the 10.5% we deserve. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot more than we have now.
In 2013, we can start fresh with a new mayor and 8% in our pockets.
Any thoughts?
The UFT has apparently decided to "wait out" this mayor on the theory that we will get a better deal from whoever takes the reins when Mayor4life's 12 year siege on the public schools finally comes to an end in 2013.
Bad idea.
First of all, the union has often said that we should wait for a new mayor to get a better deal. We waited out Koch for 12 years, Dinkins did little for us for another 4, and Giuliani screwed us for 8. Now, ten years into the Bloomberg administration, we are supposed to wait another two years for our shining knight to come through and shower us with the money we deserve.
It's not gonna happen. We can't afford to wait this mayor out.
Let's do the math. We rightly want the 4% per year that other unions got in the last round of contracts. Let's assume that unions get the measly 1.25% that's been budgeted for unions over the next two years. That would mean that if we wait for Bloomberg to leave office before we negotiate, we will be 10.5% behind where we should be. Does anyone really think that any new mayor will give us a 10.5% raise as soon as he or she walks through the doors of City Hall? Do you believe that in 2013, we will receive all that money retroactive to 2009? No way in hell that will happen, even if Michael Mulgrew is elected mayor.
Apart from all that, can you wait another two or three years for a raise? I know my family is feeling the pinch right now.
I have a solution that might work--a two percent solution. Let's forget the 4% that we are never going to get no matter what. Let the mayor break the pattern, and we can once and for all break the bonds of pattern bargaining that has suppressed teacher salaries for too long. Let's ask for 2% retroactive for each year to 2009, and 2% for this year and next. That would be a total of 8% by 2012 when this mayor is set to leave office. It's not 10.5%, but it is close.
Would the mayor go for this? I think so. It's a pretty easy sell. He can claim that he gave us half what other unions got. In addition, we give him the Danielson framework that he wants and is going to get anyway eventually. He can then claim that his shrewd negotiating is what led to him being able to claim all that Race to the Top money, which he can't get without union support. In return, we get 8 of the 10.5% we deserve. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot more than we have now.
In 2013, we can start fresh with a new mayor and 8% in our pockets.
Any thoughts?
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Weighing in on Layoffs
In evaluating any deal, I think you have to look at the terms in their entirety. Last night's deal to avert layoffs certainly isn't perfect, but I believe in the end it strengthens our hand in future negotiations while surrendering very little.
Yes, it sucks if you were eligible for a sabbatical in the 2012-13 school year, but did anyone think sabbaticals would have survived the next round of contract talks? I think it's a miracle we've had them this long, and it's pretty much a done deal that they will be sold off in the next contract. (FTR, I was denied a sabbatical once under the slug Klein, so I know the pain of this for eligible teachers and I am not trying to downplay it).
As for the ATR deal, I think this may actually strengthen their hand. The city's big kick against ATRs was that they supposedly didn't have anything to do and were costing the city millions. Now that schools will be forced to use ATRs, the city loses its argument that the reserve pool is draining the system of money.
The ATR issue was one of the city's main weapons in trying to destroy seniority. Had they gotten us to concede on ATRs, then seniority and job security would have been effectively destroyed, as they would have used school closings and budget cuts as a means to create more ATRs who could be fired in short order. As it now stands, the city has little reason to create a larger reserve pool because these teachers will still be working day to day and the argument that they are a financial drain has vanished.
So, what did we lose in this deal? We lost sabbaticals for a year, and realistically, probably for good. ATRs may now be used to fill the role of per diem subs (which may not be a loss at all). Class sizes will increase slightly, as 2600 jobs will be lost through attrition. And Christine Quinn comes out smelling like a rose, which, to me, is a negative as she stabbed us in the back on extending Bloomberg's term limits.
On the positive side:
If you still hate this plan, remember that the UFT does not operate in a political vacuum. Look at what's happening to teachers all across this country. Look at other large cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, DC, etc. Look at the evisceration of union and teacher rights in states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island. Look at New Jersey, where union workers will have to pay higher pension and health care costs, and where collective bargaining is more restricted. Look at our own state, where the CSEA agreed to a five year deal with no raises in the first three years and 2% in each of the next two years, in addition to nine furlough days, in order to avert threatened layoffs.
Yes, you can be a purist and say that we shouldn't have given up anything, and in principle, I agree. Given the political realities and climate, we have come out of this better and stronger than any other union that I can see.
The challenge now is how we proceed. Can we wrest a reasonable contract from Bloomberg? He is weakened, and now is the time to attack him on all fronts. We can effectively argue that its time to end his scandal-plagued no-bid contracts such as CityTime and direct that money to schools. We can call him on his lies about layoffs. We can lobby for higher taxes on the rich in order to preserve jobs for the middle class--a position that is overwhelmingly popular with voters right now.
No, the fight isn't over, but we are in the late rounds of this bout, and Bloomberg is on the ropes. We need to deliver a knockout blow to him and his policies. It's not good enough to play Rope-A-Dope until a new mayor comes along. We have the upper hand.
And hopefully, the 4100 teachers whose jobs were saved will see the value of their union. Perhaps this deal can unite us.
Yes, it sucks if you were eligible for a sabbatical in the 2012-13 school year, but did anyone think sabbaticals would have survived the next round of contract talks? I think it's a miracle we've had them this long, and it's pretty much a done deal that they will be sold off in the next contract. (FTR, I was denied a sabbatical once under the slug Klein, so I know the pain of this for eligible teachers and I am not trying to downplay it).
As for the ATR deal, I think this may actually strengthen their hand. The city's big kick against ATRs was that they supposedly didn't have anything to do and were costing the city millions. Now that schools will be forced to use ATRs, the city loses its argument that the reserve pool is draining the system of money.
The ATR issue was one of the city's main weapons in trying to destroy seniority. Had they gotten us to concede on ATRs, then seniority and job security would have been effectively destroyed, as they would have used school closings and budget cuts as a means to create more ATRs who could be fired in short order. As it now stands, the city has little reason to create a larger reserve pool because these teachers will still be working day to day and the argument that they are a financial drain has vanished.
So, what did we lose in this deal? We lost sabbaticals for a year, and realistically, probably for good. ATRs may now be used to fill the role of per diem subs (which may not be a loss at all). Class sizes will increase slightly, as 2600 jobs will be lost through attrition. And Christine Quinn comes out smelling like a rose, which, to me, is a negative as she stabbed us in the back on extending Bloomberg's term limits.
On the positive side:
- We saved 4100 teacher jobs.
- We did not give in to Bloomberg's stick-up job on the health care fund (although Mulgrew wanted to).
- We have weakened this mayor by exposing his layoff threats as a sham for the third time. This may not seem a big deal, until you remember that almost no one believed his threat this year, and will believe it even less next year should he choose to pull that tired rabbit out of a hat again.
- We have preserved seniority and defeated the mayor on LIFO.
- ATRs should have increased job security under this plan.
- E4E has effectively been castrated as their signature issue is gone.
If you still hate this plan, remember that the UFT does not operate in a political vacuum. Look at what's happening to teachers all across this country. Look at other large cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, DC, etc. Look at the evisceration of union and teacher rights in states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island. Look at New Jersey, where union workers will have to pay higher pension and health care costs, and where collective bargaining is more restricted. Look at our own state, where the CSEA agreed to a five year deal with no raises in the first three years and 2% in each of the next two years, in addition to nine furlough days, in order to avert threatened layoffs.
Yes, you can be a purist and say that we shouldn't have given up anything, and in principle, I agree. Given the political realities and climate, we have come out of this better and stronger than any other union that I can see.
The challenge now is how we proceed. Can we wrest a reasonable contract from Bloomberg? He is weakened, and now is the time to attack him on all fronts. We can effectively argue that its time to end his scandal-plagued no-bid contracts such as CityTime and direct that money to schools. We can call him on his lies about layoffs. We can lobby for higher taxes on the rich in order to preserve jobs for the middle class--a position that is overwhelmingly popular with voters right now.
No, the fight isn't over, but we are in the late rounds of this bout, and Bloomberg is on the ropes. We need to deliver a knockout blow to him and his policies. It's not good enough to play Rope-A-Dope until a new mayor comes along. We have the upper hand.
And hopefully, the 4100 teachers whose jobs were saved will see the value of their union. Perhaps this deal can unite us.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
It's Not What You Say...
Today's email regarding the upcoming contract negotiations struck the right note. Almost.
On the positive side, Mulgrew sounds angry. That's something that Randi couldn't even fake. About the ATR situation, he says "This is an inexcusable waste of human capital and mismanagement of resources." Regarding the Rubber Rooms, he says, "If the DOE’s ATR policy is the leading example of management ineptitude, the so-called “rubber rooms” are a close second."
Good stuff. But what I felt was missing was what Mulgrew didn't say.
He didn't say that we will never, under any circumstances, sell out the ATRs.
He didn't say that we will make eliminating rubber rooms a lynchpin of our negotiations.
I hope he meant those things, but I'd feel a lot better if he said them.
On the positive side, Mulgrew sounds angry. That's something that Randi couldn't even fake. About the ATR situation, he says "This is an inexcusable waste of human capital and mismanagement of resources." Regarding the Rubber Rooms, he says, "If the DOE’s ATR policy is the leading example of management ineptitude, the so-called “rubber rooms” are a close second."
Good stuff. But what I felt was missing was what Mulgrew didn't say.
He didn't say that we will never, under any circumstances, sell out the ATRs.
He didn't say that we will make eliminating rubber rooms a lynchpin of our negotiations.
I hope he meant those things, but I'd feel a lot better if he said them.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Extra Credit(s)
OK boys and girls--it's contract time once again, and you know what that means! RUMORS! Now let me state at the outset that this is just a rumor. I am not one of the 300 members of the negotiating committee. I am Michael Mulgrew.No, just kidding. I'm an ordinary teacher with just one pension, unlike our UFT friends, so I don't know any more than you do. But the rumor is a doozy.
According to someone who knows someone who is kind of friends with someone who knows something, I can irresponsibly spread the rumor that the UFT is angling for a new salary step--45 credits above the masters.
At first blush, I thought...Nahhh...it doesn't make any sense. But then I thought about it, and from a UFT tucking in Mike Bloomberg perspective, it makes a lot of sense.
Think about it. Mulgrew negotiates the usual pattern 4% minus the .58 percent we lost to get the two days before Labor Day which we used to have but then gave away but got back. (Whew.) That's not really much of a victory, is it? But suppose they put in a new step--a 45 credit above the master's step?
Well, that changes everything. Suppose Mikey gives even a measly 2 grand for that 45 credit plateau. With the 8% over two years and the two K for the step, Bloomie could claim to have raised the top teacher salary to $110K!! Think of it! Near parity with the suburbs!
Sure, it would be a win for Mulgrew, but other than the above claim, how does it benefit Bloomie to raise teacher salaries in a time of economic stagnation? Simple. Not only does he get to claim that he's creating a pool of highly qualified teachers, but the kicker is he hardly has to pay anything! I'd bet a year's worth of UFT dues that the number of teachers with 45 credits above is probably less than 3%, so few of us would qualify. As for all the teachers who would go back to school for the extra moolah--so what? It'll take most teachers a few years to get those extra 15 credits, so Bloomie won't have to pay for this for years. Politicians love plans that let them take credit now but pay far after the election is over.
Also, it's pretty common knowledge that most teachers leave before putting in 5 years, so they have no chance of getting to 45 above. The majority of teachers take 5 years just to earn their master's, and another 3 to get the 30 above. Tack on two more years for the additional 15, and most teachers are long gone before seeing any money. Of those that make it for those ten years. they can just close your school and fire you. Or send you to the rubber room.
So sharpen those #2 pencils--it's time to go back to school! Those of you who have taken those wonderful 3G courses are no doubt salivating at the idea of taking some more. Personally, I already am well past 45 above, so unfortunately I will have to miss that distinct pleasure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)