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:

• 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.

Stop Layoffs by Stopping Fraud

You know that 300 million the mayor says he needs to prevent layoffs? One way he can get it is by actually paying attention to all those contractors he hires.

In yet another CityTime scandal, it was found that one contractor gave $450 million dollars out in kickbacks. That enough money to save every teacher's job and even give us a raise.

Remember, this is just one contractor. Imagine how many billions are being siphoned off by all of the countless contractors the mayor has hired.

If Mayor4Life had any decency, he'd resign now for his utter incompetence and pay the money back out of his own deep pockets.

A Message for E4E "Likers"

If you're one of those new teachers who "liked" E4E on Facebook because you are dissatisfied with the status quo, or if you're one of the few who actually joined their ranks, I have something to share with you that might change your mind.

I'm not interested talking to Asshat scabs Evan and Sydney, or A4E blog monkey Ruben Brosbe. They are in this for all they can grab for themselves. I believe there are many E4E members who sincerely believe that as long as they work hard, they don't need union protections. And as hard as you work, you resent the possibility of being laid off. You probably believe that the union is working against you, and the DOE will watch your back as long as you do your job.

Did you see the article in the Daily News that detailed how the DOE is currently recruiting 500 Teaching Fellows and TFAers even as they threaten to lay you off? That's right--the DOE is looking to lay off more than 4000 new teachers, and then replace 500 of them with even newer teachers.

If you're a hard working E4E member, you have to ask yourself why the DOE is looking to replace you rather than retrain you to take one of those 500 jobs. The answer is pretty obvious, really. If you've got 2-4 years in the system, the DOE would rather dump you than tenure you.

Remember, these 500 replacements have zero teaching experience. So much for the idea that the DOE values all your hard work and wants to judge you on merit. If they cared about merit, they'd retrain you and keep you on.

The Asshats that run E4E would like you to believe that their billionaire sponsors are looking out for you. What they want is to create a temporary workforce, of which you will be a part. You will be replaced as soon as you start to make decent money or a younger teacher comes along.

If you're a 1st or 2nd year teacher who is about to lose his or her job to someone who has never been in the classroom, you should go right now and "unlike" E4E. They've lied to you about the DOE's desire to keep you on. They don't oppose layoffs; they just want to make sure that no one has a right to a job, no matter how long and hard they work.

Not much to "like" there.


Thanks to South Bronx School for coining the "blog monkey" title for Ruben.

.

A Farewell to Asshats

Now that the mayor has shot his load, so to speak, and threatened to lay off 4,100 teachers for a total of 6,000 fewer positions, I think the UFT needs to act. Listen, I am the last person who would, under ordinary conditions, suggest that we negotiate with this slug of a mayor, but I fear the time has now arrived. We have no choice. We need to strike a deal that will protect both teachers and the strength of our union.

I hate to say this, but I think we must follow the model set forth for us by the negotiators at Asshats4Educators. (I know this is blasphemous. Forgive me.) Say what you will about A4E, they understand the negotiation process. They have doggedly insisted that layoffs are about teacher quality, and that we must get rid of sub-par teachers. Toward that end, they have offered the city what it wants: some easy targets to slate for elimination, such as rubber roomers, ATRs, or anyone rated U over the last 5 years. The UFT has, thus far, staunchly defended these groups, and rightly so. Teachers have routinely been brought up on false charges or had their schools closed through no fault of their own, so it makes sense to protect them. Yet we must give the city something--throw some red meat to the sharks, so to speak, so that the rest of us can escape, A4E style.

So, I'm offering a less than modest proposal: If the mayor insists on layoffs, let's not stand in the way. Let's offer them the Asshats.

That's right. There are 1600 Asshats infesting the city's schools, according to the Asshats themselves. If we offer them to the city along with the 2000 jobs lost through attrition, the total would be 3600--close enough to 600o to strike a deal.

Think about it. What would the city lose if we turned the Asshats into chum? Not much. The vast majority of Asshats are temporary employees who will flee the system as soon as the economy recovers or Bill Gates offers them a cushy job. Would the public schools be diminished if Evan Stone and Sydney Morris lost their jobs? They hardly work now!

Let's look at some of the other jewels in the Asshat crown. Ruben Brosbe, for example, stuttering mouthpiece for A4E, constantly celebrates his own incompetence in the NY Post and Gotham. His TDR scores were so dismal that he apparently fled to 3rd grade, where he would not receive a report.

If there's even one bad apple like Ruben in A4E, it's safe to assume that all Asshats should go, isn't it? I mean, they routinely assert that rubber roomers and ATRs should go because a few of them may be guilty. Why shouldn't that apply to Asshats, as well?

And it's not like there are just a few of them. Michael Loeb, for example, is another A4E stooge who seemingly can not write a coherent paragraph. Would the system miss him?

Of course, you could argue that by picking A4E for extermination, I am biased against newbies, but that is not so. Also sent packing would be senior Asshats like that boob who had her clock cleaned by Julie Cavanagh on NY1.


And as long as we're throwing people under the bus, I'd recommend firing anyone with a douchebag hipster beard.

So that's my proposal. What do you think?


.

Mr. Talk Predicts...

Layoffs.

Yes, I'm sorry to say it, but after correctly predicting no layoffs for the last two years, I'm donning my swami hat once more to reverse course this year. I think Mayor4life will carry out his threat to lay off teachers this year--but not in the numbers you might think.

I'm guessing that the mayor will announce, in a tortured voice, that he did everything he could to save teachers' jobs, but he just couldn't pull it off given the fact that no one has enough money (unless you count Bloomberg himself, or the three billion dollar surplus).

I do, however, think the number will be smaller than the 4,600 Bloomberg originally announced. I can't say what the number is, but I'm betting it will be more or less equal to the number of some set or sets of teachers that Bloomberg would like to get rid of. It will look something like this:

Number of Layoffs = Number of ATRs + Total Rubber Roomers OR

Number of Layoffs = Number of teachers rated U in the last 3 years OR

Some other combination of teachers that Bloomberg wants to fire anyway.

You see, this was NEVER about money. The city has the money to avert layoffs right now. What the mayor wants is ability to fire whoever the hell he wants, whenever the hell he wants to. He has been stymied at every turn in his efforts to end seniority. This will be his final attempt to get his way.

What better way than to say, "We've done all we could to avert layoffs, but we couldn't. Now if the UFT would just let me fire the (insert favorite type of vilified teachers here), we could have a great teacher in every classroom!"

It's an underhanded ploy, of course, but that's exactly why I'm predicting the mayor will try it.


.

Dennis Walcott Channels Cathie Black

Dennis Walcott, the new cookie cutter choice for NYC schools chancellor, recently said something that rivaled even Cathie Black for inanity and insensitivity, yet it got virtually no press at all. His statement appeared in the NY Post, and was in response to a question about layoffs:

"We're looking at 6,100 jobs -- give or take."

Opposition in Albany has blocked City Hall's effort to inject merit into layoff decisions.

But Walcott said he's an "eternal optimist" and hopes to persuade union leaders and state lawmakers to give ground.

Excuse me? Walcott, the "eternal optimist", is looking forward expectantly toward giving 6,100 teachers the ax? Shouldn't the new chancellor express optimism that layoffs can be avoided altogether? Shouldn't he be hoping that class sizes don't explode as a result of those layoffs?

What Walcott really means is that he is optimistic that he can con the legislature into allowing him to fire senior teachers and so fulfill the mayor's dream of an at-will workforce. He doesn't give any more of a damn about the children of NYC than Cathie Black did.

The only difference is that the press called out Cathie Black when she made idiotic comments. Walcott's tenure as chancellor will be far more insidious, as the press has already pronounced him a much more thoughtful and serious person than Cathie, even though they are both spouting the exact same Bloomberg anti-teacher rhetoric.

.

Layoffs in Tomorrow's Papers

Word on the street is that Mayor4Life has sent lists to NY newspapers detailing the number of layoffs that will occur at each school, and that this information will appear in tomorrow's dailies.

Considering that seniority is still in effect, you can bet that the list will show that some schools will lose much of their staff. Bloomberg will use this to claim that minority schools will be discriminated against. He will not, of course, mention that if layoffs actually occur, more senior teachers will take their place so the experience level at those schools will actually go up.

This is just another Bloomberg tactic. Layoffs are still not needed. Cuomo even says so. The mayor admits he has found 2 billion in new revenue. This is nothing but another attempt to force an end to seniority layoffs.

UPDATE: Confirmed by the Times a few minutes ago.


.
.

Framing the Debate: Layoffs vs. Firings

The ed deform crowd is expert at framing debates. They've effectively watered down the seniority argument to a single question: Would you rather have good, young, effective, energetic teachers get laid off, or those lazy, old, tired, absent, felonious senior teachers?

Of course, that's not what this is about at all. It about getting rid of higher paid teachers and making sure no one ever gets in enough years to earn a pension.

Let's take a look at the current contract and law. Should layoffs occur under current rules, new teachers would be hired back. Here's the relevant part of the contract (Article 17 D1):

If a Citywide excess condition causes a layoff of staff in any licensed position,
applicable provisions of law will be followed to determine the staff members to be laid off, without fault and delinquency with the understanding that said member of staff is to be placed on a preferred list for reinstatement to his/her former position.

When a few thousand more teachers leave or retire next year, as they do every year, most of the newbies would be hired back.

But does anyone out there believe that the current rules would apply to senior teachers in the event of layoffs? Suppose LIFO is trashed. Would the legislators retain the state law and contractual obligation that requires laid off teachers to be rehired? I doubt it. How on earth can they say they want to lay off "ineffective" teachers, but take them all back as soon as times get better? The answer is, they won't.

So we aren't actually talking about layoffs here. We're talking about FIRING teachers, for good. That's how Mulgrew should be framing this debate. The word "layoffs" is a code word for "firings". This plutocratic mayor wants the ability to fire anyone he wants, thus ensuring an endless, cheap workforce that will never be allowed to become vested in the pension system.

The reality of the situation is that layoffs aren't necessary at all. Cuomo and the state budget director have said so. Bloomberg himself cited soaring city revenues that added an additional 2 billion to the city's budget--more than the amount cut by the state budget. And there's a billion dollars in the capital budget for computers that could easily be used to avert layoffs.

And don't forget that we have been down this road before. As recently as last year, Bloomberg threatened thousands of layoffs in an earlier bid to get rid of seniority. When he saw that he wouldn't get his way and be able to fire senior teachers at will, the layoffs suddenly went away. It will go down the same way this time as well. IF the state assembly holds firm once more, you can bet that Bloomberg will once again find a way to avert layoffs.

But if he does get his way, is there anyone who believes that Bloomberg won't fire as many senior teachers as he can get away with?

And make no mistake. These will be firings--not layoffs. Senior teachers will not be asked back--ever.

I know new teachers may not want to hear what I have to say today, and I can understand that. But I firmly believe that keeping LIFO means that Bloomberg will rethink his layoff plans. Losing LIFO means that Mayor4Life will have to power to fire anyone he wants, thus guaranteeing that not a single new teacher will ever be able to make a career out of teaching in this city.

.

The Latest Negotiation Strategy--Lay Off Every Teacher

The city of Providence, RI, has issued layoff notices to ALL of its teachers.

Yes, ALL.

Of course, no city can lay off all of its teachers. So the question remains--why do this?

I think the answer is simple. Since Providence requires lay off notices to go out by March 1, this covers their asses should they decide to go after senior teachers. They are jockeying to terminate their highest paid teachers, and they are sending pink slips to everyone as a way to make sure they can do it.

If you doubt this, read the last paragraph of the CNN piece:

The city and the union will soon start negotiations on the teachers' contracts, which expire June 30. City and school district officials stressed that Tuesday's move was not related to the contract expiring.

The war on teachers rages on. Frankly, I can't even believe it. Every day brings some new horror to teachers somewhere. If politicians had gone after Osama bin Laden with the same relentless vigor with which they pursue teachers, he'd have long ago been squatting in Guantanamo Bay.

When was it decided that teachers were the enemy? When did we become the bogey man and the scapegoats for every situation in the country? Obama wants to recruit 100,000 new teachers? Is he serious? Who in their right mind would want to become a teacher in this hostile environment?

Of course, some group is always the scapegoat for society's ills. God forbid we blame the Wall Streeters and hedge fund managers who brought about this fiscal crisis. Far better to persecute teachers than prosecute the bastards who got us here.

Deja Vu All Over Again

As I was writing my blog entry yesterday, I was overcome with a strange sense of deja vu. Has that ever happened to you?

It occurred when I heard the words "15,000 layoffs" from Mayor4Life's lips. I got the feeling that it wasn't the first time I'd heard them.

As it turns out, I was right. More right than even I bargained for. Mayor4Life and his stooge, Joel Klein, threatened to lay off 15,000 teachers once before. Check out this article from Gothamschools and see you notice anything creepy about it. Besides Klein's face, I mean.

Points for you if you noticed the date of the article. It was January 28, 2009--exactly two years to the day ago that the mayor last threatened to lay off exactly the same number of teachers.

What's going on here? Is this mere coincidence, or is the mayor calling plays from his old playbook? If you'll notice, Klein even used many of the same words that Bloomberg used yesterday:

“We don’t want to lose personnel,” he said later. “Particularly, we don’t want to lose young talented people that we’ve recruited in recent years.”

Clearly, Bloomberg is trying once again to force a change in seniority laws by threatening to axe new teachers. It didn't work last time, and it will fail again. State politicians must know that it's political suicide to change seniority--not because of the teacher's union, but because ALL unions would then be subject to the same threat. This is the third rail of state politics.

The mayor pulls out this threat annually, the way the mayor of Punxsutawney, PA pull out the groundhog every year. The only difference is that in PA, a mayor wearing a big hat pulls a rodent from the ground, whereas in NY, a rodent pulls a trick out of his hat.

As I was writing my blog entry yesterday, I was overcome with a strange sense of deja vu. Has that ever happened to you?

.

Bloomberg Outs Himself

I'm going to bypass comment on the "proposed" layoffs of 21,000 teacher threatened by Mayor4Life Bloomberg via the Wall Street Journal, a rag run by his billionaire pal Rupert Murdoch, who employs Joel Klein. There will never be so many layoffs, and this phony mayor knows it. He's trying to eviscerate seniority by claiming that layoffs should be done by "merit". But in the same discussion, he outed himself as a liar with the following statement (emphasis my own):

"By not allowing schools to take merit into account, the state would not only deprive our children across the city of great teachers, it would increase class size, because more teachers would need to be laid off, since the newest teachers get paid lower salaries," he said. "It's not right. It's not fair."

There you go. The 3 term billionaire mayor has just outed himself. It isn't about quality at all--it's about laying off senior teachers in order to keep the cheap labor of new teachers.

Remember, everyone, this is just a threat. There are lots of ways to avoid layoffs. Let's start with getting Bloomberg to pay his fair share of taxes by basing his charities in NY instead of in tax havens. Let's keep the millionaire tax that Cuomo wants to let lapse. Let's take the billion dollars slated for technology in the capital budget and use it to avert layoffs. Let's get rid of pork like the CityTime crooks who've taken this city for a very expensive ride. Let's get rid of ARIS, quality review, and other money pits. Let's have ONE qualified chancellor getting paid ONE salary instead of Bloomberg handing out jobs to boobs like Cathie Black. Let's put the ATRs to work where they belong.

But this isn't about saving jobs. This is about destroying the union by taking its members hostage and threatening to execute them if he doesn't get his way.

Never forget that this is about the money. Nothing else.

.

Rhee for Chancellor!

According to Norm, the UFT has wussied out on a resolution to urge David Steiner to refuse to grant a waiver to Cathie Black. Apparently, the Unity people have been whispering the R word in an effort to get people to fall in line, as in "Yes, Cathie Black may have no experience in education other than teaching couples potentially back-wrenching sex positions, but at least she's not...you know...the R word!"

What they mean, of course, it that as bad as Black may be, at least she's not Michelle Rhee. The thinking is that Rhee is the worst person possible for the job. I humbly disagree. I think that Rhee would be the best person possible for the job, and I urge Mayor4Life Bloomberg to reconsider the Black nomination and immediately recommend Rhee for chancellor of the NYC public schools.

And no, I'm not crazy. Does anyone believe, even for a minute, that Black was chosen because she'd be better for teachers than Rhee? In his application for a waiver for Ms. Black, Bloomberg comes right out and says that one of her scant qualifications for the job is her known ability to fire people left and right and layoff entire departments to save money. Isn't that where this is headed?

And Black is a fresh face. She looks about 100 times friendlier than Klein or Rhee. In other words, she could fires scads of teachers with a big smile on her face, and the local press would eat her up.

Rhee, on the other hand, is damaged goods, despite her ill-gotten celebrity. She's already been voted out of office by proxy from her DC job. She'd be as divisive and disliked here as she was in DC. And that's why I want her for chancellor.

Think about it. She might be the only person who could unify the UFT membership. She'd walk into town with her broom and apathetic teachers might finally decide to wake up and fight against the reform movement. Even Mulgrew and his cronies might decide that they needed to mix it up a bit with Rhee as chancellor. But can you even picture Mulgrew saying a mean word about Cathie Black, even as she sticks the layoff knife in our backs?

So, far from being afraid of Rhee should Black's waiver be denied, we should be clamoring for Rhee to take the reins. If that happened, maybe we could become a real union once more and fight these reform people, sending them back to hell where they belong.

All we'll get from Black is a smiley face as she plunges the knife in our backs.

LIFO the Party

I want to give credit where credit is due, so let me start by saying this post is inspired by a commenter named Vote NO on GothamSchools. This person made the brilliant yet obvious-once-you-think-about-it comment that teachers, and especially newbies, should be down on their knees thanking the "Last In, First Out" (LIFO) layoff rule for saving their jobs.

As Vote NO correctly pointed out, the mayor decided to cancel layoffs once it became clear that we would not allow a change to LIFO. That meant that his newest teachers--the ones Mayor4Life salivates over because they are cheap and will likely never qualify for a pension--would be the first to go if layoffs occurred. That would destroy the BloomKlein new school juggernaut that relies so heavily on newbie teachers. Rather than destroy his beloved initiatives, His Wealthy Mayorness decided to cancel all layoffs.

That move saved the jobs of people like Evan Stone and Sydney Morris, the two lunk-headed backstabbers who tried to change LIFO so they could save their own hides. What a delicious irony that, but for the very thing they were trying to eliminate, Evan and Sydney would shortly be standing on the unemployment line. BTW--check out South Bronx School's blog for an interesting expose on the E4E people. Seems like they've incorporated and gotten some very high powered backing. Not surprising--when was the last time Joel Klein thanked you in an email to all 80,000 teachers for taking your students to the Grand Canyon? (How was that funded again, Evan?)

Of course, considering their high-powered and moneyed backing, it's likely Klein would have spared Evan and Sydney somehow. But all 857 of you (mostly new teachers) who joined E4E's Facebook page should let them know how they almost cost you your job. Naturally, though, comments aren't allowed on their Facebook page or their blog.

Had E4E and M4L gotten their way, we would have had massive layoffs of newbie and senior teachers, increased class sizes, and a destabilized system for years to come. So when all of you whose jobs were spared celebrate your good fortune this weekend, don't forget to hoist one for your old pal LIFO, who made the party possible.

I Nailed It

Just call me Kreskin. I predicted over a week ago that there would be no layoffs, and today we have Mayor4Life's pronouncement that he plans to avert layoffs through a two year wage freeze.

I knew M4L would find a way to stop layoffs because, as was pointed out in the NY Times today, many of the first teachers to go would be those who staff new schools, a pet project of the mayor and chancellor. They'd also have to find jobs for all the rubber room and ATR people because they do, after all, have seniority. This whole layoff thing was a scheme by BloomKlein to try to finagle a way to fire senior teachers.

The only problem is that the mayor has absolutely no authority to freeze wages. So he sent Klein out to make the incredible announcement that since the teacher and principal contracts have expired, the mayor does indeed have that authority. They're forgetting one little thing. The Taylor Law requires that public employers negotiate agreements.

Of course, a little thing like the law doesn't prevent a billionaire like Bloomberg from doing whatever the hell he likes. It didn't stop him from running for a third term that was twice voted down by the citizens of New York, so why should it stop him now?

Another little detail that the press seems not to know is that we have never agreed to the two per cent raise that the mayor now wants to 'eliminate'. The other unions got the pattern of FOUR per cent, and there is no reason we shouldn't get it. The mayor offered us two per cent at one point, but we didn't accept it, choosing instead to go to PERB. Still, M4L has managed to cut that figure in half with creative manipulation of the press.

So what should Mulgrew do? It's a scary thought. Mulgrew and his cronies are the ones who refused to oppose Bloomberg, agreed to tie teacher evaluations to test scores, changed the rubber room agreement, and worked with the mayor to lift the charter cap, all in return for a WAGE FREEZE. Yes, that's the kind of high falutin' negotiations we can expect from the Unity crew.

Frankly, I doubt we'll get any money. Bloomberg has already outmaneuvered Mulgrew, and the public will support him. So if M4L gets his way, what should we ask for in return for another two years of big fat zeroes? I have some ideas:

• We should demand an end to the awful and pointless 37.5 minutes in exchange for those zeroes. We got a six percent increase (not raise) in exhange for that time in 2005, so now that we are NOT getting the 8% we're due, we should reclaim that time.
• We should demand a no-layoff clause for the entire duration of the freeze. It would be just like M4L to get us to take zeroes and then stick us with layoffs anyway a year down the road.
  
• We should demand an end to the ATR pool, insisting instead that displaced teachers have an absolute right to any openings they qualify for. If no such openings exist, ATRs should be guaranteed that they will be allowed to serve as reserves until such an opening develops.
• We should demand that upon the end of the freeze, teachers will receive at least 4% per contract year above and beyond whatever pattern the city establishes with its other unions.

Those things would at least be a start. However, the Kreskin in me predicts that none of those things will ever happen.

This time, I hope I'm wrong.

Mr. Talk Predicts: No Layoffs

I'm putting on my fortune teller hat again, temporarily putting the propeller beanie to the side. And my prediction for the current fiscal year is: There will be no layoffs of teachers in NYC.

If you've been around the block a few times as I have, you know that the city predicts teacher layoffs just about every time a new teacher contract rolls around (odd coincidence, that). Yet the last time any actual teachers were laid off was in the 1970s. I'm not saying that there are no real economic difficulties; clearly there are. But I don't think anyone will lose their jobs over them, and here's why.

First, I think the threat is largely another implementation of the Shock Doctrine by Mayor4Life Bloomberg. He uses it all the time (see here and here). If you're unfamiliar, the Shock Doctrine is when politicians uses crises to help them implement unpopular policies. GW Bush pushed through an entire bogus war using 9/11 for political cover, and then set about eviscerating many of our cherished civil liberties (such as not getting waterboarded because you look Middle Eastern). Our mayor, however, has added a new twist to the doctrine. He's using it not to get layoffs, but to get what are, to him, the right layoffs. His goal is to twist the arm of the union and state by threatening layoffs in order to be able to fire senior teachers. Mayor4Life doesn't like senior teachers because we make those incredibly high salaries that cost almost as much as his weekend jaunts to Bermuda. Now that it's apparent that even Michael Mulgrew isn't going to give in on "last in first out", the mayor has no reason to push for layoffs. They would just make him look like the crummy mayor he is, like the NAEP scores do.

Second, the state always shortchanges the city in their preliminary budget proposals, and they always restore at least some of the cuts before the budget is final.

Third, President Obama doesn't want to look like any more of an idiot on education than he already does. Think of it--he's dangling 4 billion dollars in front of states in the form of Race to the Top funds that can't even be used to avert layoffs. How's it going to look when he gives 700 million to New York and then says we can't use it to save teachers--but we can buy a lot of new shiny data systems with it? At this moment, there is a bill in the senate to spend 23 billion nationwide to avert teacher layoffs, with 400 million going to NY. Obama would have to be a fool not to sign it after bailing out banks, oil companies, and every other rich institution he could think of. Not only that, massive teacher layoffs would cause the unemployment numbers to spike--the very last thing Obama wants.

Finally, and perhaps the weakest link in the chain, is the UFT itself. Mulgrew has already floated a retirement incentive proposal that would accomplish what the mayor wants (to get rid of senior teachers) and what the union wants (to maintain the same level of dues). It seems like a perfect match. And from a logical standpoint, the city pretty much has to go along at this point, because a lot of teachers who probably would have retired in June without the incentive will now wait until an incentive gets done. My only hesitation about this one is that Mulgrew has shown no ability to get anything done unless it hurts the membership. It remains to be seen if he can do anything to help.

So there you have it. No layoffs. Of course, none of this will get done before pink slips go out, because by law they have to go out shortly. Still, I predict we'll soon see Klein, Mayor4Life, and Mulgrew standing on the steps of city hall, hands raised in solidarity and triumph, announcing how they worked together to save NY schools and the world. We can only hope they don't kiss.

If the Hat Fits...

When the Klan marches, the newspapers have to cover it because it is a newsworthy event, however repulsive and ignorant the Klan may be. While "Educators 4 Excellence" may not quite rival the Klan for cluelessness, they do their best to come close. I've tried to avoid covering them because they are outstanding attention whores all by themselves and they don't need any additional coverage from me. Besides, Chaz and South Bronx School have both done an admirable job of exposing the idiocy of the E4E crew. Still, there are two things that bother me that no one has addressed.

First is the E4E website itself. It's certainly nicely done, as it should be--it's powered by Media Mezcla Campaign Engine, which provides tools for politicians to run campaigns. I wonder how two low-salaried teachers managed to put up a website using expensive software that politicians use in their campaigns? A suspicious person might infer that these two fine newbie teachers somehow managed to hook up with powerful, moneyed pols, but we all know that couldn't be, could it? In any case, one of their goals is to join the "debate" on how to improve schools, apparently by eviscerating them. Toward this end, they have a blog that does not accept comments. So much for debate.

A bigger bone to pick with E4E is that they brainlessly list two contradictory goals on their "Declaration" page, to wit:

• Reestablishing tenure as a significant professional milestone through the use of a comprehensive teacher evaluation system and
• Eliminating the practice of "Last In, First Out" for layoffs

Perhaps these two don't understand that tenure is already a significant professional milestone. A teacher must produce results for three years, and can be fired for any reason whatsoever before that time frame elapses. How E4E plans to make tenure more rigorous remains unclear; it seems to me that getting fired for any reason is already pretty rigorous. Perhaps E4E would like those who fail to attain tenure to be drawn and quartered or slammed in the iron maiden.

What the E4E crew fails to get is that eliminating seniority for layoffs effectively renders tenure meaningless. What good is tenure when you can be fired any time the mayor declares a fiscal crisis? Fiscal crises happen in NYC with greater regularity than ethnic street fairs. Let's see how far tenure gets you when your principal hands you a pink slip and sends you skidding down the street on your hindquarters.

Of course, none of this probably matters much to the E4E crew. I doubt their ultimate ambition is to be great teachers. More likely, they want to be the Grand Wizards of education--superintendents or better. If layoffs were based on the ability to brown nose and kiss Joel Klein's wrinkled ass, these two would have jobs for life.

So the E4E crew get awarded a pair of matching dunce caps. Which, when you think about it, look kind of Klannish, which seems to fit.

Seniority Means Always Having to Say You're Sorry

I've noticed something strange. Whenever the discussion turns to layoffs, tenured senior teachers seem to want to apologize for having job security. "Sure, there are some bad senior teachers out there," we say, almost whimpering, "but most of us work just as hard as the newbies!"

Well, I'm sick of it. There are lousy doctors, lawyers, accupuncturists, and envelope stuffers out there, but you never hear the good ones making excuses for the bad ones. In other professions, it is assumed that the good ones far outnumber the few rotten apples. In teaching, we constantly apologize for the very few crappy senior teachers despite the fact that most of us with a few streaks of white in our hair are damn good educators. I think it's high time we stopped apologizing for the failures of a few and started demanding recognition for the fine work the vast majority of us do.

The myth of the great teacher persists in our society, but the myth of the do-nothing, feet-on-the-desk, waiting-to-collect-a-pension teacher has become almost as pervasive. They are just myths. There are only a few Mr. Chips out there, and probably just as few Buffalo Chips. The vast majority are neither great nor awful--we are just hard working, dedicated people doing a difficult job to the best of our ability.

The idea that senior teachers should be laid off is gaining traction as well. Yet, you almost never hear new teachers apologize the way senior teachers do. And the real, rarely spoken truth is that senior teachers are almost always better than new teachers. I was a new teacher once, and I was lousy in my first year. I was so bad that I didn't even know how much I sucked. By my third year, I had some idea of what I was doing. It wasn't until about my 8th year or so that I knew I belonged and that I could handle just about anything. Most teachers will tell you just about the same story. It took time for us to become the teachers we are today.

BloomKlein would gladly throw us on the dung heap if they could under the guise of keeping the "best" teachers. In my view, the best teachers in any school are the veterans. Many of the newbies will one day become fine teachers but that day isn't today. This is even acknowledged by the city itself in their Teacher Data Reports, in which new teachers are compared to each other and not to veterans. (Pardon me for using the reports for anything other than spare toilet paper. It shan't happen again).

Layoffs aren't about weeding out the few incompetents. Layoffs, when they truly have to occur, should be about keeping the workforce stable and making sure that those who have dedicated their lives to the profession aren't shafted. Those new to the profession, if they are truly dedicated, will return when the fiscal crisis ends.

In any case, I believe the current threats of layoffs are little more than Mayor4Life employing the Shock Doctrine. He runs arounds in a Chicken Little-esque manner, claiming that the educational sky is falling due to the recession. In the ensuing panic, he hopes to realize the mayoral wet dream of being given the authority to fire high priced teachers and all but end that nasty practice of having to actually pay pensions. I really believe when Bloomberg sees that we will not give in to him and he will have to lay off new teachers, he will suddenly find a way to avert most, if not all, the layoffs. Witness Washington D.C., where Michelle Rhee miraculously found a 34 million dollar suplus AFTER she managed to lay off 266 teachers. This layoff threat is just a Rhee-play on a grander scale.

Before someone demands an apology for anything I've said here, let me head them off at the pass. The answer is no. I'm not sorry for wanting to keep and protect my job. I'm not sorry for having learned my profession through years of hard fought experience. I'm not sorry for sticking up for the "last in, first out" method of layoffs, because I believe that to be a lynchpin of unionism that newbies will appreciate themselves one day.

The only thing I'm sorry for is that we all have to work under a mayor and chancellor who think that educational policy means wielding an axe and a machete.

The Other Argument for Seniority

There's a nice piece in the Community section at Gotham Schools that lays out the case for seniority, especially in light of possible upcoming layoffs. I won't repeat any of the author's arguments here; you can read them for yourself and decide if they are compelling. I think they are.

I'd like to address an argument for seniority that I rarely hear, but it warrants discussion. I believe that ignoring seniority as it exists now would ruin education in the future, and here's why.

Klein's reasoning is simple to follow. He wants new, cheaper teachers who he can replace as soon as they show any signs of independent thinking. In that way, not only can he control how and what is taught, he can do it on the cheap. And he can forget about ever paying those expensive pensions, as no one would ever make it to the 27 years of service they'd need to retire. While this would certainly work to save money in the short term, it would be a disaster in the long term.

What is the lure of teaching? The opportunity of working with kids is a large part of it, but there are many other considerations that make teaching a worthwhile career. It offers job security, more time off than most jobs, and a chance to retire in a reasonable amount of time (7 more years than police and firemen, but less than the usual 30). In exchange for those perks, you must get a master's degree plus 30 credits, you spend a good amount of your personal income on supplies, you work in a less than ideal environment, and you get to be a highly educated bathroom porter five time a week. Most teachers--career teachers anyway--feel these things to be a trade-off we can live with, even if we don't always like it.

Now, let's take away seniority. Klein gets his way, and teachers can be laid off at any time, virtually guaranteeing that whenever there is a fiscal crisis, teachers who get paid the most get laid off first. Who would want to be a teacher under those circumstances?

You'd need to get an expensive bachelor's degree, and then devote a lot of time, energy, and money into getting that master's degree, all the while knowing that your own hard work is putting you ever higher on the salary scale and thus closer to the guillotine. No other school will hire you with those credentials and that salary, either, so in a few years, your career will be over. You'll have virtually no chance to ever make it to that 27 year retirement, even though you will pay 5% of your hard earned money into it as long as they keep you around. You'll never get very high on the salary scale because when you do, you'll be axed and you'll have to start at the bottom of some other profession.

Almost no new college graduate would want to start their working career in a job that will almost certainly be a dead end. With the security and the retirement gone, all you'll get as a teacher is far less money than in the private sector and some potty patrol, which is not a skill you'll need in your next career. Yes, you'll still get summers off, but like most new teachers you'll need to take a job in the summer just to make ends meet.

A lot of new teachers don't remember the bad old days when the DOE couldn't recruit anyone. They went to foreign countries to try to get bodies to stand in front of classrooms. That's where we'll be when seniority disappears and no one wants to be a teacher anymore.

But that's probably what BloomKlein wants. If they can make the public schools bad enough, they'll have a reason to ask for a boatload of new charter schools that they can bestow on their friends like Eva Moskowitz, who makes four times the top teacher salary.

No Hoyt, No Gain

In what passes for an Op-ed in the Post, Sam Hoyt, an alleged Democrat from Buffalo, has proposed that teachers help close the budget gap by giving up their step and base pay increases. He cites various reasons, such as none of us want larger class sizes, and that state education budget cuts would hurt kids. Oddly, nowhere in his piece does he offer to give up a single penny of his own salary or that of any of his staff. I'm sure this was merely an oversight.

Traditional logic has been that when education cuts are threatened, we ask teachers to sacrifice. This is similar to how police are asked to give up raises when crime spikes, or how doctors are asked to re-use needles. Oh, wait--those things don't happen. Forget I brought it up.

Mr. Hoyt never says why teachers, who already buy most of their own supplies and who, in NYC, are working with an expired contract, should sacrifice more than, let's say, the Wall Street bankers who raked in outrageous bonuses from our tax dollars despite having almost run the economy into the ground. If we tax the filthy rich more, what will happen to all the caviar manufacturers out there? You see, teachers are the obvious choice.

Well, Mr. Hoyt, I can tell you that next year I will get a step increase-my 20 year longevity step. Let's repeat that--I have worked for TWENTY YEARS in order to earn this increase. Do you really think I should give that up so some Goldman Sachs employee can afford to keep both his chauffeurs on full time?

Over at NYC Educator's blog, Miss Eyre wonders why the DOE is actually looking to hire teachers despite the threat of 8500 layoffs. Actually, I think the answer is rather simple. The DOE can offer jobs to thousands of new people, and then, in Septemeber, create a phony crisis by ordering massive layoffs. Then, in a huge PR blitz, they'll pressure the UFT to agree to layoff some of those pesky "highly" paid teachers so that we can hang on to all those newbies for half the price. They'll ask the UFT why we insist on keeping low performing teachers around when they have all these fresh faced 22 year olds ready to take their place. (Nevermind that they've never been in front of a classroom--fresh faced trumps experienced in the DOE.) Given the history of the Unity-run UFT, the DOE may just win this battle.

But hey, look at the bright side. If you're a senior teacher who gets laid off, you won't have to worry about whether the state will pay you your step increases. Maybe you can get a job as a chauffeur for one of those Goldman Sachs guys.

Bloomberg's New Math = Layoffs

Mayor4Life Bloomberg has changed an accounting procedure that makes it much more likely that municipal employees, including school employees, will be laid off. According to the New York Times, the change involves allowing city agencies to count health benefits and Social Security payments as part of an agency's budget, even though these costs are paid by the city and not the agency itself.

In other words, getting rid a teacher in the past would have saved only the teacher's salary. So if the teacher made 50K, the principal would save 50K. Now, the principal will save that 50K plus perhaps another 20K in benefits which the principal does not have to pay, bringing the total savings to 70K.

Now, if you're a principal and you're told you need to cut the budget by 70K, would you prefer to ax one teacher who costs you only 50K or find the full 70K in other reductions?

In other, but likely related, news, Michael Mulgrew visited a school and discussed the budget crisis facing the city and state. He said: “Tough decisions need to be made, but protecting our children and classrooms must be our first priority,” he said.

Funny, but I thought Mulgrew's first priority was to the teachers who actually pay both his salary and 120 million dollars in dues. Why doesn't he come right out and say that protecting school employees from layoffs should be our first priority? Or protecting our rights?

It's a scary time, because under Bloomberg's new math, getting rid of ATRs and teachers in rubber rooms would now save the DOE not only 200 million or so in salaries, but untold millions more in health benefits. And since those teachers are not Mulgrew's first priority, they'd better watch their backs.