Sunday, November 01, 2009


Having an on-time contract used to matter. The deadline for when our contract expired used to mean something to the UFT back in its early years. I will concede that the UFT worked beyond the expiration date of the contract twice in the nineties and then again in 2000 and 2003.

However, as recently as after the disastrous giveback filled contract in 2005, then UFT President Randi Weingarten talked about us returning to a no contract=no work policy. Those days seem like long ago as yesterday the contract expired and the UFT didn't seem to even take notice.

I just looked at the current UFT Chapter Leader Update. There is not a word about the contract ending on October 31, 2009. We don't even get lip service any longer.

Of course the old contract continues in full force until we have a new agreement because of the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law. However, to not even note the expiration of a contract and have some kind of mobilization ready to put pressure on the city and the DOE for a new one shows just how weak the UFT is.


Anonymous said...

I'm sure the next contract will have many more disastrous give backs, so it's better off just staying without one. It will only get worse. Whatever paltry raise we get won't be worth the givebacks.

Marjorie Stamberg said...

Not only do I suspect this whole thing is pretty much a charade, with the deal signed long ago as Weingarten's final act, but I also was struck by the fact they did not even deign to put a mention in the Chapter Leader weekly update!

Important to watch: according to the NY Times, Klein/Bloomberg are still holding out for concessions on ATRs. The answer to this must no way!

loretta said...

My teaching days go back to the earliest days of the UFT. When a contract expired, we waited up until midnight to learn whether or not a settlement was reached. If it wasn't, we didn't go in - no if's, but's or and's. It was simple. We didn't have to call anyone, go to a meeting, or vote. No contract, no work.

Anonymous said...

Those were the days when teachers were respected.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that the UFT didn't even acknowledge the expiration of the contract. Years ago if a contract expired UFT members would read something in the UFT news about it. At this point in time the UFT is collecting our dues and that's it. This looks more and more like a charade, but I really think that there will be an abundance of give backs with Mulgrew negotiating for the UFT.

Randi Weingarten left every UFT member stranded. Maybe she thought by giving into Bloomberg about mayoral control would make negotiations go easier. Bloomberg probably promised her an early contract and when he didn't give it, she ran. She left UFT members high and dry.

She really knew that there was no way to negotiate a contract with any mayor in these economic times. How can any mayor give a 4 and 4 percent raise when the city is laying off 500 school aides.

In order to get a new contract we will have to give up a lot. Maybe the month of July -- or at least 2 weeks of it. I don't know, but I know this much -- when it comes to voting on a tentative contract that Mulgrew agrees to my answer will be "No Way."

Anonymous said...

One week without a contract. Has anyone at the UFT taken notice?

Anonymous said...

Every other union gets a contract without givebacks but the teachers are forced to swallow givebacks. If we had a real union, this would not happen.