Monday, April 26, 2010


Pres. Mulgrew (MM) said he's wanted to close the RRs from the day he took office and "got it done" with the Major, who he said finally understood it was in his best intrest to close them. MM said he was tired of people in schools always telling him that they were afraid to stand up to principals because of fear of trumped up charges.
[Note 1: Norm Scott put up a post on MM's sleazy comments at the DA on the RR and politicians. I heard every one of them, and I thought he sounded like he was talking to a teamster's union. More important in this post is the list of SEVEN QUESTIONS that no one at the DA would ever get to ask him about the RR agreement, and that is a shame.]
[Note 2: MM himself, in the Huffington Post.]

MM: "Privateers shouldn't be in the state of New York." He wants to push the point that if the state gets Race to the Top grant, "not a penny can be used to fill a budget gap." His main concern is the budget itself.
He gave updates on Florida (the Gov. Crist was able to veto what MM calls the "disgusting bill" that had been passed in both houses there), NJ (the public bought its governor's campaign that teachers are only out for themselves; Paterson is doing the same thing in Albany, setting parents against parents and younger members against vets), DC (they removed seniority layoff protections 5 years ago and Rhee's been trying to to destabilize the system since then; DC loses 60% of their new teachers every 2 years, 75% leave in first 5 years).
On the UFT/NAACP lawsuit against the DoE for closing those schools, MM says the city is appealing this, but he doesn't think they'll win.
MM applauds the bill of Sen. Harkins bill for a $23 billion bailout for public education, but says he's already been hearing some legislators at Albany saying good, then the state won't have to find the money.

MM is calling on the membership to attend the "Good Jobs Rally" that the AFL-CIO is mounting against Wall St. on April 29th. Begins at City Hall, then a march down Broadway to Wall St. to give them "a piece of our mind." 4 - 6 pm. "We don't want the children to pay the price for what other people did."
Another rally, he says, is set for October 10th in Washington, DC. The labor leaders want 2 million people to show up for that.
As for our contract. They had the first mediation session.
Regarding the Diaz and Bing bill on getting rid of seniority, he says it's not going to pass but it's out there. Klein is trying to split the members (newest against vets), UFT is fighting to protect all members. MM said all our UFT energy is to make no layoffs. "Can you imagine leaving [firing] it to the discretion of the principal?" UFT is picketing Bing's office, and will do the same at Diaz's soon. MM asked the Municipal Labor Union to write Bing and Diaz to tell them to withdraw the bill; a letter was sent to both on 4/21 saying "Your efforts and ours should be devoted to making sure the layoffs do not occur."
MM actually is looking to run candidates against these senators. (MM: "[We have] two idiots who have been living off our support for years...."). He says the UFT has to make a major statement - Seniority is "absolutely the issue." Wants citywide leafleting. He says: "When we protect all members, they will protect children."
[Note: Finally he sounds like he's fighting for our members. I've complained more than once that he and Randi always claim they're fighting for children. I see this wording as a very small shift.]
The Municipal Labor Council, he said later, now has a sub-committee to deal with the city - like their $3000/hr consultants (I think that was a joke) and the use of non-unionized contractors. But he said the UFT is trying to hold back until they're at the city budget time, "so if they want to to cut us, we could say: Here's your spendthrifts."
On the budget: He says it's the most dangerous thing in 35 years. The UFT faxes [mentioned above] and picketing are having an effect, and there are ads running in the rest of the state for keeping the education budget. Albany is starting to move a bit. Keep the pressure on the "electeds." "If this goes to June, we got problems." After pressuring the state, the union will have to go after Klein. Nobody's done anything about actual funding for 6 years. No-bid contracts are up. DoE has upped their lawyer headcount to 73 (from I think he said 4 -- could that be right?). The UFT foiled the headcount at Tweed, and it doubled this past year.
Question period was tame.


JW said...

Those 7 questions referred to in Note 1 above are no longer in the Ednotes post for streaming reasons. So here they are:

1. Why were the negotiations conducted in secret without consulting reassigned members whose careers are at stake? Are you really so out of touch with the members in the TRCs that you thought they would applaud when they heard the details of this agreement? Why haven’t you
visited a single TRC all year? Will you commit to a listening tour or at least a meeting at headquarters? Randi did both.

2. Will you go back to Mayor Bloomberg to renegotiate terms deemed unfair by members? You gave the DOE 60 days to investigate and charge members with misconduct after reassignment. But you restricted us to a minimum of 10 days and maximum of 25 days to prepare our defense? Will NYSUT even be able to assign a lawyer that quickly, let alone give the lawyer an opportunity to prepare for the prehearing?

3. Why have you ignored the TRC Resolution that was passed at last May’s DA which criticized principals for targeting independent members and condemned the OSI for “often investigat[ing] in a biased manner”? Do you agree with Brooklyn Borough Representative Howie Schoor’s comment that “most” members were reassigned “on trumped up charges?”

4. To guarantee fairness, will you insist that UFT members have the right to conduct their own investigations parallel to the DOE’s, assuring equal access to evidence and witnesses? And will you reverse UFT policy by ordering Special Representatives to vigorously defend members during OSI and OEO interviews and to give copies of interview notes to members?

5. Will you establish a standing committee of UFT officials and reassigned members to monitor implementation of the agreement and make monthly reports to the Executive Board, which will be subsequently published with full transparency in The New York Teacher?

6. Will the DOE and UFT actually hire all the additional arbitrators when they have not hired the allotted number now? Enforcement of this agreement relies on the grievance process which is controlled by the DOE until Step 3 Arbitration without a timetable. How will you fill this loophole?

7. Since justice juiced up is justice denied, will you reconsider your bizarre pledge to join the
Chancellor in pressuring Arbitrators to speed up their adjudication? In a process that favors the
DOE, what were you thinking when you agreed to diminish an advantage to members?

Anonymous said...

Hello it's anonymous again. I'm having difficulty getting an answer to my principals plan to keep all 2-5 grade students next year for extended day. She wants extended day to be used for 3's and 4's as well as the 2's and 1's. She claims she can do this because of something called voluntary programs. She handed me a printout from somewhere about it. Does anyone know about DOE “voluntary programs”? She isn’t being very voluntary about this. She intends to send home letters to notify parents and next year assign every teacher to their own group of 10 or 5. As one can imagine much of the staff isn’t very happy about this.

Anonymous said...

^^^Above, instead of getting misinformation by posting on this blog, why not contact your District Rep already?

Anonymous said...

I have as I've written in previous posts, and so far haven't heard anything back. It's possible someone clued her into my postings here and maybe she's annoyed with me? Have left multiple messages and even a fax, but nada. Maybe you could possible offer some advice.

Anonymous said...

SBO is needed.

Anonymous said...

Don't mean to be a pest, but nothing i've read about SBO's indicates an SBO is used or can be used to change how the extended day time can be used for instruction. My understanding is an SBO can be used to change the configuration of the time. Just the time as in the schedule. My Principal is asking us to vote on a SBO to approve her instructional plan to service all students with the time. She is assuming her ability to do this based on something called "voluntary programs." She would prefer that her voluntary program occur over 3 days and not 4. She wants us to agree to an SBO to change the extended day time and schedule to a 3 x 50min configuration. BUT AGAIN, the issue here is can she make us service all students with extended day? Can she essentially lie to parents and lead them to believe their 3 or 4 child must now stay either 37 1/2 or 50 minutes longer? I would think there would be more interest in our situation, if it is allowed then what's to stop other Principals from rolling out the same thing and essentially creating 9th periods and much longer and harder work days.

Anonymous said...

Ano 8:47
Since you know all the district reps, many of whom don't bother to get back to members because they are not elected but appointed, why don't you contact the district rep. Just leave your name and number.

Anonymous said...

Look at Article 8B. It allows school based options for teacher schedules. I think this qualifies. On the kids staying, state regulations would probably not allow involuntary extended time for students. Vote the SBO down. IF CL insists on it, go against him/her politically. Organize around this issue if it's not popular.

Anonymous said...

Contact the PTA or the state.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"^^^Above, instead of getting misinformation by posting on this blog, why not contact your District Rep already?

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:47:00 PM"


Anonymous said...

I needed info this past semester and I got nothing but a runaround from the UFT phone lines. These people seem completely dysfunctional over the phone.

Anonymous said...

DR is in Washington having a good time at our expense at the NYSUT convention. Suckers.

Anonymous said...

Dipshit is above posting in NYC. Apparently he doesn't have a clue how much work goes into the NYSUT conference and how serious and long the days are.

You may be jealous and not like certain people in the UFT but anyone in the state that attended can tell you how serious it was.

Your comment which was meant to be a dig at UFT people serves to downplay the role of every delegate in the state. Typical ICE crap.

Anonymous said...

Go talk to you good friend:the Mayor (NYSUT Person)...

Anonymous said...

Really, ICE would have people believe that the NYSUT Representative Assembly is like one giant party???

That's what this blog is going with? The DRs were out "having a good time"?

I would imagine that most in attendance would have rather been at home with their families.

This blog is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

We feel so sorry for you having to go to Washington at our expense to do exactly what Unity tells you to. Give us a break. The NYSUT convention is as phony as the DA.

Anonymous said...

The NYSUT convention is not a party but a waste of money since you all signed a loyalty oath to do exactly as Mikey tells you. Why not just have proxie voting and save the members their money. You could stay with your family then Mr. Unity.

Anonymous said...

You heard it here first people, now the fanatics of ICE are claiming that NYSUT too is a sham.

Anonymous said...

Boo hoo for poor unity who were forced to spend a free weekend in Washington with a nice meal allowance too. It must have been hard work at those restaurants and parties.

Basic math: if A=B and B=C then A=C.

If Unity is a sham and Unity controls Nysut which controls the AFT than all are shams.