Sunday, May 18, 2014

FINAL MOA CONFIRMS: NO INTEREST ON OUR LOAN TO CITY; RETIREES MOVE TO HEAD OF PAYBACK LINE; CITY HAS FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO GET RID OF US; HEALTHCARE STILL A MYSTERY

In bold below is much of the first two pages of the final Memorandum of Agreement between the UFT and the City/Department of Education that is finally online.  Everything else has been available already but I have several specific concerns after reading the finished document.

It is clear from the MOA that retirees and those who will retire in June are jumping to the head of the line in terms of getting their full 2009-11 pay immediately while active people have to wait up until 2020. This flies in the face of union solidarity.  All should be treated equally.

Active people staying beyond June have to settle for 2%, + a $1,000 bonus and an IOU from the city for 2009-2011. Our loan to the city will be paid back without interest in five installments between 2015 and 2020. On our salary scale, we are looking at four years of 0% increases from May 2009-May 2013.

Keeping this in mind, the new contract seems to provide the city with a financial incentive to get rid of as many of us as possible before we can retire to keep from having to pay off on those significant IOU's. Those who resign before the payout dates get nothing. In the past, we didn't worry because of fairly strong tenure laws but the loan terms and the contract's weaker due process provisions (burden of proof is now on teachers after two ineffective ratings and Absent Teacher Reserves face one day dismissal hearings) are worrisome. 

For newer people, there is also an incentive for the city to throw probationary UFT members overboard so as not to have to pay off the IOU's.  You think it's tough getting tenure now?  Just wait.  Their replacements get a pittance or nothing depending on when they are hired.

Unfortunately, some of those Bloomberg era Leadership Academy principals will know what to do to save the city some real cash.

Also, the healthcare agreement asks us to trust the UFT to make unspecified savings in healthcare costs or we could end up with a new healthcare agreement as part of this contract that costs us more money and/or cuts benefits.

Some of the actual language of the MOA in bold:

B. 2009-2011 Round – Salaries and rates of pay as customarily done:

 i. 5/1/15: 2%

 ii. 5/1/16: 2%

 iii. 5/1/17: 2%

iv. 5/1/18: 2%

 
C. Structured Retiree Claims Settlement Fund

Upon ratification, the City shall establish a Structured Retiree Claims Settlement Fund in the total amount of $180 million to settle all claims by retirees who have retired between Novem- ber 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014 concerning wage increases arising out of the 2009-2011 round of bargaining. The Fund will be distributed based upon an agreed upon formula.

 
D. Retirements after 6/30/14 shall receive lump sum payments based on the same schedule as actives as set forth below in paragraph E.

 
E. Lump Sum Payments stemming from the 2009- 2011 Round and schedule for actives for those continuously employed as of the day of payout.

i. 10/1/15 – 12.5%

ii. 10/1/17 – 12.5%

iii. 10/1/18 – 25%

iv. 10/1/19 – 25%

v. 10/1/20 – 25%

 

F. General Wage Increases Salaries and rates of pay as customarily done:

i. 5/1/13: 1%

ii. 5/1/14: 1%

iii. 5/1/15: 1%

iv. 5/1/16: 1.5%

v. 5/1/17: 2.5%
 
vi. 5/1/18: 3%

Here are some possible questions to ask your friendly Union salesperson in the next two days before most people vote. I Highly doubt most of these questions will make it to Michael Mulgrew's video webcast on Monday, particularly question 5.

1-Since there is no payout of money from 2009-11 for people who resign or are terminated, doesn't that give the city a financial incentive to terminate or force as many of us as they can to resign before the full payouts are made?
  • Won't this financial incentive to not keep people from 2018-2020, when the bulk of the 2009-11 payments are made, make getting tenure even harder than it is now?
  • Isn't there also a financial incentive for the city to use the weakened due process provisions (one day hearings based on undefined "problematic behavior) to terminate as many Absent Teacher Reserves as possible before we can retire so as not to have to pay us the 2009-11 money or pay us full pensions? 

2-People who retired in the last four years get full back pay now for work done from between November 2009 and the time they retired.
  • People retiring in June 2014 get full back pay (10%) and a thousand dollar bonus (pensionable).
  • Those who can't retire now get 2%, a thousand dollars and an IOU from the city.  (If one can't retire in the next three years, the bonus won't matter when counting final average salary for pension.)

  • Why are June 2014 retirees and those who have retired since November 1, 2009 moving to the head of the line in terms of getting their full arrears from 2009-2011 now

    3-How is the payout schedule equitable for active members compared to retirees?

    4-Didn't the city just move $725 million to the current year's budget to pay for this settlement while the cost to pay off the retirees is only $181 million according to the MOA?  Why aren't all of us getting more than 2% and a $1,000 bonus now? (Even Bloomberg left some money in the labor reserve fund.)

    5-Since, retirees are the most loyal constituency for the Unity Caucus (Michael' Mulgrew's political party), could that be why retirees or those leaving in June jump to the head of the payout line?

    6-Why is there no interest on our loan to the city?  (In 1976 and 1991 when UFT members lent the city money, they paid us back with interest.)

    7-What happens if someone takes a Leave of Absence during this contract?  In section 3E it says, "Lump Sum Payments (notice they don't call it retroactive pay) for actives for those continuously employed as of the day of payout."  I hope someone who takes a childcare leave, for example, still receives the full payouts. This one should be easily answered.

    8-Look closely at 3D where it states: "Retirements after 6/30/14 shall receive lump sum payments based on the same schedule as actives as set forth below in paragraph E." Does that mean these retirees would get everything they are owed or only the payments as of the date they retire?  For example if someone retires in 2015, do they only get a lump sum payment for 2015 or are they paid for the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 payments for their past work?  UFT has assured us, both orally and in writing, we would get the full payments for 2009-2011 if we retire after this June but why doesn't it explicitly say that in the MOA?

    9-Why are other unions like the SBA and TWU Local 100 criticizing this deal as subpar?


    H. Healthcare Savings
     
    a.  The UFT and the City/DOE agree the UFT will exercise its best efforts to have the MLC agree to the following:

     i. for fiscal year 2015 (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015), there shall be $400 million in savings on a city- wide basis in health care costs in the NYC health care program.

    ii.  for fiscal year 2016 (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016), there shall be $700 million in savings on a citywide basis in health care costs in the NYC health care program.

    iii.  for fiscal year 2017 (July 1, 2016-June 30, 2017), there shall be $1 billion in savings on a citywide basis in health care costs in the NYC health care program.

    iv.  for fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018), there shall be $1.3 billion in savings on a citywide basis in health care costs in the NYC health care program.

    v.  for every fiscal year thereafter, the savings on a citywide basis in health care costs shall continue on a recurring basis.

    vi. The parties agree that the above savings to be achieved on a Citywide basis are a material term of this agreement.

    vii.  In the event the MLC does not agree to the above citywide targets, the arbitrator shall determine the UFT’s proportional share of the savings tar get and, absent an agreement by these parties, shall implement the process for the satisfaction of these savings targets.

    viii.  Stabilization Fund: (1) Effective July 1, 2014, the Stabilization Fund shall convey $1 billion to the City of New York to be used in support of the pro rata funding of this agreement.
    (2) Commencing on July 1, 2014, $200 million from the Stabilization Fund shall be made available per year to pay for ongoing programs (such as $65 welfare fund contribution, PICA payments, budget relief). In the event the MLC does not agree to provide the funds specified in this paragraph, the arbitrator shall determine the UFT’s proportional share of the Stabilization Fund monies required to be paid under this paragraph.

     
     I. Dispute resolution regarding paragraph H.

    a.  In the event of any dispute, the parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the par- ties cannot resolve the dispute, such dispute shall be referred to Arbitrator Martin F. Scheinman for resolution.

    b.  Such dispute shall be resolved within 90 days.

    c.  The arbitrator shall have the authority to impose interim relief that is consistent with the parties’ intent.

    d.  The arbitrator shall have the authority to meet with the parties at such times as the arbitrator determines is appropriate to enforce the terms of this agreement.

    e.  The parties shall meet and confer to select and retain an impartial health care actuary. If the parties are unable to agree, the arbitrator shall select the impar- tial health care actuary to be retained by the parties.

    f.  The parties shall share the costs for the arbitrator and the actuary the arbitrator selects.



    10-What are the unspecified healthcare savings we have to come up with?

    11-What are the consequences if we don't meet the savings targets?

    12-Will the savings mean cuts in benefits at some point?

    13-Aren't we leaving too much up in the air here?

    14-Why won't the leadership allow open debate on the contract? 

    15-Why are you telling Chapter Leaders to push the contract when they are running the vote?  In the current weekly Chapter Leader Update there is a section called "The chapter leader's role in the contract ratification process."  Here are the last two sentences: "As a chapter leader, you represent the voice of the UFT in schools. Please share the message with your members that this contract is a victory not only for UFT members but also for the students and the communities we serve." Shouldn't Chapter Leaders be neutral concerning the vote?  I will do my best not to push a no vote when people are voting. It's their decision.

    71 comments:

    Anonymous said...

    The UFT thinks they can take advantage of a membership made up of 75% women. They are saying that woman are willing to accept a substandard contract that does not keep pace with inflation.

    Steven Hiller said...

    I have created a spreadsheet that will calculate not only your retro lump sum payments, but also the consequences of not getting any interest on these monies. You can get it from http://dropcanvas.com/ncl03.

    We are not getting 4+4 as per pattern bargaining. We are getting 3+3, and the city/UFT knows it.

    Anonymous said...

    At union info meeting 5/16, I asked what happens if an active member or a member who retires after June 30, 2014 DIES before retro payout completion in 2020? The UFT reps said "Don't die." We were stunned. Then the borough rep said "if you don't like it don't vote for it. If you die you will not get the rest of your retro." The other rep added in a failed effort to comfort us "We are working on it."

    Anonymous said...

    Now they have an incentive to kill us! Ouch.

    Anonymous said...

    Just vote no. This deal is the worst ever. I am sure the membership was mostly women in 1995 when people said no.

    Anonymous said...

    The role of the chapter leader is to represent their staff first, not the leadership.

    Anonymous said...

    The health care memo raises more concerns than answers. How will over a billion dollars be saved.

    Obviously through a combination of benefit cuts, higher deductibles and co-pays as well as higher union dues to offset the Welfare Fund costs.

    This will effect not just teachers, but every member of their families!! So why can transit workers vote on a contract that specifies health costs but teachers can't? Why are we a union that hides everything from the rank and file.

    Anonymous said...

    The way this contract takes care of people who can retire now, isn't that a de facto retirement incentive, like we received in the early 90's? I don't see how taking care of people who survived 30 years of DOE and Bloomberg is unfair. Are you saying that retirement incentives and taking care of people based on seniority fly in the face of union solidarity?

    Anonymous said...

    Is deferred retirement considered retirement or resigning.

    Anonymous said...

    How about the insanity of being asked to vote on a contract when the evaluation changes in the contract haven't been approved by NYSED yet?

    Anonymous said...

    James,
    I remember reading in one of your blog articles that anything that is Lump Sum payment is NOT pensionable.

    The MOA restates "Lump Sum Payment" several times and the question to ask is all lump sum payments pensionable?

    Anonymous said...

    Please don't lump all the retirees as Unity loyalists. I'm a retiree and I know several other retirees who did not vote for Mulgrew in 2013. There are many retirees trying to bring awareness to the in-service and members and recent retirees. I'm one of them. I've emailed the members on how unfair this contract is to the ATRs and I've emailed them your blog and Arthur's blog to everyone on my listserv, which are mostly ATRs. It's very difficult informing the members, let alone the retirees, that the current leadership is not "member-driven" but using that stolen slogan for now because of the contract ratification. Once the voting process is over, the union will go back to their slogan of "suckered you again".

    So I will email my colleagues this blog and Hiller's spreadsheet (very, very easy to read even if you're not a math teacher) in the hopes that they will see the new contract is a deterioration of our due process, tenure and rights.

    Thank you James, I have tremendous respect for you and your untiring effort to inform the rank and file.

    As a retiree, I cannot and will not gain anything if there's money in my pocket but my brothers and sisters have lost their livelihood. A moral compass always guided me in doing the right thing.

    Anonymous said...

    ask around: will the money to fund the "career ladder" (i.e., merit pay...oh, not really) come from the bill and melinda gates foundation? what will they demand as a return on this "investment"?
    its not coming from the city.
    so uft leadership: where will it come from? certainly the deal has been established for this funding.
    mulgrew is a trip.


    http://www.uft.org/press-releases/uft-delegate-assembly-rejects-bloomberg-merit-pay-plan

    Mr.Hughesonline said...

    I truly believe that turning down an 18% raise over 4 years just because you have concerns that have been addressed and refute multiple times.over the last couple of weeks is a prime example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Education across the country is going to turmoil: from Camden to California, teachers are under the microscope. We have an opportunity to show the country what real collaboration looks like. This mayor wants to work with us. We have to take the opportunity now to foster that relationship. Let's make SMARTA decisions this week, not cloudy ones.

    Anonymous said...

    Pensionable.

    Anonymous said...

    A retirement incentive at the expense of everyone else is divisive.

    Anonymous said...

    Not in this union.

    Anonymous said...

    When Mulgrew is arguing that we have a retention problem, putting in a very strange retirement incentive is rather odd. Giving full retro now only to retirees is also strange.

    Anonymous said...

    What about taking care equally people still stuck in the system rather than giving Leadership Academy principals new reasons to go after us?

    Anonymous said...

    Also, this retirement incentive is not being used to save junior teacher jobs like in the past.

    Anonymous said...

    Thanks from all the active people.

    Anonymous said...

    Which parth has been refuted?

    Anonymous said...

    I just retired last year. I would like you to explain
    how retirees as you put it go to the head of the line?
    I just saw the new salary schedule. I get approximately
    1percent more on my final average salary. I get nothing
    for the years I worked in 2010, 2011and 2012 except for a teeny lump sum which does not go in my pension. We were originally told 4% and 4% for 2008 and 2009 but
    anyone with half a brain and a calculator who reads
    the proposed salary schedule will quickly realize that was
    total bull shit. So please don,t portray retirees as the winners here. WE LOSE BIGTiME TOO! We are getting screwed as much as anyone else and if retirees could vote i would Vote NO. please before you pit retirees against others do the math and check
    your facts. In past contracts it was true that retirees
    walked away with everything but not this one unless
    you cosider a lump sum of a thousand and change after taxes a big win. We get totally screwed on our
    pension increase.

    Anonymous said...

    re. 11:59am, Agree with you completely!

    To all others, Vote yes and go fight something else with the same intensity that you outlet here. This contract is a good one, a fair one and with NO-GIVE BACKS. EARN 19.5% MORE COMPOUNDED (WITHIN 4 YEARS) AND FULL RETRO!! IT'S REALLY PRETTY GREAT!

    Anonymous said...

    To 131,
    No give backs? What's deminished due process rights? What's undefined health care savings? Compounded 19.5? There's nothing compounded, there's no interest!
    This contract assumes we're all moronic sheep who will listen to a pack of lies. I'm voting NO!!!!!!!!!

    Anonymous said...

    Political suicide or Union suicide ought not and should not be coveted by the present UFT leadership, for disgrace is the conclusion. That said, this current UFT leadership knows this and would never leave themselves open for ridicule out of desperation. People have been assured of their financial outcomes, People have been assured that the assault on pensions and health benefits stops at 52Broadway, and people have been assured that loyalty to the retired is a must. The ATR situation will not get worse and that pool is lessening because school closings are verboten. As long as there is "Due Process, "there will not be a mass firing of these folks, nor will there be a mass denial of Tenure. We must run from conspiracies; otherwise, we will need a new Iron Curtain. Thank you for your time, Dr. John Marvul.

    James Eterno said...

    If it is so good, why are other unions and so many of us so opposed? We warned about the 2005 contract and events have completely vindicated our view. The same will happen with this one if it goes through.

    Anonymous said...

    The comment from the SBA head illustrates the amount of respect he has for UFT president Mulgrew. He calls him "out of his mind" not because of the garbage contract he is serving up to his membership, BUT because Mulgrew would actually believe his membership would vote for this trash. Well listen up UFT membership- you vote for this sham, and you will get the same level of respect from your fellow brothers and sisters in unions all across NYC. NYC's "Brightest" will deserve to be called "The Dimmest"

    JJ said...

    We do not get the retro owed to us, if we choose to quit, move, get terminated, etc...That is not guaranteed. How is it possible, if we do any of those things, we don't get the money we already worked for? We have to be in service at time of payout. Also, notice per session got 0 in 09, 10, 11, 12, and then only got 40 cents in 13 and 14.

    Anonymous said...

    The retiree from 2013. You get your money now (full 8% and the pension gets recalculated). It's right there in the MOA. Forget the bonus. You win. Pensionable schedule is not the same as everything else. The rest of us are out of luck.

    Another 53 year old ATR said...

    Are you serious? There are more schools closing this June and more next year. Eva has expressed interest in running for mayor. She'll win. What do you think will happen then. There's nothing conspiring about having the common sense to understand it there are two sets of rules for the union members, one set is being targeted. Its the complete antithesis of what a union should be doing.

    Anonymous said...

    53 year old ATR you are 100% right. If you can convince your colleagues, maybe we can vote this down.

    Anonymous said...

    What defines "retirement"? Let's say on June 30, 2015, I want to retire. I will be 59 and I've been teaching 9 years. Is there a minimum # of years one has to have been teaching, and/or a minimum age? Here's hoping that's not the case, but I've seen nothing about this "in writing."

    Anonymous said...

    James, when you say "so many of us are opposed", exactly how many people are you referring to?
    With approx. 100,000 voting members, what percentage do you think are so opposed that they will vote against the contract?
    Please let us know.

    PG said...

    I am on of the many female members in the UFT. I am a 27 year veteran of the DOE. I completely believe in the new contract. Stop trying to scare our members with the worst scenarios!!! Back up what you say with fact, not fiction. our female members are way too savvy to believe the hype of people who don't live in the real world of NYC!!! I still thank God everyday that Michael is at the head of our leadership!!!

    Anonymous said...

    The role of the chapter leader is to uphold the contract represent members in theirschool and to be a link between the membership and leadership not to promote their own personal views and opinions only.

    Anonymous said...

    Unbelievable so according to you if I am a woman who votes for this contract I am being taken advantage my my Union? Who is the devicive now? shame on you you

    Anonymous said...

    Ok- so we are all screwed. UNITY chapter leaders will now collect and deliver all ballots. Does any sane person out there actually believe that unity will NOT play with these votes? What a corrupt union the UFT, I wish I could quit and go it alone.

    Anonymous said...

    For 8:39... what is to stop you from quitting? Would you rather go work for a Charter? Call Eva? Would you like to work for a private school?
    Where would you like to go it alone?

    This is a very good contract. Vote Yes!

    Anonymous said...

    The role of the chapter leader is to uphold the contract represent members in theirschool and to be a link between the membership and leadership not to promote their own personal views and opinions only.

    James Eterno said...

    I posted the following comment on Education Notes and will copy it here in response to people who say we would have opposed any contract and we are trying to scare people.




    James Eterno Sunday, May 18, 2014 at 4:05:00 PM EDT

    So not true that we were ready to lead a vote no campaign no matter what. If Mulgrew came in with 4%+4% (right away added to our checks), we knew it would be popular even if retro was deferred. If he protected ATRS and improved evaluations, we were thinking of maybe supporting the contract or at least not leading a vote no campaign. Needless to say, that is not the contract he came back with. Instead our worst fears were basically realized: weaker due process for ATRs, 4+4 not added fully until 2018, healthcare uncertainty, merit pay, establishing the worst municipal pattern in my years in the system for the next round, etc...

    I said UFT would not sell out ATRs with a time limit to find a new job. I was right but I never imagined they would come up with an expedited firing process based on undefined problematic behavior.

    In fact about a week before the contract came out, I talked with a close MORE friend about not being knee jerk opposition. I was not one of those expecting the worst but since it has more or less happened, I feel compelled to fight it. Right now I would rather this contract go down and get fixed rather than MORE gaining politically because we will be toiling under another awful agreement. We sounded the warnings in 2005. We were right. It does not make me at all happy to have to sound the alarms again.

    James Eterno said...

    As for how many will vote no, I have no idea if we are just a few thousand wolves howling out warnings that nobody will heed or if the message is truly resonating. I'd like to think it's spreading but who knows? Everything we said about how bad the 2005 contract was is still up on this blog so you can check our track record if you like. We said that contract would be a disaster and it certainly is. One does not need a crystal ball to see how bad this new one will age.

    Anonymous said...

    James I'm not happy with many things in this contract but I'm just not sure if we vote No that the problems with this contract will be resolved or fixed? How can we believe that we will get a better contract if we vote this one down? As for the ATR 's if they still have a 3020 a hearing dont they still have due process? I get that the hearings are quicker but dont they still have the same rights under State Ed Law? Also I dont get the Merit pay thing. Shouldnt we get more money if we take on more responsibilities and work extra days and time? I thought the idea around Merit pay is that teachers will work harder with students if they believe they will get more money by raising test scores etc. Do you think there is anything we should keep in this contract? I think some of the Eval and paperwork stuff will be good.

    James Eterno said...

    Who was ever brought up on 3020a charges after two file letters? Nobody unless it was for something totally outlandish. Problematic behavior is undefined and open to interpretation. The weakened ATR due process is a huge step backwards. Paperwork is similar to what we already have so I'm not calling that a big gain but it is a slight improvement. If this contract goes down, we will do better. People have to believe in themselves. As for the politics, cops and fire are very angry at de Blasio and us for this deal. He will need us politically whether the contract is approved or not. If you look at the history, we did better in 95 when we voted a contract down and things got much worse when we let an inadequate agreement go through in 2005.

    Anonymous said...

    I am not sure if this is common but my friend was given 3020a papers for one allegation of verbal abuse. That's it. She is not an ATR just a regular tenured teacher. I get what you are saying but I am still worried that getting something is possible even if we believe in our selves

    Mr.Hughesonline said...

    Two points:

    1) I don't ever recall signing up to give the city a loan. When did this happen?

    2) Isn't the burden of proof on administrators to establish a *pattern* of inappropriate behavior? Shouldn't there be written, documented evidence by *two* principals to proceed with 3020a hearings?

    Anonymous said...

    We loaned the city money in the 1990s....not sure if it was 91 or 95. We got 9% interest and February break bc of it.

    Anonymous said...

    Colleagues,

    This week we focus on the preliminary contract, the ratification process, and the fight to take back/transform our union. Ballots should be arriving in schools by Monday May 19, 2014, the 89th Birthday of Malcolm X, born on May 19, 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska. What would he have thought about this contract between the teachers’ Union and the DOE? If we know Malcolm X, he would have begun by asking a lot of questions; for instance, “Is it a victory or treachery?” If it is a victory, whom is it a victory for?” “It can either be a victory for the chicken or the fox; it cannot be a victory for both.” “Or treachery for the chicken or the fox, how ever that goes but not for both.”



    For the UFT officialdom, this tentative contract represents a victory for the teachers. We say ‘NO’! It is rather a victory for Bloomberg, the Charter Schools Lobby, the Wall St hedge fund managers, Bill Gates and the Bill Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the die-hard privatizers of public education and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It is a contract that is in line with the Republican and Democratic Parties’ Corporate agenda to do away with public education.



    This is a contract that gives voice to the business model ideas for public education. This contract represents a TREACHERY for the teachers. It strips our tenure rights to a great extent by the way it deals with the ATR issue because many of us can become ATRs tomorrow, next month or next year with the dwindling public school population. Teacher evaluation is based on students’ test scores and is enshrined in the contract. Merit pay has been introduced in the form of master teacher, model teacher and ambassador teacher. 200 schools called Progressive Redesign Opportunity Schools for Excellence will be allowed to work outside the contract and DOE regulations in a sort of Free Trade Zone, which is a reference to the sweatshops in union-less areas of low-wage workers in a race to the bottom.



    The UFT offialdom told Chapter Leaders below, “As a chapter leader, you represent the voice of the UFT in schools. Please share the message with your members that this contract is a victory not only for UFT members but also for the students and the communities we serve.” No! Chapter Leaders do not represent the voice of the UFT in schools but rather the VOICE of their chapters in the UFT. Let’s not get it twisted!!! As Chapter Leaders, we have the obligation to make known the concerns and voices of our chapter members in the UFT.



    If this contract were ratified, it would be a HUGE VICTORY for the IDEAS of the CORPORATE PRIVATIZERS of public education. And we can begin to kiss public education GOOD-BY.



    VOTING NO is voting against the ideas of the Right-Wing corporate privatizers of this country who wish to privatize public education.



    The fight against this sell-out contract should be linked to the fight and campaign to take back and transform our union. This means, we, the members of this union, must change our worldview about unions. We need to transform our chapters into vibrant organizations that can address school-based issues in collective actions and extend our outreach into the communities we serve. We have to develop a vision/goal, mission and objectives and build committees to address contractual needs, academic needs, students needs, parental and community needs, and recreational needs in our schools. We also need to be more inquisitive about union work and be informed as much as possible about the issues concerning public education. Expand your horizons by connecting, networking and going to events organized by various groups about the fight for public education. This is the first stage of the path to take back and transform our union. It is not going to be easy but THIS IS THE WAY, THE LIFE AND THE FUTURE!!!

    Anonymous said...

    Vote Yes.

    Anonymous said...

    Where does it say in the MOA that there is 4 % plus 4% raise. It just breaks a total of 8% into 2% pieces

    Anonymous said...

    This proposed contract is an insult, and it is a continuation of the assault on teaching as a profession. The right to due process should be protected for all, it is questionable why the UFT leadership can so easily allow this long standing right to be endangered and tout this contract as a big victory for educators. The rank and file should not only reject this contract in solidarity but seriously consider taking action in the form of a vote of no confidence for the entire UFT leadership, as well as explore the possibility of an alternative collective bargaining unit for UFT represented DOE educators/staff personnel.

    Anonymous said...

    Sure, let's go back to 1995 and have a top salary, of what 65K.
    You gotta be kidding! VOTE YES!!

    Anonymous said...

    I'll take less money and my respect any day of the week.

    Anonymous said...

    5:19 -

    A contract was never intended to give you respect. You want respect you need to earn that every day from your students. That is what counts. Nevermind the jerk in the Principals office. A contract will not improve them.

    What a contract is supposed to do is pay your bills. This contract does it and does it well. We will get our money.

    Anonymous said...

    Agree with 7:32pm. VOTE YES.

    Anonymous said...

    I am Abdulhamid Musa a loan lender of ABDULHAMID FINANCE, We offer both personal and business loans with capital base between the sum of 1,000.00 to 300,000,000.00 U.S. Dollars, European Euros or Pounds Sterling for individuals, firms and cooperate bodies, regardless of their marital status, sex, religion, location, but should be legal means of repayment of the loan within the specified period and must be worthy of trust with interest rates as low as 3%.
    email: abdulhamidfinance@yahoo.com

    Swift Heart said...

    This ongoing argument stuns me. It is as if the Vote No members have blinders on. Have any of you been following education across the country? Have any of you been following union patterns across the country? This is NOT 1995, we are in a time of layoffs, cuts in pay, cuts in pensions, and union busting!

    To turn down this deal would be shooting ourselves in the foot. This is not a Vote No and live happily ever after situation. We'll be thrown to the back of the line, 150 municipal unions later, with a lesser deal and GIVEBACKS. Let's be realistic, we'll probably never see a deal like this again. Let's wake up, this is reality and leading members to Vote No because of personal political agendas is wrong.

    Anonymous said...

    Vote Yes and remember your vote when you have the 2% in your pocket and all that unending PD on Mondays and Tuesdays in September. Most of you will be the first to complain. To me, a $1000 bonus and 2% since 2009 certainly doesn't make up for all the indignities. The reason why it is worse than 1995 is because we sheep are just following Mulgrew and Weingarten off a cliff since then. VOTE NO and gain back some dignity.

    Anonymous said...

    In 1995 there was a threat of layoffs. Now there is a $4 billion surplus. People voting for this baffle me.

    Anonymous said...

    And the mayor in 1995 hated us.

    Anonymous said...

    Subway and bus workers approved a new contract with the MTA on Monday for 8 percent raises over five years.

    It passed overwhelmingly, with 82 percent of transit workers voting yes.

    “Transit workers can hold their heads high by having won raises in every year of the five-year deal,” said union president John Samuelsen.

    They will get retroactive pay hikes of 1 percent for 2012 and 2013, followed by 2 percent raises in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

    Workers will also chip in more for their health care

    Anonymous said...

    Be sensible. Use your heads. Look around the country and see what's up with unions. Vote yes and move on.

    Anonymous said...

    The last contract made by the UFT changed the FIXED interest rate for our TDA from 8 1/4% to 7%. On the TRS website in 2009 until March 2010, we were specifically told that this would ONLY EFFECT THOSE MEMBERS WHO JOIN THE TDA PROGRAM AS OF DECEMBER 2009....NO OTHER MEMBERS WOULD BE EFFECTED. In March, after that contract was signed, ALL UFT TDA contributors were, in fact, effected. This was after the fact. By the way, the CSA members, and all other state members to the TDA are still getting that 8 1/4% fixed rate, compounded annually....4 1/2 years later. I was told at a retiree meeting in June of 2010 that the Union HAD TO DO THIS IN ORDER TO SAVE US FROM A POSSIBLE 4% INTEREST RATE! AND, THAT THE CSA'S RATE OF INTEREST WOULD SOON FOLLOW IN THE SAME DIRECTION. IT IS NOW MAY, 2014, ALL TDA MEMBERS EXCEPT THOSE REPRESENTED BY THE UFT ARE RECEIVING THE SAME 8 1/4%!!!

    "ALL" TEACHERS BEWARE OF THIS CONRACT. GO ON THE TRS WEBSITE AND TAKE NOTE: "IF RATIFIED, THE CONTRACT MAY RESULT IN RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE REVISIONS AND/OR ADDITIONAL PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS FOR SOME TRS MEMBERS, BUT AT THIS EARLY DATE WE DO NOT HAVE MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO PROVIDE MEMBERS."
    We were already "sold out" once.
    Look at the proposed salary scale recently posted. How they compound the raises to make the salary increase seem very lucrative. If you compound that 1 1/4% interest they took away from you for the last 4 1/2 years, based on a life's savings of just $100,000: They took away $6,929.41 to date. And, ALL OTHER TDA CONTRIBUTORS CONTINUE TO GET THEIR 8 1/4%. How is this justified? A RETIRED PAYROLL SECY

    maryellen437 said...

    I'm starting to feel as though this "new contract" is some sort of game they (NYC and the DOE) are playing. I have a few questions that I hope someone can answer.

    First of all, I'm sure I heard something on the radio about a class action lawsuit due to the unusual six-year delay of retroactive payments. Does anyone know if this is a fact? I've searched on Google and couldn't find anything to confirm this.

    Second, if there is litigation regarding this contract, does that delay its implementation, even if it is ratified, which basically means we will still not have a contract?

    Third, I was taken back by the voting method today, where teachers, paraprofessionals, secretaries, and guidance counselors had different color-coded ballots, which makes me think that our votes were given different weights. We are ALL union members and all pay union dues, so we should not be segregated when voting, unless our votes aren't equal!

    And, why is it necessary to put our "secret ballot" envelope inside another envelope with our name, school, and EIS number on it? I can vote for the President of the United States without assigning my SS# to it, but the UFT needs to know how I voted in a "secret" ballot!

    I think it's now time to totally dismantle the UFT! Maybe we should look towards another large union, such as 1199, for union leadership. The UFT has been corrupted beyond repair. They are no longer even trying to hide their disloyalty.

    Anonymous said...

    We are voting on different color ballots because we have different contracts. Teachers, Paras, Guidance, School Nurses, and so on.

    If youdon'tt sign the outer envelope how does anyone know who is entitled to vote.

    This is how elections have been conducted for years by many many organizations including your beloved 1199

    Anonymous said...

    Enough with the conspiracy theories! I strongly suggest you vote yes. But if you want to be a no vote, go ahead. But, please, enough already. So many comments are so sad and misguided.

    maryellen437 said...

    "If you don't sign the outer envelope how does anyone know who is entitled to vote?"

    That's the most ridiculous excuse I've ever heard, lol! I did vote, and I did follow the directions, but I don't have to agree with the tactics.

    I can understand the part about the different contracts; that does make sense. However, the person who accepts my ballot knows whether or not I'm entitled to vote. I had to initial my name to take a ballot and then initial it again to submit my ballot. That is the proof and that is all the proof that should be needed.

    When we vote on local or national elections, we don't have to label our vote. The poll workers make sure we are entitled to vote and then we vote. End of subject.

    This process is not legitimate, and if 1199 also conducts its voting the same way, then we can look elsewhere.

    The UFT is dead in the water in my book. And hopefully others will catch on. We have a large membership and I'm sure that other unions would be more than willing to do whatever is needed to accommodate us, including a fair voting practice.

    Anonymous said...

    The triple A is conducting the vote. Why don't you do a little research on the double envelope ballot before you lay down a charge of unfairness.

    The envelopes are separated before counting. Everyone does it this way for eons.

    Anonymous said...

    Interesting. THE WAR ON RETIREES. In this one they don't vote, but you still have a problem with them ! Solidarity for ever! VOTE YES. This contract takes care of our retired brothers and sisters as well. VOTE YES

    Anonymous said...

    Your MoA link is crucial.

    Still the union in the last week has directed people to the shorter 14 pp version.

    Anonymous said...

    Solidarity with the ATRs. Vote no.