Saturday, September 03, 2016


From DNA Info via Harris Lirtzman:

MANHATTAN — Workers at hundreds of city-funded pre-schools serving low-income New Yorkers have voted down a new union-backed contract — in a surprise upset that forced City Hall to cancel a planned victorious press conference, DNAinfo New York has learned.

A group of 220 union members of the Day Care Local 205 — or about 7 percent of the 3,200 membership — voted "no" to a four-year contract that its parent union, DC 1707, wholeheartedly supported, in an emergency meeting Wednesday night. The contract got 158 votes to ratify, according to a tally from union officials.

The contract would have been the first in the past decade to include a raise for day care workers — many of whom have been toiling at poverty-level wages, including subsisting on food stamps. 

So a group of workers barely surviving on subsistence wages who have not had a raise since 2006 are able to say no to the city and their union leaders. I respect their intestinal fortitude.

If only the supposedly much more powerful members of the United Federation of Teachers had acted like the pre-school day care workers and voted against the pathetic 2014 UFT contract negotiated by Michael Mulgrew, then we would have renegotiated when the city was swimming in surplus revenue.

If more teachers showed some courage by standing up to our union bosses, we might not have to wait until 2020 to be paid for work we did back in 2009. Then again, our union has built a formidable machine that it uses to deceive its members when necessary so it's not all on the membership.


Anonymous said...

A bunch of minimum wage workers have more stones than NYC teachers. We are New York's stupidest.

Anonymous said...

We were sold out in the last contract with no retroactive raises. What union leader does not believe in retroactive pay????? Let me guess MICHAEL MULGREW!!!! The only union leader on the face of the earth who does not believe in retroactive pay. Perhaps the only union who does not believe that money has a time value.

Anonymous said...

But 75% of us said yes. Whose fault is that?

Anonymous said...

All the newbie teachers at my school voted "yes" on the 2014 contract for one simple reason: They wanted the $1,000 signing bonus. When I tried to tell them that that money will most likely be $600.00 after taxes and that it will be spent quickly, they did not care. When I told them the reality of how crappy the contract really was, they did not care. I guarantee you that if that $1,000 signing bonus was not in the contract, it would have been voted down.

Anonymous said...

It is the fault of the members that we have substandard contract. Many who voted for the contract think we are getting a lump sum payment this fall.

Annoymous said...

I think Mulgrew convinced members to vote yes for this lousy contract by saying that we will go in the back of the line. In a way we're lucky that we are getting the retro even if it's in dribs and drabs. If we voted no and waited we could end up not getting any retro at all. This contract sucks but I really think the next one will be even worse. What really gets me pissed is that Mulgrew let them skip a year. Why the hell did he agree to that? The city has a surplus so we should get a retro payment in Oct. 2016. Even a UFT chapter leader told teachers in the school that I work in that they were getting retro in October. As a secretary I had to straighten that out.

James Eterno said...

We made an interest free loan to the city. If we went to the back of the line by voting the contract down as the city's financial picture continued to improve, they could not make an argument that they couldn't afford to give us the retro up front. We would have been paid already. In no way are we lucky to have a contract but I do agree the next contract will be worse only because we let it by not fighting.

Anonymous said...

James is right. If we had simply waited, we would have gotten a better contract. But Mulgoon kept the fear train rolling by saying the city was broke. We all know what a crock of crap and lies that was. We waited for years and years for a contract and the UFT should have simply employed just a little bit more patience and we would have got a much better deal. I bet the same crap will happen for the next contract. It will be crappy but they will tack on another $1,000 signing bonus and all the short sighted teachers will grab it up.

Anonymous said...

"I guarantee you that if that $1,000 signing bonus was not in the contract, it would have been voted down."
-- 75% voted yes. How many teachers got the bonus? Do some math. Some of you people are delusional. No wonder teachers are in trouble. Is it possible that most teachers are not unhappy with the contract? 75% is still 75%.

Anonymous said...

If 75% are happy then teachers are New York's stupidest.

Dr Purva Pius said...

Hello Everybody,
My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:( Thank you.


1. Name Of Applicant in Full:……..
2. Telephone Numbers:……….
3. Address and Location:…….
4. Amount in request………..
5. Repayment Period:………..
6. Purpose Of Loan………….
7. country…………………
8. phone…………………..
9. occupation………………
11.Monthly Income…………..

Email Kindly Contact: