WHAT WE KEEP ONLY IF WE VOTE NO

• The right to grieve letters in our file to have unfair/inaccurate material removed immediately. (Currently letters can't be used against us in dismissal proceedings after three years and we can attach responses to letters in our file.)


• The right to grieve unfair/inaccurate observation reports.


• The right to do professional activities during our professional period.


• The right to say no to hall patrols, potty patrols, and cafeteria duty.


• The right to maintain our current teaching load; no 37.5 minute small group extra teaching period at the end of the day.


• The right to transfer based on our seniority.


• The right to be part of SBO Committees made up of majority teachers that determine who transfers into our schools, not principals exclusively deciding.


• The right to due process so we can't be suspended without pay based on an allegation of misconduct.


• The right to a full and fair hearing if we are charged with lateness/absence issues.


• The right not to turn over confidential medical information to the DOE.


• The right to a vacant position if we are excessed.


• The right to widest placement choices possible if our school is closed or reorganized.


• The right to any in license position instead of worrying about becoming an Absent Teacher Reserve if our school is closed or reorganized.


• The right to a full summer vacation. (Many surrounding districts have school years fixed by contract at 183 days. If we vote yes, we will have a 190 day school year, the longest in the Metropolitan area.)


• The right to one less work day in June for teachers in Brooklyn and Queens.


• The right to current longevity and step increases without givebacks.


• The right to have our pay based on our education and experience, not some merit pay system called lead teacher where a committee with a majority of administrators decides who will get a raise based on whatever criteria they want.


• The right to grieve selection of our professional assignment to an independent arbitrator, not a city employee at the Office of Labor Relations.


• The right to ask the state for 55/25 pension that will be paid for by the city, not us.


• The right to push for a no layoff agreement like we had in the last two Contracts.


• The right to full breaks for secretaries.


• The right to demand real raises, not time for money swaps.

Contract supporters admit the contract is terrible. Be not afraid. Rejection does not mean strike. The law requires good faith bargaining.

DON’T SELL YOUR RIGHTS FOR PENNIES!
VOTE NO

Irregularities in Ratification Vote Mount as Members Worry Whether Fair Election Can Be Had

Reports are coming in from all over the City demonstrating that the leadership of our Union will attempt to use every tactic to cause our members to vote for this contract calling into question the legality of this referendum.

We have had reports of the following irregularities:

• balloting done in violation of the established rules by failing to safeguard ballots


• electioneering being allowed by pro-contract union member only


• access to mailboxes by out of building paid union representatives being permitted, but not by other union members


• leaflets printed with Union dues attacking opposition members and threatening that the only option is to vote yes or strike


• letters accompanying ballots mailed to members homes misrepresenting the delegate assembly vote


• voting occurring prior to the date provided with the ballots


• ballots left in teacher mailboxes which can be accessed by anyone in the building

In order to ensure union democracy and that this vote is being properly conducted, we need specific examples of any improper practices you are witnessing. We need dates, times and persons involved. There is no doubt that our Union’s leadership is desperate to achieve passage by a huge margin. We do have recourse but we need specific evidence of irregularities in the voting process should this sellout contract get ratified.

Email all allegations to Jeff Kaufman at jeffkaufman@ice-uft.org or James Eterno at jameseterno@ice-uft.org.

We must not let anyone rob of us of a fair election!

REALITY VIEWS ON THE PROPOSED CONTRACT

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School, and UFT Executive Board

Before deciding how to vote on the proposed contract, it's important to be based in reality. Don't rely on hearsay. Don’t rely on “SPIN”.

A lot of misinformation is being circulated. Most importantly, read the Memorandum of Agreement for yourself. (The following was taken from an “explanation” offered by supporters of the proposed contract).

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: Supervisors would have free rein to write letters in the file which will go unchallenged.

Their SPIN: Every member retains the ability to bring complaints about a letter to the principal and to append a written response. If a letter leads to disciplinary action, that letter can and will be challenged.If a teacher is denied a teaching assignment, a “per session” job or a transfer based on a letter in the file, the letter will be challenged as part of the grievance of the denial. And all letters not used in a disciplinary process must be removed after three years.In addition, the UFT will vigorously pursue charges of harassment against supervisors who use letters in the file to intimidate staff.The union also wrested from the city an agreement to re-open this issue "if there is a disproportionate increase in the number of letters to the file" as a result of this provision. Bottom line: no letter harmful to a member will go unchallenged.

THE REALITY: The truth is that if you can't grieve a letter in the file, it can be used against you for three years. If you are tenured, the letter in the file grievance is your first line of defense. We are surrendering it. If you are not tenured, it is really the only line of defense where you can get your case before an independent arbitrator who is not a city employee.U rating appeals go to Department of Education employees. The deck is stacked against us. The harassment article in the contract (article 23) only allows independent arbitrators to make recommendations. The final decision is left up to the administration.Make no mistake about it, the leadership can spin it how they like but giving up the right to grieve a letter in the file including unsatisfactory observations is a tremendous surrender on the part of the union.Also, remember if you are getting along with administration today, it doesn't mean your boss might find another job and then you could be stuck with a crazy principal. It happened to me when a principal who was well liked by the staff found a better position and we suffered under the replacement.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: All teachers would be assigned to cafeteria, hall duty or homeroom.

Their SPIN: Although some administrative duties are on the menu, there are many restrictions on the principal's discretion to assign these duties.Chapter leaders will continue to have a voice in determining how many positions will be allotted to each menu item. If a principal wants an unreasonable number of people doing activities like cafeteria duty and hall patrol, the chapter leader can appeal that decision outside the DOE.The principal can assign teachers to an activity only if not enough people volunteer. Assignments, if necessary, must be made in reverse seniority order and rotated. Teachers doing homeroom will not have to do another professional activity. A teacher who is assigned an administrative duty one year cannot be assigned any administrative duty the following year.

The REALITY: Who is going to volunteer for cafeteria patrol or hall patrol? I don't see too many hands going up. The Fact of the matter is that the principal can assign half of us to these administrative non professional duties every year and the other half the next year.Why would a principal want to give us homerooms for ten minutes if he/she can have us in the halls or the cafeteria for a whole period? In the contract before Circular 6, we could only be sent to do cafeteria duty once every six years. Since 1997, it's been up to us to decide if we want to do non professional activities.Now we could be assigned every other year to non professional activities such as the cafeteria or the halls. This is a huge step backwards in terms of our professionalism.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: Excessed teachers would lose their job rights and could be laid off.

Their SPIN: Spin: No excessed teacher can be laid off. Under the current contract, excessed teachers are limited to placements in schools in their superintendency; under the proposed contract, excessed teachers will be able to seek a position anywhere in the city, if they choose to do so. Excessed teachers who don't obtain positions may be assigned to a school in their superintendency or to Absent Teacher Reserve positions in the school from which they were excessed or another school within that superintendency.

The REALITY: The Union's Fact statement is not telling the truth. There is not a job security provision in this proposed agreement. The city could easily lay off anyone if we don't have a no-layoff agreement. It is absolutely true that people who are excessed or whose schools are reorganized will have to find their own position or they could become Absent Teacher Reserves and could of course be laid off based on seniority.People in certain license areas have already been threatened with layoff.The current contract gives us a right to a position if we are excessed or if our school closes. This proposal gives us next to nothing.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: The 55-25 pension reform in this proposed contract will never happen.

Their SPIN: The same argument has been made about every pension improvement the UFT has won, including the elimination of pension contributions for 10-year Tiers 3 and 4 members and the 2002 retirement incentive, which had a temporary 55-25 benefit for Tiers 2, 3 and 4. Usually the main obstacle has been the refusal of the city to support them, not the Legislature. In this case we already have the city's agreement to work out the details. But only if the contract is ratified!

The REALITY: We might get the 55-25, not because it is an added benefit but because it won't cost the city a dime; we will have to pay for it ourselves with higher pension contributions.Read the Memorandum of Agreement closely. It says in Section 6.2, "The [labor management] Committee will analyze the actual costs and additional contribution rates required to provide this benefit (including any additional health insurance benefit costs) without any cost to the City."This means that we will only get this benefit if members pay for it themselves. That is creating a de Facto Tier Five. It is not a new benefit if we have to pay for it with higher pension contributions.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: The reconfigured time in the proposed contract is a sixth teaching period.

Their SPIN: The language of the contract explicitly limits the new ten minutes, added to the former 20 minutes, to informal, individualized assistance to small groups of no more than 10 students [5 students in special education.] UFT President Randi Weingarten has made it clear that an additional teaching period is a strike issue for any proposed contract and will remain so.Under this proposal, the session will begin after dismissal. In multi- session schools and in District 75 schools, the 10 minutes will be incorporated into a 6-hour and 50-minute school day by adding a minute or two to each period.

The REALITY: We agree that the class size can't be 34 but ten students in a room with a teacher is a class. You can call it something else but it is an extra class. The ten to one ratio does not mean that they can't stick two or three teachers in the same room. It's only a ten to one ratio in the contract. This will be an extra teaching period for just about all of us.There is nothing in the proposed agreement defining what can be done in this class. There is nothing that I can see that will stop administration from programming these periods for makeup credits for pupils.There is nothing in there to stop them from observing us during that period and then writing us up unsatisfactory which we won't be able to grieve.As for the multi session issue, it will be up to the principal to decide if he/she has space available to give the extra class. When principals figure out how much they can cut their per session budgets by not having to offer PM School, tutoring, makeup labs and makeup gyms, you will see how they suddenly will find space where there is none today. Only the most crowded of high schools and district 75 schools will add an extra minute to periods.Everyone else will be doing the 37.5 minute teaching period.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: We would lose all our seniority rights.

Their SPIN:: Our seniority rights, including school seniority, are completely intact for layoffs, excessing, program preferences and other assignments under the proposed contract. The only change would be the end of the seniority transfer plan.

The REALITY: The SBO transfer plan is eliminated along with the Seniority Transfer Plan. Instead of a personnel committee deciding who to select, the committee makes recommendations but the principal makes the determination based on whatever criteria he likes with no expedited grievance process if you are denied a transfer. The only thing a principal cannot do is discriminate. Good luck trying to prove discrimination.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: There is no raise in this contract.

Their SPIN: Every union that bettered the basic 0-3-1 or 4.17% over three years civilian pattern set by DC 37 has made substantial trade-offs.Pattern bargaining has persisted since the fiscal crisis. Take the recent sanitation agreement. It cuts starting salaries (as did the police contract), lengthens routes and reduces the number of people on some trucks from two to one, producing both layoffs and huge savings for the city. In our case the time-for-money swap consists of 10 minutes a day and two additional work days a year (3 in Brooklyn and Queens) for a trade-off of 4.2%. The rest of the 15% increase - 10.8% -- is a clear raise.

The REALITY: Using the leadership's own math, 10.8% over 52 months and twelve days is less than 2.5% a year in raises for veterans and for new teachers that would come out to less than 2% and for per session it would be 1.7% a year. Not exactly a big increase.We can beat pattern bargaining by having a credible strike threat as the Transit Workers' Union did in 2002 and will again this winter when their contract expires. According to the NY Times of December 20, 2002, transit workers received a 4.5% annual increase in compensation without givebacks because their health plan received a huge infusion of cash as it was about to go bankrupt.In addition, they had their disciplinary code revised in favor of the workers. At the time, Randi Weingarten told the NY Times, "The health bailout is very significant. That helped turn a modest contract into a pretty good contract."Randi is head of the Municipal Labor Committee and as such she could also try to get coalition bargaining with other unions. She has not done so. The Professional Staff Congress (CUNY Professors) does not have a contract and they are holding out for a better deal. We should also.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: If we vote this contract down, we can always go back to the negotiating table and get a better deal.

Their SPIN: There is no legal obligation for the mayor or the chancellor to come back to the table. Given their history, there is no reason to believe that they would do so, let alone offer a better deal. Mayor Giuliani re-negotiated the 1995 agreement because he had committed a labor violation when he broke his promise and raised city managers' salaries. And the deal reached several months later simply moved money around, adding two months to the previous 61-month deal to reduce the 25-year longevity to 22 years and eliminate a temporary cut in starting salaries.If this contract is voted down, the most likely option is a strike authorization vote by the members. Waiting another five years is unrealistic for our members and would undoubtedly leave us further behind as we would NEVER win eight years of retroactive pay.

The REALITY: Bloomberg has to go back to the negotiating table as the law requires the Mayor to bargain in good faith. We will have significantly strengthened our hand if we vote no.Giuliani had no competition for reelection and yet he returned to the table after we voted the contract down in 1995. In the revised agreement in 1996 there was also a real retirement incentive tied to the contract, new P credit courses were added, Circular 6 was made stronger to ensure we would not have hall patrol or cafeteria duty and the city agreed to add money to our welfare funds. We can do better now; we can't do much worse.Many of the people who work full time for the union and will not have to live under this contract will get a 15% increase for spending ten more minutes per day in the UFT office. They won't have to do cafeteria duty or work an extra small group teaching period.Ask them why they are trying so hard along with the Daily News and the NY Post, traditional enemies to unions, to sell you this giveback laden contract?

Leadership Push Demonstrates Desperation

As it becomes clearer that our membership will not permit our leadership to destroy what is left of our Union and the protections it affords us, the Union’s leadership is leaving no stone unturned and actually forcing some representatives to go into the schools to try to sell this sell-out. It is rumored that some of these reps haven’t stepped foot inside a school since the Koch administration.

Reports are coming from all districts that district and special representatives have been put on a mission; a mission to distort the true impact of this contract proposal and convince our members that the loss of letters in the file grievances, step II grievances, seniority transfers, rights under Circular 6, due process rights and transfer of many of our disputes to a panel headed by the guy who negotiated the contract against us, is no big deal. To hear their arguments is painful.

Letters in the file all of sudden don’t mean anything. As Chapter Leaders we were trained (for almost a whole day) how letter in the file grievances really demonstrated the Union’s presence in the school. Special tactics were devised to get rid of them and most principals did not bother to get involved.

Step II’s were a waste of time. This coming from District and Special Reps who agonized over the presentation of our grievances, grievances that they could not reject if we insisted on going forward. Now with just a Step III we are at these fellows’ mercy.

Seniority transfers, according to at least one Special Rep were actually lost in 1995. It’s a good thing all of those teachers who used the transfer scheme since 1995 didn’t know that.

We kept Circular 6! Wow! You mean we get to pick which bathroom we have to guard. No, it was explained there still is a Circular 6. You know we could have lost it.

Suspensions without pay, mandatory dismissals and other goodies are somehow worth the hard bargaining that our leaders did. After all we still have tenure!

Thank you for not repealing a state law that affects every teacher in this state.

Oh, by the way, we won the right to keep receiving our pay in U.S. dollars. Thankfully, the Mayor did not have his way since he wanted to pay us in rubles.

Come out to the rally Friday at 4 P.M. at 52 Broadway. Let’s show our leaders that we care for our jobs as professionals and we care for our Union as the only true protection against DOE abuse. Together we can defeat this contract.

Union Leadership Rules Out of Order Measure to Ensure Democratic Ratification

In a blatant disregard to protect the democratic process of contract ratification Randi Weingarten ruled out of order tonight a measure that would help protect the rights of members who may want to hear both sides of the ratification issue.

Executive Board members from TJC and ICE jointly proposed a resolution requiring the New York Teacher to present both sides of the contract ratification issue and to require that Chapter Election Committees run the ratification vote instead of the Chapter Leader as is required by Union rule. An Executive Board member raised an objection based on the resolution passed at the last Delegate Assembly which required that the ratification vote be run as had been in the past.

Realizing that the Union rule, as enunciated in the booklet, How to Run a Chapter Election, requires that ratification votes be run by Election Committees in each school and that there may be some schools in which the Chapter Leader may decide to run the election the resolution sought to clear up any ambiguity.

As a result of Randi’s ruling there was no vote on the resolution and no clear direction to the Chapters on how to run this ratification leaving the whole process up for challenge. Hopefully this will not require governmental intervention and re-run of the election.

In other Executive Board business a request to Randi to direct district reps and other union paid spokespeople to stop attacking opposition caucuses was met with the response “well you call us names, too.” It appears that Randi took offense to the word “hack” and wanted us to apologize for using the word.

What she attempted to do and was unsuccessful was to throw the question back to the questioner. This tactic is old and wrongheaded. People paid with our dues should not resort to calling opposition caucus members terrorists or impugn their motives no matter what they are called. That being said we will try to extract the word “hack” from our literature.

What do you call a paid employee who espouses the views of their leader without question? Let’s come up with a new word.

RALLY AT UFT HEADQUARTERS

52 Broadway

FRIDAY OCT. 21 AT 4PM

Sponsored by ICE & TJC

Come on down even if only for a while

There is not much time but if the majority of people in your school are opposed to the contract poll them and ask if they would like to be a sponsor.

Demands:

1. The UFT to present an accurate and fair presentation of facts about the contract and to stop misleading people. Stop the strike mongering.

2. Space in the NY Teacher for the case for a No Vote.

3. The UFT to cease branding opponents of the contract as anti-union

4. Delegate Assemblies to be run in a democratic manner, unlike the recent meeting on the contract.

More details to follow in future updates.

Please tell your colleagues about this rally.

Send a message to Bloomberg and Weingarten to get back to the negotiationing table and bring back a fair contract.

ICE Gathering Post- rally at The World Café, Trinity and Rector “Countering the Unity Spin” Get the real facts so you can successfully inform your colleagues about the real facts. We will clarify contract questions.

REALITY VIEWS ON THE PROPOSED CONTRACT

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School, UFT Executive Board

Before deciding how to vote on the proposed contract, it's important to be based in reality. Don't rely on hearsay. Don’t rely on alleged “SPIN” that supporters of the proposed contract want you to believe.

A lot of misinformation is being circulated. Most importantly, read the Memorandum of Agreement for yourself. (The following was taken from an “explanation” offered by supporters of the proposed contract).

MYTH: Supervisors would have free rein to write letters in the file which will go unchallenged.

Contract Supporters' Spin: Every member retains the ability to bring complaints about a letter to the principal and to append a written response. If a letter leads to disciplinary action, that letter can and will be challenged.

If a teacher is denied a teaching assignment, a per session job or a transfer based on a letter in the file, the letter will be challenged as part of the grievance of the denial. And all letters not used in a disciplinary process must be removed after three years.

In addition, the UFT will vigorously pursue charges of harassment against supervisors who use letters in the file to intimidate staff.

The union also wrested from the city an agreement to re-open this issue "if there is a disproportionate increase in the number of letters to the file" as a result of this provision. Bottom line: no letter harmful to a member will go unchallenged.

REALITY: The truth is that if you can't grieve a letter in the file, it can be used against you for three years. If you are tenured, the letter in the file grievance is your first line of defense. We are surrendering it. If you are not tenured, it is really the only line of defense where you can get your case before an independent arbitrator who is not a city employee.

U rating appeals go to Department of Education employees. The deck is stacked against us. The harassment article in the contract (article 23) only allows independent arbitrators to make recommendations. The final decision is left up to the administration.

Make no mistake about it, the leadership can spin it how they like but giving up the right to grieve a letter in the file including unsatisfactory observations is a tremendous surrender on the part of the union.

Also, remember if you are getting along with administration today, it doesn't mean your boss might find another job and then you could be stuck with a crazy principal. It happened to me when a principal who was well liked by the staff found a better position and we suffered under the replacement.

MYTH: All teachers would be assigned to cafeteria, hall duty or homeroom.

Contract Supporters' Spin: Although some administrative duties are on the menu, there are many restrictions on the principal's discretion to assign these duties.

Chapter leaders will continue to have a voice in determining how many positions will be allotted to each menu item. If a principal wants an unreasonable number of people doing activities like cafeteria duty and hall patrol, the chapter leader can appeal that decision outside the DOE.

The principal can assign teachers to an activity only if not enough people volunteer. Assignments, if necessary, must be made in reverse seniority order and rotated. Teachers doing homeroom will not have to do another professional activity. A teacher who is assigned an administrative duty one year cannot be assigned any administrative duty the following year.

REALITY: Who is going to volunteer for cafeteria patrol or hall patrol? I don't see too many hands going up. The Fact of the matter is that the principal can assign half of us to these administrative non professional duties every year and the other half the next year.

Why would a principal want to give us homerooms for ten minutes if he/she can have us in the halls or the cafeteria for a whole period? In the contract before Circular 6, we could only be sent to do cafeteria duty once every six years. Since 1997, it's been up to us to decide if we want to do non professional activities.

Now we could be assigned every other year to non professional activities such as the cafeteria or the halls. This is a huge step backwards in terms of our professionalism.

MYTH: Excessed teachers would lose their job rights and could be laid off.

Contract Supporters' Spin: No excessed teacher can be laid off. Under the current contract, excessed teachers are limited to placements in schools in their superintendency; under the proposed contract, excessed teachers will be able to seek a position anywhere in the city, if they choose to do so. Excessed teachers who don't obtain positions may be assigned to a school in their superintendency or to Absent Teacher Reserve positions in the school from which they were excessed or another school within that superintendency.

REALITY: The Union's Fact statement is not telling the truth. There is not a job security provision in this proposed agreement. The city could easily lay off anyone if we don't have a no layoff agreement. It is absolutely true that people who are excessed or whose schools are reorganized will have to find their own position or they could become Absent Teacher Reserves and could of course be laid off based on seniority.

People in certain license areas have already been threatened with layoff.
The current contract gives us a right to a position if we are excessed or if our school closes. This proposal gives us next to nothing.

MYTH: The 55-25 pension reform in this proposed contract will never happen.

Contract Supporters' Spin: The same argument has been made about every pension improvement the UFT has won, including the elimination of pension contributions for 10-year Tiers 3 and 4 members and the 2002 retirement incentive, which had a temporary 55-25 benefit for Tiers 2, 3 and 4. Usually the main obstacle has been the refusal of the city to support them, not the Legislature. In this case we already have the city's agreement to work out the details. But only if the contract is ratified!

REALITY: We might get the 55-25, not because it is an added benefit but because it won't cost the city a dime; we will have to pay for it ourselves with higher pension contributions.

Read the Memorandum of Agreement closely. It says in Section 6.2, "The [labor management] Committee will analyze the actual costs and additional contribution rates required to provide this benefit (including any additional health insurance benefit costs) without any cost to the City."

This means that we will only get this benefit if members pay for it themselves. That is creating a de Facto Tier Five. It is not a new benefit if we have to pay for it with higher pension contributions.

MYTH: The reconfigured time in the proposed contract is a sixth teaching period.

Contract Supporters' Spin: The language of the contract explicitly limits the new ten minutes, added to the former 20 minutes, to informal, individualized assistance to small groups of no more than 10 students [5 students in special education.] UFT President Randi Weingarten has made it clear that an additional teaching period is a strike issue for any proposed contract and will remain so.

Under this proposal, the session will begin after dismissal. In multi- session schools and in District 75 schools, the 10 minutes will be incorporated into a 6-hour and 50-minute school day by adding a minute or two to each period.

REALITY: We agree that the class size can't be 34 but ten students in a room with a teacher is a class. You can call it something else but it is an extra class. The ten to one ratio does not mean that they can't stick two or three teachers in the same room. It's only a ten to one ratio in the contract. This will be an extra teaching period for just about all of us.

There is nothing in the proposed agreement defining what can be done in this class. There is nothing that I can see that will stop administration from programming these periods for makeup credits for pupils.

There is nothing in there to stop them from observing us during that period and then writing us up unsatisfactory which we won't be able to grieve.

As for the multi session issue, it will be up to the principal to decide if he/she has space available to give the extra class. When principals figure out how much they can cut their per session budgets by not having to offer PM School, tutoring, makeup labs and makeup gyms, you will see how they suddenly will find space where there is none today. Only the most crowded of high schools and district 75 schools will add an extra minute to periods.
Everyone else will be doing the 37.5 minute teaching period.

MYTH: We would lose all our seniority rights.

Contract Supporters' Spin: Our seniority rights, including school seniority, are completely intact for layoffs, excessing, program preferences and other assignments under the proposed contract. The only change would be the end of the seniority transfer plan.

REALITY: The SBO transfer plan is eliminated along with the Seniority Transfer Plan. Instead of a personnel committee deciding who to select, the committee makes recommendations but the principal makes the determination based on whatever criteria he likes with no expedited grievance process if you are denied a transfer. The only thing a principal cannot do is discriminate. Good luck trying to prove discrimination.

MYTH: There is no raise in this contract.

Contract Supporters' Spin: Every union that bettered the basic 0-3-1 or 4.17% over three years civilian pattern set by DC 37 has made substantial trade-offs.

Pattern bargaining has persisted since the fiscal crisis. Take the recent sanitation agreement. It cuts starting salaries (as did the police contract), lengthens routes and reduces the number of people on some trucks from two to one, producing both layoffs and huge savings for the city. In our case the time-for-money swap consists of 10 minutes a day and two additional work days a year (3 in Brooklyn and Queens) for a trade-off of 4.2%. The rest of the 15% increase - 10.8% -- is a clear raise.

REALITY: Using the leadership's own math, 10.8% over 52 months and twelve days is less than 2.5% a year in raises for veterans and for new teachers that would come out to less than 2% and for per session it would be 1.7% a year. Not exactly a big increase.

We can beat pattern bargaining by having a credible strike threat as the Transit Workers' Union did in 2002 and will again this winter when their contract expires. According to the NY Times of December 20, 2002, transit workers received a 4.5% annual increase in compensation without givebacks because their health plan received a huge infusion of cash as it was about to go bankrupt.

In addition, they had their disciplinary code revised in favor of the workers. At the time, Randi Weingarten told the NY Times, "The health bailout is very significant. That helped turn a modest contract into a pretty good contract."

Randi is head of the Municipal Labor Committee and as such she could also try to get coalition bargaining with other unions. She has not done so. The Professional Staff Congress (CUNY Professors) does not have a contract and they are holding out for a better deal. We should also.

MYTH: If we vote this contract down, we can always go back to the negotiating table and get a better deal.

Contract Supporters' Spin: There is no legal obligation for the mayor or the chancellor to come back to the table. Given their history, there is no reason to believe that they would do so, let alone offer a better deal. Mayor Giuliani re-negotiated the 1995 agreement because he had committed a labor violation when he broke his promise and raised city managers' salaries. And the deal reached several months later simply moved money around, adding two months to the previous 61-month deal to reduce the 25-year longevity to 22 years and eliminate a temporary cut in starting salaries.

If this contract is voted down, the most likely option is a strike authorization vote by the members. Waiting another five years is unrealistic for our members and would undoubtedly leave us further behind as we would NEVER win eight years of retroactive pay.

REALITY: Bloomberg has to go back to the negotiating table as the law requires the Mayor to bargain in good faith. We will have significantly strengthened our hand if we vote no.

Giuliani had no competition for reelection and yet he returned to the table after we voted the contract down in 1995. In the revised agreement in 1996 there was also a real retirement incentive tied to the contract, new P credit courses were added, Circular 6 was made stronger to ensure we would not have hall patrol or cafeteria duty and the city agreed to add money to our welfare funds. We can do better now; we can't do much worse.

Many of the people who work full time for the union and will not have to live under this contract will get a 15% increase for spending ten more minutes per day in the UFT office. They won't have to do cafeteria duty or work an extra small group teaching period.

Ask them why they are trying so hard along with the Daily News and the NY Post, traditional enemies to unions, to sell you this giveback laden contract?

Smoke Seeping Through Cracks: Randi Modifies Contract After DA Approval

In a stunning move which further evidences the weakness of their contract proposal the Union leadership has modified the contract proposal to permit renegotiation of the draconian provisions eliminating grievances about letters to the file if they become “disproportionate,” so reports the Post.

While the “concession” is pure smoke since agreeing to negotiate is not a right, the move demonstrates the extent the leadership will go to sell this contract proposal. Randi and her “sales” staff have maintained that sitting down with the Mayor is impossible. This shows it is not only possible but, as the Post reveals, the plan was in the works for “weeks.”

Some have questioned how a contract proposal can legally be negotiated after the DA sent it to the membership for a vote. Isn’t it a violation of labor law to put a “contract proposal” before the membership which does not contain all of its provisions? What other “side” deals have been made that were not revealed?

Engage in discussions with your colleagues. Expose the attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. Don’t let this proposal become the contract!

30 Questions for Unity Reps Who Come into Schools

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School, UFT Executive Board Member

1. For full disclosure, how much money do you make and do you have a double pension (Dept. of Ed. and UFT)? (If they won't answer, tell members to check LM 2 available from Department of Labor. The UFT's file number is 063-924.)

2. Are you going to vote yourself a 15% raise to your six figure salary and what are you going to do to earn the extra money, work ten extra minutes at the UFT office?

3. Why is there no job security provision in the new contract? Didn't we have a no layoff clause in the last two contracts? Aren't people in certain license areas such as business, music, art and health as well as paras, secretaries and guidance counselors in danger of being laid off now?

4. If a school is closed or reorganized under the new Contract, teachers have no rights to a teaching job; they have to hustle for it by getting a principal to hire them or they can become absent teacher reserves anywhere in the city. Why should UFT members accept this assault on our dignity?

5. In the old days before the last two contracts when there were building assignments, it was one out of every three terms (once every six for cafeteria) where we could be assigned administrative duties; why is the union agreeing to send us back to cafeteria and hallway duty which are unprofessional tasks every other year? How is this increasing our professionalism or helping students?

6. If we are assigned to hall duty or cafeteria duty against our will for two years in a row, we can only grieve to the city's Office of Labor Relations (city employees and not independent arbitrators). Won't that mean that we will never have a fair hearing on professional assignment selection? Do you really expect us to trust the city Office of Labor Relations to be fair? Don't they work for the Mayor?

7. Define small group instruction? What in the proposed contract prevents the principal from turning the new 37.5 minute ninth period where we will have to teach up to ten students after we have taught five or six classes already and done cafeteria duty into a class? I know the principal can't force students to show after dismissal but what prevents the principal from compelling us to have lesson plans and then observing us during this period or for that matter what prevents the principal from assigning small group teaching, yet another class, to us during our Circular 6 period? In the high schools what will stop the principal from making these classes into PM School and giving kids remedial credit?

8. In multiple session schools what will prevent the principal from giving us the 37.5 minute period and not adding the time to the periods? Isn't it true that all he has to do is say that he has space and then he can add the 37.5 minute period to our day?

9. I hear a lot of talk about a retirement incentive for people who have worked 25 years and are 55 years old. The contract says we will push for it with the city if it doesn't cost the city any money. Won't that mean that UFT members will have to pay for any incentive ourselves? If we have to pay for the benefit ourselves, how is that a gain? Isn't that creating a de facto tier 5?

10. Suspension without pay for up to and over three months based on an Office of Special Investigations report which is based often on a mere allegation of sexual misconduct will become the norm under the new agreement. How does weakening our tenure protections by allowing suspension without pay, possibly illegally, help us?

11. We can't grieve letters to the file including unsatisfactory observations so they will stay in our files for three years under the proposal. How is this beneficial to us when currently in 3020A hearings (the process to remove tenured pedagogues), administration is not permitted to admit material that is older than three years anyway?

12. The UFT says we earned a great victory on micromanagement since the DOE can't use bulletin boards, arrangement of furniture or the length of lesson units as the basis for discipline. What is to prevent the DOE from using incompetent teaching as the basis for discipline and then using the length of our teaching unit as an example of our bad teaching? Also, how will this no micromanagement provision help if we can't file a grievance to have a disciplinary letter removed?

13. If we can't grieve a letter for the file, what leverage will chapter leaders have to try to get principals to remove them? Isn't the threat of a grievance where administration will be embarrassed often enough to get administration to make deals and back down?

14. Non tenured teachers and all paras will never be able to grieve letters before an independent person if this contract is passed. Aren't U rating appeals a biased Department of Education forum where the UFT usually loses? Aren't you leaving our most vulnerable members defenseless by agreeing not to allow them to grieve material in their files to an independent arbitrator?

14. Union officials are saying we can use the Article 23 harassment provision to stop administration. However, in Article 23 cases the independent arbitrator can only make a recommendation. Our employer makes the final decision so this provision has no teeth behind it, correct?

15. Don't many suburban districts work 183 days by contract but under the new contract we will work 190 next year by adding two to three days to the calendar?

16. How will it improve education adding days to the school year giving us the longest school year of all the districts in the New York Metropolitan area?

17. If we are working more days than in the suburbs and they also take advantage of their snow days which we rarely use in the city, shouldn't we earn more than them not $15,000+ less than our suburban counterparts as we will still be way behind them in the new contract? Also, considering our huge class sizes, aren't we already more productive than educators in surrounding districts? Why should we be paid less?

18. How is giving up seniority and SBO transfers and leaving all transfers up to the discretion of principals not another huge step backward for educators?

19. Why didn't the UFT wait until the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case was settled before giving away our rights in exchange for pennies since greater funding could be forced on the state and the city for NYC schools ?

20. In 1995, we turned down a contract with a very tough adversary in Rudy Giulliani and several months later we received a better deal that had the longevity payments improved to 22 years from 25 in the original and a clause withholding 5% of new teacher pay for four years was eliminated and a real retirement incentive was added. Why couldn't we do the same in 2005? Wouldn't there be public pressure on the Mayor as there was in 1996 to settle if the teachers are that unhappy?

21. Weingarten says Klein is tougher than Chancellor Rudy Crew who was in charge in 1995, but didn't the Mayor always have to sign off on our contracts? Wasn't Giulliani as tough if not tougher than Bloomberg? Isn't the labor commissioner for the city, James Hanley, the same person who has been there since Dinkins was Mayor so why all the givebacks now?

22. The salary increase is 3.4% annually for veterans, just over 2% for new teachers and 1.7% for per session. The inflation rate is currently 4.1% in the NY area. With all of these givebacks, how can you justify a salary increase that doesn't even keep pace with the cost of living?

23. Given the choice of evils, wouldn't it have been better to do what the police did and cut pay for future hires to get annual 5% increases without major givebacks for incumbent officers rather than agree to these draconian givebacks that the UFT is accepting? 5% is greater than 3.4% isn't it?

24. If this is the best you can do, why do we have to keep paying union dues?

25. Why did Randi Weingarten let the retired teachers vote on the contract at the Delegate Assembly? Isn't it true that she had to take a second vote when the opposition complained and that the second vote was closer? Why did she deny a count and adjourn the meeting when the opposition asked for the votes to be counted?

26. Why isn't the UFT using ballots mailed to member homes which would ensure a fair vote rather than a vote in the schools?

27. What were the reasons for all the actions the UFT asked us to do to strengthen our hand if we are only going accept the garbage that the City and Department of Education want us to swallow?

28. Why didn't the union prepare us for real industrial action rather than agree to this contract? Are you thinking about the membership or are you worried about losing dues check off (the automatic deduction of union dues from our paychecks) if we were to have a job action?

29. If we say no now and organize ourselves for real industrial action, won't we be in a stronger position to win a good contract?

30. (This can be used at any point if they mention a strike.) Why does the Union use the strike threat to scare the membership instead of using it to scare the Mayor and Chancellor?

40% of the Delegates to the DA Vote Against Contract Proposal Despite Leadership Attempt at Vote Manipulation

In a shameful display of filibuster tactic Randi Weingarten demonstrated she can try to stop the rejection of her sell-out contract offer but a large part of our Union won’t bite.

The Delegate Assembly opened up with a promise by the president that she would not “motivate” the resolution to send the contract proposal to the schools. She called for a motion to suspend Roberts’ Rules (which can only legally be done by Constitutional Amendment) so that we could have a “fair” debate.

Fifteen minutes into a non-stop advertisement for the resolution we sought a point of order to limit her diatribe. Since she illegally ruled, all ready, that Roberts’ Rules did not apply, no point of order was ever in order. She continued…and continued….and continued…. for an hour!

When debate began it became clear that Union officials who have not worked in a school in a generation cajoled the delegates to save their jobs vote in favor of sending the proposal to the members. Delegates who taught in our schools argued how the proposal was anti-union and questioned why the leadership would have the temerity to recommend that the document go to the membership.

In perhaps one of the shortest Delegate Assemblies in recent memory and right on cue the question was called (somehow Roberts’ Rules resurrected itself) and the matter was put before the body with over 20 minutes left to the scheduled time for the meeting.

Randi somehow “forgot” about our agreement to instruct the retirees not to vote, so they voted. The body voted 70% in favor and 30% against. When the vote was redone due to our objection the vote was much closer, 60% in favor and 40% against.

This is an incredible showing given the nature of the Delegate Assembly and the attempt to manipulate the vote.

Our fight goes into the schools where, if we get the message out, we will defeat this proposal and get our negotiating committee back to the bargaining table. Tell your colleagues, friends and fellow Union members. We are the ones who will be working under the new rules. Don’t let our Union get destroyed. Vote No.

WHY YOU MUST VOTE “NO” ON THE PROPOSED CONTRACT

EXTRA TIME

• Teaching day extended Monday thru Thursday by 37½ minutes


• Two less days of summer vacation (start date before labor day)


• One less holiday (if you teach in Brooklyn or Queens)

GRIEVANCE RIGHTS

• No right to grieve letters to the file: supervisors can write an unfair and inaccurate letter and it becomes part of your personnel file


• Elimination of step ii grievances

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

• Lunch duty, bus duty, hall duty, potty patrol


• Additional small group instruction period


• Possible involuntary assignment to position at principal’s discretion

SENIORITY RIGHTS

• Seniority and SBO transfers eliminated


• Excessing rights weakened


• If your school closes no right to teach – you could be a sub anywhere in city


• All transfers up to principal

HARSHER DISCIPLINARY RULES

• Absent/late tenured pedagogues- doe can file a notice for arbitration and arbitrators can impose suspensions, fines, loss of salary steps


• If medical reasons are given for the latenesses/absences, releases for personal medical information must be signed over to DOE


• Full suspension without pay of tenured pedagogues if charged under criminal law or accused by special investigations of any type of sexual misconduct against any minor. Applies even for some verbal abuse.

CREATION OF LEAD TEACHER

• Creates a new group of teachers receiving merit pay- further weakening the union. Job posting is city-wide: placement and transfer city-wide.

MEDICAL AND DRUG AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS

• Higher deductibles and co-pays incorporated as permanent


• No provision for funding new retirement incentive leaving members to fund their own, a de facto tier 5

SALARY INCREASES AND INFLATION

• Current inflation rate: 4.1% (source: bureau of labor statistics, 8/05 metro NY urban consumers) 


• Proposed annual increase for veteran teacher: 3.4%


• Proposed annual increase for new teacher: 2.1%


• Proposed annual increase for per session: 1.7%

DO THE MATH:
With so much additional work time it is disingenuous to call additional pay a raise

REJECT THE CONTRACT
TELL YOUR UNION THERE’S MORE THAN MONEY AT STAKE
DON’T GIVE BACK WHAT TOOK YEARS TO ACHIEVE

For More Information and to help defeat this proposal contact ICE
Independent Community of Educators
http://www.ice-uft.org. Join our mailing list and read our blog, http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com

WHAT DOES A NO VOTE MEAN?

If I vote no, will I have to go on strike?
Absolutely not! If the proposed contract does not win approval from the members, both sides will go back to the bargaining table. A “no” vote does not mean there will be a strike but will give us time to properly organize.

Has there ever been a “no” vote, a rejection of a UFT proposed contract before?
Yes. In 1995, the members turned down a proposed contract.

What happened when the Contract was rejected by the membership last time?
In a few months time, we were offered a better deal. The revised Contract included a 22 year longevity (reduced from 25). Low cost P credits were added and a 5% withholding of pay was eliminated. The Contract also forced the City to increase welfare fund contributions and contained a real retirement incentive. Despite our former leader’s statement that we would have to be “smoking something” if we thought we could do better, we went back to the negotiating table and did!

I need a raise. If I vote to reject the proposed contract I won’t earn any more money, right?
Not exactly. There are provisions in the Taylor Law which continue all salary differentials as they exist under our present Contract. All longevity increases, salary steps and pay differentials are in full force and effect.

Would my salary be keeping up with inflation under the proposed contract?
No. Given the recent rise in gas and oil prices and everything that they affect in our economy, any increase under this proposed contract will be totally outpaced by inflation.

Does the right to grieve letters to the file really matter?
Absolutely. We are giving up our first line of defense. If information a supervisor puts into your personnel file is unfair or inaccurate you should not have to wait three years for its removal. The letters still can be used against us for “U” ratings and dismissal hearings as well as to deny us teaching assignments, per session and transfers. Untenured staff and paras are virtually defenseless.

Isn’t it true that Administration cannot place any letters in my file about furniture arrangement, bulletin boards and the duration of lesson units?
No. The proposed contract only says that these items cannot be “the basis for disciplinary action”. It does not prevent letters about these issues from going in your file.

What happens if my school closes or gets reorganized?
Under the terms of the proposed contract you would be forced to scramble for a new job. Veteran teachers receiving higher salaries and who could not find jobs would become substitutes and could be assigned anywhere in the City.

Under the proposed contract isn’t it true that teachers in all tiers can retire after age 55 with a full pension?
No. The City and the Union have agreed to ask our State legislators to change the law. Since this does not require the City to pay for the change its likelihood of passage is very slim. There are no new benefits under this provision in the proposed contract.

Will the proposed contract end the 60 minute Professional Development and faculty and grade conferences on Mondays?
Yes and no. PD Mondays are gone but conferences come back. Our school day will be 7 hours and 37 ½ minutes long on faculty and grade conference days! We’ll have 5 classes in secondary schools/6 classes in elementary schools our prep and lunch plus cafeteria or hall duty, prep, lunch, small group instruction and conferences.

Doesn’t the proposed contract preserve our union’s core values?
Disgracefully, no. By giving up rights such as Step II grievances, the right to grieve letters to the file, by agreeing to the imposition of merit pay (lead teacher), the loss of seniority rights, and the institution of hall and potty patrol and an extra class 4 days a week we are destroying our union’s core values.

VOTE “NO” ON PROPOSED CONTRACT MOVEMENT GAINING MOMENTUM

As the true information about the proposed contract is being disseminated the reaction of Union members, city-wide, is unambiguous. This proposal hurts us as teachers, paras and other support staff in the schools. This proposal fundamentally hurts our Union.

The Union leadership is going into panic mode. They are fearful of a repeat of 1995 where the membership rejected the proposal and they were forced back to the bargaining table.

A notice was sent out from the Union warning of an alleged campaign to disrupt the meeting. This, like the leadership spin, “accept this proposal or strike, now” is just another scare tactic. We don’t need to disrupt anything. When the members hear the truth and read the proposal for themselves it is clear. This proposal must be rejected.

The Union just sent out, by Express Mail, a leadership-spun summary and proposed salary scale to all the delegates. They did not send out the proposal. When you read the proposal, available on the UFT web site, it is clear this must be rejected and our contract really negotiated.

Inflation is at an annual rate of 4.1% according to the U.S. Department of Labor for our area ending August 2005. When you calculate the annual rate of the proposal it equals 3.46% and that’s with the givebacks. Rates for new teachers, per session and coverages are even lower.

So, who does this proposal benefit? Not anyone working in a school. However, if you are an elected or appointed union leader receiving a salary from the Union I guarantee you will be getting a 15% raise in the very near future if this passes.

All UFT members are entitled to be present at Delegate Assembly meetings where a decision will be made about this proposal. Arrangements are being made with the Union leadership and Marriot hotel staff to accommodate as many members that come to the meeting.

We need as many members as possible. Come down to the Brooklyn Marriot on Adams Street as early as you can make it on Tuesday. Tell our leadership we can negotiate a contract that doesn’t hurt us or our Union.

See you there.

Executive Board Votes For “Vehicle With Extra Spin”

In a shameful display of self-serving spin a majority of the UFT Executive Board voted to recommend to the Delegate Assembly and the membership the anti-union document that the negotiating committee offered. This time, however, it appears that many who voted for this don’t really believe their own spin.

“It’s the best you can get, under the circumstances,” argued one Executive Board member. The line goes further. In this anti-union, union-busting climate what else can we do? Er..act like a Union.

When there is such a deep distrust of our own members’ ability to act like unionists this is what you get. A contract proposal that sells out the very notion of our professionalism. We can not have true input in the education of our students if our principals and their supervisors have complete control of our working conditions.

Let teachers teach has now been modified to state “let teachers teach the way the DOE orders them to.”

Teaching has always been difficult but at least it was rewarding. Now its become just another job…and a not very well paid one at that.

CONTRACT AGREEMENT UFT SAYS: “GIVEBACKS ‘R’ US”

PROFESSIONAL RIGHTS AT WORK OBLITERATED
MASSIVE MEMBER TURNOUT NEEDED AT
OCTOBER 11 SHOWDOWN DELEGATE ASSEMBLY

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica H.S., UFT Executive Board Member

     This is it folks!  We are about to be eaten up alive by our union and the Mayor.  On Tuesday, October 11 the UFT Delegate Assembly will vote on whether or not to send to the membership for ratification a Contract Agreement that calls for massive givebacks in order to pay for a 3.4% annual raise over close to a four and half year period.  If this Contract is ratified, it will radically alter the relationship between the UFT and administration in schools in favor of management.  I’m afraid we will be sitting ducks with very little recourse left to defend ourselves.

The UFT actually has the gall to ask us to accept a Contract that closely resembles the Fact Finding report that was recently approved at the DA as a vehicle to get an agreement.  The vehicle has led us down the road to our demise.  The new Agreement includes appalling givebacks that include: a longer day that contains a small group extra teaching class for teachers in most schools, a longer year, a return to building assignments such as cafeteria duty, hall patrol or yard duty at the discretion of the principal, loss of seniority transfers, merit pay in the form of chancellor selected lead teachers who could be sent anywhere, loss of the right to grieve disciplinary letters to our files, and elimination of Step II grievances.  There’s more bad news as grievances on professional assignments won’t go to a neutral arbitrator but instead they will go to a city employee, and there will be weaker due process rights that will result in administration being able to suspend us without pay based on certain allegations.  

The extra teaching and administrative time will result in the principal controlling two more periods of our time each day in most secondary schools in exchange for a piddling increase of a little over 3% a year.  We will actually get a real wage cut. A closer look will also reveal that the wages for per session and coverages only go up around 7% and new teachers will only receive a 9% increase.

Could anyone in their right mind accept this document over our current contract?  I know the money will look enticing but the school system we will work in if this Contract is approved will be a top-down-factory style model.  Chapter leaders will be able to do very little to help members.

The final say is up to the membership.  I believe we must send the Mayor, the Chancellor and the UFT President a strong message by first showing up at a demonstration by opponents of the contract at the Delegate Assembly in Brooklyn on Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. and then if the Agreement passes there, we will need to use every ounce of energy we have to defeat it in a referendum.

ON OCTOBER 11 YOU CAN TELL THE UFT LEADERSHIP HOW YOU FEEL

We need every available UFT member to attend the October 11 DA to show the UFT and the press that we are not going to accept a sell out contract that basically strips us of our professionalism. At the last Delegate Assembly on September 20, there was a substantial rank and file (non delegate) presence. On October 11, we must build on this. The meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m. at the Brooklyn Marriot at 333 Adams Street.  (Take the F Train to Jay Street.  The Marriot is about a block away from 65 Court Street.)  Don’t sit idly by as your rights are given away.  It will be too late to complain next term when on a typical day you could be assigned to teach five classes, patrol the cafeteria, and teach a small group sixth class.  Now is the time to take action to prevent this.  

Some would say we should sit back and just vote no when the Agreement is sent to us in the schools.  I’m afraid that at that point it might be too late as the Union’s spin machine is already out emphasizing the salary increases and not the two additional periods each day where most teachers will be under the control of the Principal, the longer year and the weakened due process rights.  We need to take the initiative to stop the givebacks before it’s too late. Let your voice be heard; come to the DA and oppose the new Contract.  No raise is better than modern day serfdom.

Finally, the Union has its spin at UFT.org so you can see it for yourself.  I’m sure they will send out wonderful recommendations in favor of the contract.   I make no pretense to neutrality on this issue.  It is ironic that the UFT calls itself a union of professionals.  However, if we accept this contract, we will have our professionalism stripped away from us.

WHAT DOES A NO VOTE MEAN?

If the Contract does not win approval from the members, both sides go back to the negotiating table.  It does not mean a strike.  In 1995, we turned down a Contract and a few months later there was a better deal that didn’t have a 25 year longevity (it was reduced to 22) or a 5% withholding of new teacher pay until they worked four years.  In addition, the second agreement had a retirement incentive.  Think of waiting as forced savings, albeit without interest.

Teacher Asks Teacher: Is This a Good Contract?

by Lisa North

Wow!  Big question!  I think it is a horrible contract ... except for the money!  I will vote no. They are trying to buy us off for almost all givebacks.  It is so unfair, living in NYC is so hard these days financially.....Teachers need those retroactive checks and 15% (I certainly do: my son is in college and my landlord just increased the rent by $100 a month), so many will probably vote for a contract they do not like. Basically we are keeping up with inflation but working a lot more for the privilege!
 
Ten minutes more a day by itself is not so bad, except teachers are already worn out.  Also, you can see the trend: last time 20 min., this time 10 min. and next time 10 more minutes =40 min...that is an extra period of teaching everyday!  And remember there is still the monthly staff conference. (I guess that will be the only staff development time.)
 
Lunch, Hall, Bus duty is ridiculous.  The DOE can't spend their money better than using teachers with Masters Degrees to manage a lunchroom?
 
And worse yet is the provision that takes away our right to file grievances over letters in our files.  The principal in my school is fair, but I have worked under a slightly "psycho" principal, who would write you up when you said something she didn't like.
 
I like the idea of SBO transfers, but seniority transfers are a protection.  The union says the principal cannot discriminate, but hey, we all know that people discriminate.  How are you going to prove that they did not hire you because you are old, Black, gay, etc.
 
Bloomberg/Klein/Randi say this contract is good for the students and teachers....I don't see it.  Do our kids need more time for test prep with worn out teachers?  How about lower class size and better services for our troubled students??  How about after school programs with homework help/tutoring along with sports/arts/computer? 
 
To do all that we need the CFE money from the State: I blame Bloomberg/Klein/ Randy for not getting that money.....they want to blame teachers for not working enough. With all the money Bloomberg is spending on this election (ads every few minutes on TV/radio, phone calls and all the people he has promised things for their support), he could have bought enough of the state legislators to pass CFE money!  Our union could have formed a very strong alliance with parents and called a citywide demo with parents, teachers, and students to demand the CFE money.  If the UFT can fill Madison Square Garden, image what we could do with parents and students: probably close down large parts of Manhattan. Then if we needed to strike, the parents and students would be with us. 
 
Are we really serious about giving students what they need?  
Of course it is easier to blame teachers......all we need is more senior teachers in hard to staff schools.......and more teaching time......and give principals total control ... everything will be better then.  Just don’t blame the politicians for drastically short changing our kids for years on end.

VOTE NO

WHY YOU MUST VOTE “NO” ON THE PROPOSED CONTRACT

EXTRA TIME

• TEACHING DAY EXTENDED MONDAY THRU THURSDAY BY 37½ MINUTES


• TWO LESS DAYS OF SUMMER VACATION (START DATE BEFORE LABOR DAY)


• ONE LESS HOLIDAY (IF YOU TEACH IN BROOKLYN OR QUEENS)

GRIEVANCE RIGHTS

• NO RIGHT TO GRIEVE LETTERS TO THE FILE: SUPERVISORS CAN WRITE AN UNFAIR AND INACCURATE LETTER AND IT BECOMES PART OF YOUR PERSONNEL FILE


• ELIMINATION OF STEP II GRIEVANCES

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

• LUNCH DUTY


• BUS DUTY


• HALL DUTY


• ADDITIONAL SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTION PERIOD


• POSSIBLE INVOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT TO POSITION AT PRINCIPAL’S DISCRETION

SENIORITY RIGHTS

• SENIORITY AND SBO TRANSFERS ELIMINATED


• EXCESSING RIGHTS WEAKENED


• ALL TRANSFERS UP TO PRINCIPAL

HARSHER DISCIPLINARY RULES

• ABSENT/LATE TENURED PEDAGOGUES- DOE CAN FILE A NOTICE FOR ARBITRATION AND ARBITRATORS CAN IMPOSE SUSPENSIONS, FINES, LOSS OF SALARY STEPS


• IF MEDICAL REASONS ARE GIVEN FOR THE LATENESSES/ABSENCES, RELEASES FOR PERSONAL MEDICAL INFORMATION MUST BE SIGNED OVER TO DOE


• FULL SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY OF TENURED PEDAGOGUES IF CHARGED UNDER CRIMINAL LAW OR ACCUSED BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ANY TYPE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST ANY MINOR. APPLIES EVEN FOR SOME VERBAL ABUSE.

CREATION OF LEAD TEACHER

• CREATES A NEW GROUP OF TEACHERS RECEIVING MERIT PAY- FURTHER WEAKENING THE UNION. JOB POSTING IS CITY-WIDE: PLACEMENT AND TRANSFER CITY-WIDE.

SALARY INCREASES  (NOT FOR EVERYONE, CHECK SALARY SCHEDULE)

• 0% EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2003


• 2% EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 2003


• 3.5% EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 2004


• 5.5% EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 2005


• 3.25% EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2006

MEDICAL AND DRUG BENEFITS

• HIGHER DEDUCTIBLES AND CO-PAYS INCORPORATED AS PERMANENT

DO THE MATH: WITH SO MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK TIME
IT IS DISINGENUOUS TO CALL ADDITIONAL PAY A RAISE

REJECT THE CONTRACT
AND TELL YOUR UNION THERE’S MORE THAN MONEY AT STAKE

DON’T GIVE BACK WHAT TOOK YEARS TO ACHIEVE

Summary of Memorandum of Agreement

Contract period: May 31, 2003 through October 12, 2007 (4 years, 4 months, 12 days)

Salary Changes Applicability: Increases only apply to members on payroll on 9/12/2005. Retirees are included but anyone who left the payroll prior to 9/12/2005 would not be entitled to any retroactive salary.

Medical and Drug Coverage: The agreement incorporates all of the loss of benefits in our medical insurance and drug plans including the higher deductibles and co-pays.

School Day: Effective February 2006, in non Extended Time Schools, the school day will be increased, Monday through Thursday, by 37 ½ minutes per day following student dismissal for an extra small group instruction teaching class. Friday will be 6 hours and 20 minutes. Multi-session schools and District 75 (Special Ed) will have 6 hour and 50 minute days and it will be up to the principal to decide if there is space or scheduling limitations in order not to have a sixth teaching period.

Faculty and grade conferences: Stay as is. 16 forty minute periods will now be used for professional development. On a faculty or grade conference day the school day will be 7 hours and 37 ½ minutes long.

Professional Development Days: The three additional days, 2 before Labor Day and Brooklyn-Queens day in June will be 6 hours and 50 minutes.

Arbitration Days: No change in number of arbitrations which are still limited to 140 dates per year. Extra 37 ½ minute “small group” instruction at end of day is not subject to this limit.

School Year: Instruction starts on day after Labor Day.

Other Titles: Most other titles have their work day increased by 10 minutes per day and coincide with teacher schedule. Secretaries lose one 10 minute break per day.

Circular 6R (former professional period): Menu of activities include administrative duties. Hallway duty, cafeteria duty, AM bus and PM bus duty are some listed. Any dispute about the menu does not go through the grievance procedure but rather goes to the Chancellor and it is finally decided by the NYC Office of Labor Relations (City employees, not independent arbitrators) who will issue a final and binding decision.

Transfers and Excessing: Eliminates seniority transfers. Senior teachers will be required to be accepted by new principal in same way as other teachers. Final decision to hire is by principal. Excessed teachers can be placed as ATR (sub) in district or superintendency (region). (This provision is inartfully drawn and may be the subject of further disagreement) Provision permitting union input in staffing new or hard to staff schools has been eliminated except for creation of personnel committee. Teachers must be notified by June 15 if they are in danger of being excessed.

Material in the File: Eliminates right to file grievances for material in file including unsatisfactory observations. Eliminates right of arbitrator to conform letter to be fair and accurate. Not clear whether provision that the format of bulletin boards, arrangement of classroom furniture and the exact duration of lesson units applies to material in file. Provision only says that these “not be the basis for discipline of pedagogues.” Teachers won’t be able to grieve if administration disciplines you so this provision lacks a meaningful enforcement mechanism. Non-pedagogues clearly can be disciplined and letters can be used as long as they are not the basis. This provision is very poorly written.

Absent or Late Tenured Pedagogue: Expedites disciplinary procedures. Permits DOE to file notice for arbitration allowing arbitrator to exact any penalty short of termination. (Suspension, fine, loss of salary steps, anything). If employee has a medical defense you must sign a medical release to the DOE. This actually may be a violation of the State and City Human Rights Law. The arbitration is quick and not formal and is conclusive evidence at a subsequent termination hearing.

Sexual Offenses Involving Minors: Allows full suspension of tenured pedagogue if charged under criminal law or by the DOE’s Office of Special Investigations for “an act or acts constituting sexual misconduct.” Sexual misconduct is defined as conduct involving a student or any other minor (includes family members in divorce proceedings) that is sexual touching, serious or repeated verbal abuse of a sexual nature, actions that could be interpreted as soliciting a sexual relations, possession or use of illegal child pornography and anything else under the Penal Law that is considered criminal conduct against a student or other minor.

Remedy for Knowingly Giving a False Accusation: Back pay with interest. Files corrected. Student reassigned to another class.

Grievance procedure: Eliminates Step II (Superintendent’s level) grievances. Union, not the grievant, has sole power to appeal Step I grievance decision to the Chancellor within 15 days. Superintendent need not attend Step 3 conference. No requirement that principal attend in person.

Lead Teacher: Creates merit pay scheme to reward Chancellor chosen teachers through City-wide posting, who have only one half a day for teaching in elementary schools and 3 periods per day in secondary schools in addition to $10,000 per year bonus. In elementary schools lead teachers will be in pairs who will teach the one class together. Other parts of the day will be devoted to “professional support.” Lead teachers can be transferred anywhere in the City. Can return to old school if there is a vacancy or any school in district. Grievances go through Office of Labor Relations not the grievance procedure for selection of lead teachers.

Salary increases: (Not for everyone, check salary schedules)
· 2% effective December 1, 2003
· 3.5% effective December 1, 2004
· 5.5% effective November 1, 2005
· 3.25% effective October 1, 2006

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (the `Agreement') entered into this day of October 2005 by and between the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (the `Board') and the United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO (the `Union') modifying certain collective bargaining agreements between the Board and the Union that expired on May 31, 2003, as set forth more particularly below.
IN WITNESS THEREOF NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:

1. INTRODUCTION

The collective bargaining agreements between the Board and the Union which expired on May 31, 2003, covering the titles and/or bargaining units set forth in paragraph 3, below, shall be replaced by successor agreements that shall continue all their terms and conditions except as modified or amended below.

1. DURATION

The terms of the successor agreements shall be from June 1, 2003 through October 12, 2007.

1. WAGES

The salaries and rates of pay for the employees in the bargaining units covered by this Agreement are set forth in and attached hereto as APPENDIX A, but the specified increases in salaries and rates of pay shall apply only to incumbents on payroll as of September 12, 2005 or after, as well as employees who retired any time during the term of the Agreement. They cover the following titles and rates of pay:
Teacher
Teacher's Assistant
Teacher Aide
Educational Assistant
Educational Assistant A - I Educational Assistant A - I I Educational Assistant B
Educational Associate
Auxiliary Trainer
Bilingual Professional Assistant Guidance Counselor

School Psychologist and School Social Worker and related titles
School Secretary and related titles Laboratory Specialist and Technician Mental Health Worker
Attendance Teacher
Bilingual Teacher in School and Community Relations
Education Administrator
Education Analyst/Officer
Associate Education Analyst/Officer School Medical Inspector
Director and Assistant Director of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs
Registered Nurse, Occupational Therapist, Physical Therapist and related titles
Supervising Nurse, Supervising Physical Therapist and Supervising Occupational Therapist Supervisor of School Security
Adult Education Teacher Sign Language Interpreter Occasional Per Diem Teacher Occasional Per Diem Secretary Occasional Per Diem Paraprofessional
Per Session Rate
Coverage Rate
Shortage Rate
Daily Training Rate
WNYE Differential
Staff Development Rate

4. LONGEVITY INCREMENTS
All longevities, step increments, differentials, and other rates of pay not otherwise covered in APPENDIX A, or elsewhere in this Agreement, shall be increased by an amount consistent with the increase in the shortage area rate set forth in APPENDIX A.
5. HEALTH INSURANCE AND WELFARE FUND
The Health Benefits Agreement, dated July 22, 2005, is deemed to be part of this Agreement. The side letter agreements between the City Commissioner of Labor Relations James F. Hanley and UFT President Randi Weingarten, dated June 30, 2004 and July 13, 2005, are deemed to be part of this Agreement.
6. PENSION AND RETIREMENT PROGRAM
Article 4C of the Teachers Agreement and the relevant sections of the other Agreements in which it appears will be replaced as follows:

1. A Labor-Management Pension Committee will be established to investigate legislation allowing all current and future members of the TRS Tier II, III and W to retire without a reduction of benefits due to early retirement upon age 55 with at least 25 years of service, as well as other relevant pension issues.


2. The Committee will analyze the actual costs and additional contribution rates required to provide this benefit (including any additional health insurance benefit costs) without any cost to the City.


3. Upon mutual acceptance of the Committee's recommendations, including plan design and costs, the parties agree to jointly support the legislation necessary to implement the benefit changes.

7. ADDITIONAL TIME
1. Teacher contract Article 6 shall be replaced and amended as follows: A. School Day

1. The school day for teachers serving in the schools shall be six hours and 20 minutes and such additional time as provided for below and in the by-laws. The gross annual salary of employees covered by this agreement will be increased in accordance with the salary schedules herein.


2. The parties agree, effective February, 2006, to extend the teacher work day in "non Extended Time Schools" by an additional 37     minutes per day, Monday through Thursday following student dismissal. Friday's work

schedule will be 6 hours and 20 minutes. The 37     minutes of the extended four (4) days per week shall be used for tutorials, test preparation and/or small group instruction and will have a teacher student ratio of no more than one to ten. In single session schools, the day will start no earlier than 8:00am and end no later than 3:45pm.

1. Multi-session schools that cannot utilize the additional time in this manner due to space or scheduling limitations will have a 6 hour 50 minute day.


2. In District 75 buildings and District 75 self-contained classes in other school sites, the school day will be 6 hours and 50 minutes unless the principal and chapter leader agree to schedule the time as set forth in paragraph 2 above; however, in this event the teacher to student ratio will be no more than 1 to 5. Non-District 75 self contained classrooms shall have either a 6 hour and 50 minute day, a 6 hour and 57 minute day Monday through Thursday and 6 hour and 20 minute day on Friday, or if the time is utilized as set forth in paragraph 2 above the teacher to student ratio should be no more than one to five.


3. Existing faculty and grade conference time should be used for professional development.


4. On professional development days, the school day shall be 6 hours and 50 minutes.


5. Expedited Appeal Group Size

In order to ensure that the maximum number of students is not exceeded there will be an expedited arbitration procedure to allow the UFT to seek both a cease and desist order as well as monetary penalties for exceeding the small group instruction size limit. The procedure will be the same as that currently used under Article 22B7 and 22G. These expedited
arbitrations shall not count toward the 140 arbitration dates.

1. Work Year

All teachers shall report to their schools to begin work on the Thursday preceding Labor Day for a professional day, and will also have a professional day on the Friday preceding Labor Day and on Brooklyn-Queens day. Part of the time on the days before Labor Day will be allotted to classroom preparation. The Tuesday following Labor Day shall be an instructional day. Teachers shall be in attendance on duty thereafter on all days of the school year except for the last two weekdays of the month of June. The official school year calendar shall provide a one week February mid-winter recess which includes Washington's Birthday, without reducing the number of instructional days for students. In no event,

however, shall the number of days worked in any school year under this work calendar be fewer than the number of days teachers would have worked had they reported, as before, on the Friday after Labor Day and worked through the last weekday in June.
D.     Other Titles
The following titles shall have their work day and work year extended in the same manner as Teachers: Teacher's Assistant; Teacher Aide; Educational Assistant; Educational Assistant A-1; Educational Assistant A-II; Educational Assistant B; Educational Associate; Auxiliary Trainer: Bilingual Professional Assistant; Bilingual Teacher in School & Community Relations; Occasional Per Diem Teacher; and Occasional Per Diem Paraprofessional.
Education Analyst/Officer, Associate Education Analyst/Officer; Director and Assistant Director of Alcohol & Substance Abuse Programs, Mental Health Workers and Education Administrators shall have their lunch periods reduced by 10 minutes.
School Psychologists and Social Workers shall work an additional 10 minutes per day. School Psychologists and Social Workers shall report for regular workdays on the Thursday and Friday before Labor Day. School Psychologists and Social Workers shall report on Brooklyn-Queens day for professional development.
School secretaries shall have one 10 minute break eliminated per day. In addition, school secretaries shall report for regular workdays on the Thursday and Friday before Labor Day. School secretaries shall report on Brooklyn-Queens Day for professional development. Per diem secretaries shall have one 10 minute break eliminated per day.
Guidance Counselors, Attendance Teachers, and Teachers of the Homebound shall have their workdays extended by 10 minutes, and report the Thursday and Friday before Labor Day and Brooklyn-Queens Day for professional development.
Lab Specialists shall have their relief period reduced by 10 minutes and report the Thursday and Friday before Labor Day and Brooklyn-Queens Day for professional development.
Adult Education Teachers shall have 10 minutes of preparation time added to their workday and report the Thursday and Friday before Labor Day Brooklyn-Queens Day for professional development.
SOS Teachers and New Beginnings Teachers shall report to the Thursday and Friday before Labor Day and Brooklyn-Queens Day for professional development.
Teachers in ETS shall report on Brooklyn-Queens Day for professional development.

8. CIRCULAR 6R
1. Modify Article 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7K and Circular 6R to reflect the following agreed terms:
The menu of activities to be offered to each teacher shall be from among the following:

• Small group instruction (not to exceed 10 students)


• One to one tutoring


• Advise student activities such as clubs, teams or publications


• Perform student assessment activities (including portfolios, performance tests, IEPs, ECLAS, etc.)


• Professional development/prepare staff development workshops and demonstration lessons


• Common planning time


• Conflict resolution for students


• Cafeteria Duty


• Schoolyard Duty


• Hallway Duty


• AM Bus Duty


• PM Bus Duty


• Homeroom


• Provide inter-disciplinary articulation


• Develop multi-cultural curriculum


• Develop Programs to integrate technology into the daily life of the classroom

Teachers . erformin homeroom fulfill the re• uirement of the . rofessional . eriod. Teachers selecting AM or PM bus duty will use their professional activity period as a preparation period.
Any teacher who wishes to participate in a professional activity not listed on the above menu may, upon approval of the principal, select such an activity.
The number of available positions for each activity and the qualifications and responsibilities required for each activity shall be set by the principal in consultation with the Chapter Leader. Each spring, but no later than April 15th, the principal shall meet to consult with the Chapter Leader on the number of positions for each menu item. Should the Union believe the number of positions for administrative activities set by the principal is inappropriate, or should a teacher believe a selection decision is in violation of the agreement, the Union may appeal to the Chancellor. The Chancellor or his/her designee will consult with the Union President, or his/her designee, prior to issuing a decision on the appeal. The Union may appeal the decision of the Chancellor or his designee within 15 days to the NYC Office of Labor Relations, which will issue a final and binding decision.

Teachers shall select each spring (following the timeframe for program preferences listed under Articles 7 A, 7B, 7C, and 7K in the CBA) in priority order, (3) activities from the menu they want to participate in for the following school year. The principal shall make assignments based on qualifications and availability of positions. If more teachers seek particular activities than positions are available, the principal shall select the most qualified teacher(s); and if the candidates are equally qualified the candidate with the most school seniority will be selected. To the extent possible each teacher shall receive one of the three (3) activities for the following school year. If this is not possible, the teacher will be given the opportunity to select (3) additional choices, one of which will be granted, subject to qualifications, and unless sufficient teachers do not choose a particular activity. If sufficient teachers do not choose a particular activity with any of their six (6) choices, the Principal will assign teachers to these activities on a rotational basis in inverse seniority order with no teacher being involuntarily assigned to an administrative activity for consecutive years.
For the 2005-2006 school year, the principal shall meet to consult with the Chapter Leader on the number of positions for each menu item for the spring 2006, and the menu will be issued for teachers to select preferences by December 23, 2005. Teachers shall be notified of their assignments by January 13, 2006 and begin their assignments on the first day of the Spring Semester.
Teachers new to the school system and those teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating may be assigned by the principal to professional development or common planning as their professional activity, regardless of their preferences, to further enhance their teaching skills. A teacher in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating who is assigned to AM or PM bus duty may be assigned by the principal to professional development or common planning as their professional activity in lieu of AM or PM bus duty. Teachers hired in the fall will be offered three choices by the principal from the menu.
Each teacher shall be notified in writing by the principal prior to the end of the school ear ursuant to Articles 7A 7A 7C and 7K of the collective bar aimn a eement of the activity they have been assigned for the following school year and it will be incorporated as part of his/her program.
Teachers serving in compensatory time positions, pursuant to the SBO process (defined in articles 7A, 7B, 7C and 7K of the CBA and Circular 6) shall continue to do the work of their position during their professional periods (except to the extent the SBO specifically states otherwise) and must at the beginning of each term submit to the principal for approval a plan for the use of their professional periods.
Teachers serving as athletic coaches, pursuant to Article 15 of the CBA, and receiving per session for such activity, shall be permitted to use their professional periods to further the work of their activity, and must at the beginning of each term, submit to the principal for approval a plan for the use of their professional periods.

Any teacher may grieve the failure to follow the terms of this provision pursuant to the regular grievance and arbitration provision of the agreement, however the assignment of particular activities hereunder shall not be grievable. The Union may challenge the assignment of a particular     activity by appealing,     within     15     days,     to the Chancellor/designee, who will consult with the Union prior to rendering a decision. The Union may appeal the decision of the Chancellor/designee to the New York City Office of Labor Relations, which will issue a final and binding decision.
9. TRANSFERS AND EXCESSING

1. Article 18 A, B, C and F are deleted and replaced with the following language:

Effective school year 2005-2006, principals will advertise all vacancies. Interviews will be conducted by school-based human resources committees (made up of pedagogues and administration) with the final decision to be made by the principal. Vacancies are defined as positions to which no teacher has been appointed, except where a non-appointed teacher is filling in for an appointed teacher on leave. Vacancies will be posted as early as April 15 of each year and will continue being posted throughout the spring and summer. Candidates (teachers wishing to transfer and excessed teachers) will apply to s ecificall . osted vacancies and will be considered for exam. le throu h 'ob fairs and/or individual application to the school. Candidates may also apply to schools that have not advertised vacancies in their license areas so that their applications are on file at the school should a vacancy arise.
Selections for candidates may be made at any time, however, transfers after August 7th require the release of the teacher's current principal. Teachers who have repeatedly been unsuccessful in obtaining transfers or obtaining regular teaching positions after being excessed, will, upon request, receive individualized assistance from the Division of Human Resources and/or the Peer Intervention Program on how to maximize their chances of success in being selected for a transfer.
Unless a principal denies the placement, an excessed teacher will be placed by the DOE into a vacancy within his/her district/superintendency; or if such a vacancy is not available, then in a vacancy within his/her region. The DOE will place the excessed teacher who is not so placed in an ATR position in the school from which he/she is excessed, or in another school in the same district or superintendency.

1. Article 18G (1 - 4) shall remain in effect. The remainder of 18G is deleted.


2. In addition to the relevant provisions above, Article 17 shall also be modified to include the following:

Teachers identified as being at risk of being excessed at the commencement of the following school year will be informed of this no later than June 15, or as soon as is

practicable if identified as being at risk of excess after June 15. The deadlines for excessing teachers will continue to be governed by applicable law.

1. MATERIAL IN THE FILE Article 21A5 shall be deleted and replaced with a new Article 21A5 to read as follows:

Members may not grieve material in file. However, the teacher shall have the right to append a response to any letter. If disciplinary charges do not follow, the letter and response shall be removed from the file three years from the date the original material is placed in the file.
The following issues shall not be the basis for discipline of pedagogues: a) the format of bulletin boards; b) the arrangement of classroom furniture; and c) the exact duration of lesson units.
Article 22C shall be modified to exclude Material in File grievances.

1. DUE PROCESS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

a. Time and Attendance
The following language will be added to Article 21 as a new section after the current 21F:
If the DOE seeks to discipline a tenured pedagogue regarding absences and/or lateness but seeks a penalty short of termination, the following expedited procedure will apply:
The DOE will notify the employee that it intends to bring disciplinary action against the em.lo ee ursuant to this section. The DOE will include in this notice the em.lo ee's attendance record and any other documentation it intends to introduce at the hearing and a statement that pursuant to this section the arbitrator may award any penalty, or take other action, short of termination.
Within 15 calendar days following this notice, the employee must notify the DOE in writing of the nature of his\her defense and submit any documentation s\he intends to submit into evidence as well as a medical release for any medical documents related to such defense.
If either party believes that it requires additional documents, it may request a telephonic conference with the arbitrator.
The expedited hearing will occur within one month of the DOE's notification to the employee mentioned above. The hearing will be informal and the normal rules of trial procedure and evidence shall not apply. The arbitrator will issue an award and short

decision within 15 calendar days of the hearing. The arbitrator's award will be final and binding on all parties. The award may be introduced in a 3020-a hearing and any findings shall be binding on the 3020-a arbitrator.
One arbitrator, agreed upon between the parties, will hear all absence and lateness cases hereunder. The parties may expand the number of arbitrators if necessary. The arbitrator will hear 4 cases per hearing date on a staggered schedule, but in no situation will one case take more than     a day. The parties may expand the number of cases heard in a day if they deem it practical.
b. Sexual Offenses Involving Students
The following provisions regarding sexual offenses involving students and minors who are not students are in addition to the provisions in Article 21G(4) and will follow Article 21G(4):
A tenured pedagogue who has been charged under the criminal law or under §3020-a of the New York State Education Law with an act or acts constituting sexual misconduct (defined below) shall be suspended without pay upon a finding by a hearing officer of probable cause that sexual misconduct was committed.
A rebuttable presumption of probable cause shall exist where the Special Commissioner of Investigations ("SCI") substantiates allegations of sexual misconduct, or a tenured . eda o e has been char. ed with criminal conduct based on act s of sexual misconduct.
A report from the Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations ("OSI")substantiating allegations of sexual misconduct is relevant evidence of probable cause.
In §3020-a proceedings, a mandatory penalty of discharge shall apply to any tenured pedagogue a) found by a hearing officer to have engaged in sexual misconduct, orb) who has pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of criminal charges for such conduct
The 3020-a hearin ' should be completed within two months but the sus ension without pay shall be extended one additional month if the hearing has not been completed, unless the DOE has received an adjournment or otherwise delayed the proceeding. The suspension without pay shall also be extended until a criminal action is resolved and any 3020-a proceeding is also completed.
If the 3020-a hearing results in a dismissal of the charges or if the criminal proceeding ends in an acquittal or dismissal (and the DOE has decided not to prefer charges), the pedagogue shall be entitled to back pay with interest for the entire period of the suspension without pay.
For purposes of this section, sexual misconduct shall include the following conduct involving a student or a minor who is not a student: sexual touching, serious or repeated verbal abuse (as defined in Chancellor's Regulations) of a sexual nature, action

that could reasonably be interpreted as soliciting a sexual relationship, possession or use of illegal child pornography, and/or actions that would constitute criminal conduct under Article 130 of the Penal Law against a student or minor who is not a student.
A letter of agreement dated October 3, 2005 regarding sexual offenders is attached as ATTACHMENT 1.

1. Other Felony Offenses The following language will be added to Article 21 and will follow Paragraph B above:

Tenured pedagogues who have been convicted of, or who have pled guilty to, any felony (not addressed in paragraph 1, above) shall be suspended without pay pending the final outcome of the 3020-a disciplinary proceeding. The 3020-a hearing should be completed within two months, but the suspension without pay shall be extended one additional month if the hearing has not been completed, unless the DOE has received an adjournment or otherwise delayed the case.

1. False Accusations

The following language will be added to Article 21 and will follow Article 21G: Knowingly false accusations of misconduct against employees will not be tolerated.
If an accusation of sexual misconduct or physical abuse against an employee is found by the DOE or Special Commissioner of Investigation to have been knowingly false when made, the DOE will take the following actions to restore the falsely accused employee's reputation: removing all references to the charges from the employee's personnel file(s)and adding evidence of the unfounded nature of the charge to any departmental files that may have to be maintained to satisfy other legal requirements, if any; and restoring any back pay owed with interest and, at the employee's request, confirming to any regulatory agency the finding that the employee was falsely accused. In addition, where the knowingly false accusation was made by a student of the employee, absent compelling and extraordinary circumstances the student will be permanently reassigned from the employee's class.

1. Article 21 will be re-lettered and renumbered in accordance with the above.

1. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

Article 22B lb shall be deleted.
Article 22B 1 c shall be amended as follows. If the grievance is not resolved at Step 1, the Union may appeal from the decision at Step 1 to the Chancellor addressed to the attention of the Deputy Executive Director, Office of Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining within 15 school days after the Step 1 decision was given to the member. The appeal shall be in writing, shall set forth specifically the reasons for the appeal, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the appeal and the decision at Step 1. It shall state the name of the employee's Union representative.
References to the Superintendent's representative attending Step 3 Conferences will be eliminated.

1. LEAD TEACHERS

The CC9 Lead Teacher Pilot Program will be expanded as follows:

1.      The Chancellor will determine the number and location of lead teacher positions.


2.      Lead teachers will receive $10,000 in additional salary, beyond that provided for in the collective bargaining agreement between the parties (or a pro rata amount for a partial year worked).


3.      In the elementary schools, each pair of lead teachers will have responsibility for one regular class. Each lead teacher will be programmed for a duty-free lunch period and a preparation period that will be scheduled at the same time as the preparation period of the lead teacher with whom they are sharing a class. Half of the remainder of the day will be spent teaching their class and half providing professional support to teaching staff.

Middle School and High School lead teachers will be programmed for a duty free lunch and a preparation period each day. Lead teachers will teach three regular classes per day and will provide professional support to teaching staff three periods per day.

1.      Lead teachers will work as a group the five weekdays prior to the start of the work year for other teachers according to a plan set and approved by the applicable Regional Superintendent. Lead teachers will work 4 hours per month outside of the normal workday, according to a schedule and plan set and approved by the applicable Regional Superintendent at the start of the school year. Lead teachers shall not receive additional compensation for the work time specified in this paragraph. Lead teachers from extended time

schools, in lieu of working the five days during the summer provided for in Article 12 II Al of the Teachers' Agreement, shall have the choice of either having the monetary value of that workweek, as determined by DOE in consultation with UFT, deducted from the compensation provided for in paragraph 3, or making up that work time during the school year, subject to the approval of the school principal.

1.      Lead Teachers will be selected and assigned in the following manner. Positions will be advertised through a city-wide posting and assigned to individual schools. Selection will be done in a two-stage process: first, a regional personnel committee, made up of four representatives of the Regional Superintendent, two representatives of the Union and two parent representatives (chosen from among volunteers of the relevant Community Education Councils and/or presidents of the Parent Associations) shall select a pool of applicants with the best qualifications according to criteria established by the committee, other than in District 9 where the current selection committee will be maintained. Selections, to the extent possible, shall be made by consensus. Second, each participating school will establish its own personnel committee, made up of the principal, administration representatives, staff representatives and parent representatives, with a majority of teachers, to make selections from the pool selected by the regional personnel committee. Selections, to the extent possible, shall be made by consensus and the principal shall have the ability to veto any selections of such school committee.


2.      Lead teachers leaving the assignment at the end of their first year as a lead teacher may return to a vacancy in the last school where they served before becoming a lead teacher and take their rightful place in seniority order, and if there is no vacancy in such school, to a vacancy in the district. In the alternative, the lead teacher may choose to be placed in a vacancy in the district where they served as a lead teacher.


3.      If a lead teacher is involuntarily removed in the middle of the year by the principal, the lead teacher will be placed in a vacancy in the district s/he is working in as a lead teacher or in a vacancy in the district s/he worked in immediately prior to becoming a lead teacher (at the lead teacher's option). If no such vacancies exist, the lead teacher will be placed in the substitute pool in the district they served in as a lead teacher. At the end of the school year, the lead teacher shall be placed in a school pursuant to paragraph 6 above.


4.      Notwithstanding the foregoing, any lead teacher may be placed in a teaching vacancy in the school in which he or she is serving as lead teacher, with the consent of the lead teacher and such school's principal.


5.      A lead teacher's school seniority is determined in accordance with Article 28C of the Teachers' Agreement.

10.     Grievances regarding this agreement, except the selection of lead teachers, shall be governed by Article 22B 1 of the Teachers' Contract, except that applicants rejected by the regional personnel committee may challenge that committee's decision through the process set forth in Article 22E of the Teachers' Contract, and if successful, will be included in the pool of applicants considered for selection. The Union may challenge the selection of a lead teacher at the school level by appealing to the Chancellor/designee, who will consult with the Union prior to rendering a decision. The Union may appeal the decision of the Chancellor/designee to the New York City Office of Labor Relations, which will issue a final and binding decision.

1. LABOR/MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ON LONG TERM REFORMS

This is to confirm the parties' understanding with regard to the long term recommendations the Fact Finders made subject to adequate CFE funding. The parties shall establish a Labor Management Committee to discuss the following issues: a) bonuses, including housing bonuses, for shortage license areas; b) a pilot project for school-wide based performance bonuses for sustained growth in student achievement; c) salary differentials at the MA-5 through MA-7 levels; and d) a program for the reduction of class size in all grades and divisions. If the parties agree on the terms of any or all of these issues, they may be implemented by the DOE using whatever funds may be identified.

1. PSYCHOLOGIST AND SOCIAL WORKER WORKLOAD DISPUTES

Upon receiving a written complaint from a school psychologist or social worker regarding an existing workload, the principal or his/her designee shall meet with the employee making the complaint, and his/her representative, and reach a determination within five 5 school da s. If the com s laint is not resolved the cha s ter leader ma forward it to the appropriate Superintendent, within five (5) school days of the determination, for review. If a timely request for review is received by the Superintendent, s/he shall designate a representative to jointly investigate with a UFT appointed representative the workload that is alleged to be inappropriate. The two representatives will then submit recommendations to the Superintendent for his/her written determination, which shall be made within (10) school days of receipt of the recommendation(s). The UFT shall have the right to appeal the Superintendent's determination to the Chancellor within five (5) school days of the Superintendent's written determination of the complaint, or if the Superintendent does not timely render a determination, to seek review at the Chancellor's level within forty-five (45) days of the principal's receipt of the original written complaint, whichever is earlier. Such appeal shall contain a detailed written statement of the reasons for dissatisfaction with the Superintendent's determination. The Chancellor or his/her designee shall review the workload complaint and make a final determination, not subject to further review, within fifteen (15) school days of receipt of the appeal.

The UFT shall withdraw, with prejudice, the union initiated grievance in case #H-079-C13370. In consideration thereof, the DOE agrees that if any psychologist has received a letter in the file prior to the date of this MOA for failing to comply with a strict quota,
any reference to such failure shall be immediately removed from the letter. After the date of this MOA, these issues will be included in the workload dispute resolution procedure.
15a. SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS AND SOCIAL WORKERS STAFF DEVELOPMENT
Article 6D of the School Psychologists and Social Workers Agreement shall be modified so that two of the five days of staff development shall be mandatory and the subject matter and content shall be directed by the DOE. One of the two days shall be designated system-wide on a work day when students are not scheduled to attend school.
16. PERB PROCEEDINGS
The City and the Union shall withdraw the following Improper Practices with PERB: U-25999 and U-26027.

1. NURSES AND THERAPISTS

The Parties a ee that the selection . rocess for summer work for nurses and thera. fists who work in the school health program shall be as follows:

1.      Priority will be given to volunteers who serve the same student population during the regular work year.


2.      If there are not enough volunteers from the district of the program, volunteers will be selected from outside the district.


3.      If there are not sufficient volunteers, nurses or therapists from the district of the program will be assigned in reverse order of their seniority on a rotating basis.

If this selection process does not provide for appropriate and effective staffing during the summer of 2006, the parties agree to renegotiate the selection process.

1. NURSES PERB STIPULATION

The UFT withdraws from the PERB Stipulation of Settlement dated August 14, 1997. The parties agree to expeditiously work out the details necessary to implement the integration of the Department of Education and the Department of Health/Mental Hygiene school nurse functions.
By agreeing to fund a ten month work year for DOE nurses as part of this collective bargaining agreement, in exchange for termination of the PERB stipulation, it is the express intent of the parties to resolve the issues related to the integration of the DOE and DOHMH school health program consistent with the negotiations held between the parties over the last year.
By entering into this agreement it is not the parties' intention to either advantage or disadvantage either Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or Department of Education nurses union representation at the expense of the other.

1. NURSES AND THERAPISTS WORK YEAR

Effective for the 2005-2006 school year, the work year for Nurses and Therapists shall be the same as regular classroom teachers in non-extended time schools. The parties will also meet to discuss any issues related to the change of Nurses and Therapists from a 12 month to 10 month work year.
20 DISCHARGE REVIEW
To be included in the Paraprofessional Contract and Nurses and Therapists Contract in the Discharge Review Procedures article:
In any arbitration reviewing the discharge of an employee who has been charged with sexual misconduct there shall be a mandatory penalty of discharge if the employee is

found by the arbitrator to have engaged in sexual misconduct or has pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of criminal charges for such conduct.
For purposes of this section, sexual misconduct shall include the following conduct involving a student or a minor who is not a student: sexual touching, serious or repeated verbal abuse (as defined in Chancellor's Regulations) of a sexual nature, action that could reasonably be interpreted as soliciting a sexual relationship, possession or use of illegal child pornography, and/or actions that would constitute criminal conduct under Article 130 of the Penal Law against a student or minor who is not a student.
21. MISCELLANEOUS

1. Unless expressly stated otherwise, the provisions of this Agreement apply to the bargaining units and titles covered in paragraph 3 above and will be incorporated into the individual unit agreements as applicable.


2. In the event any inconsistency exists between the terms contained in this Agreement and the expired collective bargaining agreements, this Agreement shall be determinative.

22. INTERIM AGREEMENTS
The agreements (annexed hereto collectively as APPENDIX B) reached during the term of the collective bargaining agreements effective November 16, 2000 to May 31, 2003 are to be included in the applicable successor agreements subject to such modifications as are required by this agreement and its Appendices.

1.      Agreement between the Board of Education and the UFT pertaining to the positions of math and literacy coach, dated May 14, 2004.


2.      Agreement between the Board of Education and the UFT pertaining to the position of mentor signed in May, 2004.


3.      Agreement between the Board of Education and the UFT pertaining to F status dated September 1, 2005.


4.      Agreement between the Board of Education and the UFT pertaining to

substitute vocational assistants (SVA's) dated October 12, 2001.

1.      Agreement between the Board of Education and the UFT pertaining to the

City Hall Academy, signed in August, 2003.

1.      Agreement between the Board of Education and the UFT pertaining to the New Beginnings Centers signed in February 2003.


2.      Agreement between the Board of Education and the UFT pertaining to Education Evaluators and Psychologists, dated October 28, 2003.

23. RATIFICATION
These agreements are currently in effect and do not require further ratificiation.

This Agreement is subject to ratification by the Union, and adoption by the Board of Education.
24. SAVINGS CLAUSE
In the event that any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid, such invalidity shall not impair the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
WHEREFORE, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this     day of October, 2005.
United Federation of Teachers     The Board of Education, as Employer Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO
By:          By:     
Randi Weingarten     Joel Klein
President     Chancellor
City of New York     Adopted by The Board of Education
By:          By:     
James F. Hanley     Joel Klein
Commissioner     Chairman of the Board Office of Labor Relations