UFT President Michael Mulgrew took dictatorial control of the Delegate Assembly to new depths that one time Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev would have been elated with. The issue at the special DA today was the worst part of the new agreement with the City-Department of Education that will permit the DOE to reassign Absent Teacher Reserves to new schools every week.
The low point of the meeting was not the agreement that contained some positives including a no layoff agreement and new procedures to help ATRs get hired. The nadir was that the president had to be forced before he would allow anyone to speak in opposition to his new agreement. When he opened up the floor for debate, multiple loyalty oath signing members of his Unity Caucus heaped praise on him for preventing layoffs. (Unity members must sign a statement saying they will support the decisions of their caucus [political party] in public and union forums.) We certainly agree that not having layoffs is an excellent outcome. Only after a Unity person moved to close debate did I stand and raise a point of order so I could have the opportunity to defend the Absent Teacher Reserves who in the new agreement are being shoved to the back of the bus if they can’t secure a position.
Roberts Rules says, "Debate of a question is not ended by the chair's rising to put the question to vote until both the affirmative and the negative are put;" I read this clause verbatim to the Delegates. Roberts Rules goes on to say, "A member can claim the floor and thus reopen debate.” That is exactly what I was attempting to do. Mulgrew passed to the UFT's parliamentarian who the president noted is paid for by the UFT. (By the way, I read Roberts Rules closely tonight and a point of order [procedures not being followed] takes priority over a motion to close debate.) The parliamentarian abruptly ignored Roberts Rules and told Mulgrew he had to have a 2/3 vote to let someone speak against the motion (the ATR and no layoff agreement) at this point. Mulgrew then improperly asked that the rules be suspended to allow someone else to speak. He got the vote to suspend the rules which was ridiculous but at least we thought were going to be heard.
We were still muzzled, however, as President Mulgrew for some reason did not call on me but instead called on a delegate from my school who yielded his time to me. That wasn't good enough for the president who at this point quickly said the delegate couldn't yield time to me and called on someone else who didn’t speak at all about the ATRs. What is the president so afraid of? Were 900 or so members of the Unity Caucus going to vote against their leadership and side with me because of my rhetorical skills? I doubt it very much. At least the DOE gives us two minutes to speak at their Panel for Educational Policy meetings before they cast aside what we say.
Mulgrew didn't even afford me any time to make the important points I made in tonight’s earlier piece. Leonid Brezhnev would have been so happy with the way our union conducted its business.
10 comments:
Why does everyone say we have a no layoff clause when it is clear that several thousand per diems will be layed off? They are union members too whose voice has been completely muzzled by the UFT leadership and the media.
I would have liked more clarification on the open market system regarding those members who have not been excessed or not ATRs.
Secondly, will the joint oversight committee work with the DoE to ensure that principals are not hiding vacancies? That is still an on-going problem. Chapter leaders need to inform their DRs of this. I know that they are 6 vacancies in my school and I looked on the Open Market System - not one is posted.
Finally, why would principals hire ATRs even if more than 1 are sent to their schools? Principals still have the incentive of hiring low-cost, untenured, fresh out of TFs or TFA programs so that they can keep their job by juking the stats.
There was never going to be a layoff but the mayor has to look as though he and the union worked out a "deal" that shows that the mayor still the "education Mayor" - REALLY!
James, thanks for trying to speak up in the Gladiator Ring where anyone opposed to Unity dictatorship are fed to the lions! To anon; my principal just yesterday told me how she has interviewed three TFA to replace the four TFA that have done their time. As the CL I asked about the chancellors lame attempt to make sure positions are filled by ATR's before newbies are hired. ( even though we all know that NO ONE is to be hired before ATR's have an opportunity to apply to vacancies) Also, not one of the four vacancies in my building are posted on the open market! So much for accountability! Principal's response to my question ' I don't want no rubber room teachers' I gave my usual spiel on how ATR's were not RR teachers and blah blah blah blah , what a shame. So much for We the People!!!!
The last comment is from a decent person who seems like a good chapter leader. The fact that this person has no way to get a principal to follow the rules shows just how weak the UFT has become. Good luck ATRs.
To James and Jeff:
In 2008 there was an arbitration agreement made between the UFT and the DoE with respect to ATRs: http://www.uft.org/our-rights/memorandums-agreement/absent-teacher-reserve-and-vacancies, Case #C16257.
This agreement was supposed to reduce/dissolve the ATR pool by placing them in vacancies. DoE did not follow this agreement (shocking!). At the 6/28 DA, no delegates or chapter leaders were given ample time to read the "new" agreement, except the Executive Board members, and I noticed that item IX. UI Grievance Regarding ATRs states that there's a withdrawal of UI ATR Grievances.
I am wondering now what will be the implications behind that section of the agreement. I feel that this is similar to the removal of all the step 2 grievances in the 2005 contract, where grievances are not won at any of the steps and backlog is the norm for all the grievances.
Please provide your input in this matter.
Two things: I am so happy no longer to be going to DA meetings. Where is the democracy?? Rules are constantly broken to serve the master.
Unless you thought you were at the DA and were really at the DoE?? But they are becoming one and the same.
Funny, there was a time when a certain teacher blogger would have responded and agreed with this post.
Something is truly amiss.
THANK YOU JEFF!YOU ARE THE ONLY MEMBER WHO HAS UTTERED A WORD ABOUT THIS INJUSTICE. WE HAVE BEEN DISPLACED. THIS STARTED ALREADY, HOWEVER, THIS AGREEMNT ALSO BARRS US FROM LONG TERM ASSIGNMENTS.
I WAS PERMITTED TO ENTER THE DA FLOOR TO PASS A QUESTION TO A DELGATE, BUT WAS TOLD BY THE DELEGATE THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION PERIOD AT THE TIME TO RASIE IT. WAS THERE ANY QUESTION PERIOD?
MANY OF MY PER DIEM COLLEAGUES WERE DISUADED FROM ENTERING THE BUILDING AND WERE STOPPED AT THE DESK. ONE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE, BUT STAYED ANYWAY. ANOTHER WAS TOLD HE NEEDED A LETTER FROM A PRINCIPAL TO ENTER THE BUILDING.
NOT ONE WORD WAS EVER SAID EVEN OUT OF CONCERN OR SUPPORT FOR US.
2,600 JOBS WILL BE LOST TO ATTRITION WHERE NO TEACHER, ATR OR PER DIEM WILL BE PERMITTED TO FILL. THERE'S THE SECOND LAYOFF.
BUT THANKS FOR MENTIONING US. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN IF THE PER DIEMS WILL WAKE UP. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY MAY WAKE UP. BUT IS IT TOO LATE?
James, don't take it personal. Michael never calls on me at the DA either. Not, since I told him he'd be elected with only about 18 percent of the membership (which happened), because so few members vote in union elections.
Absolutely, subs in mass will be laid-off. But, you know the UFT Jeff- look on the bright side! Seeing the glass half full is knowing teachers won't lose their jobs while ignoring our substitute teachers who are union members will. Maybe they don't pay as much in dues, which is why UFT brass are unaffected?
Post a Comment