Here is the language straight from the petition:
New York City Department of Education currently offers their teachers who have just become mothers NO PAID maternity leave. These are women who devote their lives to helping raise other people's children.
After getting pregnant in 2012, I went to a maternity workshop to help understand my maternity benefits. It began as a room full of bubbly, pregnant women, and ended with many of us in tears.
- Here is what we learned: In order to get paid for up to SIX WEEKS (you read that right-not months, weeks) we would have to use our own small number of saved sick days. If we had none, or few (which was the case for most of us, being around children all day long) we learned that we could borrow up to 20 days that we would eventually have to repay or rebuy.
This is completely common among teaching mothers.
For all our union fights for, I'm asking Michael Mulgrew, our Union President: When will the fight begin for our teaching mothers? As an education system, we are well aware of the importance a parent's presence has on his/her child. Yet why don't we value that? Why do women who spend day in and day out educating, nurturing, and supporting other people's children, continue to suffer for having a family of their own? We are the teachers and the mothers of this city-- a city that prides itself on being one of the most progressive and socially conscious cities in the world- and we deserve to be fought for.
Thanks for doing this Ms. James. Now for a few details on this issue.
Our so called progressive mayor, Bill de Blasio, will offer paid family leave to UFT members but only if every UFT member pays for it. The city won't cough up one extra dime for its teachers who are mothers in spite of the city's surplus and the UFT won't demand that the city pays for it.
The city granted certain non-union city employees (mostly managers) six weeks of paid leave (12 weeks when combined with existing leave) at the end of 2015. The catch is the employees have to pay for it themselves. This is from the Mayor's news page:
The new benefit comes at no new cost to New York City taxpayers: the personnel order repurposes an existing managerial raise of 0.47 percent scheduled for July 2017 and caps vacation time at 25 days for the 20,000 employees covered by this benefit.
To put it another way, all 20,000 employees are paying for the benefit for the new parents by forfeiting part of a raise and limiting their vacation time. The city wants unionized employees to pay for a paid childcare benefit too.
The UFT has been trying to negotiate a paid family leave benefit since early 2016. Why has leadership not succeeded?
The cost to all UFT members is outrageous.
UFT President Michael Mulgrew reported the following at the January 2016 Delegate Assembly:
Family Leave
Mayor looking to make it work. We will be negotiating with city on paid maternity leave. Some who have older kids don't want to pay for this. We can be creative on paying for it.
As of this year, the negotiations continue. What is on the table?
A source told me the city wants to charge every UFT member five sick days per year to provide the paid family leave benefit. Right now teachers are entitled to ten sick days per year. If we get the new benefit, all of us would go down to five sick days per year if the source is accurate.
Do you want to go down to five sick days per year or concede a similar giveback so that we can get paid family leave?
The likely outcome of all of this is that paid family leave will end up in the next contract and it will be paid for by lowering the salary increase all UFT members receive because the city will not put in additional money for its unionized workforce. Why won't the city fork over some additional money for its hardworking employees who are parents? Union members en masse won't fight for it.
We will only get the paid family leave from the city in addition to a decent raise and better working conditions if we organize as a union and demand it from below. Maybe the petition will be a springboard to push a movement forward. We have to stop expecting things to come from the Mayor and UFT President.
P.S. If anyone wants to know how the UFT leadership really feels about new mothers, please read our account of the October 2015 Delegate Assembly. When UFT members are on unpaid childcare leave or other unpaid leaves, they do not get the retroactive payments from the 2009-2011 contract that other city unions had added to their pay back then that we are waiting until 2020 to be paid back fully without interest. They have to wait to be back on payroll to get the back pay.
UFT members received one payment in October 2015 and will get another this October followed by payments in 2018, 2019 and 2020. The Movement of Rank and File Educators proposed that the UFT provide members on unpaid leaves interest free loans for the payments since people on unpaid leave just might need the money immediately since they are not being paid. The UFT leadership said no.
Below is our account of that 2015 Delegate Assembly debate.
MULGREW'S UNITY MAJORITY TELLS PARENTS AND SICK MEMBERS ON UNPAID LEAVES TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES
The Unity Caucus is Michael Mulgrew's faction of the UFT. They are the majority political party in the union. At the first Delegate Assembly of the 2015-16 school year Unity proved beyond the shadow of any doubt that making cheap political points is more important to them than helping UFT members in need when they voted down a resolution that would have provided loans for members on unpaid leave up to the amount of retroactive money someone is owed in 2015.The main rival political group in the union is called MORE which stands for the Movement of Rank and File Educators (full disclosure: ICE supports MORE and I am a ICE-MORE member). MORE will run together in a coalition with another established opposition group called New Action Caucus to challenge Mulgrew-Unity in the 2016 general UFT election.
When MORE leader Jia Lee rose last night at the Delegate Assembly (the highest policy making body in the UFT) to raise a motion for the UFT to find a way to provide interest free loans to members in need who are on unpaid restoration of health, maternity or child care leaves, Unity decided they would rather score extremely cheap political points and voted against helping their own members in need.
There is a loophole in the 2014 contract that says someone has to be "continuously employed" to receive the retroactive money from 2009-2011 that other city workers received in those years that UFT members will receive piecemeal between now and 2020. Our employer, the Department of Educations-City of New York, interprets continuously employed to mean on payroll.
Our friend John Elfrank, longtime Chapter Leader of Murry Bergtraum High School, is recovering from surgery and on unpaid leave. He came to MORE and told us that it is unconscionable that because someone is on an unpaid leave that they should be told they have to wait for at least two years for the next payout date in 2017 to get retroactive money they worked for from 2009-11. John is taking this up with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after being denied money from the Department of Education and denied support from the UFT. He asked MORE's leadership if we would write something for the union to loan people on unpaid leave their retro.
MORE's Steering Committee said yes and asked me to write something up. I had help and inspiration from MORE's Mike Schirtzer, Julie Cavanagh, and Jia Lee along with Elfrank and we wrote the following resolution for the DA.
DA Resolution on Immediate Retroactive Money for UFT Members on Unpaid Leave for Maternity, Child Care and/or Restoration of Health
October 14, 2015
WHEREAS, the United Federation of Teachers has a long history of supporting members in need, and
WHEREAS, the 2014 contract did not cover members on unpaid leave for lump sum payments stemming from the 2009-2011 round (arrears) until they are back on payroll or retire, and
WHEREAS, the City of New York ended the 2015 fiscal year with a $5.9 billion surplus, and
WHEREAS, the first 12.5% of the arrears is scheduled to be paid on October 15, 2015, and
WHEREAS, many of our sisters and brothers on unpaid leaves who will not be receiving the arrears for at least two years are having financial hardships as they are not on payroll, be it therefore
RESOLVED, that the union will immediately petition the city to make no interest loans available to UFT members on unpaid leaves who are not receiving their arrears, and be it further
RESOLVED, that if the city refuses to make these loans available, that the UFT will provide immediate, interest free loans to any member on unpaid leave who applies for one up to the amount of arrears the member on unpaid leave is owed as of October 1, 2015, and be it further
RESOLVED, that if the city refuses to make these loans available and the union does not have the means to provide the loans, the Union will arrange with Amalgamated Bank or another labor friendly institution to make low interest loans available to UFT members on unpaid leave who are not receiving their arrears and the UFT, not the borrowers, will pay the interest.
People in MORE made some edits and we thought this would be something that would be passed as a humanitarian gesture for mothers or fathers on childcare leaves and members who are on restoration of health leaves. MORE leader Jia Lee, a mother herself, who is Chapter Leader from the Earth School, agreed to raise the resolution at the October DA.
At the DA meeting, President Michael Mulgrew filibustered for about an hour and a half talking about how wonderful our schools are and how great the union is to have gotten us the retro money (see previous post). He talked so much there was not time for much else. The DA did vote to extend the meeting for ten minutes to have a new motion period.
Jia rose to present the MORE motion for next month's agenda. DA rules require that a majority approve for it to go on next month's agenda. Delegate Mary Ahern raised an objection saying this rule violates Robert's Rules of Order. That is a discussion for another post.
Then a member of the majority Unity Caucus rose to make a point of information asking if MORE was violating Robert's Rules because the resolution was printed on a MORE handout and advertised for MORE on the back of the paper. It also didn't have anything noting that it came from a union printer. The union's parliamentarian said these issues were not covered in Robert's Rules of Order so Jia was able to continue.
She talked about John Elfrank's illness and mothers in her school who could all use the money that they already worked for. She noted the city's $5.9 billion surplus and how the resolution was crafted in a way so these would be loans. (The loans would be secured as the member's future retro could be collateral.) She cited Mulgrew who previously said that medical distress should not mean financial distress.
This resolution is a no-brainer if ever there was one. If the city says no, then the union would loan the money to members on unpaid leave who need it. If the UFT doesn't have the funds, they would secure them from a labor friendly bank and pay the interest.
Unfortunately, the Unity majority would have none of this. The Queens UFT maternity liaison rose to speak against the resolution. She gave a cold-hearted speech that was booed once saying she tells mothers who are going on childcare leave they must consider their situation when taking such a leave. They are making a choice but they will be made whole on retroactive money from a magical chest that will open again in two years. (She didn't bother to talk about those on medical leave.) She concluded by saying she didn't want the union to be involved in making loans.
For political reasons, the Unity majority, who all sign an oath saying they will support caucus positions in public and union forums, voted down the resolution easily. There is sufficient patronage in all expense paid trips to conventions, after-school and full time union jobs that virtually all go to Unity members to keep them in line. They weren't going to go against their in house maternity expert.
There were many new Delegates who attended yesterday's meeting who will probably never return. Some came to Jia afterwards and told her they couldn't believe the union would turn down loaning money to members in need. I wasn't at all surprised because caucus loyalty trumps good policy in the UFT all the time. The union could not let an opposition leader get credit for sponsoring something this important.
Those Delegates probably will never come back but they should.
87 comments:
Well if we had REAL, TRUE leadership, then this sawdust-for-brains Mulgrew would call this mayor out for what he is : An ENEMY of the NYC teacher. After so many years of waiting and waiting and waiting for an ally to take the mayors office, we get this:
A lazy-nap-a-day-do-nothing who,not only doesn't help teachers,but actually SCREWS us.
And so the only reason I can up with for meathead supporting this mayor is that he is on the take. That's right, he is bought and paid for. After all, can he really be that stupid?
Mulgrew is that stupid. He's not on the take from the city, he has all he can take from the UFT. They want us down to 5 sick days a year, which will completely fuck us being around sick kids all year. Teachers need to start screaming if Mulgrew starts to push for this.
My understanding is UFT said no. Why do you think we don't have it yet?
No, I woukd not accept losing 5 days. With all do respect, other people needing time off is not my problem. I should not have to pay for them with my sickbank or money.
They now have an excuse for the next tiny raise.
Watch, wait and see.
There you go.
2 years, 2% total, 0 the first year, 2 the 2nd year, plus everybody loses 5 paid sick days FOREVER. But, we negotiated sick leave...for a few teachers...
Taking 5 sick days a year is insane and doesn't make any sense. A healthy teacher can take more than 5 days for occasional personal business/actual basic illnesses like colds and stomach flus. If that gets ratified by working teachers it would mean that they really are as stupid as the reformers say we are. Most likely what I think will happen is it will get included in the next contract negotiation but will severely limit our raises, and will get passed because most teachers are women and many young teachers have kids to get out of working for a few years.
So that means back to 1% per year. And we have no way to verify what we are losing based on that provision.
What? How can you say 1%? Does a few sick days= that much?
All I can say is, thank goodness I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I drag myself to work feeling like death walking on many an occasion so I can have a decent CAR for if and when I need it for myself, a family member, or terminal leave. Have you ever seen how some of these newbies take days? They are constantly in need of a "mental health day", or a mini-vacation, or treatment of a hangnail. And while I get that not everybody is a glutton for punishment like I am, I shouldn't have to pay for their leave because they lacked the foresight to bank at least some days for when they REALLY need them.
Ok, I am going to catch hell for this but here it goes: Teachers, and all other work professionals for that matter should not get paid maternity leave. Having a baby is a choice. Nobody forces you to have a child. Use birth control if you are too afraid that you might have a child and will not be paid while you have it. Nobody puts a gun to anybody's head and makes them have a kid. If you can't afford to take time of of work without pay, then don't have a kid. (Or, save up enough days in your sick bank before you choose to get pregnant) There is no rule that says you have to get pregnant in your early 20's when most teachers have hardly any days in their sick bank. I have been a NYC teacher for over 20 years and I have no kids, nor do I plan on having any. It is beyond disgusting to me that there is a possibility that in the near future I may only get 5 sick days a year to subsidize the choice of teachers to get pregnant. As mentioned, I will catch hell for these statements but at least I am honest and I bet a lot of other teachers feel the same way as I do. Raising kids is a choice and people need to prepare for the hardship involved in that choice. Hey, I love beer, but I don't expect my fellow teachers to get only 5 sick days a year so I can take time off to tend to my hangovers. (In fact, I don't drink on school nights so I DONT get hangovers which would cause me to take time off)
Anonymous 5:07 you won't be catching any hell from me.
The more I think about it, the more I see this as yet another way to drive a wedge between the newbies and the old timers. "That old bitch is so selfish she doesn't even care if you have to take unpaid leave".
As an ATR I leave all my heavy drinking for when I'm on the job, especially during PD. The last school I was in everyone appeared pregnant, especially the men. Being around them after lunch was very dangerous. Thank godness there is no more open smoking in the classroom or it would have been like the Fourth of July. Women should be able to get time off for pregnancy, but men shouldn't have to pay for that as well. I've already had my vasectomy.
So let me get this straight: The lady who is starting this petition for paid maternity leave went to a maternity workshop all giddy and then left crying when she found out there is no paid leave? Um, maybe she should have looked at the UFT contract before she decided to work for the DOE and get pregnant. If women want paid maternity leave as teachers in NYC I have a solution: All teachers who are planning to get pregnant at some time in their career can all give up 5 days for the duration of their teaching careers. Teachers who choose not to have kids over the course of their career can sign a waiver promising that they will never have kids and they get to keep their 10 days. This seems fair to me.
As usual there are neanderthal comments here. However, some of the guys (you have to be men)do have a point on not wanting to pay for me getting pregnant. That is why all the city taxpayers should buck up a little and this shouldn't come out of city employees next raise. Maybe a little less for deBlasio's real estate buddies.
"Taxpayers should buck up a little". Um, no they shouldn't. You wanna have kids, you prepare and you pay for them. And also, a lot of teachers live in NYC who don't want kids but you are ok with not taking away their sick days but you are ok with taxing them? Where does personal responsibility fit in here? It is not neanderthal to expect people who choose to have kids to be on the hook to pay for them 100%. If in fact, the DOE cuts back sick days to 5 instead of 10 days to pay for maternity leave, there will be a lot of very, very, pissed off teachers. (Male and female)
If the taxpayers pay as they do in most advanced countries and research shows bonding between mom's and babies is beneficial, it won't cost you even one sick day.
Taxpayers paying means UFT members won't pay. Who do you think pays for our raises? You have to be a man. Sorry guys.
6:10 I agree 100%
Unbelievable comments. About 20 years ago UFT VP Carmen Alvarez came to talk to our Spec. Ed. school (probably looking for votes). Anyway, I asked about UFT sponsored daycare- I had little kids and so did a lot of teachers. She brushed me off, no matter how persistent I was (yeah, I can get that way). She didn't get my vote. It was unbelievable that the UFT did not care about the parent-members or their children.
The people commenting on this post seem very short-sighted and selfish. Five sick days is unsustainable, but there should be some provision-mostly funded by the city for new parents. I'm old and am not having any more kids, but I certainly support paid maternity leave. Shame on the negative members. One day you will need or want some new benefit. Union members-united we stand, divided we fall.
I'm not far off from top salary, I live in a modest apartment with a small mortgage and I have no credit card debt because I live within my means. And with that, there's not much left at the end of the month (not putting nearly as much as I should in my TDA, either). Why should I go into debt so that somebody with no foresight to prepare for the future can have a paid leave? If that makes me a Neanderthal, then pass me a copy of the Paleo diet.
First, we already fell, divided or not. 2nd, we have given back enough, TDA dropped to 7%, 7 years of basically no raises, holding back the retro and raises, etc...I will not give up anything for others, not my problem, im not paying for it. I save my days waiting for the pay at resignation. You want kids, you pay the freight.
I'm up near top salary as well. I have over a hundred days in my CAR. I come in even when I am not feeling too well. I have no children of my own and I should not be expected for forfeit any of my hard earned future money to pay for children that are not mine. I am tired of the entire it takes a village mentality. We all work with kids and have dedicated our lives to helping them but sorry, it is for about 7 hours a day and that is it for me. If you want a child of your own, it is on you to pay for it. It reminds me of the old saying "If ya' wanna dance, ya' gotta pay the band".
I'm an ATR, and the last pregnant newbie I asked to open the restroom door for me refused. We were asked to donate a sick day to her. I did not, nor am I willing to donate 5 days to those who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. If she took 30 seconds and opened that door for me, I would have given her a week. I have 150 days. There's plenty of selfishness to go around and it not just from men and their views on optional pregnancies. If women want to act like that you can't expect men or anyone else to bend over backwards. I'm no Neatherthal, by the way.
I'm an ATR and was around a young mother of three kids. Needless to say, she was rude at times, snappy, jittery and not able to control her emotions. If a couple or woman wants to have children, need to plan on how many can be handled without it becoming too stressful. Needless to say, brushed her off because as a woman I had foresight and had the number of kids I was able to handle. Don't see why I had to handle the bad attitude of a young mother that is stressed. This person was also a bit condescending because I had an ATR status. I will not give up 5 days of my CAR. When I first started my supervisor at the time gave me good advise. My supervisor told me not to be absent and to save my days for when I have children. That is exactly what I did and I still had to take off for months. I did not whine and try to get days from my colleagues. If it comes through the taxpayers then great for this generation of new parents, but no way about giving up 5 days.
Exactly, 8:09, when we turn our back on each other, eventually we will all fail. I remember the teacher who gave me a copy of a bathroom key. A saint, who tragically died young. There are so many teachers who are good people, who take the time to give tips on classroom management or how to take care of the paperwork. I'm not greedy, if a teacher needs help, I want to help. Teaching is a tough job, we need to help each other. If a teacher wants time to care for their own family, then they should have it.
"If it comes through the taxpayers then great for this generation of new parents, but no way about giving up 5 days." I agree 9:27. Some of the other comments are pure selfishness. Some of you are so focused on yourselves you can't even see that you are the reason why it is so easy for the city to divide us and give us next to nothing.
I'll bet half my pension 9:33 is female. So well said.
In the long run having only 5 sick days a year will save the city millons in terminal pay.
That's the whole point Caprice. We pay for our own benefit instead of the taxpayers paying for it.
Or we could just be like the black kids, have kids left and right as teens, never work, get supported by the govt forever, while still having the most expensive material goods in the world, while our kids turn out to be trash because they are never raised properly. Instant welfare...Funny how those who need the income and are supposed to support many because there is no law against becoming pregnant, at any age, as many times as you want, manage to never work and never worry about things the middle class must worry about, paying bills, a mortgage, waking up and traveling to work, paying taxes, etc...
The giveback should be based on Tier. Why would a Tier 1, 2, 3 and 4 want to give up sick days or any other benefit. No, No and No. Will not give up 5 sick days for paid maternity leave. I am getting older like other veteran staff and need my sick days. No union member givebacks.
I'll bet my entire pension that 9:41 is a man.
That's the first 9:41 by the way.
You Neanderthals should not worry because if you read the post, the UFT leaders basically agree with your position on motherhood. That's why Ms. James left the workshop crying. UFT won't even lend money interest free to sick people on unpaid leave. They will only agree to this when they find a giveback you won't notice right away like higher co-payments or lower interest on the TDA.
Man or woman/ woman or man @ 9:42PM. You would be surprised. Tier would be good. Also, if men don't get paternity leave it would not be fair to expect them to give up 5 sick days.
Ivanka where are you to implement this paid maternity/paternity leave on society as a whole.
@9:42PM - Did I read it correctly that you would bet your entire pension that 9:41PM is a man? First, in how many years will you retire? got to check if this is a beneficial proposition. How about a hefty TDA......
Who said it's only for women? Men have families they need to take care of.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! DO NOT TOUCH MY CAR!!!!! BREED ON YOUR OWN TIME. WE HAVE SUMMERS OFF!! PLAN IT OUT OR DEAL WITH IT. It is not that teachers do not get time. it is that they want more..... nearly every teacher i know planned to have the kid right before or after summer break.... SUrprise!!! Yeah right??? Now I am supposed to give up saved sick days so they could have more. Disgusting! WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR FAMILY LEAVE????? INSANE>>> IT'S BAD ENOUGH I HAVE TO HEAR TALK ABOUT YOUR KIDS NON-STOP AND THAT IS AFTER YOU SHOVED YOUR PHONE IN MY FACE WITH THE KID'S PIC!!!
Unabashed neanderthal here and I have to say that I will fight to my last breath to keep my 10 days. If a fellow teacher wants to get pregnant and have kids that is fine but don't ever expect that your colleagues should front the bill for that choice. What people keep forgetting about this entire conversation is that the choice to have kids is made by the individual teacher. It is a desire. It is a want. Think about the statement: "I...want...kids" You can want all you want but please don't expect the rest of us to cater to your want with our money.
You are probably the same fools that don't want immigrants so if we have no immigrants and nobody has kids, we can have population decrease and only our students who shouldn't be having kids will have them. Many of the comments here show just how selfish and narrow minded some teachers are. I say that as someone who opposes the plan to make us pay for the benefit. The city should foot the bill and it shouldn't come from our raises either. I agree that fathers need to be included as an option for staying home with the kids.
Starting soon, we will all be paying for paid family leave as part of Cuomo's state program:
https://www.ny.gov/programs/new-york-state-paid-family-leave
Given that the state will have this program in place starting in 2018 (and everybody who works will a) pay into it and b) be entitled to use it), why would the UFT make a deal on maternity leave now?
Read this from the website you sent us to RBE:
"If you are a public employee, your employer may opt into the program. Public employees who are represented by a union may be covered if Paid Family Leave is collectively bargained."
Since this will be mandatory in the private sector, there will be pressure on the city unions and de Blasio to do this next year in the public sector.
And we will pay for it. Say hello to some giveback. You can count on the UFT to cave into this pressure.
No More Givebacks!!
5 sick days is very significant and TOO much to expect from "Other" groups within UFT membership. When considering Male's, Veterans or childless employees, granting something like this could open Pandora's box to other arguments like equal time and rights for paid leave in illness, terminal illness, birth of a grandchild etc., etc. How can one group of membership be favored over another?
Perhaps those who have children while in service should have an option to either agree to have 5 sick days per year in writing for a specified time frame in their career or take leave as it is granted now which is what it is, unpaid after CAR days are used up.
You are right about the need for collective bargaining on the matter for public employees represented by unions, Anon 11:45 PM, thanks for pointing that out.
But note this part too that comes right after the part you quoted:
"The agreed-upon plan must then be submitted to the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board for approval. The plan must be 'at least as favorable' as the statutorily mandated Paid Family Leave benefits. Once an agreement is reached, written notice must be provided to the Chair of the Workers’ Compensation Board, including a list of employees and coverage information."
If, as the text states, the negotiated plan must be "at least as favorable," I wonder how de Blasio trying to force 5 fewer CAR days for an agreement with UFT employees fits that prescription, since Cuomo's plan does not call for such a thing?
I dunno, it's possible de Blasio/NYC can wiggle out with that last paragraph:
"A collective bargaining agreement for Paid Family Leave may provide rules that differ from the Paid Family Leave regulations. Where the agreement does not provide a different rule, the Paid Family Leave regulations will apply."
Perhaps they can claim these are just "rules that differ from the Paid Family Leave regulations?"
Still, this is what the cost is for most employees in NY State:
"The maximum employee contribution in 2018 is 0.126% of an employee’s weekly wage capped at 0.126% of the annualized New York State Average Weekly Wage."
Giving up 5 CAR days seems above and beyond that to me.
Let's take some arguments here to a logical extent. I have no children. Why should I pay taxes for schools for those who do? Every teacher's salary is paid for by taxes - the public. Imagine if some of the thinking we see here was extended to the point where teaching jobs were gone.
To resentful ATRs- why should my taxes go to pay a salary for someone who is subbing?
We can take selfishness as far as you wish.
Advanced nations have paid childcare leave as do many companies. Why not the DOE?
To all my fellow colleagues: I love you all dearly but please understand that you should not expect me to pay for your baby. If the city switches to 5 sick days for all teachers due to paid maternity leave, the rift between teachers who are having babies vs. those who choose to remain childfree will be huge. There will be anger and resentment not only raged at DeBlasio/UFT/DOE but also among teachers in schools. Taking away 5 days per year for every teacher who does not plan on having kids adds up to a very huge amount of money, not to mention the hassle of not being able to take off days or bank them for retirement. This is political correctness at it's worst. The UFT contract says plain and clear that if you save up enough days in your CAR that you can use them for "paid" maternity leave. A poster above mentioned that nobody forces teachers in their early 20's to have a child. If you want to have a child early in your career that is great, but your fellow teachers who are not having kids should not be forced to loose days due that individual teachers choice. If you want "paid" leave, save up your sick days in your CAR and wait a bit and you will be good to go.
UFT will not make such a deal. If society as a whole contributes to this people should still utilize caution when bringing in the bundle of joy. Six weeks of paid leave is a reason to have babies. Taking care of a child goes on for many years - into the twenties nowadays. Don't want to be exposed with parents that did not have the foresight to plan accordingly and have to tolerate their rudeness.
Correction: Six weeks of paid leave is NOT a reason to have babies.
"ATRs" are not resentful @10:22AM. Have not met one as yet.
Let's remember, the label ATR is a made up acronym from those that want to break up the union, get rid of tenure and get rid of veteran staff which equates to age discrimination. Wisen up.
I know for a fact that some teachers in NYC do indeed choose to get pregnant to get out of their horrible schools for a bit. Throw in some "free" money and you best believe teachers will use this a way to get out work for a while. I am not being cruel, I am stating a fact of life.
@10:45AM - then they return to school after having a baby dazzled, cranky and snappy. Lack of foresight in having children. Having kids is serious business.
Unless you are a welfare recipient and the govt pays for your every whim...
@12:35PM - Public assistant recipients work nowadays, but when they did not have to many were not responsible parents either.
Anyway, no give backs for paid maternity/paternity leave. It should come out through taxes. The government should plan for this. There is a lot of mismanagement of funds. GET IT TOGETHER USA.
Umm, "The Government" should not pay for maternity leave. "The Government" is nothing more that our taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers should not front the bill to pay for a person to go on paid maternity leave. If a person wants to raise a child, either save up for it on your own or don't have it.
People keep thinking that money should just fall into the hands of a person because they decide to have a child and want paid leave. Listen up folks, paid leave has to be paid for by somebody. It is either paid by the person having the kid via saving up funds or it is paid for by other workers loosing days, or it is paid for with tax payer monies. Bottom line is if a woman wants to get pregnant, go for it, but please do not think that it is fair to dip into my personal cash to fund your paid leave.
Always good to hear from RBE. If the state website that RBE sent us to is right, this shouldn't cost us much.
From the website:
"Does Paid Family Leave cost me anything?
New York’s Paid Family Leave is entirely employee-funded. That is, the benefit is paid for by employees.
Employers may collect the cost of Paid Family Leave through payroll deductions. The maximum employee contribution in 2018 shall be 0.126% of an employee’s weekly wage up to the annualized New York State Average Weekly Wage."
.126% isn't a very high number.
This doesn't make sense.
10:22,
ATRs are not resentful. At one school I was in I was very friendly with a very pregnant young lady. She had horrible classes, the elevator was always broken and she was crying. I offered her 5 of my days. She hugged me, thanked me and turned me down. I tried to insist, but she wouldn't hear of it. Teachers need to help teachers when they can, and I totally understand the ATR that wasn't willing to contribute a day to someone who couldn't be bothered to open a bathroom door. Respect works both ways.
The problem with us teachers is we do not give a crap about each other. I have no interest in paying for maternity/paternity leave. Those who want to have kids should figure out how to pay for it. I want to work, do my time, and retire.
I've learned from this post that NYC teachers clearly aren't the bunch of raging socialists that they've been made out to be.
2:37,
That is a big problem and the main reason our union sucks.
Lots of them voted for Trump, 2:43.
1:44 says-
Umm, "The Government" should not pay for maternity leave."The Government" is nothing more that our taxpayer dollars.
Newsflash 1:44 - The government pays for YOUR vacation. Using your logic, any government employee should save their own money for time off as a "vacation"
ANNO 3:35. Yep, the government does pay my vacation. However, the government pays for vacation for all teachers regardless if they had kids or not. Once a teacher chooses to have kids they are expecting more "vacation" time in the form of paid maternity leave that a childfree teacher would never get. Thus, it is not a fair comparison. Every single teacher in NYC knows how many vacation days he or she gets and we all get the exact same amount of vacation days. Why should a teacher get more paid time off to have maternity leave when I as a childfree teacher will never get this time off. And yes, my logic does does show that I can take more time off if I save up days via my CAR. I have a gazillion days in my CAR and I can use them when I need to. However, I will never need them to raise kids as I will never have them.. Thus, your argument is moot. If you want to have a kid, use your CAR days for it. That is what they are for.
I see both sides here. However the government does NOT pay for my vacation time. The government pays me to work about 186 days a year as a public school teacher. I do not get paid for my vacation time. I am a salaried employee. Paid maternity is just a way for teachers who choose to get pregnant to get more money for time that they are not working paid for on the backs of teachers who choose not to have children. It does not seem fair to as those who are not having children of their own to pay for those who choose to do so.
Kids are a needed in a society. Having parents at home is good for all of us. The selfishness here among some of the comments astounds me.
Accumulate CAR days or have them over the summer. Problem solved. If Tier V and VI wants to have kids let them pay for it. Tier I-IV should not have to give up their sick days, get less of a raise, etc. There are more pressing issues, like age discrimination, harassment, tenure protection and pension protection. Please..... Without these, kiss your career good-bye.
Hey, I would love to get paid leave to take care of each any every new dog that i rescue from a shelter but I am not asking for that. People need to separate their personal lives from their work lives.
Maybe instead of maternity leave, it should be called personal leave. Then if you want to take care of a baby, sick relative, puppy, you can do this. We are all more than our jobs.
And for all those who don't want to contribute what about those who -
have the eyes of an eagle-who will never need glasses?
have cavity-free teeth-who will never need a dentist?
will never be sick-and will never need a doctor?
can get along with all administrators and are exceptional teachers-who will never need the union's assistance?
Those paragons are supporting the rest.
Dental problems and illness are things that are unpredictable and are considered sickness. Making a choice to have a baby is not the same. Needing glasses is not something that can be predicted either. However, waking up in the morning and deciding to have unprotected sex with the goal to get pregnant is a choice that is predicted. Thus, it is a choice and that choice is not something that should be covered via extra pay. Oh yeah, for those teachers who don't get along with administrators, that is unpredicted as well and as such, paid union assistance should be provided. (It is not "free" assistance as we all pay over a grand in union dues a year to have lawyers represent us in the case of charges brought against us by administrators) Lastly, this post has gone on and on all day and I have really not heard from one teacher who has provided a viable reason why fellow colleagues should have to give up sick days to pay for teachers to get paid maternity leave. Guess the UFT/DOE won't be going there which is a good thing after all.
12:24., As RBE pointed out, paid family leave at employee expense is the law in NYS. It is mandated in the private sector and optional in public sector. It is really only a matter of time before it is negotiated for city workers. We should concentrate on making the city pay. If, as is more likely, we pay, it will either be by getting a smaller raise or some kind of giveback. We should focus on minimizing cost.
As for the argument that you don't choose to use most benefits like sick days because they are unpredictable, well there is one we opt in for that is a totally predictable choice. We plan and choose to go on sabbatical and city taxpayers still pay 70% of our salary plus 100% of our benefits while we study for a year and taxpayers pay for a leave replacement teacher too. If we use your argument, we should have never been granted sabbaticals and should give them back immeditely. I think sabbaticals are good for teachers and taxpayers benefit from having rested teachers who have more skills when they return. If taxpayers can pick up the tab for us to study and recharge the batteries to become better teachers, surely they can pay so a parent can bond with a baby or take care of a sick relative.
I agree we should not have to give up sick days to pay for family leave and so does the UFT because there is no deal.
The debate here has been lively and I have learned a great deal.
Simple solution, Tier 7. Anybody who comes in starting September 2018 has to pay into the pot and/or has 5 sick days. Soon enough, everyone from Tiers 1-4 will be gone anyway...
James: The city pays sabbatical for health reasons of for study that will benefit the students of NYC. Sabbaticals are not to "recharge your batteries" as you put it. A poster above on this thread mentioned something along the lines of only teachers who are planning to have kids should have to have a reduction in sick days. Teachers who choose to never have kids during their tenure in the DOE should not have to loose days. I am for a plan such as that. Also, you mention that it is not mandatory that public employees get paid maternity leave in NYS. If that is the case, then the UFT should leave it as is. As you can see from the many responses on this thread, there are a lot of very angry teachers who do not want to suffer any givebacks over this. (Men and women) We are already all forced to eat a shit sandwich by working for the DOE with all of the rights that we once had being eliminated. Today we have to wait till 2020 to get all of the pay that is owed us. Now there is talk of eliminating sick days from teachers who are never planning to have kids? These are some dark times indeed.
Sabbaticals were mentioned because they are planned for. I never took one but as a taxpayer I am paying for teachers not to teach but to study. I have no problem with that. I also have no issue as a taxpayer with paying for all city employees to take some time off to take care of a baby and still get paid. It is standard in western countries.
I agree with all of you that it should not come out of our sick banks or the next raise. The city has tons of money to pay us a decent raise, pay back the money from 2009-11 now (not in pieces through 2020) and provide a childcare benefit equal to the state law.
One more thing: The UFT would not agree to limiting the sick bank or there would probably be a deal by now. I guess we can give them credit.
Yes, the city is indeed sitting on a major surplus. However, every single union in NYC wants a piece of that money pie. I think it will be a cold day in Hell if the city decides to use that money to give NYTC teachers a decent raise, let alone paid maternity leave.
In the early sixties Al Shanker once asked a city official why there was money after a hurricane to fix the damage so why isn't there money for teachers. The response was the hurricane is an emergency. Shanker then said we have to become an emergency. Teachers stepped up in those days and working conditions, salaries and benefits improved. Now we, as a previous comment said, are "all forced to eat a shit sandwich by working for the DOE with all of the rights that we once had being eliminated." We have to take all the nonsense because we aren't mobilizing based on what unites us to become an emergency.
Four things which the UFT needs to negotiate with DOE:
1) Elimination of the one-year "salary step increment freeze" when a teacher who's rising up the salary steps has received an "Unsatisfactory" or "Ineffective" rating for the previous school year.
2) Elimination of the loss of half the days in a teacher's CAR upon retirement. Teachers should be entitled to either terminal leave for, or payment for, each and every day that's been accumulated.
3) Elimination of the 200-day cap on the CAR.
4) Ensuring that all ATRs get "basic amenities" such as staff bathroom keys and secure places where to store belongings.
1-3 cost money. Do you want to get those benefits by taking a smaller salary increase or how do you intend to get the city to put more money in the pot?
4 should already be there.
Parking Permit and 2 Observations Guy is back! Negotiate 2 observations! 2 observations is the law in NYS but we got shafted with 4. Get us 2 observations dammit!
What the union should be fighting for is an early retirement incentive or teacher buyout that goes beyond ATR's and is generous.
That cut the sick bank in half deal has always been a scam. And it punishes the teachers who do the right thing and come to work every day. Cut in half, then taxed, so basically you get paid a quarter of the bank. And then you dont even get it all at once, wait 2 more years...But of course that wasnt on the table, just like the 8.25%, the hardship travel that goes ignored, the 11 year wait for retro, the 8% put into our salaries over 4 years, the 1% raises, the 0 plus 0 in 2011 and 2012. Interesting...
Ive been going from Staten to Bklyn every day for over 21 years, not one opening all this time? Doesnt sound possible. I see them on the open market. What about, in the contract, hardship clause, UFT wont even try.
Ask students if they want to become teachers. The answer is NO. If you get one that says yes, it's usually for elementary school. Students see how teachers are treated and when they find out that benefits are being taken away, there will be less and less interest in this profession. The country is all ready experiencing shortages. Hope there is a loooooong dry spell everywhere, including New York City, NYS.
Post a Comment