As we start 2018, the questions about our contract are heard over and over. The current UFT Contract expires at the end of November. Speculation on our next contract is all around. DC 37 is in negotiations with the city and will probably set a pattern for raises for unionized city workers for our next contracts within a few months. All of the other municipal unions will be stuck with whatever DC 37 agrees to because of pattern bargaining. One union sets a pattern for raises for city workers and then all of the other city unions get basically the same settlement. Pattern bargaining has been upheld by arbitration panels for decades.
We have more information on what the pattern is likely to be by examining State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's December 20, 2017 report on NYC finances.
Right there on page 17 is an explanation of the city's projections on municipal labor settlements for the next round of collective bargaining from its own budget plan:
The November Plan includes resources to fund annual wage increases of 1 percent after the expiration of the current round of collective bargaining. The actual cost of the next round of collective bargaining will be determined through negotiation or arbitration, and could be higher than assumed in the November Plan. Wage increases at the projected inflation rate, for example, would increase costs by $84 million in FY 2018, $276 million in FY 2019, $686 million in FY 2020 and nearly $1.2 billion in FY 2021.
And on page 18:
The City is expected to seek additional health insurance savings with the assistance of the municipal unions to help fund wage increases in the next round of bargaining.
Figure about 1% from us and 1% from the city and presto: instant labor contracts.
Trump's budget and the federal tax cuts will be used as the excuse to keep raises low.
Does anyone have a different contractual outlook?
Welcome back to school everyone. I hope you had an enjoyable vacation.
Surging stock market? Check.
ReplyDeleteHuge construction boom? Check.
A decent contract for teachers? You've got to be kidding.
Teachers bolting UFT? Check
ReplyDeleteQuitting paying union dues will give you a $1500 raise. You're welcome.
ReplyDeleteQuality life concerns are a lot more important than lousy raises that aren’t raises because of health care givebacks.
ReplyDeleteQuality of life improvements? You really gotta be kidding.
ReplyDeleteFuck you too.
DeleteNo need to be nasty. Reality is it ain't getting better in the schools unless Jesus is appointed chancellor.
ReplyDeleteIs there any way the city or the state could/would help us write off our union dues? I'd take that as part of a contract. That is a big hit on top of everything else.
ReplyDeleteQuality of working conditions is what I think are most important. If we are not getting a decent raise, then the City should throw us a bone with a non-punitive evaluation system with 2 observations like the rest of NYS.
ReplyDeleteHow about the right to strike without the draconian penalties hanging over our heads?
ReplyDelete5:47, What leverage does the UFT have to get two observations? Mulgrew told the DA after I introduced a resolution to go for two observations that for the record we asked for two and the DOE said no. How are we going to get two? Why should the DOE be humane to us? We don't command respect as a union or as a teaching force. Change only comes when people are willing to take action to get the respect we deserve. Do you see the UFT, or for that matter the teaching force, doing that?
ReplyDelete6:28, Taylor law reform should always be a number one legislative priority. I have written numerous times about how a UN Commission has said that the Taylor Law penalties are a human rights violation. Our weak unions won't publicize this.
ReplyDeleteJames, I believe we have been over this before. Mulgrew finally made the statement that it was the UFT, not the DOE who wanted 4 observations. Mulgrew thinks that teachers have a better shot at getting a better evaluation with 4, instead of the state mandated minimum of 2 observations. He is clueless as to how much teachers hate the 4 observations and the Danielson rubric. I know that admins hate doing all of the observations and the paperwork involved in it. He needs to man up and hash out a deal to get rid of it. A return to S/U would also be the biggest victory that the UFT could get in a time where Janus is about to make dues optional and the city is claiming to be broke again. This is a simple fact that can not be overlooked. DOE does not want 4 observations and the rank and file don't want 4. A lot of people are bitching about this and it is a warranted conversation. What leverage do we have? We have the leverage to threaten to pull our dues from the UFT if they do not fight for us on this as it is a no-brainer since the city already agrees with the teachers on this. Put the feet to fire on the UFT. (Lastly, Taylor law has nothing to do with contract negotiations. The city has no say in it. Changes to Taylor law can only be made at the state level in the legislature.)
ReplyDeleteThe city/DOE could make the change by just telling the principals they only have to do two observations. That adheres to the state law. They aren't doing that as DOE wants to make us miserable and on edge.
ReplyDeleteTaylor law has a lot to do with contract negotiations. The whole process is governed by the Taylor law. I believe I wrote that Taylor Law reform should be a legislative priority. A return to s/u, which I would totally support, would have to be done by the legislature.
I'm telling you exactly what Mulgrew told the DA after they turned down my resolution calling for the UFT to push for two. That is a fact. I don't think we have any leverage because the city knows that with a lousy contract, teachers will leave the UFT and that will leave us even weaker.
That is just the cities starting point for negotiations. Our starting point should be an 8% raise for each year of a 5 year deal, an extra prep for every teacher each day, a shorter workday by one hour and a shorter work year by 2 weeks.
ReplyDeleteAfter some time at the table, we can then both agree to meet in the middle.
No circular-6. That would give us an extra prep. And, it needs to be a non-directed prep—— teacher decide what to do during their prep, not admins.
ReplyDeleteTwu got 5%, 28 months
ReplyDeleteI also read that Mulgrew admitted that it was he who asked for 4 observations. Can somebody p;lease find the link to that? (I think it was an interview that Mulgrew did, and not something that he admitted at the DA) He lied at first when he said the UFT pushed for 2 observations at the DA.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the last deal, the expectations are so low...what did you expect? 1-1.5% per year is where we are, maybe a bit more backloaded. 3 years, 6%, 1 + 2 + 3? 0 +3 + 3?
ReplyDeleteEven that might be generous, but its true, backloaded will always be the way to go for city, saves them a fortune.
ReplyDeleteor maybe simply 1 + 1 + 1.
ReplyDeleteIt should be at least 2% a year.
ReplyDeleteHERE IS THE FACTS ABOUT THE 4 OBSERVATIONS: At the October 30th DA meeting, Arthur Goldstein proposed to question why we have 4 observations even though the UFT and DOE did not want that many. He was shot down by the DA and AMY ARUNDELL had this as her reply and I am going to quote her exact words: "Research says more observations equal better ratings, we wanted this, more observations". So let me be perfectly clear on this once and for all, the UFT is 100% to blame here for having 4 observations instead of the 2 observations like the rest of NYS has. Don't blame the DOE, don't blame Bloomberg, don't blame DeBlasio, don't blame Farina, and don't blame the Boogie Man. Put your blame where it belongs and that is on the shoulders of the UFT. They wanted this and they got it. Now they are about to begin bargaining with the city on a new contract. The fact is that we can get 2 observations, (especially for tenured teachers at least) if the UFT simply ask for them. The next time a UFT rep comes by your school, ask about what Amy Arundell said. Ask why "we wanted more observations". I don't want more observations and every single teacher I know wants less. It is time to start asking questions since we have the ball in our court now that the UFT has to become accountable to members if they want our dues after Janus comes through.
ReplyDeleteUFT Secretary Howie Schoor said the same stuff as Amy when they were speaking against my resolution last January. Then, after it was voted down, Mulgrew stated for the record that the UFT asked for two observations. At that point when my resolution had already been voted down, what reason did he have to lie? He is in charge of the negotiations.
ReplyDeleteBULLSHIT JAMES! Amy Arundell is now on the record for admitting in public that "We wanted this, more observations". She works for Mulgrew and in fact works a lot more harder than him as I have spoken to her in the past. I trust what she says a lot more that what Mulgew says. What reason does Mulgrew have to lie? It does not matter why. Maybe he is lazy or maybe he just does not give a shit as he is a puppet figure to begin with. Amy Arundell is a long time, respected figure in the UFT. If she says that the UFT wanted more observations, I 100% believe her. Maybe the stupid thinking in the UFT at the time was that if they demanded more observations that it would piss off the admins in the DOE. Well, that worked for sure. Now teachers live in daily fear of drive by Danielson observations as payback for what the UFT dealt us. As the posters mentioned above, we are in this position due to the fault of the UFT. If we do not get a change to our evaluation system in the new contract it will NOT be the fault of the city but rather it will be the lack of work of the UFT to get this done. I will make 100% sure to share this fact with the teachers at my school when we get to decide to keep paying dues or not. I have over 20 years in the system and the newbie teachers at my school come to me for advice on a weekly basis. Anyway, enjoy your snow day everybody!!!
ReplyDeleteHey Anno 12:23: You say that Amy is a "trusted and respected" figure in the UFT? Well, if she is backing more observations, well, I gotta say that I don't trust her nor consider her a respected figure in the UFT.
ReplyDeleteAmy and Howie Schoor are spouting UFT talking points, the party line. Let's go over the sequence of events again please.
ReplyDeleteMulgrew's surprising candor that the UFT asked for two observations but was turned down came after he won the vote at the DA. He had no reason to lie at that time. He won already; the hated James Eterno's resolution calling for two observations had been defeated by his Unity followers at the DA.
Since you respect Amy 12:23, please ask her why Mulgrew said that the UFT asked for two observations at the DA. It still makes no sense that he would lie on this. No reason to. I have known Mulgrew since around 2006. He may leave something to be desired as a union leader but he is not irrational.
Ok, ok, enough fighting over this observation topic. The bottom line seems that the UFT did not fight hard enough to get us 2 observations and ended up saying that it is good that we have 4 observations. That is the past. What matters right now is that the UFT and the City are about to start contract negotiations. The 300 member bargaining committee are having their first meeting in less than 2 weeks. They are sworn to secrecy but they have the chance to organize a plan to replace the current 4 observation system. What would be the most fair is that tenured teachers should have the NYS minimum of 2 observations. Non-tenured teachers should have the NYS minimum of 2 observations as well but should also have an additional 2 peer observations. (From what I have read in NYS law the peer observations can only count for 10% of a teachers observation rating) Tenure has already been extended to 4 years for new teachers in our state which leaves plenty of wiggle room for admins to push out any teachers that really can't hack it. There is no reason whatsoever that tenured teachers in NYC should have to go through more than 2 observations. Back in the good old days of the S/U observations, tenured teachers were hardly ever even observed anymore after earning tenure. As many people are writing here, Janus is going to cause a very big rift in the membership who are peeved at the UFT. Leaving our current observation system in place with the 4 obsos and Danielson Rubric is the straw that will break the camels back in regard to dues.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you basically. Two observations is what we should shoot for. No need to change the law. However, we have absolutely no leverage with the city to get them to agree to two observations for tenured teachers. That is my basic argument.
ReplyDeleteIf we get a new chancellor who is decent, we can try. However, if it is another Farina/Klein type, why would the city/DOE agree to make our lives and the principal's lives easier? It's better for upper level management to keep us all on edge in the schools. They like it that way. This is not about education; it is about power and control.
For the city/DOE, they could care less how many teachers leave the UFT after Janus. It weakens us further to have fewer teachers in the UFT. It gives us even less leverage.
The best way to change the observation system is to have a real union. You only get a real union if the rank and file demand it. I've said this all along. It's the main reason I do this blog.
I agree with James that staying in the UFT is better than quitting and having a weaker union. However, I also think that the DOE would really prefer to have 2 observations for most teachers. The admins in our school spend a ton of time doing pre-observations, observations, and post observations. Not to mention the tons of paperwork required for all of this time. I thought the City wants principals to be the "CEO's" of their schools? If that is the case, they should be empowered to focus on the things that they deem important. Allowing tenured teachers to have 2 observations seems like a no brainer. If the City wants to keep torturing teachers and admins with all of this wasteful time, they are going to fast track the already steamrolling teacher shortage in our system.
ReplyDeleteYou Don't get it. The city wants teachers to quit. Newbies are cheaper. New principals are easier to push around too.
ReplyDeleteAin't gonna be many newbies to replace anyone soon. Teacher preparation colleges are reporting massively low numbers for enrollment. Now that the economy is rocking, nobody wants to be a teacher. TFA is folding up shop. Add in the teacher bashing culture in the DOE and pretty soon there are not gonna be any warm bodies to put in front of classrooms.
ReplyDeleteThey just lower the qualifications. They can find warm bodies who need a job. No education background, no problem. Anyone can get in front of a class and pass everyone to make DOE look good.
ReplyDeleteYou got it. It is those pesky veteran teachers who have standards who the DOE wants out.
Delete22 yr veteran! Just give us a reasonable buyout and I'm out the door. I wouldn't even care if it hit me on the ass on the way out. Let the newbies deal with all this crap. It sure ain't going to get any better. Scary to think this is the best it's ever going to be. We can talk and debate all we want but it's only going to get much worse. Get out while you stil have your sanity and dignity.
ReplyDeleteWhy would they give a buyout when people are begging to leave?
ReplyDeleteBecause its a way to get rid of high salaried people, an incentive to save the city millions, and we wont leave without a severance package.
ReplyDeleteWhy for the love of God does the DOE not have a 20 and out retirement deal like the rest of the municipal unions in NYC? Shit, we don't even max out at a higher salary than those folks. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteBecause it would cost them money to pay health benefits for us and our replacements.
ReplyDeleteOne only gets rid of higher salaried workers to save money if you are not planning on replacing them. Not our situation.
ReplyDelete