MORE NEW CONTRACT CRITICISM

Most UFT members are voting in their schools on the proposed new UFT contract. When a teacher who does not have a permanent assignment gets a ballot on the new agreement in the mail, the ballot comes with the UFT pro-contract propaganda and nothing else. I am confident that only the pro-contract view is being presented in most schools too before the vote. Therefore, opponents are fighting a large uphill battle. Imagine a state referendum where there was a proposal and the state sent out only information in support of the proposal. It would be totally unfair but that is how the UFT operates its organization.

Under these conditions, it is amazing I have seen a number criticisms of the contract proposal in the last ten days on the internet.

This is the latest from blogger Chaz calling for a no vote.

Three critical pieces were written by parent activist-leader of Class Size Matters Leonie Haimson over at the New York City Public Schools Parents Blog, although Leonie notes that her critique is about certain parent issues and she is not taking a position on the contract.

In this one, Leonie gives a history of class sizes in NYC and reaches this conclusion concerning the UFT and lower class sizes:

If the UFT leadership was doing anything else to push for smaller classes, either through court action or advocating for targeted funding for class size reduction through the state or city budget, their lack of attention given to reducing class size in the contract would be more understandable.  Sadly, for too long, they remain Missing in Action on this crucial issue. 

Leonie has two other pieces that focus on the new contract. In one she is critical of the UFT for cutting out the parents in certain schools and in the other she once again focuses on the class size issue in the UFT contract. Anything Leonie writes is well worth reading.

Marian Swerdlow is a retired teacher-chapter leader from FDR High School in Brooklyn. She wrote two critical pieces for MORE (Movement of Rank and File Educators). One was the basis of some of my criticism in Monday's piece on the role of the new committees in the UFT contract where of course we cited Marian. The other tells the story of the 1995 contract defeat and how the UFT promised dire consequences if we voted down the contract. We voted no on that contract and the UFT's dire predictions all turned out to be wrong. Marian's 1995 history lesson is posted in full below.

What Happens if We Vote it Down?

October 18, 2018 — Leave a comment

“What happens if we vote it down?”

“What will happen if we don’t approve the contract?”

People ask and want to know the answer.  Whatever happens, experience says it won’t be the “doom and gloom” scenario that UFT leaders threaten it will be.

In fall, 1995, UFT leaders unveiled a tentative agreement with no raises in the first two years, and givebacks in pay, benefits and working conditions.  As the membership ratification vote proceeded, it was obviously in danger of rejection. Then-president Feldman wrote in a letter to the membership dated November 12, 1995:

“What would happen if the members reject this agreement and send us back to the bargaining table?  I believe we would be faced with chaos and crisis. Job security would be gone and massive layoffs could begin as early as February.  By next year, between the city, state and federal cuts, the layoffs of teachers and paraprofessionals could reach into the thousands.

“In addition, if we reject this settlement, we probably would lose some of the very positive gains we won in the agreement such as longevity on eligibility date and electronic deposit.  And all those givebacks we successfully fought off such as loss of prep times, sabbaticals and the mid-winter recess – would go back on the bargaining table. Nor is there much of chance that a rejection of this contract would result in a better agreement . . .”

These scare tactics failed, and the contract was voted down.  How did the results compare with Feldman’s fearmongering?

1. There was no chaos.  There was no crisis.
2. Not a single UFT member was laid off.
3. A new proposed pact was negotiated before the end of the same school year.  
4. It retained all of the modest gains in the rejected pact.
5. It didn’t have any new givebacks.  Prep times, sabbaticals and the February recess stayed.
6. It was a better agreement, if only slightly.  The worst givebacks were axed: a provision to hold back 5% of the salary of new teachers was removed.  Instead of 25 years to top pay, it was reduced to 22 years. A few small sweeteners were added.

The takeaway is that union leaders will use threats to get a contract approved, but in the one case where a contract was rejected, all those threats proved baseless.

But the second proposal, which the membership accepted, still had no raises in the first two years. Although the union went back to the negotiating table, it did not organize the members to fight and pressure the city for a better deal.  So, it takes more than just voting “no” to get a significant improvement in a contract. It takes a struggle by the rank and file and allies.

-Marian Swerdlow,
Retired Chapter Leader, FDR High School, Brooklyn

Among the sweeteners that were added in 1996 was a retirement incentive. As I recall the incentive was a major reason why the second version of the contract passed so easily. People could take the money and run and that is when the school system treated teachers and other UFT professionals much better than they do now.

Voting is going on in the schools this week. Please read the criticisms of the contract as well as the UFT propaganda.