Welcome New Teachers

We thank you for reading our leaflet and exploring our site.

We are the Independent Community of Educators, one of the political caucuses within the United Federation of Teachers. We are made of up teachers, psychologists, paraprofessionals, social workers, retirees and other DOE staff members who are concerned that the current direction of our Union is being weakened by our leadership. This is most evident from our recent contract which negotiated away many of our rights to have a voice in the schools where we teach. Over 30,000 of our members voted against the contract.

As new teachers we understand a little about what you are going through and can help you navigate the maze of rules and regulations that engulf the DOE and the UFT. Our UFT leaders have lost touch with most of our members and have permitted the DOE to run our schools like corporations.

We ask that you keep an open mind and see what the DOE and UFT leadership has done to our schools. If you have any questions please call, write, email or comment on this blog. You need not give your name or other identifying criteria.

Good luck on your new position and drop us a line.

For those of you who did not get a copy of the leaflet distributed at the Brooklyn Tech New Teacher Conference it is reproduced below.

WELCOME NEW TEACHERS!

AN EDUCATED MEMBER IS OUR BEST HOPE FOR THE FUTURE

• from the Independent Community of Educators (ICE)

The union representing teachers is called the UFT- United Federation of Teachers.

Like all large organizations, UFT members have more than one philosophy about what the main goals of the union should be.

Members have formed parties within the union called caucuses.

The caucus of the UFT president, Randi Weingarten, is Unity Caucus, just like the party of the US president, George Bush, is the Republican Party.

If you did not support President Bush or all of his policies, it would mean you had different beliefs than him and that you might be a member of a different political party, but, it would not make you un-American.

If you do not support President Weingarten or all of her policies, it means you have different beliefs and might be a member of a different political caucus, but, it does not make you anti-Union.

Some of the decisions made by incumbent politicians are for the good of the people they represent. Some decisions are made so that incumbent politicians will be re-elected and their party will retain control of governance.

Keep this in mind as you listen to and read about what Randi Weingarten is doing. Be aware that there are other ideas about our Union. Union officials, including the president will be elected by you this Spring.

While all teachers pay UFT dues you need to sign a membership card to vote. Make sure you do.

If you want to find out more, log onto http://www.ice-uft.org/, the Independent Community of Educators’ website. We also have a web log which can be accessed at http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com/

Good luck as you begin your new career.

For more info please call us at (917) 992-3734 or email at feedback@ice-uft.org

Evening HS Obituary

ICE Warnings on Working Conditions Ignored for Years by Unity/UFT Leaders & DOE

By James Eterno; UFT Chapter Leader Jamaica HS & HS Executive Bd Rep.

The citywide Evening high school program in NYC for students who were at least sixteen years old and needed to make up classes that they failed or never had the opportunity to take in day school has been eliminated by the Department of Education. Evening schools were set up in a number of the city's high schools to serve a wide variety of students. Many of them attended classes in the day and some did not. Each evening high school in the centrally run program served students from several different day schools.

According to August 11 NY Sun, the Department of Education admitted that the evening high school program was "an abysmal failure." The Sun went on to explain that 28,000 students were referred to night school, while only 14,000 attended and only half of these passed courses. A close look at the evidence will reveal that evening high school did not die of natural causes; it was starved to death by educational neglect from the DOE and their accomplices at the UFT.

For many years teachers in evening high schools had been complaining about abominable working conditions, particularly when it came to overcrowding and lack of access to books and supplies. The DOE chronically under-funded its evening high school program. Evening school teachers spoke about a chronic shortage of supplies and books. They said that they had to use antiquated textbooks and put up with huge class sizes.

Classes were routinely packed with pupils since the contractual guidelines for class size limitations (34 students is the maximum for most high school classes) did not apply to evening school because it was a per session activity covered by Article 15 of the UFT Contract which says nothing about class sizes. Therefore, the DOE could place an unlimited amount of students into evening high school classes and not worry about grievances from the Union. The DOE routinely took advantage of this provision.

The normal procedure was to register 50, 60, 70, 80 or more students per class. It was not uncommon to have over 100 kids in a class. On the first few evenings of each semester, students would enter a mob scene otherwise known as a classroom. The lucky ones would find a seat. The remainder of the crowd was forced to fend. It was not unusual to see students in evening school standing in the back or the aisles or leaning on the window sills in the cramped classrooms. It is hardly the fault of the teachers or the pupils that so many students were not able to pass under these deplorable learning conditions. Most pupils simply gave up and stopped attending. When teachers complained to the administration or the UFT about the conditions, they were often told that they should be happy to have a per session job paying them additional income and they could be easily replaced if they didn't like it. A few fortunate instructors had their classes split but huge class sizes were normal.

Several years ago I raised the issue of evening high school overcrowding at the UFT Executive Board. UFT President Randi Weingarten asked me to provide specific information. Subsequently, a teacher took a great risk by giving me the list of class registers for Jamaica Evening High School. Class sizes were over 50 and 60 in certain classes. I was appalled. I faxed the list to Weingarten. Amazingly, when the UFT investigated they found that there wasn't a class size problem since by the middle of the semester so many students had given up and were chronically absent. Instead of being angry that the DOE was subjecting teachers and students to horrible overcrowding that forced many students to cut class, UFT leaders accused me of making stuff up. The teachers at Jamaica Evening High School knew that going to their union was a waste of time and basically resigned themselves to DOE's abominable evening school conditions.

For those that see the UFT Contract as the cause of virtually all of the problems in NYC education, the end of evening school should serve as a cautionary warning. If the UFT contract which is only moderately enforced now is completely eliminated, then day schools will become like evening high school. There would be nothing to stop administration from packing 60 or 70 students in a classroom, forcing the class to use dilapidated books and telling the teacher that he/she should be grateful to have a position. We need a stronger teacher Contract that is properly adhered to. As for evening high schools, the DOE should mend the program by fully funding it instead of ending it.


P.S. According to the NY Sun, money that would have gone to evening school will be spread to day high schools and principals will be told to offer their own AM, PM or Saturday schools for pupils that are behind so they can make up course credits. The Sun also said that principals should "combine these classes with the additional 37.5 minute classes added to the school day for struggling students under the recent teacher contract." The 37.5 minute sessions were not supposed to be for credit bearing classes. (During the battle over the contract last fall, ICE warned the UFT that the DOE would try to make the 37.5 minute sessions into classes.) Also, many high schools are already overcrowded so they don't offer the 37.5 minute sessions and don't have the space for the huge P.M. schools that would be needed to accommodate the many pupils who need to make up courses. To expect each individual school or a group of schools in the same region to offer the same diversified program that the night schools had (even in their chronically under-funded state) is unrealistic.

The losers: as usual it's the students. They will have fewer opportunities to take the courses they need to graduate.

Positive Spin on the DC 37 Tentative Raises that Don't Even Keep up with Inflation as the City Surplus Soars Disappointing!

By James Eterno, Jamaica H.S. Chapter Leader, UFT H.S. Exec. Bd. Rep.

I came home from vacation to find out that DC 37 had reached a tentative contract settlement with the city that many labor people including UFT President Randi Weingarten are not criticizing. Weingarten even took some credit for the deal because the UFT and 19 other municipal unions have formed a coalition to bargain with the City. She claims that the presence of the coalition forced the city to up its offer to DC 37. Maybe so but why not a word about how paltry the salary increases are for DC 37 when the city is so prosperous?

While the potentially precedent setting agreement is better than the pattern DC 37 established for city workers in the last round of bargaining, it still does not keep up with inflation. The NY Times described the terms succinctly: "...10 percent raise (compounded) over 32 months with no new concessions." The Times elaborated, "The agreement includes a 3.15 percent raise retroactive to July 1, 2005, the day the union's last contract expired. The new pact also includes a 2 percent raise starting Aug. 1, and a 4 percent raise starting February 1." Why are these numbers not being roundly criticized in union circles when the city now has a surplus of over $5 billion? When the city is swimming in money, unions should be able to at least keep up with inflation.

Yes, the tentative pact calls for increases that go well beyond the 0% (with a $1,000 cash bonus), 3% and 1% raises over three years from the last DC 37 Contract (an extra 2% came with productivity givebacks). That agreement set a pattern that teachers and all other city workers were forced to swallow. When the current numbers are crunched, the proposed 10 percent over 32 months does not even keep up with the annual inflation rate that according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is now at 5.6% in the NY area and 4.7% nationally. DC 37's annual increases when compounded average roughly 3.75% a year. City workers will continue to have their standard of living significantly lowered under this deal. When it is taken into consideration that the city has a huge multi billion dollar surplus, this is an agreement that union leaders should at least be questioning. But thus far, I have not seen much negative except for some dissidents within DC 37. Meanwhile, the mayor is content.

The Times reports: "The mayor noted that the city continued to benefit from money saving concessions in the union's last contract like reduced vacation and sick days for newly hired workers." In addition, the mayor is still not ruling out givebacks.

"He added that the city and District Council 37, which represents 120,000 city workers, would set up a subcommittee to discuss pension changes and that he would urge the Municipal Labor Committee, the umbrella group for the city's unions, to negotiate savings on health coverage." (UFT President Weingarten heads the MLC; the UFT is a part of it.)

Let's understand the UFT's current situation. We now have a potential pattern settlement established by DC 37 that does not keep up with inflation while the city has billions in excess funds. The mayor will look to give all city workers including UFT members the same increases as DC 37 and history shows that if any union wants to beat the pattern, the only way to do so is with concessions in some other area. Since the 3.15% increase in year one of the DC 37 deal is already included in the final year of the current UFT Contract, our pattern would be 2% and 4% over twenty months for the next round. That translates into increases for us that are considerably lower than the current 5.6% NY area inflation rate.

Also, the pattern set by DC 37 won't help us win back any of the givebacks we surrendered in the last round of collective bargaining that include the 37.5 minute tutoring sessions each day, school starting in August, hall patrols, cafeteria patrols, lack of ability to grieve letters in our files, loss of seniority as well as SBO transfers, and more. Finally, the Mayor is still seeking to change the pension system and gain concessions in health benefits. Therefore, having us pay 1.5% of our salary toward healthcare (the Transit worker proposal) is still possible and who knows what other work rule changes will be demanded of us? Granted, we are starting out with a basic pattern from DC 37 that is better than in the last round but it clearly is not going to help us obtain anything remotely resembling a favorable settlement.

For President Weingarten to be taking any credit for the DC 37 agreement because the UFT is in a coalition of 20 unions who are bargaining together on financial matters with the city is somewhat strange. Instead, we believe she should be publicizing the city's huge budget surplus and saying how we have made sacrifices when the city had hard times and now we need to share in the city's prosperity. The UFT also should be preparing to mobilize for a real fight if we want to get a decent contract with raises that beat the cost of living without concessions, and we should be looking to initiate a major battle to win back what we gave away in the last round of bargaining.

(The purpose of this piece is not to try to influence the DC 37 ratification vote. Their internal debate is reported in this week's Chief Leader and should be read. This piece was written to explain the impact of the DC 37 proposal on UFT members and other city workers.)

Lost in a Sea of Charters

by Norman Scott

In a massive school system with about 1400 schools, not one single school is run by teachers. Some might dispute that, pointing to the UFT-run charter schools. In actuality, UFT bureaucrats run that school, not active teachers. To me a teacher-run school means a group of teachers get together to run a school, choosing the administration. This is the key point and is not part of the process at the UFT schools.

Ten years ago, I saw charter schools as an opportunity for teachers to run their own schools, hoping the UFT would take the lead by setting up an office of charter school support, where teachers could go for assistance. My experience with most school administrators from the school level on up was that they were a hindrance to education reform and that it was frustrated teachers, especially those fairly new to the system before they became cynical and jaded, who wanted to see changes. Thus, charter schools seemed a way for entrepreneurial teachers to begin to take control of schools.

All these dreams ended with the increasing implementation of high stakes testing, intensified by No Child Left Behind, that has distorted the education process to such an extent that any school started by teachers would be under the same pressures to teach to the test as all other schools or be branded a failure. (The most elite private schools in Manhattan, with extremely small class sizes and a lot of teacher input, just ignore NCLB).

The charter school movement now often seems like a wedge to undermine public schools in the mania to prove anything public is bad and privately run schools, even those for profit, somehow justifies capitalism. The BloomKlein mania for charter schools is noteworthy in that they run the public school system but promote charters as alternatives to the very system they run even though charters drain funds away from public schools since money is funneled to schools based on the number of pupils.

But if one views BloomKlein cheerleading for charters (even going so far as to toss out a school at the Tweed Courthouse DOE HQ in favor of the Ross Charter School) through the prism of anti-unionism, it all becomes understandable. Charters are not required to be run by union rules. Recently a teacher at a charter was fired for merely bringing in a salary chart that demonstrated just how the teachers were being exploited. Joel Klein has often pointed to the UFT contract as the obstacle to fixing what’s wrong with the public schools. Even now with a gutted contract, Klein still rants on. When the time comes (sooner rather than later) that the UFT sells so much of the contract that it will be boiled down to merely a salary chart, Klein will still be blaming his inability to reform the system on the contract. Klein’s goal is to establish 1400 privately run charters, kick back, relax and claim victory – victory over the union that will leave the UFT as a head without a body.

Klein has maintained that charter schools and the small public schools being set up by the DOE do not engage in creaming – choosing less difficult students to ensure a higher rate of success. Many of us suspect that this is not true but have a hard time getting a handle on how lotteries and other means of choosing students can be distorted.

So, we turned to our old friend George Schmidt in Chicago, where the school system went through a mayoral takeover many years before we did and has faced many of the same issues. George has been the editor of the alternative newspaper Substance (www.substancenews.com) for almost 30 years. (I modeled my newspaper Education Notes on the work George has done.) George wrote in an email:

Any charter school study that compares a charter school with local non-magnet elementary or high schools is biased and statistically invalid. Chicago pioneered this form of dishonesty.

Charter schools require conditions that do not apply to neighborhood public schools.

1. Charter schools require that children apply for admission. The most at risk children come from families that can barely get the information together to prove the child lives in the public school attendance area.

2. Charter schools require that students and families sign performance agreements that result in "voluntary removal" if the child or family fails to comply. Depending upon the charter school, the compliance can even include Saturday classes (for the children) and mandatory "parenting" sessions (for the family).

3. Charter schools exclude the most severely disabled children and families, either by having inaccessible facilities or by telling the families they don't have the staff to provide the services.

The first and pioneering dishonesty in these reports was compiled by Greg Richmond about seven years ago, on orders from the Chicago Tribune. Since that "report," Richmond has moved on from his job as Chief of charter schools at the Chicago Board of Education to the national charter school bureaucracy (he is currently head of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers; he was recently featured in a news story on New Orleans). Richmond's study claimed that the charters surpassed neighborhood schools, but left out the conditions I cite above. On several occasions, Richmond simply ignored FOIA requests for the data underlying the claims made in his "study." To date (more than four years after the original FOIA request), the Chicago Board of Education still refuses to make available any data used as the basis for the Richmond report. That report, like "A Nation at Risk" and similar stuff, has since taken on a life of its own, thanks mainly to the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, which simply asserts its conclusions now, as "research based."

If comparisons between charters and public schools are going to be made, at least in Chicago, the comparisons have to be between Chicago charters and Chicago magnet schools.

A study that used this standard of comparison would show Chicago charters are performing less well than Chicago public schools.

But that's not a study that will be done in Chicago, because the party line here is that charters are good and publics are bad.

One thing I've just begun looking into is the really primitive level of discrimination against children (and families) with disabilities here in Chicago, especially those with the most severe disabilities. Most Chicago charter school buildings are inaccessible to many disabled (e.g., wheelchairs). This is the result of the charter schools being an indirect subsidy to the Catholic schools. When inner city Catholic schools have been closed in Chicago, they are rented (by the public school budget) for charter schools. But the Catholic schools we're talking about were never brought into compliance with accessibility regulations, and the Chicago Board of Education is not trying to force its growing number of charter schools into compliance. This alone is a major scandal, but also reveals, among other data, how the charters cherry pick students to provide the "results" they want.

And even with all the cherry picking, they are not doing very well in Chicago when compared honestly with those public schools where comparisons can be made.

Welcome Chapter Leaders

(The following leaflet, written by Norm Scott and edited by Vera Pavone, was distributed to chapter leaders at the reception the UFT held for them on July 13.)

Congratulations on your election as chapter leader. Being a Chapter Leader is often a thankless job but one that is crucial to our Union.

We are the Independent Community of Educators (ICE) a group of rank and file UFT members, including chapter leaders, delegates and members of the UFT Executive Board. Before joining ICE most of us were independents, not affiliated with other internal Union groups.

Our History

ICE was organized late in 2003 as an attempt to present an alternative platform to that of Unity Caucus, Randi Weingarten’s political party, which has dominated our Union as a 1-party system since the early 60’s. New Action, which had been leading the opposition for many years, made an alliance with the Unity Caucus leadership, culminating in a deal to not run a candidate against Randi Weingarten in the 2004 elections. NA leaders argued that at a time of crisis we should unite behind our union leaders. We did not agree, feeling that our union leaders had played a major role in bringing about this crisis as they eagerly endorsed mayoral control and were initially enthusiastic supporters of Joel Klein’s Children First initiatives, in essence giving the DOE and its corporate media and foundation supporters ample room to consolidate and broaden their attacks on the union and the contract. Their policies quickly resulted in the usurpation of the rights of teachers to make basic educational decisions.

It seemed clear to us that the UFT leadership’s prime interest was to keep themselves in power in order to maintain their perks (large salaries and out of classroom jobs) and they would only pay attention to the interests of union members when their own interests were threatened. There was a stronger need than ever to work towards the creation of a force for change in the UFT.

The 2004 elections gave us an opportunity to raise numerous issues by challenging the Unity Caucus leadership. Due to the fundamentally undemocratic structure of our union, it would take a lot more than a citywide election to threaten the monopoly power that Unity Caucus exerts over our union. However, in cooperation with Teachers for a Just Contract, which had been an alternative group in the UFT challenging Unity Caucus for 10 years, we won six high school Executive Board seats. Unity still had an 83-6 majority on the Executive Board in addition to holding all other city-wide offices.

The Contract of 2006

The contract negotiated by the UFT and the DOE last fall confirmed our initial analysis that the UFT leadership would use givebacks of time and contractual protections in exchange for what they would call “raises.” But we don’t have to tell you that. You live that contract and breathe it every day. During the ratification process, the leadership used the same “we’re in a crisis” claim as an excuse for what they admitted was a bad contract, saying it was the best they could do. It’s clear to us that the already bad 2002 contract had more protections than the new one.

It’s not hard to get money when you are willing to sell off chunks of the contract. What next? Selling even more of the few protections left to teachers? Is it worth the money to the people who have been U-rated? Or to the senior teachers who have been hounded out of the system? Or to the helpless people packing rubber rooms who aren’t informed of the charges against them while investigators go on fishing expeditions to extract information against them?

Even worse, many Chapter Leaders are under attack as part of the DOE strategy of destroying the union from below. We have seen the growing harassment of chapter leaders through the use of U ratings, with all too many being sent to the rubber room for minor or manufactured issues. Our union leaders have been standing by allowing it all to happen despite our calls for them to add protections for chapter leaders.

U ratings used to be the culmination of a process set up to deal with teachers who were demonstrably unable to perform their jobs. Our latest contract has made it easy for all-too-many incompetent supervisors to dole out U ratings to teachers who they don’t like or who have a critical attitude to the latest educational fad foisted on them. We have seen an exponential leap in U ratings. The job of Chapter Leader will be harder than ever.

If you are a new chapter leader, you will be courted by Unity through training, meetings, promises of career opportunities and other perks. We urge you to maintain your independence because membership in Unity comes with a price. Unity members must sign an extensive obligation statement. They must “support the decisions of the caucus and the Union leadership elected from the caucus in public or Union forums” even if these are in opposition to the wishes or best interests of their chapter members.

The Unity Caucus loyalty oath and patronage system have hurt our union because Unity members, who want to be part of the spoils machine that offers free trips to conventions and full and part-time Union jobs with six figure salaries and double pensions, must owe greater allegiance to the Caucus than to the members in the schools who elected them. The result is cynicism in schools when the program of the leadership is pushed down members’ throats.

The UFT belongs to rank and file educators, not the leadership. Change needs to come from the schools and independent chapter leaders will be key to this process. Only by building a progressive alternative to Unity Caucus can we hope to strengthen and unite members in a fight back against a concerted effort to destroy both our union and public education. We look forward to working with you.

It’s the New Contract Stupid: “Insider” Hints at Reason For Increased “U” Ratings

While the numbers are not officially in, it is abundantly clear that the number of “U” ratings has substantially increased. Reports from schools around the City indicate that large numbers of senior and beginning teachers are being targeted for discipline. A person close to the Office of Appeals and Review (the office handling appeals of U-ratings) has confirmed this trend and stated that the number of U-ratings appears to be the highest in recent memory.

We all know how this trend started. It is no secret that as part of the changes in our contract the principals received an increase in the ability to select and remove their staff. We can no longer grieve letters to the file which, in the past, could tie up a U-rating for years and subject negative letters to arbitrators who might destroy the underpinnings of the unsatisfactory evaluation in their award.

Principals who, in the past, might have been reluctant to write letters to the file now order their Assistant Principals to write observations that can only be challenged at an appeal before a Chancellor’s representative, not an independent hearing officer.

No one could seriously argue that there are no unsatisfactory teachers in our system. The issue becomes, as we have said since the new contract was proposed, who decides. When a principal decides to target a teacher our new procedure makes it extremely difficult to prevent disciplinary action and eventual dismissal.

With this increase in U-ratings where does our Union stand?

I have received a large number of emails and telephone calls from recently U-rated teachers. By and large the Union’s advice to these teachers is, “Don’t worry; we’ll take care of it.”

Amazingly this advice is also given to probationers (many Teaching Fellows) who are dismissed after receiving U-ratings. Waiting can only deprive you of your day in court as the statute of limitations to challenge a dismissal in court is only 120 days after notice that you have been dismissed. You are still entitled to a U-rating appeal but winning the appeal will not get you your job back.

Is there an effective strategy to combat negative observation reports? Can you tape your own observed lesson? Can your performance be assessed by a qualified supervisor?

I hope our Union can answer these questions and provide the kind of guidance and advocacy we need. We should demand no less.

ICE to Exec Board: Show Us That You Are True Union; Don't Take the Pay Raise!

The UFT Executive Board with only two dissenters and one abstention, voted on June 19 to give UFT officers and staff the full 15% increase that ICE said they would do months ago. Many of these people already earn six figure salaries and have a Union as well as Department of Education pension.

What is the giveback that the UFT agreed to for themselves in order to justify 15%? The UFT offices will remain open one extra hour per week. ICE asks is this the equivalent of the givebacks people in the schools have had to endure under the current contract? These givebacks include working an extra tutoring period four days a week for small group instruction in most schools, hall patrols, cafeteria duty, loss of two vacation days (three in Brooklyn and Queens) resulting in the longest school year in the New York Metropolitan area, loss of ability to grieve letters in our files, restricted transfer rights, weaker tenure protections and more.

What follows is a speech that James Eterno (High School Representative and Chapter Leader for Jamaica High School) gave in opposition to the pay raises at the Executive Board.

UFT officers, Borough Representatives, District Reps, Special Reps and the staff work extremely hard; some are on call 24/7. People who work diligently should be rewarded. That’s not the issue.

The issue was framed wonderfully by President Weingarten when she was quoted in the June 16 Chief Leader talking about the unions working together. Randi told the Chief: “Given globalization and Wal-Martization and this assault on working and middle-class people, it makes a lot of sense to band together.” I agree. However, before we can create a powerful coalition of unions ready for a real fight against the city, we have to unite ourselves. If this resolution passes tonight, we will do the opposite.

If there is a full 15% increase for UFT officers and staff (5.5% in December and now the remainder tonight), as soon as someone gets home this information will be out on the net and it will be in many of the schools by tomorrow. Everyone will know and the cynics will be saying, same old UFT, givebacks for the members and salary increases for the leadership with a nominal change in their conditions.

Opening up the UFT offices once a week for an extra hour is a worthwhile endeavor, but does anyone honestly believe that it is the equivalent of what people in the schools are going through under this current contract? We’re under siege in many schools.

I recently spoke to a friend from a high school in Brooklyn who is teaching his five classes; then he was assigned small group instruction for a professional assignment and then he has small group instruction again at the end of the day and yes since he is a math teacher, his students showed up. There are similar stories of teachers and other UFT members being overworked all over the city. Many members don’t want to assert their union rights because they fear retaliation.

In the schools, we are sacrificing every day. The Union leadership could take a big step in reforming this union if tonight, this body agrees to forgo the rest of the pay raise and put that money where it’s badly needed, defending our members directly.

I would favor taking that raise money and using it to hire some paralegals, and investigators and then send them to NYSUT to do our own investigations and research as Jeff Kaufman is calling for in a resolution to be introduced later. (Unity would not agree to hire the full investigation teams that Jeff called for as they watered down his proposal at the end of the meeting so that members who are reassigned will merely receive information about their rights.)

That’s one idea. If someone has a better idea on how to use this money, I’m all ears. The bottom line is if we are truly interested in uniting this Union for a no contract=no work battle in 2007, this Executive Board should lead by example by putting short term self interest aside for the benefit of the UFT’s future and the future of the union movement. Say no to rest of the raise and yes to real change.

La Cirque de UFT

by Norman Scott

The ink wasn’t even dry on the announcement that ICE and TJC were going to run a joint slate (headed by Kit Wainer of Goldstein HS) to oppose the UFT leadership before the Unity Caucus machine was on the attack: “What a perfect couple! They (ICE & TJC) share exactly the same solitary interest – and it’s nothing so messy as say, standing up for the UFT members’ rights, and improving working conditions. Nor is it as complicated as getting class sizes reduced, securing tougher discipline measures or protecting UFT members’ healthcare benefits and hard-earned pensions.”

Let’s see now, ICE and TJC are being attacked by the very union leaders who have allowed members’ rights to erode to the point where there is barely a grievance procedure (see last contract negotiated by Unity) and members are under attack every day from vicious supervisors. Just ask the hundreds of people bursting against the walls of the rubber rooms who are not told why they are there and assumed guilty until proven innocent just how their “rights” are being protected.

Can Unity come up with even ONE working condition they have improved, say, in the last 10 years? Oh yes – the open market plan where a teacher with 30 years seniority can end up being a day-to-day sub is being marketed by Unity as an improvement. Don’t be surprised to see the leadership try to sell the 2 days before the Labor Day weekend as an improvement in working conditions. Just think – going to work before the weekend will enable you to appreciate the holiday in a more meaningful way.

Has anyone noticed any reduction in class size recently as opposed to talking about it? (In Unity parlance, public relations substitutes for real results.) Their continued refusal to put class size on the negotiating table, which they wee willing to do 35 years ago and actually won the only major protections still operating in the contract, sends a message that PR gimmicks are the priority.

As to their securing tougher discipline – excuse me, I am so shaking with laughter at this one that I can’t continue writing.

Sorry, let’s continue.

Protection of health care? When a resolution was proposed calling for no givebacks on health care in the next contract, Unity overwhelmingly TURNED IT DOWN! As for protection of pensions, these are people who meekly accepted a 4-tier pension system (with more tiers most likely to come.)

When Kit Wainer spoke on the “No Giveback” resolution he said it was clear that Bloomberg would not ask for more time but focus on pension erosion Weingarten snidely asked “How do you know what Bloomberg will ask for?” I guess Kit has a special pipeline. The NY Times reported on June 6, “The Bloomberg administration proposed yesterday that newly hired workers belonging to the largest municipal union accept substantially smaller pensions, a move that the city hopes will set a money-saving pattern for every municipal union.” How fast can you say “Tier 5?”

The Unity leaflet went on to say: “Instead [of doing all the wonderful things Unity does for its members] this lovely twosome can now pursue a single goal together: toppling our union’s leadership and grabbing all the power for themselves.”

At this point, I am kicking and screaming with pain from laughing so hard. Yes, ve vant all de power for ourselves. (ICE and TJC members are required to repeat this over and over this in their best Bella Lugosi voices.) Now, remind me which caucus has ALL THE POWER FOR THEMSELVES and whose prime directive over all else is to maintain the status quo?

Take the current elections for the retired teacher chapter where the Retiree Advocate Caucus is running against Unity, which sends its leaders all over the country on junkets to cater to the retired members, something the opposition never gets to do. No matter how many votes the RA get, Unity gets all 300 delegates to the DA instead of apportioning the number of delegates based on the percentage of votes. Even an 80-20 pro-Unity split would give Unity 270 and the RA 30 delegates, a drop in the bucket. But Unity won’t even allow that much of a dent that leads to the DA voting 80% in favor of the leadership, a number way out of kilter to their support in the schools. (In the interests of full disclosure, I am running as one of the RA delegates and my chances are – well you know all about that well-known snowball.)

Unity has used the retiree chapter and other power grabbing manipulations of the constitution (Divisional VP’s elected at-large by everyone including retirees after changing the rules when the first opposition person was elected to the Adcom in history back in the late 80’s.)

ALL THE POWER indeed!

Notice there’s no mention in the Unity diatribe of one key word – democracy. This is certainly something that the UFT/Unity leadership considers messy. When members of the opposition Unified Teachers Party attempted to present a resolution calling for the reinstatement of election of district representatives, which Weingarten eliminated years ago, they were ignored. No one knows better than those of us who have been active for years just how Unity has stacked the deck so they can keep ALL THE POWER FOR THEMSELVES. We enter the election campaign with no illusions of grabbing ALL THE POWER FOR OURSELVES.

If we accomplish nothing else, we will make sure as many people as we can reach will know exactly how Unity operates and come to an understanding that democracy in the UFT certainly is a mess.


(An excerpt from the above appeared in The Wave, www.rockawave.com, on June 2)

I will post the text of the Unity leaflet in its entirety in one of the comments so you too can laugh yourselves silly. Make some copies and share them with your colleagues (with the response above, of course.) After what Unity has allowed to happen to the schools, everyone needs a laugh.

If you are interested in supporting the ICE/TJC attempt to put a dent in the Unity monopoly, join the election campaign by running (we can run up to 800 candidates), distributing literature in your schools, sending a contribution or just plain talking to people.

To counter Unity spin every school in the city needs to be reached. One of Unity’s main efforts will be directed at new chapter leaders at the fall training where they get them for a few weekends of propaganda and food, a good combo. If you know new independent chapter leaders they should link up with others. UTP/ICE/TJC can act as a clearinghouse to get them together so they don't get swamped. Have them contact one of the groups beforehand. It would be great to have CL's there who can counter the spin.

Rubber Room Representation Still Unavailing After All These Years

If you can believe the rhetoric the UFT is finally taking seriously its duty to represent members who have been sent to the rubber room. A closer look shows we have a long way to go.

Everyone knows, either through personal experience or through the experience of colleagues of the dreaded “reassignment” to the rubber room. I first came into this system when a well respected and loved teacher was “removed” from Franklin K. Lane High School for an allegation made by a student. Of course, at the time, the teacher did not know anything official about the reassignment.

He was very concerned about his students and wanted to keep them on track toward passing the Global History regents so he called me incessantly to make sure that I was providing them with the best instruction I could. His dedication was incredible.

We also spoke, after a while (he was in the rubber room almost a year) about his experience in purgatory. I couldn’t believe it. He was offered the standard UFT advice….”Don’t worry, you are being paid. Most of all do not speak to anyone about this.”

I asked him how he was going to prepare for his 3020a hearing and he told me that when he was served with charges a NYSUT lawyer would contact him. I advised him that no one waits months (or even years) to investigate a case unless they are in denial or they want to be certain that they are dismissed.

This was almost 10 years ago. After a recent stint in the rubber room I realize not only has nothing fundamentally changed in the way the Union deals with our reassigned members, things are getting worse since the number of reassignments have markedly increased.

How do we currently represent reassigned members?

Chapter Leaders and District Reps generally do not deal with reassigned members issues. This might actually be a good thing since the Union makes no effort to train line leaders on how to handle any of the issues that result in reassignment or charges being drawn. This leaves the member with basically no representation when he or she is reassigned.

When I was in the rubber room last year a member told me “his story” about an allegedly forged medical note. It appeared that after the teacher spoke up about the number of special ed student in his class (he worked in District 75) he was injured by an autistic student. He went to the doctor, who according to the eventual allegations, filled out a note which the teacher changed. The teacher claimed that the note was changed by the doctor. The doctor divulged the teacher’s medical records to DOE investigators which indicated that the note had a different (later) date than the records.

I asked the teacher what contact he had with the doctor and he told me he was specifically told not to talk to him. Did the NYSUT attorney send an investigator or make any attempt to contact the doctor or in any way investigate the matter?

Recently, a NYSUT attorney amazingly told me that there are no investigators and that the attorneys are overwhelmed with cases to provide the defense that our members need.

This might explain why, at a recent 3020a hearing I attended I was not subpoenaed nor had contact with the NYSUT attorney until the night before my testimony.

The only way we, as a Union, tolerate this misrepresentation of our members is because we don’t really care about these members. Just remember, however, the next rubber room reassignment might be for you!

Without Adequate Representation You Will Lose Your U-Rating Appeal

To paraphrase Dostoevsky’s famous quote you can measure the effectiveness of a Union by how it treats its most troubled members. The U-rating is management’s most effective weapon, short of a full 3020-a hearing, in its arsenal against our members. A “U-rating” for non-tenured teachers is a career ending act. For tenured teachers it means the inability to move forward in salary and can become the basis of a 3020-a hearing and ultimately dismissal.

You would expect that as the number of U-ratings increase the Union would be providing competent and caring advocates to members given the severity of its implications. Not so.

At a U-rating hearing I recently attended at 65 Court Street the main issue was the teacher’s lateness and attendance record. The advocate advised the teacher that there was nothing that could be done as 30 absences and 15 latenesses were “clearly excessive.”

After I called the advocate he admitted that there was no specific standard for excessive absences or latenesses but that “teachers had been fired for less.”

I suggested that he obtain the records of the attendance and lateness records of the school and that when he did he would find that the U-rated teacher had a better record than many S-rated teachers in the school.

I advised the teacher to file Freedom of Information Law requests for these records. She instead wrote directly to the Chancellor.

Virginia Caputo, the head of the hearing officers wrote back stating that the records were considered confidential and would not be made available to the teacher thus confirming the advocate’s statement that there was no way to defend this appeal.

Rather than take Caputo’s letter as clear evidence of lack of due process in the hearing the advocate is content to sit there and collect whatever small sum our dues pay him for showing up.

We need aggressive advocates who don’t wait until the night before the hearing to contact our members.  We need aggressive advocates who don’t accept the DOE line that these hearings are indefensible and instead use their imagination to make records for appeal to Court or the State Commissioner.

Insist on fair representation. It is your right!

RANDI AND JOEL'S DOG AND PONY SHOW:

Taylorism Comes to the NYC Public Schools, with the Union's Blessing

by Michael Fiorillo, Delegate, Newcomers' High School

In a new low for the UFT leadership, President Randi Weingarten gave her tacit endorsement to the DOE's upcoming reorganization and accountability - read productivity harassment - program by giving over one quarter of the May 17th Delegate Assembly to a sales pitch by two DOE officials.

On Wall St., a traveling sales presentation is known as a "dog and pony show." That's what UFT chapter leaders and delegates were subjected to at our own union meeting, in which the leadership provided a forum for management to sell a "new" program that calls for testing students every six to eight weeks and holding the teachers and schools responsible for the results.

The opening presentation was giving by James Leibman, the chief accountability officer for the DOE, in which he went to great lengths to persuade those present that management's new organizational structure was "not a business," would "empower" teachers, and would provide equity to disadvantaged students. He opened by saying that he has children in the public schools, which made him a good front man for a regime that has shown nothing but contempt for students, parents and teachers, and which is moving ahead quickly, albeit stealthily, to privatize the system. Manipulating a close vote as to whether Leibman and Eric Nadelstern, who made a pitch for the new "autonomy zones", should be directly questioned by the members, Weingarten succeeded in having a large portion of the union meeting hijacked by management.

Stripped of its comforting tone, cliches and buzzwords, the new program is the application of what are known as Taylorist - not to be confused with the NY State public employee labor laws of the same name - principles of mass production.

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) was an engineer known for developing the principles of "scientific management." Trained as an engineer who then apprenticed as a machinist, Taylor sought to have management gain full control of what was essentially still the worker-controlled craft of skilled machine and metalwork. Using time and motion studies, he would break down every job into its minutest components, seeking the greatest efficiency and the removal of worker control over the job. These influential studies became the basic template for all production, initially in manufacturing and later extended elsewhere. Embraced by capitalist and Communist overseers - Lenin was a big fan of Taylor - they are now on the verge of reaching the classroom door, and apparently our dues money is speeding up the process.

Taylor proposed five principles of Scientific Management (thanks to Wikipedia for the following):

1. Each part of every task should be broken down and studied and one best way of performing it developed.

2. Choose the best person for doing the job.

3. Train, teach and develop the worker.

4. Give financial incentives for following the methods (and, presumably, deterrents for resisting them).

5. Divide work and responsibility so that managers are responsible for planning the work methods and workers are responsible for implementing them.

Does it sound familiar?

The question is not why the DOE is seeking to implement these methods. After all, they are management, and they cannot help themselves: it simultaneously corresponds to their worldview and extends their authority. The question is why a trade union leadership would provide a forum for legitimizing this among its members. Randi naturally said that she was merely providing this for the purposes of informing the membership, but that was an insult to our intelligence. By giving management an opportunity to sell its latest offensive against teachers, she gave it her unspoken endorsement.

Mr. Leibman of the DOE asked for our collaboration in this process, and Randi apparently is to be his chief collaborator. It leads to the question: which side is she on?

ICE SADLY WAS DEAD RIGHT ON NEXT YEAR'S INTERMINABLE SCHOOL YEAR

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

The 2006-07 school calendar has been released (see below) and it is not good news for UFT members. As ICE predicted several months ago on this blog, we will be working a week longer next year as compared to this year. Some UFT members in non extended time schools will be working 192 days next year. The rest of us will be working 190 days. This year we are working 185. Thanks to our Unity Negotiating Committee NYC educators will have the longest school year of any district from Montauk to Manhattan that we know of. We are not aware of any other school system where teachers start on the last day in August and then don't finish until June 27.

Our extra long year is caused by the fact that we don't have a fixed number of days in our school calendar like most districts have (For example, Farmingdale: 183 days per year and Copiague: 183 days per year). Therefore, since some of the holidays fall on weekends in 2006-07, and we added two extra days in the new contract (three for members in Brooklyn and Queens), we are forced to work an unending 190 day year. Anyone who thinks that our students will learn more just because they are attending school for an extra week knows nothing about the law of diminishing returns.

While our year is longer, our pay is still among the lowest in the region and our teaching and learning conditions in terms of class size, school safety, access to up to date supplies and books, etc. will still be the worst in the area. But the UFT won't accept more work time. Thanks a lot! In the next contract we can be grateful that we still have July 4 off.


2006

August 28, Monday The following staff report: Assistant principals and school-based intermediate supervisors not designated to work an increased work year, and staff returning to former Extended Time Schools.

August 31, Thursday Classroom Teachers, Bilingual Teachers in School and Community Relations, Guidance Counselors, Attendance Teachers, Nurses, Therapists, Laboratory Specialists and Technicians, Educational Paraprofessionals and staff new to former Extended Time Schools (except for School Secretaries, Psychologists and Social Workers) report for a Professional Day -General staff orientation. School Secretaries, Psychologists and Social Workers report for a regular work day. Employees in titles not listed should consult the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Students will not be in attention.

September 1, Friday Chancellor's Conference Day for staff development (regular work day for School Secretaries, psychologists and Social Workers).Students will not be in attendance.

September 4, Monday Labor Day.

September 5, Tuesday SCHOOL SESSIONS BEGIN FOR ALL STUDENTS.* EARLY DISMISSAL FOR NONDISTRICT 75 KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS ONLY.

September 6, Wednesday Early Dismissal for Kindergarten Students Only.

October 2, Monday Yom Kippur

October 9, Monday Columbus Day Observed

November 7, Tuesday Election Day Chancellor's Conference Day for staff development. Students will not be in attention.

November 23, Thursday and November 24, Friday Thanksgiving Recess

December 25, Monday through and including January 1, Monday

Winter Recess (including Christmas and New Year's Day), students return to school on Tuesday, January 2 2007

2007

January 15, Monday Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

January 31, Wednesday Fall Term ends for HIGH school students. HIGH school students will not be in attendance. All other students will be in attendance.

February 1, Thursday Spring Term begins for HIGH school students.

February 19, Monday through February 23, Friday Midwinter Recess (including Washington's Birthday)

April 2, Monday through Tuesday April 10,Spring Recess (including Good Friday, Easter and Passover), students return to school on Wednesday April 11.

May 28, Monday Memorial Day Observed

June 7, Thursday Chancellor's Conference Day for staff development IN ALL FIVE BOROUGHS. School staff report to work if required by their collective bargaining agreement. Students IN ALL FIVE BOROUGHS will NOT be in attendance.

June 27, Wednesday LAST DAY FOR ALL STUDENTS. Last day for all Classroom Teachers, Bilingual Teachers in School and Community Relations, Attendance Teachers, Nurses, Therapists, Laboratory Specialists and Technicians and last day for Paraprofessionals. An early dismissal of students is to be scheduled under the guidelines outlined in Sections 8 and 9 below.

June 28, Thursday and June 29, Friday All other staff report except Classroom Teachers, Bilingual Teachers in School and Community Relations, Attendance Teachers, Nurses, Therapists, Laboratory Specialists and Technicians, and Paraprofessionals.

Open Market Transfer Plan Shows Trap for the Unwary

Billed by the Union as the best thing since sliced bread the "Open Market Transfer Plan" has already shown some of its most basic flaws. Remember this supposed "win" from our wonderful contract. Teachers and other staff would not be limited by caps, anyone could transfer anywhere and the world would become a safer place. Yeah, right!

When you go through the sign up procedure and find a school that is listed that you are interested in all you do is click here and acknowledge there a voila you are in the running for a transfer. But not so quick. Just what is sent to your prospective principal? This question was not asked in the Union's recent Q&A.

As it turns out, not much. Name, rank and serial number information is transmitted. What does that tell a prospective employer? Unless he or she is desperate the inbox with your application will be deleted. There is nothing to base a hiring decision, positive or negative, in what is sent to the school. Perhaps a prospective principal, if she is so inclined, can weed through your online personnel records for pedegree information and basic info but would you want to work in a school where the hiring decision was based on such meager information?

In order to have a chance to tranfer at all you must send a copy of your resume to the principal by U.S. Mail and indicate that you have applied on the online system. This was the advice of Vanvette Heath a DOE problem solver for the new system.

Click and forget at your own peril, although it is hard for us to believe that this system has any chance of success, anyway.

UFT Members Beware!

Hell Must Have Frozen Over;

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica HS; Executive Board Member, HS Rep.

UFT Won't Accept More Extended Time in Next Contract but All Other Givebacks will be Considered

A little over a year ago when Teachers for a Just Contract and ICE wanted the UFT leadership to hold the line and demand that all offers to add time to the school day or year should be rejected by the Union, the UFT leadership blasted us. Unity Caucus at the time put out literature entitled "Hell Will Sooner Freeze Over" saying that the UFT delegates have no right to tie the hands of the Negotiating Committee. Unity stated in their December 2004 leaflet: "Placing prior constraints on the negotiating committee is a blatant attempt to usurp the rights of UFT members to make the ultimate decision on what they will or won't accept in contracts."

Fast forward a little over a year and now the leadership has completely reversed its position as they recently passed a resolution at the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly that says the UFT will not accept any offer in the next contract that adds extra time to the school day or year. The leadership has adopted the TJC-ICE position that extending the school day or year should be non-negotiable issues, but it's a little late, isn't it? A year ago hell would have to freeze over before there could be prior constraints on the negotiating committee but now it's ok to tie its hands when it comes to time. Forgive us for being a tad cynical.

A quick look back at the 2002 Fact Finding Report that led to the first extension of the school day shows that the UFT implicitly put extending the school day on the bargaining table, not the city. Part of the Report says, "While no proposal was made by the UFT, its arguments seem designed to invite the panel to recommend that any above the pattern increases be funded through extending the work day for teachers."

It's all good and well that the UFT leaders have come around to our position on extended time, however when our friends at TJC recently proposed that the UFT reject any and all givebacks in the next round of negotiations, the UFT leadership said NO. It's clear to many of us that the Union knows that the membership is disgusted with the longer day and longer year and so they will not make additional work time an issue in the 2007 negotiations, but all other givebacks will be considered by the UFT.

We believe that we will probably be asked to pay for part of our health care like the transit workers. We also feel that there will be more of these merit pay schemes such as Lead Teacher on the table and look out for more housing bonus plans for certain people to divide us next year. We might be asked to give up even more of our due process rights; maybe there will be a Tier V pension for new hires and who knows what else we will be asked to give back, but the leadership will come back and try to sell the contract by bragging how we don't have an even longer day or a 12 month school year.

Everyone out there should not worry about further extensions of the school day or year. Instead, start worrying about losing significant other parts of the contract.

Negotiating Secrecy

I don’t know about you but I take signed pledges seriously. When we agreed to become part of the mammoth negotiating committee we wondered how negotiating strategy was going to be discussed in such a large forum….we wondered how a discussion could take place without “tipping” our hand.

Then, our concerns were answered at our first meeting. Randi stood in front of the throng and told us that this negotiating committee business was serious…so serious, in fact, that we were all required to sign secrecy oaths. On a form prepared, according to Randi by looking at other models of large negotiating committees’ experiences, we were to promise not to reveal any of the “goings on” of the committee to insure that everyone can speak with candor and our strategies would not be revealed. Also we would speak with one voice so as not to give the impression that there was dissension in the ranks.

Several of us wondered how this agreement could be actually work in practice and we got our first taste at the Executive Board meeting held on April 10th. As we jealously guarded our pledge, there in the Executive Board session (open to any UFT member) a long and proud member of the Unity caucus spilled the beans. She went into detail about the meeting in a way that clearly broke her pledge (if in fact she signed it).

We were amused. This demonstrates at least how one person viewed the pledge but we vowed to keep our secrets.

Then comes the New York Teacher. On page 3 of the April 13th edition is not only a description of the negotiating committee meeting but a “blow-by-blow” account with pictures. How did a reporter get into the room of committee members who were sworn to secrecy?

While such hypocrisy is not surprising in our experience with our Union never in our collective memories has it been thrown in our face after taking a pledge.

We will still keep our pledge but we will still wonder.

Emergency Executive Board Report:

Contract Modified to Eliminate Extended Time Schools and Provide $5,000.00 Sign-up Housing Bonuses for New Math, Science and Special Ed Teachers

Though you will not see it prominently displayed at uft.org or in your next New York Teacher the UFT Executive Board, with little notice, last Wednesday, approved a modification to our contract which will sound the death knell to the Extended Time Schools and provide union approval to a $5,000 sign-up bonus scheme to attract math, science and special ed teachers.

Extended Time Schools were created to provide additional compensation to teachers and staff that agreed to work in mostly failing schools and agreed to work additional time. They were generally paid 15% more for 5 additional days before school began and professional development.

With the new contract and everyone working longer hours the difference between ETS and other schools was not that great and the salary reflected it.

Under the provisions of the new modification the UFT agrees that ETS gets phased out and then eliminated by July 1, 2007. In exchange a new housing incentive program for new math, science and special ed teachers will be made available.

If you have worked for the DOE in the last 2 years you are not eligible for the $5,000.00 bonus.

The modification demonstrates that we are further along a significant shift in negotiation strategy. We are no longer treating salaries for teachers equally. Starting with the lead teacher position this incentive continues our acceptance that all teachers are not equal…or some are more equal than others.

The leadership rammed this modification through the Board citing that “time was of the essence.” Our attempt to delay voting until a more thorough examination can be made of the modification was defeated.

What’s next is unclear but paying our members differently has been a clear goal of Klein and Bloomberg. That alone should give us some hint as to where we are headed.

Chapter Elections Are Coming!

It was recently announced at Monday's Executive Board meeting that Chapter Leader and Delegate elections will be held shortly. Packets will be mailed to Chapter Leaders on April 24th.

Every chapter will hold elections no matter how long the present chapter leader has been in office. Chapters must set up election committees and post specific times for nominations and one day for the election.

We have posted the Union's own guide to running the election at http://www.ice-uft.org/howtorunachapterelection.pdf Make certain your chapter follows these rules to the letter. Any irregularities should be reported at once to JeffKaufman@earthlink.net.

Register your vote against givebacks and a leadership that is out of touch with our membership. Run for Chapter positions!

Did your Chapter Leader and Delegate(s) sign a Loyalty Oath to Support Randi Weingarten’s Policies even if they hurt your school?

Many NYC educators are wondering why the leadership of our Union, the United Federation of Teachers, does not represent the views of their school. The reason is that many chapter leaders and delegates are members of Unity Caucus, an invitation only political party that has run the UFT since the 1960s. Unity members must sign an obligation statement. One of their obligations is to “support the decisions of the caucus and the Union leadership elected from the caucus in public or Union forums.”

Former AFT President David Seldon stated in his book, The Teacher Rebellion, “…unions can become political machines, and that is what happened to the UFT.” He added, “[Unity] is a closed caucus; one must be voted in. Its decisions must be followed in every detail” (p. 156- 157).

ICE believes the Unity Caucus loyalty oath and patronage system have hurt our union because Unity chapter leaders and delegates are devoted to Unity and not the members in the schools who elected them. This leads to cynicism in schools as member wishes are routinely ignored. Unity chapter leaders must stay loyal to Randi/Unity if they want to be part of the spoils machine that offers free trips to conventions, part time Union jobs after school and full time Union jobs with six figure salaries and double pensions.

How can we have a Union that will represent its members?

The UFT belongs to rank and file educators, not the Union’s leadership. Change needs to come from the schools. Step 1 to taking back our Union: elect more independent people to chapter leader and delegate positions this May and June in Chapter Elections.

If additional independents were in office last year, the fiasco that was the contract vote might have been avoided. If there were a greater number of autonomous chapter leaders and delegates, they would have stood up to UFT leaders at the Delegate Assembly (the union’s highest policy making body) and in schools when the leadership touted the giveback laden contract (longer day, longer year, loss of ability to grieve file letters, hall patrol, loss of seniority and SBO transfers, etc…). Unity people were forced to obey and dutifully sold the horrific contract.

You can help by electing chapter representatives who are independent!

• Independents need to seek chapter leader and delegate positions in schools. This is a difficult task but ICE will help with campaigning. We’re an open group.

• If you are unable to run for union office, then please question candidates and volunteer to serve on chapter election committees to ensure fair chapter elections.

• Elect chapter leaders and delegates who will represent your school, not Randi’s Unity political machine. Make sure your chapter is a Non Unity school.

Know Your Rights: Principals Beginning to Seek Confirmation of Sick Notes Violates Federal Law

It has happened to us all…You get a bad flu or some other illness that requires that you call in sick. Being extra careful you visit your doctor, receive treatment and obtain a medical excuse note that you promptly give to your payroll secretary when you return.

The days come out of your Cumulative Absence Reserve (CAR) and that’s the end of it. Right?

A disturbing trend has begun to emerge. Principals and other supervisors are verifying the “doctor notes” and in some cases bringing our members up on charges for providing what they believe are false or tampered doctor’s notes.

One case in point. A teacher, from District 75, after 10 years of unblemished and exemplary teaching began to have some “disagreements” with her principal. One day, one of her students struck her causing injury to her hand. While the principal balked at first, the injury in the line of duty forms were completed and the teacher went to her doctor for treatment.

The doctor examined the teacher and determined that three days were needed for recuperation which placed her back at work on a Friday. The teacher asked the doctor for one more day and he consented and adjusted the note accordingly.

When the teacher took the note back to school all seemed o.k. until, about two months later she was summoned into the principals office and questioned about who changed the doctor’s note. She vehemently denied having anything to do with the note and was then sent to the rubber room.

She languished in the rubber room for almost a year when she found out that her doctor had told investigators from special investigations that he had not made any changes to the note. Faced with this information and upon advice from her NYSUT lawyer the teacher agreed to leave her job and pay a $2500 fine. She was subsequently hired in another state.

When I first heard of this case I wondered how this could have happened under the HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996 or HIPAA, the federal law that, among other things, protects us from unauthorized disclosure of medical records.

Without a proper release or properly noticed subpoena it is a violation of this federal law for your doctor or health care provider to supply any record or confirm the existence of a medical record to the DOE. This includes visits, diagnosis, or any other medical information.

In the case above the DOE would probably not be in violation of HIPAA but the teacher’s doctor most assuredly would be. When you are treated by a health care provider and you do not wish the DOE to know anything more than the date you should return to school remind your health care provider of her responsibilities under HIPAA. If your principal asks for more information remind him of HIPAA and the laws against disability discrimination.

Do you Want to Keep the 37.5 Minute Small Group Instruction Sessions?

Randi reported at tonight's executive board that elementary school teachers are leaning toward wanting to keep the 37.5 minutes of extra time for the small group tutoring and they do not want to see it eliminated next school year. Is this true?

ICE would like to hear from members from all divisions (elementary, middle and high school) on how you would like the time used.
Please tell us the type of school you work at.

1. Would you prefer six hours and fifty minutes in an eight period day Monday through Friday with no 37.5 minute small group instruction sessions?

2. Would you rather have six hours, fifty seven and a half minutes Monday to Thursday spread into nine periods with the 37.5 minute small group instruction sessions and six hours and twenty minutes on Friday?

3. If you are in a seven period elementary school, would you prefer six hours, fifty-seven and a half minutes Monday to Thursday with the 37.5 minute small group instruction sessions and six hours-twenty minutes in a seven period day on Friday.

We would like to hear many comments so we know what to push for when we meet with the leadership.

Thanks.

The New Contract: One Month of Hell & Counting!!!

 
How much more can we take?
 
By Camille Johnson
Humanities and the Arts High School
 
Randi is not a real teacher, so she would not understand the enormous impact of what she gave away in our current contract. Because she accepted  an  extra 37 1/2 minutes small group instruction period and a plethora of other givebacks for mere pennies,  we are now suffering the ill effects of it in the classroom on a daily basis. 
 
In my single session high school, teachers are doing the mandated tutoring during period 1 which means that we start work at 8:05 A.M.

For the professional activity period, many teachers have still another small group instruction period. This then means that the teachers now have to teach their 5 regular periods per day  with up to 34 students in each class plus the mandated 37.5 minute period and the professional assignment, thus making it an interminable 7 period instructional day when it was five under the expired agreement.

To add insult to injury after teaching an arduous 7 periods, teachers still have to stay twice per month after school for an 8th assigned period in the form of Faculty and Departmental conferences.
 
The law of diminishing returns is totally in full effect, because there is no energy left for teachers to reflect on their practice or even to check homework, quizzes, projects or tests.  Consequently, a trailer-load of paper work lags behind which is a perfect recipe for hostility and burn out.  A hard working, conscientious teacher who cares deeply about students no longer has sufficient energy left nor the time to devote to do necessary outreach.
 
Therefore, there is less of an opportunity for teachers to conference with students, correspond with parents or to plan innovative and more creative lessons because we are simply over exhausted.  In addition, it will only get worse with the extended year as the 2006-07 school year will commence on the last day of August.

Randi Says We've Caught up to the Suburbs.

Is She Correct?

We Don't Think So!

By James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica H.S.; H.S. Rep, U.F.T. Exec. Board

In her "city schools" column in the February 16, 2006 NY Teacher, UFT President Randi Weingarten stated, "At this point - after decades of trailing behind - we are roughly comparable to the suburbs in both time and salaries." Randi says we've caught up to the suburbs thanks to the last two contracts she negotiated where we traded working extra time for money. Is Randi accurate in saying, "So we have caught up in salaries"? We don't believe she is but we could use your help to confirm.

New York City teachers will have a starting salary as of October of 2006 that will be $42,512 and the top salary after 22 years of teaching will be $93,416. Is that comparable to the suburbs? A quick look at the Contract from Copiague on Long Island shows that for the 2006-07 school year the starting salary will be $46,206 and maximum after fifteen years will be $100,598, $103,848 after 22 years and $109,848 after 26 years.

How many days does a teacher in Copiague have to work in a school year?

183!!

With the longer year in our new contract, NYC teachers will more than likely work over 190 days in 2006-07 when the calendar is finalized.

More than 190!!

In Copiague's neighbor Farmingdale where they are working under an expired contract, top salary last year was $104,148 and they also work 183 days. When they obtain a new contract, I'm confident that their salaries will go up and by next year Farmingdale should again be miles ahead of us. Granted, teachers in many surrounding districts need to obtain more credits to get to maximum than we do but they still make more than we do at virtually every level, particularly in the middle years (Copiague-MA+30, 15 years experience salary for 2006-07: $93,101; NYC-MA+30, 15 years experience salary for 2006-07: $79,763)

While we're comparing, Farmingdale teachers are entitled to 14 sick /personal business days per year and in Copiague they get 12.

Thanks to our Unity/UFT leadership's negotiating "skills", we still have a grand total 10 sick/personal days each year and we will almost certainly be working over 190 days next year compared to 183 in many suburbs. So we will be working almost two weeks longer for less money and fewer sick days but we have caught up to the suburbs. Only in Randi's world.

We compared ourselves with Copiague and Farmingdale because these are not wealthy areas. Copiague in particular is a town on Long Island that does not have a huge tax base.

What about other surrounding school districts? If anyone wants to show us the salaries, days of work and sick time for other suburban districts to show that Randi is right or wrong in claiming that we have caught up to the suburbs, please post the information in the comment section or email us at ICE.

Finally, we toil under the most abominable teaching and learning conditions in New York City (highest class sizes, most overcrowded schools, most unsafe and in many cases dilapidated buildings with the worst access to books and other materials) when placed side by side with the suburbs. Randi has done nothing to improve these conditions in the last two contracts. In what surrounding district do they have 34 students in a class like we do in NYC high schools?

None that we know.

Extra Time Hits Home; Register Your Experience

Reports are coming in from all over indicating that the extra time has been run rather poorly. We have reports that in some schools students didn’t show up while in others not enough supplies or materials were provided. We would like to get your experience, especially those of you in our leadership who are not in schools. How did you use your extra time?

But They Told Me That I Could Remove this 1962 Letter From My File!

Contract implementation woes continue as the DOE demonstrates that what appears teacher friendly in the contract is, in essence, an illusion. Remember when our trusted UFT Leaders told us how we “won” the right to have derogatory material removed from our personnel files that was over three years old?

Great win, right?

Wrong.

As appears in the following memo to principals by the DOE’s Labor Relations office these letters will not be destroyed but will be sent to another office. Isn’t it wonderful how great this new contract is at protecting our rights? Thanks, Randi.

Here is the text of the memo:

UFT Contract Implementation: Guidance on Material in File

As you are probably aware, the new collective bargaining agreement with the UFT has eliminated material in file grievances and gives educators represented by UFT the right to remove material in file after three years if they do not lead to further discipline. This provision takes effect immediately. If you receive a grievance challenging any material in file, e.g. an unsatisfactory observation or a disciplinary letter for attendance problems or misconduct, you should respond to the chapter leader that you will not hear the grievance, but the staff member may append a written response to the letter before it is placed in the personnel file. With a few exceptions, only material in file arbitrations scheduled for January will go forward and any material in file grievance currently at steps 1, 2 or 3 will be discontinued.

As a part of the agreement, any letter placed in a teacher’s or other UFT represented employee’s personnel file: 1) which is 3 years old or older and; 2) has not been used in a disciplinary proceeding (3020-a charges, discontinuances or U-ratings), shall be removed from the employee’s file. Three years is measured from the date the letter was placed in the employee’s file (which should be the date the employee signed the letter or administration indicated “refuse to sign”). Note, the rule regarding removing letters from the file after three years does not apply to non-UFT titles, such as school aides or family workers.

Teachers or other UFT represented employees who wish to have a letter removed from their file pursuant to the new agreement should follow the current procedures for viewing their personnel file by making an appointment with the principal or his/her designee when the principal or designee is available. The employee will be permitted to view his/her personnel file in the presence of the principal or designee. Employees may identify any letter that has been in their file for 3 years or longer (e.g. by marking it with a Post-it). The supervisor should remove the letter from the file if he or she knows that the letter has not resulted in further disciplinary action, such as 3020a charges, a discontinuance, an unsatisfactory rating, or a suspension and confirms that it is 3 years old or more. Copies should be made of all the documents to be removed and the employee should be given the originals. The records will be kept in a central repository and maintained under the control of the New York City Law Department (see instructions on shipping the letters to the repository below). They will be used solely in defense of the Department of Education or the City of New York in litigation or administrative actions and as otherwise required by law, and DOE supervisors will not have access to them. The records will be destroyed 6 years after an individual retires, resigns or terminates. If the records are accessed, the UFT will receive notice.

If the supervisor does not know whether the letter resulted in further disciplinary action (e.g. if a principal is new to the school), s/he should inquire of his/her regional counsel so this can be investigated.

Although material in file grievances have ended, principals should, as good management practice, continue to follow the guidelines in the Office of Labor Relations “Labor FAQs” for letter writing. For example, you should meet with the employee prior to writing a disciplinary letter or lesson observation to discuss the issues prior to coming to a conclusion. Please see this section of Labor FAQs on letter writing by clicking here.

For general inquiries contact Dan McCray (dmccray@nycboe.net) or David Brodsky (dbrodsky@nycboe.net) with the Office of Labor Relations.

Instructions on Shipment of Documents

Copies of the file letters should be placed in manila folders with the employee’s last name, first name, social security and file number, district number and school name and number. If there are more than 50 folders at a site, they should be placed in a box, which you can order by e-mailing Angie Russo at arusso4@nycboe.net. Each box should have an official archive label on it listing the contents by teacher file number. You can obtain the labels from the DFO Web Site at http://www.nycenet.edu/Offices/DFO/BusinessOperations/DoeRecordsArchiving/Default.htm. The regular vendor for inter-office mail, Deluxe Delivery Services, will pick up all boxes and file packages for delivery to the central repository.

Unity/UFT Leaders Exposed on Pensions;Unity Supplemental Pension Bill Ignores Current Retirees

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica HS; UFT Executive Board, HS Rep

A Variable Supplement Fund (VSF) distributes excess earnings in pension funds back to retired members. Money in our pension funds is invested and if those funds make better returns than expected, the extra money now goes back to the city. The Police and Fire Unions negotiated a VSF years ago. In addition to their regular pension, retired police officers and firefighters receive an annual supplemental check from excess pension fund earnings.

This year a retired police officer will get approximately $11,000 from the VSF. Meanwhile, retired teachers have to wait five years after they retire to collect the much touted Cost of Living Adjustment which was passed by the State Legislature at the beginning of the decade. The COLA will pay retirees only $180 to a maximum of $540 annually, a small fraction of what the retired police officers will receive from their VSF. As prices continue to rise, the COLA is a meager pension supplementation.

Several years back, UFT President Randi Weingarten said that if another Union wins a VSF from the State Legislature, then we would push for one also. Soon after, the Corrections Union had a VSF passed by the State Legislature and signed by Governor George Pataki. The UFT now has a VSF bill we are asking the Legislature to support. However, the bill is written in such a way that if it were to become law, only people who retire after the legislation is passed would receive the supplemental checks each year. Currently retired UFT members would receive nothing and be stuck with the "Diet COLA."

Opposition members at the Executive Board have continually pointed out the flaw in our VSF bill and we have been attempting to persuade the UFT to rewrite and reintroduce the bill so that all retirees, current and future, would get a supplemental check through a Variable Supplement Fund. We tried this again on January 30, 2006 but Unity won't listen to us and continues to push a flawed bill that would not help current retirees.

This leads to the question: Why are retired teachers the most loyal Unity Caucus constituency? In the last ten years Unity has pushed through a flawed COLA that results in pension checks lagging way behind the rate of inflation and now the UFT is supporting a VSF that would not benefit current retirees. Meanwhile, costs for health care continue to explode out of control. Isn't it time for retired teachers to start thinking about new leadership. They have nothing to lose. Pension checks are protected by the State Constitution so they are not jeopardized. The Independent Community of Educators fully supports retired UFT members.

1. The UFT should not support with COPE money politicians who are not protecting the interests of our members, active and retired.


2. The UFT needs to properly mobilize our retired and active members to work for a VSF for retirees, both current and future.


3. The UFT must draw a line in the sand and say no more erosion in health care benefits.