Fasten your Seat Belts: Unity Attacks Getting Ugly and Will Probably Get Still Uglier

The Unity Caucus (Randi Weingarten's political party) is so unbelievably scared of having any opposition within the United Federation of Teachers that they will say anything to discredit any opposition group in order to maintain Unity's forty-seven year grip on power within the Union.

Unity's latest piece of literature reaches another new low as they refer to ICE and Teachers for a Just Contract as the "axis." The obvious implication is that we are like the World War II axis powers that consisted of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and imperial Japan or George Bush's "Axis of Evil" of North Korea, Iraq and Iran from 2002. Since World War II, the word "axis" has obviously taken on a very negative connotation and no alliance would refer to themselves as an axis.

Because we oppose Randi-Unity and their New Action partners, we are compared to some of the worst regimes of the 20th and 21st centuries. Unity's attacks on our positions on the issues and their defense of the 2005 givebacks are unsustainable so they have to resort to calling us names instead. We will not be shy nor will we make apologies about aggressively responding by pointing out the facts about Unity and New Action.

Unity's position now that TJC and ICE are the "axis" and their 2005 Nazi baiting of the Unified Teachers Party are quite hypocritical because last year when a teacher who had been reassigned out of the classroom came to an Executive Board and compared treatment in the temporary reassignment center (nicknamed the rubber room by many) to the way Nazis treated people, Unity's Mel Aaronson told the person to stop trivializing what the Nazis did. Unity obviously does not practice what it preaches.

In addition to calling us the axis, since we announced our coalition with TJC, Unity has called us "zero plus zero"; they have compared us to Richard Nixon; they have created their own insulting acronyms for ICE and TJC and Unity visitors to this blog have made vicious personal comments against us regularly. We have no problem with their free speech right to say whatever they want to say but don't expect us to meekly sit back and take it. We know how to fight back and we will set the record straight.

As our friends at UTP say, "Brace yourself." This is going to be one bumpy ride.

Randi’s Committee Changes Election Rules After Admitting Ignorance of the Law

In a sharp turnaround Randi’s Election Committee did an about face and “allowed” union election campaign literature to be mailed out by the union to members’ home addresses.

At the Executive Board meeting January 9th both Randi and her Unity Party supporters vehemently claimed that the United States Labor Law known as Landrum-Griffin did not provide that campaign literature could be mailed to members’ home addresses by either the U.S. Postal Service or via email. This claim was made in the face of statements made by ICE Executive Board reps James Eterno and Jeff Kaufman. ICE Reps were also accused of not knowing Labor Law.

At the next Executive Board meeting on January 29th Randi’s Election Committee submitted an “amendment” which provides for our right to send this literature but only by US mail. No apologies were offered.

We will pursue our right to use the Union’s email list but it is encouraging to know that at least someone in Randi’s group knows the law.

UNION DUES UP FOR 2006

If you are wondering how much you paid in union dues in 2006, here is the answer. Teachers who worked continuously throughout the year paid $1,012.74, paras $506.44, Secretaries $757.98 and Guidance Counselors $1,033.48. The UFT did not provide us with data for other titles.

This is the first time union dues have gone over $1,000 for teachers and guidance counselors while at the same time the union no longer provides services such a Superintendent’s level grievances or Letter in the File Grievances as these were eliminated in the last Contract. People might be interested to know that back in the eighties the UFT made dues increases automatic. If the average salary goes up, then dues increase automatically. Are the services getting better? Please let ICE know.

NEW ACTION BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY RANDI

The latest piece of literature from New Action (NAC) is laughable. New Action was the oldest opposition caucus (political party) in the UFT. Randi Weingarten's party, Unity, has run the UFT since the union was founded in 1960. New Action claims that President Randi Weingarten "changed a forty year policy of excluding opposition caucuses from having a voice in the UFT." When did she exactly change that policy? The answer is never. What was the actual change? The answer to this one is unfortunately quite simple: Weingarten promised and delivered paid jobs to New Action's leaders and they now support her.

There were members of New Action and other people opposed to Unity on UFT Committees making UFT policy throughout the 1990's, well before Randi was President. Even the supposedly important negotiating committee was opened up to NAC's Bob Dehler in 1999. Many of NAC's people were on all kinds of committees but they remained critical of Weingarten/Unity.

Weingarten's first collective bargaining negotiation as president fell apart at the last minute in 1999. At that time, she was willing to agree to merit pay for summer school teachers in the form of free airline tickets for staff if student test scores improved. New Action correctly predicted that based on Weingarten's first negotiating experience as president, she would be willing to give away our rights. New Action as recently as 2001 criticized Randi in its literature saying, "Randi Never Met a Giveback She Didn't Like." They were right to be critical of Randi/Unity at that time so they ran a candidate against her that year and won the high schools.

By the next election in 2004, however, New Action was not running against Randi. What did Randi do for them? She promised to put their leadership on the union payroll. In the past, New Action members served on UFT committees as unpaid volunteers, but the newly created organizing committee was a paid committee. As most of New Action's core leaders have been retiring the last few years, they have been able to move from the classroom into paid union jobs. What was the price to pay for their jobs? Support Randi as they are doing this year.

NAC's reluctant opposition to the 2005 Contract only happened because their few remaining active teachers were appalled by the givebacks. New Action certainly didn't oppose that contract with much fervor. Subsequently, NAC quickly returned to the Unity fold and their co-chairs who are now retired are running a pseudo slate that endorses Randi for president. For anyone who says that you should vote for NAC because of changes they are making from the "inside", ask one question: Since they stopped opposing Randi, what policy did New Action come up with that has improved our contractual working conditions or made the UFT a more democratic union? The correct answer: none.

You see ladies and gentlemen, singer Cyndi Lauper was right, "Money changes everything."

ICE Platform - Countering the Attacks on Teachers and Schools

We demand:

1. A return to more manageable workloads for teachers and other school staff.

Two rounds of time-for-money swaps have severely compromised the conditions for learning in the city schools. We must fight the false notion that “productivity” can be increased simply by extending the time of instruction. The teacher's school day must include time for planning, student conferences and consultation among faculty.

2. Ending attacks and discrimination against senior teachers.

Experienced teachers are crucial for any school. Only the most short-sighted and irresponsible management would be so hostile to them. Teachers who have successfully taught for years in a school should be secure in their jobs.

3. Enhancing the rights of new teachers.

Klein and Bloomberg have worked to greatly increase the number of new teachers which has changed the makeup of the teaching force. We call for a shorter probationary period to increase the proportion of teachers with tenure. New teachers must be protected against abuse by administrators and supported with meaningful professional development, mentoring and support.

4. Small classes with enforceable limits.

Equity with other districts in the state should only be the immediate target. Ultimately class-size reduction should meet children's needs which are greater in high-poverty, urban areas than in the suburbs. The lack of funding for the upgrading and building of new schools is the main cause of oversized classes which is a violation of our students' civil rights and should be treated as such.

5. Ending high-stakes testing and all other inappropriate testing of students.

Testing should be primarily used for diagnostic purposes and support educational goals, not distort them. Examples of inappropriate testing are

· forcing all English Language Learners (ELL) to take the English Language Arts exams

· inflicting standardized reading tests on children before they reach the third grade

· making all high school students take the PSAT

Evaluation of students and decisions about their progress should be made locally by those most familiar with them. Students should be able to demonstrate their learning in a variety of ways.

6. A broadening of school curricula to address long-term educational goals.

Civic participation in a democratic society must be reincorporated into the education of New York City schools. We demand the restoration of subjects that have been shortchanged because of the craze for short-term results on math and reading tests, including music, art, vocational training, health, foreign language, sports and technology. This must also include an end to mandated methods of teaching practices and strong guarantees of academic freedom for teachers and students.

7. An end to the over-reliance on standardized testing for qualifying teachers.

One of the results of relying exclusively on standardized tests and the labyrinth of requirements for new teachers has been a relative decrease in the number of black, Latino and non-native English speakers among the teaching staff. Alternative paths to qualify as teachers should be reinstated. School workers, including paras and school aides should have an opportunity to turn their school experience into better school jobs.

8. School improvement planning that provides a significant role for teachers.

Teachers must have a meaningful voice in the running of their school. Our union must take a clear stand against privatization of school services and management. We must resist the national crusade to punish and condemn schools on the basis of test scores. Let's push instead for transparency in school governance, oversight by elected boards and councils and broader community input into how schools function.

UFT Elections Are Coming:

Why We Must Say NO to Weingarten/Unity Caucus-New Action

The UFT has not stood up against the closing of schools

The Department of Education can no longer be allowed to mismanage and inadequately fund schools and then close them, displacing students and staff, even when consultants hired by the DOE give schools like Tilden HS in Brooklyn proficient ratings in quality reviews. Randi Weingarten’s Unity Caucus (her political party) has put up no real opposition and has in fact cooperated with the DOE. ICE calls for a moratorium on closing schools were watered down by Unity. The giveback-laden 2005 contract gave away preferred placement rights for UFT members, eliminating Article 18G5 that gave members “the broadest possible placement choices available within the authority of the Board.” Hundreds of experienced teachers were forced to become day-to-day subs. UFT leaders actually branded this as an “improvement” along with the Open Market Plan (which leaves all choice in the hands of principals).

Weingarten/Unity still refuse to oppose mayoral control of NYC schools

ICE has called for the end of Mayoral Control when the law (giving the mayor full unchecked authority over the schools) sunsets in 2009. Weingarten backed the law change that allowed the Mayor to assume control of the schools and the UFT passively sat by as a system without checks and balances, ran amuck, ignoring views of both parents and educators. When Bloomberg needed a waiver to get a lawyer appointed as Chancellor, Weingarten was silent. When privateer Christopher Cerf was recently brought in to continue the attack on public education, again silence. We need to get politicians out of education and set up a new system that truly gives power to teachers at the school level. Weingarten/Unity rejected our position, instead, creating a committee that will examine all forms of school governance, including the possible renewal of Mayoral Control. An honest poll of members would show an overwhelming rejection of mayoral control.

Lower class size must be priority contract demand

Teachers list class size as a number one working condition priority. NYC has the highest class sizes in the state, if not the nation. The only protection teachers have had for 40 years has been the contracts negotiated in the early 1970’s, before the UFT changed its policy. Yet, Weingarten-Unity-New Action refuse to make this a contract negotiating demand, using the bogus excuse that money would be taken from salary increases (note how prep periods and other basics like health care are never tied to salary). Weingarten throws up smoke screens with petition drives (twice so far and more to come) for referendums to lower class sizes, knowing full well this tactic is subject to the mayor’s veto, with virtually no chance of reaching voters.

New Action is a phony opposition group in bed with Unity

New Action had been the oldest “opposition” group in the UFT until they began to give uncritical support for Weingarten, even endorsing her in this election. New Action is claiming their alliance with Weingarten allows them to influence UFT policies but they can’t cite a single gain other than for themselves in getting New Action’s entire leadership on the union payroll. Their latest leaflet proclaims, “President Weingarten changed a forty year policy of excluding opposition caucuses from having a voice in the UFT. She opened the door and New Action opted to enter.” How can New Action call itself an opposition when it no longer opposes Unity policy? And if they support Unity, why not just run on the Unity slate instead of as a separate entity? Weingarten cannot tolerate even a few critics on the Executive Board and is using New Action in an attempt to replace the only legitimate opposition voices from ICE-TJC. No party should be allowed to monopolize power for half a century. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and the Unity/New Action alliance epitomizes a corrupt system.

Contract givebacks extended through 2009 while salary does not keep up with inflation

Weingarten gave away many hard-fought rights (seniority, hall patrol, grievance procedures, etc.) in the 2005 contract for salary increases (much of which were time for money swaps) that didn’t even keep up with NY area inflation. In addition, NYC’s 190-day school year is the longest of any district in the Metropolitan area. A raise is when you get more money for doing the same job instead of accepting whatever DC 37 negotiates with the city and saying “me too.” We need to organize a strong militant membership aligned with other unions so we are the ones to set the pattern on our terms.

Democratic reforms are needed to repair the UFT

Unity Caucus has controlled our union since 1960. Absolute power breeds an unhealthy climate for the kinds of decisions needed by a dynamic union to fight the attacks on public education and unions. Unity’s major interest is in holding onto power so that they may augment their own salaries and privileges at the expense of the working conditions and salaries of working teachers. ICE supports: election of divisional vice presidents (academic high schools, vocational high schools, middle schools, elementary schools) by the teachers in that division instead of by all the members, including retirees (who make up over 1/3 of the members) and reinstitution of elections for District Representatives. Dues increases should be subject to vote by members.

Weingarten/Unity Caucus/New Action have:

given away seniority rights and weakened tenure protections

not been able to stop the wave of micromanagement

allowed massive erosion of the contract

stood by while the ability of UFT members to fight harassment withers

allowed an emasculated grievance procedure

allowed a longer day/year (37.5 minute small group periods in most schools/2 days in August)

still not delivered on promised 55/25 retirement plan


Vote the ICE-TJC Slate in the Upcoming UFT Elections

ICE-TJC Officers (AdCom) (CL: Chapter Leader, D: Delegate)

President Kit Wainer - Goldstein HS, (CL)
VP Elem. Lisa North – PS 3K, (CL)
Secretary Camille Johnson - Humanity & Arts (D)
VP Middle Josh Kahn – MS 443 K
Ass’t Secty Ellen Schweitzer - Stuyvesant (CL)
VP HS Arthur Colen - FDR HS (CL)
Ass’t Treas. Yelena Siwinski - PS 193K (CL)
VP Spec. Ed Joseph Wisniewski - PS 163 (D)
Treasurer Marilyn Beckford - Hillcrest HS (CL)
Voc. HS Gerard Frohnhoefer - Aviation HS (CL)
VP At-Large Ellen Fox – Ret.
[Schweitzer and Colen are current Ex. Bd members and Fox served for yrs.]

ICE Platform: Union Democracy

We need a union that is structured to insure that no matter who is elected to leadership they will be accountable to those of us who are working in the schools. An active, well-informed and honestly represented membership is the necessary backbone of a union that is capable of standing up to the attacks on teachers, children and the public schools.

Instead, what we have is a union that has gotten progressively weaker, a teaching staff that is defenseless, demoralized, disengaged from unionism and resigned to tolerate all manner of abuse, and now fears that any change will be for the worse. A large part of the problem is the fact that our union is led by people who are removed from the reality of our schools.

Since its inception in the early 1960s our union has been dominated by one group, Unity Caucus which constantly adjusts its methods to insure that it monopolizes decision-making. President Randi Weingarten knows how to portray herself as a concerned and responsible leader at union meetings and in the pages of the NY Teacher, but her number one concern is to manage the membership rather than advocate for us and represent our interests.

The three levels of decision-making in our union are the ADCOM (citywide officers), the executive board, and the delegate assembly. All three are tightly controlled by the overwhelming presence of Unity Caucus members, who rubber-stamp all of President Weingarten’s policies, even when they themselves disagree.

In order to make each one of these bodies more representative and democratic we propose the following:

1. Divisional vice-presidents (high school, middle school, etc.) should be elected by those they serve, members in their respective divisions.

2. The number of at-large members of the executive board should be reduced and a method of proportional representation should be used to elect them, with seats awarded to caucuses on the basis of their proportion of the vote.

3. The number of retiree members of the delegate assembly should be reduced and their election should also be on the basis of proportional representation.

4. District representatives (a full time UFT position to support the chapter leaders and members in a district) should be elected.

5. Every issue of the NY Teacher should be opened to opposing viewpoints, with space available for the printing of statements both for and against ratification of proposed contracts.

6. All caucuses (political parties) who have met requirements to run in an election should be able to mail at least one piece of literature to all the members at union expense during election time. All caucuses should have access to teacher mailboxes for distribution of union-related literature and each caucus should be able to email campaign literature during the election. (Rejected by Weingarten at the Jan. 9, 2007 Ex. Bd. meeting, ICE will continue the fight for this right throughout the elections and beyond.)

7. There should be an open microphone at all union meetings.

8. Retirees should not vote for UFT officers, who are responsible for negotiating the contract for active members. But they should vote for the three teacher members of the Teachers Retirement System Board, something they presently cannot do.

Most important for democracy is an underpinning of active school chapters where meetings are held monthly and school issues are discussed openly. Chapter leaders are there to protect the interests of the members with respect to the administration and also to see that the flow of information between the chapters and the various levels of leadership of the union travels on a two-way street. This means that chapter leaders must do everything possible to encourage attendance at meetings and to carry out the wishes of the members, both within the school and as a representative to other union bodies. It is the concerns of chapter members, who are the best informed about the issues, that should be driving union policy.

Executive Board Report – Elections Are Coming…Unity Controlled Executive Board Moves to Silence Opposition

Spending more than an hour in acrimonious debate the Executive Board approved, over ICE-TJC opposition, rules for the conduct of the coming election for union officers and others that clearly demonstrate that our Unity leadership knows no limit when it comes to their attempt to stifle the voice of the opposition.

Amy Arundel, chairperson of the Election Committee, reported that a unanimous Election Committee approved rules that would prevent opposition caucuses from using union membership mailing and email lists to distribute campaign literature, provide assurances to members placing campaign literature in mailboxes without fear that they will be prevented access to the mailboxes by principals or others acting on their behalf, and providing space on the UFT website which would publish the rules for the election.

The message was clear…opposition caucuses must be silenced at all costs.

While it is true that space is provided on a limited basis in the New York Teacher to the caucuses this space is clearly not what Congress intended when it provided in Federal Law that "a union must comply with all reasonable requests by a candidate for distribution of campaign literature at the candidate's expense."

The UFT has, for past several years, collected email addresses of our members and controls the only available list of home addresses of union members. The New York Teacher is dripping with stories and pictures of Unity candidates that are prejudicial to opposition campaigns. When only one statement from the opposition is published in the NY Teacher, it is obvious how unfair that is.

Resolution after resolution calling for Weingarten to comply with Federal law were defeated by the Unity dominated Executive Board. Our interpretation of Federal law, according to Special Assistant to the President Jeffrey Zahler was "wrong." This was echoed by Weingarten, who claimed many years of labor law practice to "prove" that Calhoun v. Harvey and its progeny as well as Section 401(c) of the Landrum-Griffin Act did not provide for opposition candidates to have access to these lists, whether or not Unity decided to use them.

This is the first time in our Union's history that approval of the Election Committee's rules was not unanimously approved," commented Weingarten after the vote split the body along caucus lines.

And for good reason…Don't try to silence the opposition and don't try to violate our right to distribute campaign literature.

In other Executive Board business, James Eterno, ICE's High School Rep, submitted a resolution calling for the UFT to get off the fence and call for a moratorium on the closing of schools before an independent evaluation can be concluded.

While hundreds of our members face excessing Weingarten showed how she can fiddle while Rome burns and substituted a watered down resolution which called for the DOE to "refrain" from closing schools.

Thanks, Randi. Way to stand up to BloomKlein who close schools for political reasons and to create large pools of excessed teachers. But what could we really expect, especially when you completed a sweetheart deal to continue the decimation of seniority, loss of grievance rights and other basic rights of our members? You showed your true colors when you "agreed" with the closing of Lafayette. The teachers and staff at Lafayette thank you as well.

The resolution follows:

January 2007 Resolution Calling for a Moratorium on Closing Schools

WHEREAS, the Department of Education (DOE) chronically mismanages schools, refuses to provide schools with adequate funding and then blames staff for failing results; and

WHEREAS, there is no valid evidence that proves the educational benefits of the DOE’s policy of closing schools, not admitting new students, displacing staff, and then reopening the same building as a different school or group of schools; and

WHEREAS, there is no clear standard for what constitutes a failing school yet the DOE in December announced the closing of five more schools; and

WHEREAS, the resulting period of uncertainty can have a deleterious impact on students in the effected schools as well as in neighboring schools that become severely overcrowded by accepting incoming students who would have gone to the schools being phased out; and

WHEREAS, new/redesigned schools do not have to accept special education and Limited English Proficiency students in their first two years of existence, thus creating fewer educational options for some of our students most in need, and concentrating disproportionate numbers of these students in other facilities, straining the resources of those schools too; and

WHEREAS, the 2005 UFT Contract eliminated Article 18G5, which gave staff in closing or phased out schools the “broadest possible placement choices available within the authority of the Board;” and

WHEREAS, the current Contract throws staff (experienced and new) from closing/phasing out schools en masse onto the “open market” where they must look for their own jobs or become Absent Teacher Reserves (day-to-day substitutes) thus discouraging UFT members from wanting to work in difficult schools; and

WHEREAS, many of the schools that replaced previously redesigned schools are now themselves failing and in danger of closing; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the UFT call for an immediate moratorium on the closing down/ redesigning of schools by the Department of Education until independent studies are done to assess the effectiveness of the newly redesigned schools as well as the overall impact of closing/redesigning schools on students, staff and communities throughout the system; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the UFT use part of its “Teachers Make a Difference” campaign to publicize the need for full funding of all schools, with particular attention paid to calling for extra funding for troubled schools in order to: lower class sizes, provide modern up to date facilities as well as safe and stable environments as an alternative to closing schools, displacing students and staff resulting in overcrowding of neighboring schools.
It’s time for the UFT to use its resources to stop allowing the Department of Education to get away with holding teachers and students accountable for their mismanagement.

The DOE is successfully implementing the Grover Norquist “Starve the Beast” policy and it must be stopped. Norquist recommends tax cuts and more tax cuts so that government won’t be able to function and then his people complain that the government is doing a terrible job and needs to be cut some more.

The DOE chronically under-funds schools. The courts have declared that the city doesn’t even give adequate funding for a sound basic education. The DOE adds to the problem by chronically mismanaging schools and then blaming us when schools don’t get everyone to be proficient.

Instead of thanking the teachers and other UFT members for performing educational miracles with so many students in situations that are virtually impossible, our schools are deemed failing by some criteria that nobody knows about. The schools are then closed down, we are displaced and have to apply for our jobs back in our own schools. Kids who would have gone to the school closing are directed to other schools which become more overcrowded and then they are deemed as failing. The new schools don’t have to take special education students or ESL students for two years so they look like they are succeeding but the success and extra funding later dry up and certain new schools have already been deemed as failures. This has been going on for years. This cycle must cease as nobody has shown any concrete evidence that any of this works for students

The UFT’s position on all of this has been to wait. In 2003 the Manhattan High School Chapter leaders came up with a resolution calling for a moratorium on the breakup and redesign of large high schools. I cosponsored the introduction of that resolution in this body and it was tabled. The UFT put together a small schools task force that called for among other things a study to be done on the effectiveness of small schools but it didn’t call for the DOE to stop closing schools until we have the data.

In 2006 the Parents Citywide Council on High Schools called the Chancellor to substantially delay the implementation of small high schools in part because of the issue of special ed and ESL students not being accepted in new schools. I asked last year at this body if the UFT supported that resolution and I was sent a copy of the small schools task force and later the UFT sponsored a resolution reaffirming the value of large high schools but not calling for the DOE to stop closing schools.

Now we need to go further. When the DOE brings in an outside agency to review schools and they find Tilden High School is proficient and then soon thereafter it is announced that Tilden will be closing, there is something that doesn’t smell right. Small schools versus big schools is not the issue. The issue is what constitutes a failing school? It’s not only large high schools that are in danger. Schools that have already been redesigned are in trouble. Many of us are being threatened with being closed because we exercise our contractual rights. I have been told that I better tone it down or Klein will come in and shut us down.

What this resolution asks is for the DOE to stop shutting down schools until we can get some fair, independent studies done to assess the effectiveness of newly redesigned schools including examining the impact on neighboring schools. This resolution also asks for the UFT to publicize the need for fully funding all schools but particularly schools that are in trouble so we get what we need to succeed and stop the madness of closing schools, displacing students and staff and then overcrowding other schools where they then are deemed as failing. That cycle must end now.

Weingarten/Unity 2005 & 2007 Contracts Abandon Staff in Closing Schools!

Displaced Staff Must Pound the Pavement or Become Day-to-Day Substitutes

The Department of Education can no longer be allowed to mismanage and inadequately fund schools and then blame UFT members when students don't perform. Unfortunately, Randi Weingarten has gone along with their plan. When the closing of Lafayette HS in Brooklyn was announced, after promising the teachers support, Weingarten said: "It is no secret that there have been problems at Lafayette, so its closing is not surprising. We are working with the DOE to create a redesigned school - and potentially two new schools - that parents will want to send their children to and where educators will want to teach."

ICE is calling for a moratorium on closing/redesigning schools until there are independent studies done to assess the impact of closing schools on entire school communities throughout the city. We are also demanding that the UFT use part of its "Teachers Make a Difference" campaign to publicize the need for full funding for all schools, but particularly the need to push for extra funding for schools where students are lagging behind in order to: lower class sizes, provide modern up to date facilities as well as safe and stable environments as an alternative to closing schools and displacing students and staff, which results in severe overcrowding of neighboring schools.

In the 2005 giveback laden contract, Unity Caucus negotiators and their New Action (former opposition caucus) partners quietly gave away preferred placement rights for UFT members when schools are closed/redesigned or if personnel are in excess, eliminating Article 18G5 that gave members displaced because a school was closing or being phased out "the broadest possible placement choices available within the authority of the Board." The elimination of Article 18G5 in 2005 and in the 2006 contract extension was glossed over in the so-called "fact" sheets put out by the union leadership urging a YES vote. Educators, regardless of their experience or ratinsg, now have to pound the pavement when their schools are closed to find their own positions. If they do not do so, they become Absent Teacher Reserves (day-to-day substitutes in a district with full pay and benefits but no steady classroom assignment). UFT leaders actually had the gall to brand this as an "improvement" along with the Open Market Plan.

Is Randi Calling for Gubernatorial Control Next? When will she ever Learn?

The following is an excerpt of an article entitled "See Spitzer having a Bigger School Say" from The Chief Leader December 22, 2006…

Randi is on a panel with one of the State Regents and a CFE director.

Ms. Tisch {the regent} said that in light of Mr. Spitzer committing significant additional money to the schools, ''There is the possibility of giving [him] an awful lot of say in educational policy in the state."

Ms. Weingarten concurred, saying, 'If the Governor is going to take this kind of responsibility, there has to be some power [vested in his office] to affect that policy."

Her belief she told the audience in the New School's Theresa lang Community and Student Center, reflected political reality rather than a conclusion that mayoral control had been a positive step in the city school system. The UFT plans to set up its own task force to evaluate the impact of creating the Department of Education as a city agency, Ms. Weingarten said, explaining that some of her members vehemently oppose mayoral control because "they do not get to exercise the latitude that good Teachers should get to exercise."

'Relentless Test Prep'

In the past, Ms. Weingarten was sharply critical of Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein's school curricula, arguing that he had stripped teachers of the discretion that was both vital to creative instruction and a prerogative to which senior staff was entitled. In an interview after the forum, she said she had come to believe that the strictures under the Federal No Child Left Behind Law, rather than mayoral control, were primarily responsible for the onerous changes in the city system that included "relentless focus on test prep, re-designing schools."

Didn't Chicago have a corporate style Mayoral takeover of the schools with an emphasis on testing and redesigning schools before No Child Left Behind was passed?

• ICE said that there might be a deal brewing on renewing mayoral control and now Randi is blaming No Child Left Behind instead of BloomKlein?
  
• Do we need another politician (the Governor) taking more control over the public schools?
  

ICE thinks teachers, not politicians, need to be empowered and that is one of the big reasons why we need new UFT leadership.

7,637 Reasons to Fight On

There is a real opposition to Unity Caucus in the schools. 7,637 UFT members voted against the two year extension of the worst Contract ever in spite of two years worth of the ruling Unity Caucus' leaders constantly telling us how great it is to: teach an extra small group instruction period four days a week, come back to work in August, patrol halls and lunchrooms, not be able to transfer based on seniority, not be able to grieve file letters and observation reports, have weakened tenure protections, risk being an Absent Teacher Reserve even after dedicating decades of our lives to New York City's students, etc…

The work that the Independent Community of Educators, Teachers for a Just Contract, NYC Educator and others did almost exclusively on the internet made a bit of an impact. It must be taken into account that those of us who oppose the Contract did not have the means to distribute literature urging a no vote to most schools but the ruling Unity Caucus spin machine sent a cadre of employees into virtually all of the schools to sell the Contract. ICE-TJC may not yet be able to reach everyone but we have moved forward.

Consider that back in 2001 before the traditional main UFT opposition group, New Action, decided to form an alliance with Unity (Randi Weingarten's political party), New Action received 11,523 total votes in that year's UFT Election. Traditionally the opposition would get around 2,000 retiree votes in UFT elections. After many years of working, New Action was usually getting around 10,000 active members to vote for them. In 2002 with New Action support, the first extended time Contract received 94% of the vote. Only 4,000+ members opposed that deal. The opposition was in tatters leading New Action to form their alliance with Unity.

In 2003, after New Action made a deal not to run against Randi Weingarten, ICE was formed for the 2004 election. TJC ran in a UFT election for the first time in 2004 also. ICE and TJC presidential candidates combined to receive a total of 5,374 votes in the 2004 election, including retirees. Now in 2006, there are 7,637 active people who voted no on a Contract. This group constitutes a growing working base opposed to the ruling Unity Caucus. Recall that retirees do not vote on Contracts. Therefore, we can conclude that after only a few years of existence as political organizations, ICE-TJC are growing and getting close to reaching the level where New Action was after working for many, many years.

Now is the time for ICE-TJC to diligently pursue other potential supporters. There were approximately 7,000 disgruntled members who voted in the 2005 Contract ratification but didn't bother to vote this time around. Why was the turnout lower this year? Some people have apparently given up in disgust and we need to give them a reason to vote for the opposition in the 2007 UFT election. Also, there were over 32,000 members who voted against the 2005 giveback laden Contract. It is our job now to reach each and every one of them and give them our alternative view on how this union should be run.

We believe this Contract was approved by an overwhelming margin not as a vote of confidence for Randi Weingarten and the Unity machine but as a sign of resignation that we can't do any better under Unity-New Action leadership.

Unity-New Action's main strategy is to wait for DC 37 to settle up with the city and go in and say, "Me too," and get the same deal based on pattern bargaining. Pattern bargaining means that when one city union settles on a contract to start a new round of collective bargaining with the city, then all other city unions subsequently receive the same pattern settlement. If DC 37 sets a lousy pattern, then Randi will again trade away more of what's left of our Contract to get us some money as she did in 2002 and 2005.

It's up to ICE-TJC in the next few months to get the message to everyone that we can organize to improve UFT member salaries as well as teaching and learning conditions without trading away our rights.

BOLD UFT LEADERSIP WOULD FIGHT MAYORAL CONTROL INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING ITS RENEWAL

    Several years ago, the leadership of the UFT made a blunder when a committee the Union formed to study how schools should be governed issued a report that said the UFT would favor the Mayor controlling a majority of the Board of Education. Eventually, that report led to the Union giving its ok to the 2002 law that allowed Bloomberg to take over the schools. We must not let history repeat itself. The law granting the Mayor full control of the schools sunsets in 2009. We must start the fight now so that the NY State Legislature does not renew it in its current form.

We cannot stay the course with this failed policy. Now is the time for the UFT leadership to admit that they made a mistake in endorsing full Mayoral control of the schools and we need to move forward and find a system where parents, teachers and others in the community have a real voice in decision-making in our public schools.

We cannot merely hope for the right mayor as each new mayor will invariably seek to remake the schools in their preferred image, and manipulate the system for their political and ideological advantage. ICE favors real shared decision making at the school level as an opening demand. In order to achieve this, we need first to get the Mayor out of school governance to the maximum extent that we are able to and get school personnel and the community back in.

To win back the schools, ICE raised a proposal on Monday evening at the UFT Executive Board when the leadership of the Union called for the creation of a multi-partisan UFT committee to examine how the schools should be governed in the future. ICE proposed the following amendment as a foundation for the committee:

 

RESOLVED, that it is the explicit policy of the United Federation of Teachers that the School Governance Law not be renewed or extended in 2009.

 

In other words, ICE CALLED FOR THE END OF MAYORAL CONTROL as a starting point for any discussion on how the schools are run in the future.

In response, Randi Weingarten accused of us of playing politics with the issue and the Unity dominated Executive Board voted overwhelmingly to form a committee that will examine all forms of school governance, including the possibility of renewing mayoral control of the schools. We respectfully disagree with the Unity Caucus. The Union needs to be bold by drawing a line in the sand and saying factory model (corporate style) top-down public schools do not work for students or educators. Now is the time to begin to take that initiative.

Do we need to have a committee even consider renewing a top-down school governance structure that the vast majority of UFT members know is an unmitigated disaster for education in New York (and other cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia where it has also been used)? Examine what Mayoral control has brought in NYC:

 

• Micromanagement of lessons, lesson plans and other aspects of our day
  
• Micromanagement of bulletin boards
  
• Testing run amok
  
• UFT Contracts where our members have lost numerous rights in exchange for raises that don't keep up with inflation
  
• Mandatory "Professional" Development that has little if anything to do with what most of us actually face in the classroom
  
• Millions of dollars in no bid contracts
  
• Two restructurings of the of the bureaucracy: first into ten regions and now into empowerment zones
  
• A Secretive, opaque form of management and policy-making that has proven itself impervious to oversight, checks and balances, and democratic dialogue that is necessary for a healthy school system
  

 

Now is the time for the UFT to take a strong stand against what Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his hand picked non education Chancellor Joel Klein have done to New York City's schools.

 

Q&A On Proposed Contract

The ballots for the proposed Contract are hitting the schools so it's time to answer some frequently asked questions before you vote. Vote with your eyes wide open.

Question: Does a yes vote mean that mean we still have to go back to school in August?

Answer: Yes. The longest school year in the NY metropolitan area will continue through at least the 2009-2010 school year. Next year we are slated to return to school on August 30^th for "professional development." Returning to school almost a week earlier than usual was not pleasant. Only by voting no could we have a chance to organize to win back this and the other givebacks from last year.

Questions: So, all the givebacks remain then if we vote yes? Does a yes vote mean I still can't file grievances for letters in the file or unsatisfactory observation reports? Does a yes vote mean that most of us will still have to work the 37.5 minute small group instruction period four days a week? Does a yes vote mean we are voting for hall, cafeteria and potty patrols? If the Contract is approved, can members still be suspended without pay for certain offenses before they have a tenure hearing?

Answers to all of the above: Yes.

Question: Does a yes vote mean that transfers are still up to principals instead of seniority or school based hiring committees like in the past?

Answer: Transfers will be up to principals if the Contract is ratified.

Question: What about if I am excessed? Do I have a right to be placed before new teachers are hired?

Answer: No. All you have a right to is a job as an Absent Teacher Reserve (day-to-day substitute) teacher somewhere in your district/superintendency. If the city has a fiscal emergency, we can be laid off.

Question: Many schools have been closed or reorganized in the last decade. If my school closes do I have preferred placement rights?

Answer: No. Under the current Contract and the new proposal, members only have the right to an Absent Teacher Reserve position. Even if you are a veteran teacher, when your school is phased out, there is no guarantee that you won't have to pound the pavement and find your own position.

Question: Shouldn't we be happy that the Contract is settled a year early with a salary increase that will put the top teacher salary at $100,000 in 2008 and adds a new $1,000 longevity for UFT members with 5-9 years in the system as well as other little sweeteners?

Answer: Many people will be looking at the money and no further. We believe that this is a "tunnel-vision" perspective. The salary increases (2% +$750 bonus in 2007, 5% in 2008 and 0% in 2009) will not even keep up with inflation while the worst working conditions in the NY metropolitan area won't improve at all (highest class sizes, most dangerous dilapidated buildings, etc…).

Question: Have we at least gotten the 25 years in the system, 55 years of age retirement incentive that was promised in the last Contract?

Answer: No, it must still be negotiated.

Question: What is this new severance package I keep hearing about for people who are in excess for over a year? Isn't it voluntary?

Answer: The Department of Education and the UFT still have to negotiate the package and we don't know what it will look like or if there will be pressure put on teachers who don't accept irrevocable retirement or resignation. We do know that the UFT should not have even talked about this subject as even the anti-UFT arbitrators from the last round were asked by the DOE to recommend that teachers in excess for 18 months be terminated and the arbitrators left no doubt by saying that they "specifically reject this proposal." Klein bringing it up again in 2006 was an insult. He should have been told emphatically no and then given strong UFT demands to win back all of what we gave back last time. Instead, Klein was able to take a second bite at the apple and won a severance package. The UFT asked for nothing and got nothing. You can't win big gains if you don't ask for them.

Question: Have there been any improvements made to working conditions in this Contract?

Answer: We don't see any. The UFT claims that three new provisions are improvements but we disagree. First, a new provision saying we won't get letters to our file if corporal punishment charges are unsubstantiated does not help us because we don't get letters to the file now if charges are not substantiated. Second, a new committee to reduce paperwork is just an extra committee added to the two committees we already have on this subject. Finally, a new peer Intervention Program that is not confidential and can be used against us in hearings to fire us does not look like a gain to us.

Question: What about our health benefits and Mayoral Control of the schools? Randi said there were no deals on these two subjects in exchange for the Contract. Is this true?

Answer: Let history be your guide on this one. In the 2002 Contract, New York State provided funding for our first swap of us working more time in exchange for money (6% extra for 20 minutes more per day that became "teacher detention" otherwise known as "professional development Mondays"). That particular Contract was so bad that it was renegotiated three times in the next three years. In 2002, Randi said that there was no deal with Governor Pataki for that money but he was soon thereafter endorsed for reelection by the UFT and he won the John Dewey award. Coincidence? You be the judge. Much is undecided today. What is certain is that the Municipal Labor Committee will negotiate the health plan and we will not vote again on it. In the last two Contracts, the MLC negotiated the health package before the UFT Contract was settled. In addition, Mayoral Control must be renewed by the state in 2009? We believe it should be opposed unequivocally by the UFT working with parents and replaced with real School Based Shared Decision Making.

Question: The DC 37 Contract that set the financial pattern that we are following was approved by 97 % of the DC 37 voters. People are so frustrated that they will jump at anything and no additional givebacks looks like a plus. Why should we vote no?

Answer: We are in dangerous un-chartered seas. We believe a yes vote is a very shortsighted move. Members should think very carefully about how they vote on this proposed Contract because the future of the school system and UFT members hinges a great deal on how this vote comes out. An overwhelming yes vote would send a signal that educators are content with the way the system is being run under Mayoral Control. Think about how it felt working in August; it didn't help students. Think about being an ATR. Think about suspension without pay. Think about the lost right to grieve unfair letters in the file; it's November and people are already being summoned in many schools to meet with administration over petty matters. Since Bloomberg has taken over the schools, we have seen our working conditions and rights deteriorate dramatically and there is no improvement in sight. A strong no vote would send a message that thousands of educators know something is wrong.

The Contract: What’s the Rush?

The tentative contract agreement reached on November 6 between the DOE and the UFT, comes almost a full year before the current contract expires. Within two days it was rushed through the negotiating committee and the Executive Board and brought before the UFT Delegate Assembly. Most delegates had little chance to take a hard look at the details of the contract or inquire into the many questions that it raises. They certainly weren't given any time to consult with their school chapters. Why the rush? Did the UFT leadership want to get the contract signed, sealed and delivered before members had a chance to read between the lines and discover what may be lurking behind the "great gains" portrayed by the UFT and the news media?

The City is Flush

During previous negotiations we have grown accustomed to the mayor crying about the city's poverty, but let's take a look at the current fiscal condition of the city:

In the fiscal year that ended in June, the city had a budget surplus of $3.5 billion after predicting at the start of the year that there would be a shortfall of over $7 billion. For the current year the mayor expects a small surplus but come June the likelihood is that it will be much larger if the last few years serve as a guide to how accurate the mayor is in his estimates.

The stock market has risen greatly this year and this will enable the city to greatly reduce the amount it must contribute to meet its pension obligations.

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity's (CFE) lawsuit will certainly be settled shortly as a result of the recent election results. This will provide the DOE with additional school funding of more that $1 billion a year.

In these circumstances we should expect our union to bargain for a contract that would start to make up for lost ground economically and at a minimum relieve some of the pain foist upon us as a result of the last contract. So how does this proposed contract measure up?

Scraps From The Table

Despite the rosy financial picture for the city, the UFT leadership has agreed to raises that do not come close to even meeting the rate of inflation.

Raises of 7% over two years

The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures inflation, has risen 5.2% in the first nine months of the year in the NYC metropolitan region

No raise during the last 18 months of the contract

Lump sum payment of $750 to be paid in January

A cynical person might conclude that getting a lump sum payment ten months before the old contract has expired could be a means of getting swift approval of the contract or that this payment will be made just a couple of months before the citywide UFT leadership elections take place. Perhaps they could save the city some time and money and just send the checks out along with the ballots.

Uncertainty

The decision on whether or not to approve the proposed contract must be made with all the facts in front of us, but right now there is a lot that is not known. In the current tentative agreement we are being asked to reach a decision before all of the facts are known. Let's remember that we have still not gotten the 25-55 year retirement that was supposed to have been won in our last contract. Will the 7% raise turn out to be much less?

For the first time in UFT history a clause has been inserted into the agreement which specifies that negotiations will take place with the city and its unions with the aim of reducing health costs to the city and that the resulting agreement will not be voted on by the membership. In the past the Municipal Labor Council has negotiated changes to health insurance by tinkering with co-payments and deductibles, but the fact that this is being put into the contract for the first time implies that what is now going to be discussed will result in far greater impact to the membership. The mayor has made it very clear that he intends to force city workers to pay a much larger share towards the cost of providing our health insurance. We must keep in mind that the demand on the Transit Workers Union (TWU) was for them to pay 1 1/2% of their salary towards the cost of health care each year. If that becomes the new pattern for all of the unions we will lose a significant chunk of the 7%.

In the press release issued by the mayor's office announcing the agreement, there was a section talking about the increases being provided to the UFT Welfare Fund and the initiation of a new five-year longevity increase. The section was preceded by the following: "in order to address specific needs, the UFT generated internal funding to provide the following benefits." What does this mean? Are there agreements that have been made that we will find out about later?

Our union leaders are playing on our fear of something worse to get us to take the money and run. But UFT members must ask why Randi Weingarten and Mayor Bloomberg are in such a rush to have this contract - negotiated in a questionably short time – written into stone long before the expiration of the old one.

No Fightback For The Givebacks

Our union leaders, who don't work in the schools, have turned their backs on the increasingly difficult working conditions and loss of rights that union members have to face for the foreseeable future since there is NOTHING in the contract that deals with the tremendous givebacks. The approval of this contract will mean that we will live under our present conditions for three (instead of one) more years until October, 2009. These include a longer school day (which has not benefited our students) and school year and the stripping of protections against excessing or unsatisfactory letters in the file. It does nothing to give us weapons to fight back against abusive administrators. It does nothing to protect the thousands of us that will possibly face the closing of our schools that are deemed to be "failing" so they can be reorganized - the old staff excessed and left on their own to find other jobs or become day to day subs despite the number of years worked in the system. There is not a teacher in NYC that is safe from this happening to them. To add insult to injury, the new contract calls for the DOE to offer buyouts to those people who have not found a job after a year as a day to day sub. The price has not been set and will be left to some third party to decide. Can you imagine the pressures that will confront a teacher in that situation to accept the offer even if it means giving up their chosen career? The UFT puts this forward as a gain instead of the threat it is to every UFT member's job.

Diminished Expectations

It is a union's job to fight for better working conditions, not roll over and play dead like they have with this contract. It is only because the expectations of UFT members are so low as a result of the last few contracts and the abuses they have faced throughout the system without any noticeable protection from the UFT that this contract is being viewed as acceptable. It is a sign of how weak and mismanaged this union really is. Do we really trust that this leadership will fight for us in the next contract?

O.K. EVERYBODY, IT’S TIME TO TAKE THE CONTRACT QUIZ

As you ponder your vote on the proposed Contract that is basically asking us to extend the worst Contract ever for nearly three more years (almost a year remaining on the old one and two on the extension), ICE asks that you to take our Contract quiz.

Part I-- Givebacks from 2005 that continue in the two year extension that will last through 2009

• Are you happy coming back to school in August?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you content knowing that NYC educators have the longest school year (190 days) in the entire NY metropolitan region?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you satisfied with the 37.5 minute small group instructional period that most schools have to endure four days a week?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you delighted with hall patrol and cafeteria patrol for teachers?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you thrilled that UFT members are now considered guilty until proven innocent and can be suspended without pay for 90 days for certain offenses?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you filled with joy knowing that administration can write anything they want and put it in your personnel file and you can't file a grievance to get it out?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you glad that administration can write unfair/inaccurate observation reports and you can't grieve them?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you rejoicing over the fact that transfers are now based on the whims of principals as opposed to hiring committees made up of a majority teachers or seniority as they were in the past?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you elated knowing that if you are excessed you have no right to a job and new people can be hired while you are demoted to a substitute (absent teacher reserve)?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you pleased knowing that if your school is closed or redesigned you no longer have preferred placement and can be stuck as a substitute (ATR) while new people are hired?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Are you satisfied with a shorter break if you are a school secretary or more work time every day if you are a lab specialist, social worker or guidance counselor?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

Part II—The new two year extension of the worst contract ever that will last through 2009.

• When the city has billions of dollars in surplus revenues as the Stock Market sets new records, should UFT members settle for salary increases (2% in 2007 along with a $750 bonus, 5% in 2008, 0% in 2009) that do not even keep up with the current NY area annual inflation rate of 5.2%?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Do we need Randi if a kindergarten student could go in with the city, present the DC 37 settlement and say, "Me too," and get it based on 30 years of precedent saying when one city union settles, the other unions are guaranteed to receive roughly the same percentage raises without givebacks? (The DC 37 pattern settlement was 6% over 20 months; UFT's extends it a few more months to make it 7.1 %.)
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Is now the right time to settle the Contract right before Governor Elect Spitzer says he will soon settle the 14 year old Campaign for Fiscal Equity suit so there should be an influx of funds headed to the city schools?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• The NY Times reported on November 7 that Mayor Bloomberg wants "separate talks aimed at achieving crucial savings and healthcare and pension costs." Should we give Randi Weingarten and Bloomberg a "blank check" to charge us for health insurance that is now free and not let us vote on any changes as we have in the last two Contracts?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Should we agree on a new Contract when the City still has not convinced the State to come through on a 25 years in the system and 55 year old retirement plan that was promised in the last contract?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• DC 37 members won the right to live outside of the city in the current round of collective bargaining. Are these provisions actually gains for us?
  

-A new provision saying we won't get a letter for our file if charges of corporal punishment are "unsubstantiated" If charges are not substantiated, you don't get a file letter reprimanding you now.

-A new committee to reduce paper work on top of the two committees we already have in Article 8I

-A second Peer Intervention Program in addition to the one we already have but the new program is not confidential and can be used against us in 3020A hearings?

□ Yes □ No

• Should we allow the city to offer a "voluntary" severance package that is irrevocable for people who are excessed through no fault of their own and can't find regular assignments because they are not politically connected?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• If we continue not asserting ourselves, do you think the next Mayor will be any better to us when the city's labor commissioner has been James Hanley since David Dinkins was Mayor?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

• Have you been so beaten down by the school system that you are not willing to stand up for your rights and win back what was robbed from us?
  

  □ Yes □ No
  

Answer key:

The correct answer for every question is NO.

IF YOU ANSWERED NO TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ABOVE, THEN VOTE NO!

The Sale Ends Today!

by John Elfrank-Dana, Chapter Leader, Murry Bergtraum High School

Ever been in an appliance store and were not certain about that big purchase? You wanna go home and think about it. But the salesman says, “The sale ends today!” Then you go, “Oh, what the hell!” and whip out that credit card. You weren’t sure, but it’s done. Now we’re being asked to decide something else in haste.

A new contract!!

Whew, that’s a relief. No more worries for two years! After taking a beating the last time your sighs of relief are well understood. But, does this contract have its own uncertainty built in? Look deep down the list of provisions to #17. It says that the bargaining of our health care benefits will be under the purview of the Municipal Labor Committee. The UFT leadership says it’s no big deal; that it’s practically always been that way. So, if that’s the case, why’s it in the Memorandum of Agreement? Something must have changed. Why haven’t we gotten an explanation to this question from the union? In a search for answers there are two pieces of information you need to look at; one from the New York Times and the other from the DOE itself.

In a November 8th article in the Metro section the Times stated that Randi Weingarten promised the mayor she’d help find a way for the city to save on health care costs. The DOE announced that the new teacher contract would be paid for by internal savings from the UFT. Wait a minute! What do they mean by “internal savings”? Could it mean that we will be paying health care premiums where we didn’t have to before and more in premiums for those already paying? I wonder how many months of health care premiums $750.00 would pay for. Or, that will be $750 MINUS the taxes, so about $590.00 worth of health care premiums. Say, a month or two? Given the catastrophic costs of health care, it’s plausible all of our so-called raise (about 3.5 percent a year, minus an average of 4 percent inflation leaves you at NEGATIVE .5). Ok, let’s call it a partial COLA, that doesn’t keep up with the one set by Social Security, which just went up 4.1 percent for 2006.

We said “NO” to a contract offer about ten years ago. Sandy Feldman had to go back and renegotiate. And that was against Giuliani! Remember him? Guess what? WE GOT A BETTER DEAL! The same arguments were made then: the mayor is tough and the economy even tougher. Well, maybe Bloomberg is tough too, but now the city is flush.

Could it be that Randi wants a quick deal because she’s up for reelection a few months after you get your $590 of chump change on January 2, 2007?

Add to this the following points:

1. There isn’t a single provision in this agreement that helps us at the school. No movement to reduce over- crowding, placing ATRs in classrooms to reduce class size, nothing to win the support of parents and to better serve our students.

2. The buyout of ATRs (likely victims of age discrimination in hiring under the new plan) could be opening the way for a future mandatory buyout. Who knows how much they will offer? Another unanswered question.

But there’s one thing you can be certain of from the contract- You’ll still be coming to work in August instead of September.

Precedent is being set and we don’t even have all the answers.

What’s the rush? The sale ends today!

Transit Workers Set a Precedent of Paying for Health Care. New UFT Contract: Could we be Next to Pay?

2002 and 2005 UFT Contracts settled any health care changes beforehand and were attached to Agreements. Read the language for yourself below this article.

The new language in the 2007 Agreement is different from what we had in the past two Agreements. Furthermore, in our old Contract in Article 3G1 it says, "The Board agrees to arrange for, and make available to each day school teacher, a choice of health and hospital insurance coverage from among designated plans and the Board agrees to pay the full cost of such coverage." (emphasis added by us)

The new Agreement would seem to potentially eliminate this robust provision. We don't think we are being paranoid in saying that the Contract that we were presented with to vote on this week is incomplete and if we approve it, we are giving Randi a "blank check" to force us into payroll deductions for basic health care that is now free. Look at how co-pays for drugs and doctor visits have risen in recent years. While we acknowledge that Article 3G permitted the city and union to incorporate changes into the health agreement, we never had language talking about a future "cost containment initiative."

What does this mean?

Shouldn't we be able to see what it means before we vote on the Contract?

The transit workers were able to vote as part of their contract package on whether they should have to pay for health benefits that previously were free. All we're asking is for UFT leaders to be open with us about this issue. When we raised the subject at the Executive Board, we were accused of fear mongering by Randi. We just want to be told the entire story.

The NY Times printed an article Wednesday, November 8 entitled, "New York Looks at Worker's Health Costs." The first line says, "After announcing a tentative contract with the teachers' union late Monday, the Bloomberg administration signaled yesterday that its next major negotiating goal was to achieve savings on health coverage for 300,000 municipal workers. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is quoted in the Times article as saying, "Randi [Weingarten] has said a number of times she has a commitment to try to see if the city can't provide better benefits more economically." Later in the article the Times says, "In the past, Mr. Bloomberg has said he would like to persuade the unions to have municipal workers start paying part of the premiums for health coverage." It seems perfectly reasonable to worry that other city unions are having a clause like our Section 17 (see below) in their Agreements and that when enough unions settle, Randi as head of the MLC will then negotiate away our free health coverage and there's nothing we will be able to do about it.

We're not the private sector. Many UFT members settled for lower salaries to be able to work with young people as well as to get stable benefits and some degree of job security. Tenure protections have been steadily eroded in our Contracts. Lately so have our health benefits. The city has 300,000 workers. It can afford large group rates. With the city swimming in black ink, there is no reason to even consider health benefit modifications. Does anyone at Unity ever mention how higher co-pays for drugs and health care have eaten into our supposed huge salary increases? Meanwhile, many more of us are going to need the health plans because the abysmal working conditions we toil under are making us sick. One thing we can all do to stop this:

Vote No!!


2002 Contract Section 5-Health Insurance and Welfare Fund

"a. The Health Benefits Agreement, dated January 11, 2001, is deemed to be part of this Agreement. The side letter agreement between the City Commissioner of Labor relations James F. Hanley and UFT President Randi Weingarten, dated February 8, 2001, is deemed to be part of this Agreement. Pursuant to those Agreements the parties have agreed to a series of payments to the Welfare Fund. Such payments are delineated in APPENDIX B.

b. Pursuant to the Municipal Labor Coalition Benefits Agreement, the Union Welfare Fund shall provide welfare fund benefits equal to the benefits provided on behalf of an active welfare-covered employee to widow(ers), domestic partners and/or children of any active welfare -covered employee who dies in the line of duty as that term is referenced in Section 12-126(b)(2) of the New York City Administrative Code. The cost of providing this benefit shall be funded by the Stabilization Fund."

2005 Contract Section 5-Health Insurance and Welfare Fund

"The Health Benefits Agreement, dated July 22, 2005, is deemed to be part of this Agreement. The side letter agreements between the City Commissioner of Labor Relations James F. Hanley and UFT President Randi Weingarten, dated June 30, 2004 and July 13, 2005, are deemed to be part of this Agreement."

Now look at the change in language on health insurance from the new Agreement which has been split into two sections.

2007 Agreement- Section 5 Welfare Funds

(This section describes Welfare Fund Improvements paid for according to the Department of Education with "UFT generated internal funding." What does UFT generated internal funding mean?)

2007 Agreement- Section 17 Continuation of Certain Health Benefits

"The parties acknowledge that collective bargaining regarding health benefits is within the purview of negotiations between the Municipal Labor Committee and the City. Cost-containment initiatives and program modifications in the City Health Benefits program shall be discussed with the Municipal Labor Committee."

Tentative UFT/DOE 2007-2009 Contract at a Glance

Duration
Oct 13, 2007 to Oct 31, 2009 (2 years 18 days) 4 months 13 days longer than DC 37 Settlement

Givebacks from Last Contract Remain in Full Force
No improvements in teaching or learning conditions.
Hall and Cafeteria duty remains.
No ability to grieve unfair/inaccurate material in personnel files.
No ability to grieve unfair/inaccurate observation reports.
37.5 minute small group instruction period continues four days a week.
Longest school year in the region with 190 days continues that includes school in Aug.
Transfers for teachers subject to whims of principals.
Excessed teachers have no right for placement in a vacancy.
Teachers from schools that are closed or redesigned have no rights to be placed in a vacancy.
Members accused of certain acts are still guilty until proven innocent & can be suspended without pay.

Wages and Benefits
$750 one-time lump sum payment on Jan 2, 2007
2% effective Oct. 13, 2007
5% effective May 19, 2008
0% final seventeen months and twelve days of the Agreement
New five year longevity: $1,000 for teachers with 5-9 years experience and $500 for paras starts May 19, 2007
Direct Deposit for all new employees.
With this agreement UFT member salaries have increased at roughly the same rate as every other city employee over the last thirty years except we are working ten percent more time for 10% extra..
Increase in city contribution to our Welfare Fund to allow a $1,000 per family annual drug co-pay cap.
Per session activity maximums increase by twelve sessions.
Secretaries and Lab specialists hired after July 1, 1985 are eligible for restoration of health sabbatical leaves.
Transit-Chek program extended to include LIRR, LI MTA buses and Metro-North.

Healthcare & Pension Negotiations Incomplete
According to the November 7, 2006 NY Times, Bloomberg wants “separate talks aimed at achieving crucial savings on health care and pension costs, which have climbed in recent years.”
Contract assigns to the Municipal Labor Committee a “blank check” to negotiate cost containment initiatives and program modifications to City Health Benefits Program that are not subject to our approval.
If MLC agrees with Mayor, UFT members will not vote on any potential mandatory health care contributions. (Transit workers were able to vote on whether or not to contribute 1.5% of their salary for health benefits.)

They’re Giving us Sand in the Desert Provisions
If charges of corporal punishment or verbal abuse are not substantiated, UFT members won’t get a letter for the file. Currently, members should not get a file letter if charges are not substantiated.
New paperwork reduction committee on top of the two that already exist in Article 8I.
New Peer Intervention program (we already have one); new PIP is not confidential and can be used in 3020A.

Voluntary Buy-outs for Excessed Staff
The DOE may offer a voluntary severance package (the amount of which still must be decided) to all excessed personnel who have not secured regular assignments after a year. Excessed staff who accept the package must resign or retire “irrevocably”.

Negotiating Committee Approves Virtual Extension of Giveback Contract

In a vote with 3 members voting in opposition the negotiation committee agreed to a tentative deal, last night, with the DOE almost one year before our current sellout contract expires. The details of the agreement provide for a pattern increase (Randi will spin that this is larger but the contract is now extended for 24 months instead of the DC 37 pattern of 20 months.)

What is most disturbing is the failure of the negotiating committee to put before the DA a contract which deals with any of the givebacks of our current contract. We still can't grieve letters or go to step 2. We still have the 37 minutes and 6th teaching periods disguised as Circular 6 not to mention potty patrol and loss of seniority transfers and erosion of our workplace rights. The negotiating committee did not deal with the current pain that our members go through each and every day.

We lost the right to even question administrative decisions and we stand at the mercy of anti-union principals who control through intimidation. I guess in the final analysis we lost any attempt to return to the professionalism teaching once proudly exhibited.

The new contract proposal contains some items of concern which have been termed by Randi as "gains." These include a voluntary severance package to get rid of ATR's who have not found a job in a year. The right to have an outside person evaluate your lesson and have that report admitted at a hearing to terminate you. And of course a wonderful provision which basically waives our right to bargain about health benefits and gives this power to the Municipal Labor Committee. That, of course, means that we will never vote on any loss of valuable medical benefits.

It is clear that our Union's leadership believes that we are incapable of organizing our members, a promise that was made early on.Why settle a contract with one year to go this time and wait over two years last time? It is clear that the contract will be rammed through so that the membership will forget our current contract when the UFT elections are held next spring.

Why else is there such a rush?

The Executive Board meets Tuesday at 10 AM and the DA will have it on Wednesday. (Wow, are we lucky we reserved the Hilton. It's like we knew what was coming down the pike).

We can do better. Let the negotiatiors negotiate. Don't rubber stamp a contract that gives us nothing but the pattern and institutionalizes further the givebacks we current toil under.

Vote No!

UNITY PLAYS BAIT & SWITCH

DELEGATE ASSEMBLY ONLY AUTHORIZED RANDI TO NEGOTIATE ECONOMIC TERMS

by James Eterno


ICE has no problem with the economic demands which the UFT Delegate Assembly endorsed for us, in coalition with other city unions, to advocate for in bargaining with the City. The economic demands, if achieved, would be a decent settlement and might actually even beat the rate of inflation. We voted for the economic demands at the the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly.

We also believed that the very limited non-economic demands that were put forward last month were part of our coalition strategy to work to get us a gain equal to DC 37's workers no longer having to reside in the city. (We already have that benefit.) We didn't think these demands were the complete list for the whole Contract and we don't recall ever taking a vote anywhere that authorized Randi Weingarten to close a final deal on an entire new Contract. However, with authorization to negotiate only an economic package, it appears that Randi is working to close a complete deal on a new Contract, not just a salary increase. This is a classic bait and switch. Bait us with money and then switch to make it a negotiation for the whole Contract so we can never talk about trying to win back what we gave away in the last round of bargaining. That's not what we sent her to do.

The DA never voted to authorize the negotiating committee to negotiate a complete Contract deal.

Our position is that we should attempt to get an economic package together as soon as we can and later work to achieve all of the non economic advancements we need such as fixing the excessing provision so excessed teachers get placed before new hires, winning back the right to file grievances for unfair letters in the file, ending cafeteria duty, getting rid of school in August, etc... If the money is settled, we could even ask for lower class sizes as we could battle with the Board of Ed and the issue would not be salary increases so we could easily garner public support. Imagine a contract fight that was not about money. We will be bargaining for better learning conditions for the students.

Unfortunately, the Unity bait and switch strategy may get us to a finished Contract before we know it and that would be a disaster for all of us. Forcing educators and students to endure two or three more years with this Contract's awful working conditions may be the death knell for many NYC schools. By the time the Contract ends, the UFT will be more of a dues collecting organization than a union and tens of thousands of educators may just give up all hope.

Finally, for those who say that we have to settle the Contract now or Mayor Bloomberg may pull the money, this is non sense. The DC 37 pattern 6% over 20 months without givebacks will be there for us. There are 30 years of precedent that says when one union sets a pattern for a settlement, then other unions are guaranteed that same pattern. We could send a kindergarten student in to negotiate and all he/she would have to do is present the DC 37 deal to the city and say, "Me too." We don't need to pay Randi and her team to do that.