There is no regret at all about voting for Letitia James for Public Advocate. She is keeping her promises on public education even before she takes office. James joined with a group of other politicians and parents' groups, including Leonie Haimson's Class Size Matters, to sue the Department of Education to stop all of the colocations approved in October by Mayor Bloomberg's puppet Panel for Educational Policy.
One significant group was noticeable by its absence from this suit: the United Federation of Teachers. (We have no idea if they were even asked to sign on.)
Advocates for Justice attorney Arthur Schwartz is handling the case filed in Manhattan court.
The press release is here.
You can read the entire lawsuit at the bottom of the press release or here.
If Mayor Elect Bill de Blasio does not go in a progressive direction on public schools, the opposition is ready. The name Letitia James being featured prominently on this suit cannot be underestimated in its importance.
In other news, the amazing Patrick Sullivan, Manhattan Borough President appointee to the Panel for Educational Policy (Board of Ed), resigned as Borough President Scott Stringer moves to the Comptroller's office. Patrick was often times the only person on the PEP speaking up for parents, students and teachers. Hopefully, Mayor Elect de Blasio will tap him to be a mayoral appointee if Patrick wants it or maybe Patrick will run for office. He has my support.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Saturday, December 28, 2013
PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY BOARD RECOMMENDS BETTER SETTLEMENT FOR LIRR WORKERS THAN STATE WORKERS GOT
Thanks to Mike Shirtzer from MORE for sending out a Newsday piece that includes the full non binding arbitration award for most Long Island Railroad union workers. Not only did the Presidential Emergency Board recommend decent salary increases for LIRR workers, it specifically rejected the 2011 state settlement with the Civil Service Employees Association, that included three years with no salary increases, as a pattern to be adhered to.
Instead, they looked to the arbitration and prior settlement of TWU Local 100 (New York City Transit Workers Union) as major precedents. The favorable TWU arbitration was decided one collective bargaining round after the 2005 transit strike. The MTA went to court to try to block the arbitration award from being implemented and lost all the way up to the NYS Court of Appeals.
If you don't think strikes and/or a credible threat that a union can wage a successful one are important, think again. The ripple effects of the 2005 transit strike, thought of as a defeat for the union by many, are still helping to improve conditions for transit workers throughout the region and probably boosted other settlements as well.
Newsday summarized the terms of the non binding LIRR settlement this way:
The presidential board recommended annual raises for workers averaging 2.83 percent over six years, and increased health care contributions for all workers. It did not call for any changes in LIRR pension plans or to any work rules.
This certainly beats the daylights out of the 0%+0%+0%+2%+2% settlement negotiated by the CSEA with Governor Andrew Cuomo that Mayor Bloomberg wants all city workers to swallow.
The non binding LIRR arbitration is not yet a contract and it will have no impact on the UFT's non-binding arbitration, which covers our last round of collective bargaining with the city. Most city workers received 4%+4% increases without givebacks in the last round. The city is saying they can't afford to give the UFT those retroactive raises and they are attempting to get all city workers to accept three years without raises (the contract state workers agreed to) for the next round.
Will the LIRR decision have an impact on the next round of collective bargaining with city workers?
The LIRR arbitration panel, in rejecting the MTA argument that the CSEA settlement should be used as a pattern, noted that CSEA workers were facing a huge staff reduction crisis and received a job security agreement in return for three years without a raise. The panel pointed out that a threat to jobs was not a comparable condition with the LIRR. It isn't with the UFT either as teachers are heading for the exits as fast as they can because of the impossible teaching and learning conditions in the schools.
If we are going to consider anything close to the state pattern for our next contract, there had better be huge take-backs on working conditions such as the slaying the evaluation system and putting in preferred placement for Absent Teacher Reserves. How about following the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit settlement and actually lowering class sizes? Maybe we should fight for the ability to grieve unfair/inaccurate material placed in our personnel files, including observations, in a prompt way to somebody neutral.
Instead, they looked to the arbitration and prior settlement of TWU Local 100 (New York City Transit Workers Union) as major precedents. The favorable TWU arbitration was decided one collective bargaining round after the 2005 transit strike. The MTA went to court to try to block the arbitration award from being implemented and lost all the way up to the NYS Court of Appeals.
If you don't think strikes and/or a credible threat that a union can wage a successful one are important, think again. The ripple effects of the 2005 transit strike, thought of as a defeat for the union by many, are still helping to improve conditions for transit workers throughout the region and probably boosted other settlements as well.
Newsday summarized the terms of the non binding LIRR settlement this way:
The presidential board recommended annual raises for workers averaging 2.83 percent over six years, and increased health care contributions for all workers. It did not call for any changes in LIRR pension plans or to any work rules.
This certainly beats the daylights out of the 0%+0%+0%+2%+2% settlement negotiated by the CSEA with Governor Andrew Cuomo that Mayor Bloomberg wants all city workers to swallow.
The non binding LIRR arbitration is not yet a contract and it will have no impact on the UFT's non-binding arbitration, which covers our last round of collective bargaining with the city. Most city workers received 4%+4% increases without givebacks in the last round. The city is saying they can't afford to give the UFT those retroactive raises and they are attempting to get all city workers to accept three years without raises (the contract state workers agreed to) for the next round.
Will the LIRR decision have an impact on the next round of collective bargaining with city workers?
The LIRR arbitration panel, in rejecting the MTA argument that the CSEA settlement should be used as a pattern, noted that CSEA workers were facing a huge staff reduction crisis and received a job security agreement in return for three years without a raise. The panel pointed out that a threat to jobs was not a comparable condition with the LIRR. It isn't with the UFT either as teachers are heading for the exits as fast as they can because of the impossible teaching and learning conditions in the schools.
If we are going to consider anything close to the state pattern for our next contract, there had better be huge take-backs on working conditions such as the slaying the evaluation system and putting in preferred placement for Absent Teacher Reserves. How about following the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit settlement and actually lowering class sizes? Maybe we should fight for the ability to grieve unfair/inaccurate material placed in our personnel files, including observations, in a prompt way to somebody neutral.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
CAN THE CITY AFFORD TO GIVE RAISES TO CITY EMPLOYEES?
The blogger Chaz has done some excellent reporting on our contract negotiations. He believes the city has money to pay us real salary increases for two rounds of collective bargaining, not just the one where educators are behind most other city unions who received two 4% raises without givebacks. His source is the usually conservative Independent Budget Office that released a report earlier this month saying city finances were in pretty good shape with billions of dollars in surpluses this year that are projected to extend into future years as well.
Buried very deep in the IBO Report, however, is an estimate of the cost of a retroactive UFT contract and the price of new contracts for educators as well as other municipal unions that would include modest 2% raises in the next round of bargaining. Here is what the IBO is saying:
Foremost among the reasons for caution are the expectations built into the budget plan with regard to a settlement of expired contracts with the city’s municipal unions. A costless settlement covering the years of expired contracts prior to 2014 may be more doable on paper than in practice. Depending on the terms of the settlements, the projected surplus could quickly evaporate. In May, IBO estimated that under one plausible scenario the cost of settlements with the unions could be $6.3 billion through 2014. In this scenario, the teacher and principal unions would get the same 4 percent raises other unions received in 2008-2010 and all the municipal unions would get 2 percent wage increases from the point their contracts expired in the years 2010-2013.
These IBO numbers are similar to the Comptroller's figures we cited last week here.
The city is expecting us to accept a pattern set by the State Civil Service Employees Association for a five year contract. The state pattern for this round is three years of zero raises followed by 2% increases in years four and five of a five year contract. The federal pattern is worse with four years of 0% increases followed by 1% for the postal employees that will probably be copied soon for other federal employees.
The case for decent increases for all of the unions is based upon large surpluses in the city budget. Outgoing mayor Bloomberg created those surpluses largely on the backs of the municipal employees. We will say that inflation is eroding our standard of living so we need these modest raises just to keep up. We will quite rightfully point out that the city fiscal situation is much better than the state and federal budget pictures that the city is using to say there is no money for retroactive increases. Since we are in stronger financial shape than the federal and state governments, we deserve real salary increases, particularly since all of us are now working under expired contracts.
The city will counter that NYC will only remain in solid shape financially if it holds the line on municipal employee salary increases. Mayor Elect Bill de Blasio will more than likely cry poverty and cite the IBO and Comptroller's reports. The city will then refer to wage freezes at the state and national level as indicative of very difficult times we have had to endure since the financial collapse and great recession of 2008.
Can NYC public sector unions take a stand against the state and national trend based on the city having more of an ability to pay? I would answer that question in the affirmative if we took a collective, militant approach and were ready to fight for that money with whatever means labor has at its disposal.
However, if that is not possible, then what about getting something back in exchange for taking less money? Here I would contend, as commenters here have already done on this blog, that we have some leverage. In exchange for accepting three years without a salary increase, state Civil Service Employees Association members received a job security clause in their agreement. Here is how their website put it:
The agreement includes provisions to keep CSEA-represented state employees on-the job delivering essential services to New Yorkers. It will rescind imminent plans to issue layoff notices to CSEA-represented employees included in the 9,800 reductions previously announced by the Cuomo administration. It also provides other job security assurances for the life of the contract.
In New York City half of the teachers are quitting within the first five years so we would not need anything akin to the job security clause that CSEA has. For our job security, we would require a total revamping of the teacher and principal evaluation systems. Some of these repairs may require state approval. Are the changes worth fighting for?
How about preferred placement for Absent Teacher Reserves? This was in our contract for teachers when schools were closed before the horrific 2005 giveback laden contract. Should we sacrifice some money to improve our working conditions? Can we have both? The DOE budget most certainly includes huge amounts of waste as Diane Ravitch's DOE insider reports.
These are conversations we should be having in the schools with our members each day.
Buried very deep in the IBO Report, however, is an estimate of the cost of a retroactive UFT contract and the price of new contracts for educators as well as other municipal unions that would include modest 2% raises in the next round of bargaining. Here is what the IBO is saying:
Foremost among the reasons for caution are the expectations built into the budget plan with regard to a settlement of expired contracts with the city’s municipal unions. A costless settlement covering the years of expired contracts prior to 2014 may be more doable on paper than in practice. Depending on the terms of the settlements, the projected surplus could quickly evaporate. In May, IBO estimated that under one plausible scenario the cost of settlements with the unions could be $6.3 billion through 2014. In this scenario, the teacher and principal unions would get the same 4 percent raises other unions received in 2008-2010 and all the municipal unions would get 2 percent wage increases from the point their contracts expired in the years 2010-2013.
These IBO numbers are similar to the Comptroller's figures we cited last week here.
The city is expecting us to accept a pattern set by the State Civil Service Employees Association for a five year contract. The state pattern for this round is three years of zero raises followed by 2% increases in years four and five of a five year contract. The federal pattern is worse with four years of 0% increases followed by 1% for the postal employees that will probably be copied soon for other federal employees.
The case for decent increases for all of the unions is based upon large surpluses in the city budget. Outgoing mayor Bloomberg created those surpluses largely on the backs of the municipal employees. We will say that inflation is eroding our standard of living so we need these modest raises just to keep up. We will quite rightfully point out that the city fiscal situation is much better than the state and federal budget pictures that the city is using to say there is no money for retroactive increases. Since we are in stronger financial shape than the federal and state governments, we deserve real salary increases, particularly since all of us are now working under expired contracts.
The city will counter that NYC will only remain in solid shape financially if it holds the line on municipal employee salary increases. Mayor Elect Bill de Blasio will more than likely cry poverty and cite the IBO and Comptroller's reports. The city will then refer to wage freezes at the state and national level as indicative of very difficult times we have had to endure since the financial collapse and great recession of 2008.
Can NYC public sector unions take a stand against the state and national trend based on the city having more of an ability to pay? I would answer that question in the affirmative if we took a collective, militant approach and were ready to fight for that money with whatever means labor has at its disposal.
However, if that is not possible, then what about getting something back in exchange for taking less money? Here I would contend, as commenters here have already done on this blog, that we have some leverage. In exchange for accepting three years without a salary increase, state Civil Service Employees Association members received a job security clause in their agreement. Here is how their website put it:
The agreement includes provisions to keep CSEA-represented state employees on-the job delivering essential services to New Yorkers. It will rescind imminent plans to issue layoff notices to CSEA-represented employees included in the 9,800 reductions previously announced by the Cuomo administration. It also provides other job security assurances for the life of the contract.
In New York City half of the teachers are quitting within the first five years so we would not need anything akin to the job security clause that CSEA has. For our job security, we would require a total revamping of the teacher and principal evaluation systems. Some of these repairs may require state approval. Are the changes worth fighting for?
How about preferred placement for Absent Teacher Reserves? This was in our contract for teachers when schools were closed before the horrific 2005 giveback laden contract. Should we sacrifice some money to improve our working conditions? Can we have both? The DOE budget most certainly includes huge amounts of waste as Diane Ravitch's DOE insider reports.
These are conversations we should be having in the schools with our members each day.
Friday, December 20, 2013
COMPTROLLER'S REPORT SHOWS COST OF UFT SETTLEMENT
Outgoing Comptroller John Liu's final report on city finances includes a section on labor costs (see below in italics). I urge everybody to read the municipal labor portion closely. According to the report, revenue is coming in well but every municipal union is working under an expired contract. The situation for educators is worse than for other unions because we are one round behind everyone else.
The pattern established with other unions back in 2008 - mentioned multiple times on this blog - is a 4% salary increase in year one + a 4% raise in year two without givebacks. According to Liu, paying teachers and administrators that money retroactively will cost the city a whopping $3.5 billion in this fiscal year and $900 million annually after that. (Why will it cost so much? Please read our explanation here.) The city might swallow most of these costs (they may defer the retroactive portion) if we accept the city's offer to freeze wages for the following three years.
The city proposal for all of the unions in the next round of bargaining is to offer a contract based on the pattern set by New York State and the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA). CSEA agreed to a five year deal calling for 0% in year one followed by 0% in year two and then 0% in year three followed by 2% in year four and another 2% in year five. That settlement was a very bitter pill to swallow for state workers.
Will a five year contract that includes three years of a wage freeze fly with teachers and other city workers?
I believe the answer is probably yes because all of us have been working without contracts for so long that putting any raise in front of us will be something most workers will jump at and take. If there was a grand bargain to settle both contracts at once, teachers would be looking at seven years. The last UFT salary increase was in 2008! Even if we obtained the 4 + 4 that everyone else in the city's workforce received, that would cover 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and the current 2013-2014 school year would be our three straight years without an increase if we were to follow the state pattern for the next round.
The key is getting the retroactive money because that would increase our salaries for 2009-2011, which would then compound for the subsequent years. There is talk of a cash payment instead of retroactive increases. Such a deal would cost UFT members a huge amount of money. Would teachers accept it?
Staying on pace with inflation looks like a pipe dream. Getting what every other city worker received is also not guaranteed but we should fight for these things. I can find plenty of savings in the DOE budget as I'm sure most of you could too.
Here is the part of the Comptroller's Report that deals with the municipal unions:
Labor
The City’s labor contracts with its major municipal unions have expired and members are currently working under expired contracts. The City has proposed terms for a five-year contract for each union which mirrors the 2011 five-year agreement between New York State and the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA). That agreement included zero wage increases in the first three years and annual raises of 2.0 percent in the last two years of the contract. However, the City’s labor reserve reflects the cost of only 1.25 percent annual wage increases beginning in the fourth year of the current round of collective bargaining. A 2.0 percent wage increase in each of the last two years of a five-year contract will cost the City an additional $111 million, including retroactive cost, in FY 2014, $200 million in FY 2015, $325 million in FY 2016, and $410 million in FY 2017.
The Comptroller’s Office estimates that if all unions instead agreed to an annual increase of 1.0 percent over the five-year term of the contract, it will cost an additional $1.6 billion, including retroactive cost, in FY 2014, $770 million in FY 2015, $758 million in FY 2016 and $694 million in FY 2017.
If the wage increases were linked to inflation, the additional cost would increase to $3.4 billion in FY 2014, $1.9 billion in FY 2015, $2.1 billion in FY 2016, and $2.4 billion in FY 2017.
The labor contracts for the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (CSA) are one round behind the contracts of the City’s other municipal unions. The City and the unions were unable to reach an agreement in the 2008 – 2010 round after the City proposed a settlement with no wage increases. The other municipal unions had settled for a two-year contract with 4.0 percent increases in the beginning of the first and second year of the contract. The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) is in the final stage of a fact finding process that was initiated to resolve the deadlock between the UFT and the City.
PERB will shortly hold a final hearing on wage increases for UFT members and then issue a report detailing recommendations for a contract resolution. While PERB recommendations are not binding they have served as a framework for final labor contracts with the UFT in the past. A recommendation patterned after the labor agreements of the other municipal unions will cost the City approximately $3.495 billion in FY 2014, including retroactive cost, and $900 million annually beginning in FY 2015.
The pattern established with other unions back in 2008 - mentioned multiple times on this blog - is a 4% salary increase in year one + a 4% raise in year two without givebacks. According to Liu, paying teachers and administrators that money retroactively will cost the city a whopping $3.5 billion in this fiscal year and $900 million annually after that. (Why will it cost so much? Please read our explanation here.) The city might swallow most of these costs (they may defer the retroactive portion) if we accept the city's offer to freeze wages for the following three years.
The city proposal for all of the unions in the next round of bargaining is to offer a contract based on the pattern set by New York State and the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA). CSEA agreed to a five year deal calling for 0% in year one followed by 0% in year two and then 0% in year three followed by 2% in year four and another 2% in year five. That settlement was a very bitter pill to swallow for state workers.
Will a five year contract that includes three years of a wage freeze fly with teachers and other city workers?
I believe the answer is probably yes because all of us have been working without contracts for so long that putting any raise in front of us will be something most workers will jump at and take. If there was a grand bargain to settle both contracts at once, teachers would be looking at seven years. The last UFT salary increase was in 2008! Even if we obtained the 4 + 4 that everyone else in the city's workforce received, that would cover 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and the current 2013-2014 school year would be our three straight years without an increase if we were to follow the state pattern for the next round.
The key is getting the retroactive money because that would increase our salaries for 2009-2011, which would then compound for the subsequent years. There is talk of a cash payment instead of retroactive increases. Such a deal would cost UFT members a huge amount of money. Would teachers accept it?
Staying on pace with inflation looks like a pipe dream. Getting what every other city worker received is also not guaranteed but we should fight for these things. I can find plenty of savings in the DOE budget as I'm sure most of you could too.
Here is the part of the Comptroller's Report that deals with the municipal unions:
Labor
The City’s labor contracts with its major municipal unions have expired and members are currently working under expired contracts. The City has proposed terms for a five-year contract for each union which mirrors the 2011 five-year agreement between New York State and the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA). That agreement included zero wage increases in the first three years and annual raises of 2.0 percent in the last two years of the contract. However, the City’s labor reserve reflects the cost of only 1.25 percent annual wage increases beginning in the fourth year of the current round of collective bargaining. A 2.0 percent wage increase in each of the last two years of a five-year contract will cost the City an additional $111 million, including retroactive cost, in FY 2014, $200 million in FY 2015, $325 million in FY 2016, and $410 million in FY 2017.
The Comptroller’s Office estimates that if all unions instead agreed to an annual increase of 1.0 percent over the five-year term of the contract, it will cost an additional $1.6 billion, including retroactive cost, in FY 2014, $770 million in FY 2015, $758 million in FY 2016 and $694 million in FY 2017.
If the wage increases were linked to inflation, the additional cost would increase to $3.4 billion in FY 2014, $1.9 billion in FY 2015, $2.1 billion in FY 2016, and $2.4 billion in FY 2017.
The labor contracts for the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (CSA) are one round behind the contracts of the City’s other municipal unions. The City and the unions were unable to reach an agreement in the 2008 – 2010 round after the City proposed a settlement with no wage increases. The other municipal unions had settled for a two-year contract with 4.0 percent increases in the beginning of the first and second year of the contract. The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) is in the final stage of a fact finding process that was initiated to resolve the deadlock between the UFT and the City.
PERB will shortly hold a final hearing on wage increases for UFT members and then issue a report detailing recommendations for a contract resolution. While PERB recommendations are not binding they have served as a framework for final labor contracts with the UFT in the past. A recommendation patterned after the labor agreements of the other municipal unions will cost the City approximately $3.495 billion in FY 2014, including retroactive cost, and $900 million annually beginning in FY 2015.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
DA REPORT: PRESIDENT MULGREW ACKNOWLEDGES THE OPPOSITION IS ENTITLED TO HALF OF THE SPEAKERS IN DEBATE
At a rather sparsely attended pre-holiday Delegate Assembly meeting at UFT HQ in Manhattan, UFT President Michael Mulgrew actually conceded that opponents of measures are entitled to half of the speakers during debate. This rather remarkable admission came after I made my first ever official "Parliamentary Inquiry" to the Chair.
Since last month's complete evisceration of Robert's Rules where Mulgrew did not permit anyone to speak against a leadership sponsored resolution to only tweak the evaluation system in contract negotiations, some of us decided that we needed to truly cite chapter and verse if the opposition to the ruling Unity Caucus was ever going to be heard in a substantial way at UFT forums.
Instead of using a simplified version of Robert's Rules as I have in the past, I went out and purchased the unabridged Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to take a detailed look at parliamentary law. When studying the book quite closely, I came upon something that showed in very clear language that, as I suspected, the opponents of measures were entitled to half of the speakers in debate.
At the DA, opposition speakers are either shut out or maybe allowed one voice while members of Mulgrew's ruling Unity Caucus, who sign a membership obligation to "Support the decisions of the Caucus/Union leadership in public or union forums," are recognized one after another until they get bored and one of them moves to close debate.
Mulgrew then uses the fact that there is a motion to close debate on the floor, which is not debatable, to call on his supermajority to close debate and stifle all dissent. He is correct that they can close debate but he is completely out of order in the way he assigns the floor.
Since we were prepared, I informed my friends in MORE that I planned on raising the issue at the December DA. At the beginning of the question period I demanded a "Parliamentary Inquiry." The President yielded the floor to me after saying something I couldn't quite make out. Here is what I stated:
Last month Mr. President, you stated that it has been settled that there does not have to be a speaker against each debatable motion.
This needs to be clarified. I would like to call the chair and the Parliamentarian’s attention to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, Chapter II: Obtaining the Floor, Section 3 on Page 31, starting on line 8 where it states:
“In cases where the chair knows that persons seeking the floor have opposite opinions on the question…, the chair should let the floor alternate, as far as possible, between those favoring and those opposing the measure. To accomplish this, the chair may say, for example, “Since the last speaker spoke in favor of the motion, who wishes to speak in opposition to the motion?”
When are you going to assign the floor as per Robert's Rules so we can have real debate alternating between speakers for and against every debatable measure that is raised here until someone calls the question (makes a motion to end debate)?
(I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that he allowed me to say all of this uninterrupted but it does pay to be prepared.) Mulgrew pounced on my point about last month saying that he was correct last month in the way he ended debate because when someone makes a motion to close debate and it is seconded, it is not debatable and it's up to the body to decide (A2/3 vote closes debate). The President then looked to his Parliamentarian to dispose of the main inquiry.
The Parliamentarian must have said words to the effect that I was right because at that point Mulgrew acknowledged that the opposition is entitled to half of the speakers and he then declared that this is how he conducts Delegate Assembly debates (What?) and he would adhere to the rules by asking for alternate speakers both for and against each debatable motion.
OK ladies and gentlemen, it is now up to my fellow Delegates to make this ruling a reality. We are entitled to not merely one, but 50% of speakers in every debate. My guess is we are going to have to demand our speaking time but it is there for the taking.
(On the issue of ending debate, I still maintain that Mulgrew has been wrong according to the Rules because he should have been alternating the floor throughout debate and since he knows all of the people in his caucus are obligated to support leadership motions, he has no right to call on two or three or four of them in a row. The opposition is entitled to the floor directly after the speaker who motivates a motion yields the floor. Let's see what happens when something controversial comes up.)
National Scene
The budget agreement between Democrats and Republicans in DC is not bad. Problem nationally is Detroit and Illinois where a bankruptcy judge in Detroit and the Democratic controlled Legislature and Democratic Governor in Illinois are cutting pensions. In Michigan the constitution has a pension guarantee, like we have in NY, that says pensions are protected and cannot be touched. There will be an appeal and our law firms are involved. Worker pensions didn't cause bankruptcy in Detroit. It was caused by poor government decisions and high bank lending fees. The events in Detroit and Illinois are very serious and have national implications.
NYS
UFT has not taken a position yet on Governor's tax commission report.
NYC
The first deputy mayor that Mayor Elect de Blasio has chosen used to work for the old Board of Education. Bill Bratton, de Blasio's choice for police commissioner, is saying the right things.
As for Chancellor, the UFT is comfortable with the people being considered because they are real educators. We are talking to the incoming administration. The new mayor has to fix many city agencies.
Our enemies are saying the city can't afford to give us a raise. UFT disagrees. We need a raise.
We are hoping to have a Chancellor by January 1 who is an educator and then we have to negotiate a contract as well as rebuild the school system. The President thanked people who came out to December 5 and December 9 actions. We must fight to move the city to the right place. The rest of the country is looking to us.
SESIS
Another 900 checks will go out in December.
Teacher Evaluation System
Both administrators and teachers agree that there are too many observations, too much paperwork and too many components in the new evaluation system. The President closed by wishing all happy holidays.
Since last month's complete evisceration of Robert's Rules where Mulgrew did not permit anyone to speak against a leadership sponsored resolution to only tweak the evaluation system in contract negotiations, some of us decided that we needed to truly cite chapter and verse if the opposition to the ruling Unity Caucus was ever going to be heard in a substantial way at UFT forums.
Instead of using a simplified version of Robert's Rules as I have in the past, I went out and purchased the unabridged Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to take a detailed look at parliamentary law. When studying the book quite closely, I came upon something that showed in very clear language that, as I suspected, the opponents of measures were entitled to half of the speakers in debate.
At the DA, opposition speakers are either shut out or maybe allowed one voice while members of Mulgrew's ruling Unity Caucus, who sign a membership obligation to "Support the decisions of the Caucus/Union leadership in public or union forums," are recognized one after another until they get bored and one of them moves to close debate.
Mulgrew then uses the fact that there is a motion to close debate on the floor, which is not debatable, to call on his supermajority to close debate and stifle all dissent. He is correct that they can close debate but he is completely out of order in the way he assigns the floor.
Since we were prepared, I informed my friends in MORE that I planned on raising the issue at the December DA. At the beginning of the question period I demanded a "Parliamentary Inquiry." The President yielded the floor to me after saying something I couldn't quite make out. Here is what I stated:
Parliamentary Inquiry
Pages 292-293 Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised say a parliamentary inquiry is called for if a member has an important question on a matter of parliamentary law bearing on the business at hand. I have an inquiry on parliamentary law. Last month Mr. President, you stated that it has been settled that there does not have to be a speaker against each debatable motion.
This needs to be clarified. I would like to call the chair and the Parliamentarian’s attention to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, Chapter II: Obtaining the Floor, Section 3 on Page 31, starting on line 8 where it states:
“In cases where the chair knows that persons seeking the floor have opposite opinions on the question…, the chair should let the floor alternate, as far as possible, between those favoring and those opposing the measure. To accomplish this, the chair may say, for example, “Since the last speaker spoke in favor of the motion, who wishes to speak in opposition to the motion?”
When are you going to assign the floor as per Robert's Rules so we can have real debate alternating between speakers for and against every debatable measure that is raised here until someone calls the question (makes a motion to end debate)?
(I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that he allowed me to say all of this uninterrupted but it does pay to be prepared.) Mulgrew pounced on my point about last month saying that he was correct last month in the way he ended debate because when someone makes a motion to close debate and it is seconded, it is not debatable and it's up to the body to decide (A2/3 vote closes debate). The President then looked to his Parliamentarian to dispose of the main inquiry.
The Parliamentarian must have said words to the effect that I was right because at that point Mulgrew acknowledged that the opposition is entitled to half of the speakers and he then declared that this is how he conducts Delegate Assembly debates (What?) and he would adhere to the rules by asking for alternate speakers both for and against each debatable motion.
OK ladies and gentlemen, it is now up to my fellow Delegates to make this ruling a reality. We are entitled to not merely one, but 50% of speakers in every debate. My guess is we are going to have to demand our speaking time but it is there for the taking.
(On the issue of ending debate, I still maintain that Mulgrew has been wrong according to the Rules because he should have been alternating the floor throughout debate and since he knows all of the people in his caucus are obligated to support leadership motions, he has no right to call on two or three or four of them in a row. The opposition is entitled to the floor directly after the speaker who motivates a motion yields the floor. Let's see what happens when something controversial comes up.)
President's Report
Mulgrew began by calling for a moment of silence for Nelson Mandela. He also called for a moment of silence to honor the lives of Gene Prisco and other UFT members who had recently passed away. After the moment of silence, there was a huge standing ovation and the DA sang a quick version of "Na na na na, hey hey goodbye" when it was announced that this was the final DA of the Bloomberg years and the mayor would be gone in three weeks.National Scene
The budget agreement between Democrats and Republicans in DC is not bad. Problem nationally is Detroit and Illinois where a bankruptcy judge in Detroit and the Democratic controlled Legislature and Democratic Governor in Illinois are cutting pensions. In Michigan the constitution has a pension guarantee, like we have in NY, that says pensions are protected and cannot be touched. There will be an appeal and our law firms are involved. Worker pensions didn't cause bankruptcy in Detroit. It was caused by poor government decisions and high bank lending fees. The events in Detroit and Illinois are very serious and have national implications.
NYS
UFT has not taken a position yet on Governor's tax commission report.
NYC
The first deputy mayor that Mayor Elect de Blasio has chosen used to work for the old Board of Education. Bill Bratton, de Blasio's choice for police commissioner, is saying the right things.
As for Chancellor, the UFT is comfortable with the people being considered because they are real educators. We are talking to the incoming administration. The new mayor has to fix many city agencies.
Our enemies are saying the city can't afford to give us a raise. UFT disagrees. We need a raise.
We are hoping to have a Chancellor by January 1 who is an educator and then we have to negotiate a contract as well as rebuild the school system. The President thanked people who came out to December 5 and December 9 actions. We must fight to move the city to the right place. The rest of the country is looking to us.
SESIS
Another 900 checks will go out in December.
Teacher Evaluation System
Both administrators and teachers agree that there are too many observations, too much paperwork and too many components in the new evaluation system. The President closed by wishing all happy holidays.
Staff Director's Report
Staff Director Leroy Barr reported on several holiday activities that the UFT is involved in and gave the date for the next DA.
Question Period
I demanded and got the floor first with my parliamentary inquiry (see above).
Question: What is going on with fact finding?
Mulgrew Answer: Last hearing for non binding fact finding arbitration is today (Wednesday). There is one outstanding issue. The report is due in January and even though it is not binding on either side, fifty years of precedent show that it will be used as a framework to make a contract. If as stated above, we are on the same page as the principals on fixing the evaluation system, we may be able to get something done.
Question: Are there any deficits in our pension system?
Answer: No. Unlike other states, NY is not passing state budgets that don't fund pension contributions. Neighboring New Jersey went 18 years without making pension contributions.
Question: ICT teacher and other teacher in the same room getting the same ratings on observations. Is this proper?
Answer: This is not proper. Keep giving us information for grievances.
Question: How will the Affordable Care Act impact on our health plan?
Answer: At this time we have already seen benefits as children are now covered up to age 26. The UFT has a drug cap of $100,000 which is very high. UFT Welfare Fund always paid if someone exceeded the cap but now other unions which had much smaller caps can no longer have a cap and must catch up as the ACA has done away with these kinds of caps. The insurance company regulations in the law don't kick in for another 18 months so the staggered implementation of the law does create problems
New Motions
There were no new motions.
Discussion on Fixing Teacher Evaluation and Repairing the Structure of the School System
President Mulgrew called for a discussion on how we want the teacher evaluation system to change under the new mayor and what we want the school system to look like. He said that since this would be subject to negotiations, he would like us not to report on this so we won't. We will only say that MORE people played an active role in this part of the meeting.
Special Order of Business
There was a Resolution honoring legacy of Nelson Mandela in the fight for justice and equal opportunity for all; one calling for NYS to halt the inBloom contract for collecting and storing sensitive student data; another calling for inclusive language for UFT members who are not teachers; one to repair NYC's electoral system, and finally a resolution to show solidarity with beleaguered Philadelphia Educators and students. None of these were very controversial and all passed I think unanimously. Mulgrew did actually ask if someone wants to speak against one of them.
That's all folks.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
INSIDE UFT-CITY FACT FINDING FROM REUTERS
Reuters is finally giving us some news about contract negotiations between the UFT and city. Apparently, the city is arguing that they legally cannot pay us the retroactive salary increases because it would bust the budget. The city wants to avoid having to give UFT members the 4% + 4% raises that other city workers received in the last round of collective bargaining. Compounded over four years, it would be a substantial sum as we have reported. Here is a portion of the Reuters article:
With just three weeks remaining before his team cedes power to Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio, Bloomberg's administration will cite accounting rules at a closed-door state hearing on Wednesday as it tries to shut the door on any retroactive raises being paid out as bonuses in future years, according to people taking part in the hearings.
In the administration's view, the rules stipulate that any lump-sum payout must be booked in the year it is made, not spread out over years. The amount owed would be too big a hit for any one year and would break the city's balanced budget requirement, they say. The stance effectively closes down any attempt by the teachers for a settlement along those lines, at least with the Bloomberg administration.
The counter argument from the UFT:
At an earlier hearing, the teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers, which has been working without a contract since 2009, argued that under generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, rules for municipal budget keeping do not require an arduous one-time cost.
An accounting expert for the United Federation of Teachers also cited a 1991 deal when the city deferred part of a teachers' wage increase, paying $47 million out in 1995 and 1996 -- with interest of 9 percent -- and thus setting a precedent for the practice of deferred payments.
The city is arguing they can't afford to pay us all they owe us in one year so forget it while UFT is saying to spread the payments out as they did in 1991.
Who is right?
"It's a very big bill attached to this retroactive pay raise, and (the Bloomberg administration is) specifically raising this as a deal breaker," said Barry Epstein, an accounting expert at Cendrowski Corporate Advisors, who testified on behalf of the union. "Essentially what they are saying is, we'd be happy to pay this to you except we can't do it because we have a balanced budget law and this will bust the budget."
"My answer to that is they are misinterpreting their accounting requirements," Epstein said.
The mayor's office and the Department of Education declined to comment. But other people familiar with the proceeding supported Epstein's characterization on the city's position.
Thanks to Jeff Kaufman for sending this out.
With just three weeks remaining before his team cedes power to Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio, Bloomberg's administration will cite accounting rules at a closed-door state hearing on Wednesday as it tries to shut the door on any retroactive raises being paid out as bonuses in future years, according to people taking part in the hearings.
In the administration's view, the rules stipulate that any lump-sum payout must be booked in the year it is made, not spread out over years. The amount owed would be too big a hit for any one year and would break the city's balanced budget requirement, they say. The stance effectively closes down any attempt by the teachers for a settlement along those lines, at least with the Bloomberg administration.
The counter argument from the UFT:
At an earlier hearing, the teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers, which has been working without a contract since 2009, argued that under generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, rules for municipal budget keeping do not require an arduous one-time cost.
An accounting expert for the United Federation of Teachers also cited a 1991 deal when the city deferred part of a teachers' wage increase, paying $47 million out in 1995 and 1996 -- with interest of 9 percent -- and thus setting a precedent for the practice of deferred payments.
The city is arguing they can't afford to pay us all they owe us in one year so forget it while UFT is saying to spread the payments out as they did in 1991.
Who is right?
"It's a very big bill attached to this retroactive pay raise, and (the Bloomberg administration is) specifically raising this as a deal breaker," said Barry Epstein, an accounting expert at Cendrowski Corporate Advisors, who testified on behalf of the union. "Essentially what they are saying is, we'd be happy to pay this to you except we can't do it because we have a balanced budget law and this will bust the budget."
"My answer to that is they are misinterpreting their accounting requirements," Epstein said.
The mayor's office and the Department of Education declined to comment. But other people familiar with the proceeding supported Epstein's characterization on the city's position.
Thanks to Jeff Kaufman for sending this out.
Monday, December 09, 2013
WHO TO PICK FOR CHANCELLOR?
I look to Valerie Strauss for accurate information on the public schools. Her Answer Sheet blog at the Washington Post is essential reading for anyone interested in saving public education. Strauss weighed in this morning on the intrigue surrounding Mayor Elect Bill de Blasio's selection for the Chancellor's position.
According to The Answer Sheet, de Blasio's first choice for NYC Chancellor was Stanford professor and the head of President Barack Obama's education transition team: Linda Darling Hammond. However, she apparently turned him down. I guess it is good news that Darling Hammond is de Blasio's preferred Chancellor. However, some of the other names being thrown around in the press would be, as Reality Based Educator calls them, deal breakers.
The mayor elect stated yesterday that he has not yet made up his mind and is still looking at potential Chancellors. Let's try to remain optimistic that a non deformer will be chosen as Chancellor and that de Blasio will keep his campaign promise to truly break from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's pro charter, anti-teacher, anti-student, anti-parent, anti--public education policies.
Reality Based Educator suggests we put pressure on de Blasio to pick a Chancellor who we can live with. Go here to send a message to de Blasio's team.
According to The Answer Sheet, de Blasio's first choice for NYC Chancellor was Stanford professor and the head of President Barack Obama's education transition team: Linda Darling Hammond. However, she apparently turned him down. I guess it is good news that Darling Hammond is de Blasio's preferred Chancellor. However, some of the other names being thrown around in the press would be, as Reality Based Educator calls them, deal breakers.
The mayor elect stated yesterday that he has not yet made up his mind and is still looking at potential Chancellors. Let's try to remain optimistic that a non deformer will be chosen as Chancellor and that de Blasio will keep his campaign promise to truly break from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's pro charter, anti-teacher, anti-student, anti-parent, anti--public education policies.
Reality Based Educator suggests we put pressure on de Blasio to pick a Chancellor who we can live with. Go here to send a message to de Blasio's team.
Thursday, December 05, 2013
DETROIT BANKRUPTCY JUDGE PERMITTING PENSION CUTS IS A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that the city of Detroit, Michigan can cut pensions of municipal workers even though the pensions are protected by the Michigan State Constitution. According to the judge, federal bankruptcy law supersedes the state constitution. New York has a similar constitutional provision guaranteeing government worker pensions, including teachers.
This is supposed to be ironclad protection against cutting benefits for active workers and retirees. State and municipal government workers fulfilled their end of a contractual bargain by working a set amount of years so the pension money was supposed to be guaranteed by the government. Any cuts to benefits were only supposed to happen future employees. That is why New York keeps creating new pension tiers. Current employees and retirees are not impacted when there is a new pension tier passed by the state. We are now up to Tier VI in New York.
Should we worry in New York about Detroit style pension cuts? The answer is we are obviously in much better shape financially than Detroit so I don't believe our pensions are in any imminent danger. However, this case sets a terrible precedent that will more than likely be used by many states and local municipalities to cut pension benefits for government workers. As the race to the bottom continues for the middle class and working class, it looks like bankruptcy will be the newest tool used against government worker pensions as it has been done in the private sector.
This quote from the NY Times says a great deal about what we are facing:
“Last night, as a public employees’ union leader, you went to bed thinking, ‘My workers’ pensions have special protection; I can continue to play hardball,’ ” Karol K. Denniston, a lawyer with the firm Schiff Hardin who has been advising residents of California cities on fiscal issues, said Tuesday after the judge issued his ruling. “This morning you woke up and found yourself in a new world.”
Another quote lays out the dangers beyond bankruptcy for our pensions:
"It’s a horror film,” said Anders Lindall, a spokesman for Afscme in Illinois, where the state legislature voted Tuesday to cut back retirees’ cost-of-living adjustments as part of a broad effort to bring the state’s pension system into balance. Illinois, like Michigan, has an explicit reference to protecting public pensions in its Constitution.
In this new world, we have to have a revitalized labor movement. Keeping this in mind, it is important that we have a good showing at today's labor rally at Foley Square in Manhattan after school. Mayor elect Bill de Blasio needs to see that New York is still a strong union town.
This is supposed to be ironclad protection against cutting benefits for active workers and retirees. State and municipal government workers fulfilled their end of a contractual bargain by working a set amount of years so the pension money was supposed to be guaranteed by the government. Any cuts to benefits were only supposed to happen future employees. That is why New York keeps creating new pension tiers. Current employees and retirees are not impacted when there is a new pension tier passed by the state. We are now up to Tier VI in New York.
Should we worry in New York about Detroit style pension cuts? The answer is we are obviously in much better shape financially than Detroit so I don't believe our pensions are in any imminent danger. However, this case sets a terrible precedent that will more than likely be used by many states and local municipalities to cut pension benefits for government workers. As the race to the bottom continues for the middle class and working class, it looks like bankruptcy will be the newest tool used against government worker pensions as it has been done in the private sector.
This quote from the NY Times says a great deal about what we are facing:
“Last night, as a public employees’ union leader, you went to bed thinking, ‘My workers’ pensions have special protection; I can continue to play hardball,’ ” Karol K. Denniston, a lawyer with the firm Schiff Hardin who has been advising residents of California cities on fiscal issues, said Tuesday after the judge issued his ruling. “This morning you woke up and found yourself in a new world.”
Another quote lays out the dangers beyond bankruptcy for our pensions:
"It’s a horror film,” said Anders Lindall, a spokesman for Afscme in Illinois, where the state legislature voted Tuesday to cut back retirees’ cost-of-living adjustments as part of a broad effort to bring the state’s pension system into balance. Illinois, like Michigan, has an explicit reference to protecting public pensions in its Constitution.
In this new world, we have to have a revitalized labor movement. Keeping this in mind, it is important that we have a good showing at today's labor rally at Foley Square in Manhattan after school. Mayor elect Bill de Blasio needs to see that New York is still a strong union town.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
GENE PRISCO'S PASSING A BIG LOSS
I was aware that he was not well but I am still stunned by the passing of a founding member of ICE: Gene Prisco. Tributes are starting to pour in. Please read the Staten Island Advance obituary or the brief introduction to the Advance piece over at Ed Notes from Norm Scott. We are also reprinting in its entirety the message from the Democratic Party of Staten Island (see below).
Gene was truly a wonderful human being. My wife Camille and I both feel honored that we were able to know him and his wife Lorreta. What a truly inspiring couple who are kind of role models to us on how to be a politically active family.
When people like me would be rambling on at ICE meetings about some great injustice by Randi Weingarten or Bloomberg or anyone else, Gene would respond by acknowledging in no uncertain terms that the job of a union was primarily to protect its members and that the UFT should be criticized if they don't live up to their main mission. What was unique about Gene is he could make these points in a way that would make us roll over laughing.
He had an amazing sense of humor and no matter how bad the conditions in the schools have worsened for teachers, his outlook at ICE meetings remained optimistic that we could make our issues (for example lower class sizes) part of the union's agenda.
Gene and Loretta were in attendance regularly to support Jeff Kaufman, Barbara Kaplan Halper and me when we were on the UFT Executive Board. He knew that the UFT had the potential to be a positive force to make the education system a better place for teachers, parents and students. He felt the same way about the promise of the Democratic Party. That is why he ran for Congress in 1998.
My wife is reminding me of Gene's commitment to assisting African refugees. Some of these refugees were kids who were involved in war at very young ages. Gene took enormous pride in his work with the African Refuge organization. Nothing made him happier than helping people get a better life.
Gene Prisco's activism proves that you can make a difference in the world by living up to your ideals. Our condolences go to Loretta and the entire family.
Gene was truly a wonderful human being. My wife Camille and I both feel honored that we were able to know him and his wife Lorreta. What a truly inspiring couple who are kind of role models to us on how to be a politically active family.
When people like me would be rambling on at ICE meetings about some great injustice by Randi Weingarten or Bloomberg or anyone else, Gene would respond by acknowledging in no uncertain terms that the job of a union was primarily to protect its members and that the UFT should be criticized if they don't live up to their main mission. What was unique about Gene is he could make these points in a way that would make us roll over laughing.
He had an amazing sense of humor and no matter how bad the conditions in the schools have worsened for teachers, his outlook at ICE meetings remained optimistic that we could make our issues (for example lower class sizes) part of the union's agenda.
Gene and Loretta were in attendance regularly to support Jeff Kaufman, Barbara Kaplan Halper and me when we were on the UFT Executive Board. He knew that the UFT had the potential to be a positive force to make the education system a better place for teachers, parents and students. He felt the same way about the promise of the Democratic Party. That is why he ran for Congress in 1998.
My wife is reminding me of Gene's commitment to assisting African refugees. Some of these refugees were kids who were involved in war at very young ages. Gene took enormous pride in his work with the African Refuge organization. Nothing made him happier than helping people get a better life.
Gene Prisco's activism proves that you can make a difference in the world by living up to your ideals. Our condolences go to Loretta and the entire family.
I regret to inform you of the passing of Eugene Prisco, Democratic Congressional candidate in 1998 and a longtime party activist and community leader. Gene was one of the most passionate and articulate voices on behalf of the Democratic Party that I have ever known. He was a man of principle, a man of vision and a man with a deep and abiding love for his family, Staten Island and the Democratic Party. With Gene's passing, we have lost a champion for the values of the Democratic Party and it is a loss we all feel deeply. For those who have had the privilege of knowing Gene, I hope you'll carry his memory with you and I ask that you pray for his family and friends during this difficult time.
Services are still in the process of being arranged. When the details are finalized we will announce them.
Yours Truly,
John P. Gulino
Chairman.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
UNITY DOMINATED UFT DELEGATE ASSEMBLY VOTES FOR MINOR TWEAKS IN THE TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM WHILE MORE CAUCUS CALLS FOR REPEAL OF EVALUATION LAW
The positions of the two main caucuses (political parties) within the UFT on the topic of teacher evaluations emerged clear as day at Wednesday's UFT Delegate Assembly in Manhattan. Michael Mulgrew's Unity Caucus passed a resolution calling for small changes in the teacher evaluation system called Advance to be negotiated with the new mayor. On the other hand, the Movement of Rank and File Educators introduced a resolution calling for a full scale repeal of the evaluation system law (Education Law 3012c) that ties teacher evaluations to student test scores.
Most of the Unity dominated Delegate Assembly, including a huge group of retirees who do not have to work under the new system, agreed with the President that evaluations only need to be tweaked but there was strong support for MORE's position to scrap the whole system among the Delegates.
As usual, President Michael Mulgrew ignored Roberts' Rules of Order in conducting debate. No speakers were permitted to oppose a Unity Caucus resolution reinforced the UFT's support for the evaluation law. However, the UFT is calling for a moratorium on using the results of high stakes tests for teacher evaluations until alterations to the local portion of the Measures of Student Learning portion of the system can be worked out in contract negotiations. The Unity sponsored resolution was on the regular agenda. It was introduced a few minutes after Delegate Megan Moskop from MORE introduced a resolution for next month during the new motion period calling for the UFT to support legislation to scrap the entire teacher evaluation law.
When Megan raised the MORE resolution, Mulgrew had no choice but to allow her to speak on its behalf as it she had obtained the floor. In Megan's speech, she emphasized how using high stakes tests to evaluate teachers is a huge step back for the teaching profession, our members and the students. Megan skillfully pointed to some of the points made by Mulgrew in his Presidents' Report about how misuse of standardized testing and education profiteering is bad for kids as well as teachers.
MORE also had excellent literature in support of this resolution which noted that the UFT had a task force report in 2007 that completely opposed using high stakes tests in any way shape or form to evaluate teachers. MORE also was highly critical of the Danielson observation system in the resolution saying it "subjects teachers to a cookie-cutter observation system that limits professional autonomy and reduces teaching to a series of numbered scores." Megan received energized applause when she concluded her remarks by saying teachers need a voice and that the entire 3012c law needs to be repealed.
When Megan finished speaking, UFT Vice President Janella Hinds rose to defend the evaluation system law. Janella said that MORE misunderstood the new system as it rates teachers based on multiple measures which the UFT likes. This was also emphasized in the Unity Caucus literature that was handed out before the meeting. Janella argued that the new system took the power to rate teachers negatively out of the exclusive hands of principals. She added that we do not want to go back to the old system where ratings were exclusively the purview of principals. In addition, Janella objected to the criticism of the Danielson framework which she claimed was not part of the evaluation law. She also disagreed that tenure was weakened under the evaluation law as she pointed out that each teacher rated ineffective would be visited by an independent validator the following year.
Janella also said that the problem was not so much the law as the Department of Education's inept implementation of the law and that is why the UFT filed 17 grievances against the DOE on evaluations. She closed by saying that how her students do on the Regents is a very important part of what she does and that MORE is trying to organize through fear which is not good. Her remarks were politely, if not enthusiastically, received.
When a Delegate raises a resolution for the following month during the new motion period, one speaker is allowed both for and against the motion and then it is voted on. The Unity majority voted against trying to repeal the evaluation law.
Instead, they had their own resolution on the regular agenda that was introduced by Staff Director Leroy Barr several minutes later. Leroy stated that even though the new evaluation system isn't working, we can't go back to the old system because we favor multiple measures to evaluate teachers. He added how we have to fix what is broken in the new system by changing the way the local 20% of teacher ratings are measured. He argued how we should be judged by student work including projects, group work and homework. The Unity resolution is also calling for a moratorium on using standardized tests to evaluate teachers.
Next up after Leroy was a Unity Delegate who told us that we have to stop worrying about being observed. He claimed he wanted more observations. (A big Unity theme of the day was that the observations have to be for support and to improve teaching).
At this point Mulgrew did his usual abuse of parliamentary procedure as someone called for debate to be closed. Anyone who can read knows that Roberts' Rules, the dictionary and common decency all tell you that it isn't debate until both sides are heard. According to brother Mulgrew, it is up to the body to decide if the minority should be heard so he allowed the Unity majority, including the large bloc of retirees who don't have to worry about evaluations, to close debate. The vote to tweak the evaluation system was largely in favor. (I voted no. Some Delegates who supported MORE's call to repeal the evaluation law also voted for Unity's resolution to tweak it. I guess something is better than nothing.)
There was another motion that called for an end to high stakes testing for grades Pre K to 2. This was motivated illegally by Mulgrew from the chair and then by Vice President Karen Alford. Mulgrew stated that both State Education Commissioner John King and Chancellor Dennis Walcott told him they were against standardized testing for pre K to grade 2 but Mulgrew went on to say that 36 schools were giving bubble tests to kids of this age and that he talked to a teacher who reported that some of these students could not even hold a pencil.
When the two officers completed their speeches, Mulgrew called on a Delegate who asked if tests to see how well English Language Learners understand the language would be included in this resolution. Mulgrew did not know which prompted a retiree to move that the motion be tabled. A motion to table is not debatable but since this was a Unity person who made the motion to table a Unity resolution, there was real confusion in the room.
Unity people didn't know what to do so Mulgrew once again ignored Roberts' Rules by dismissing the voices yelling out that a motion to table is not debatable, as he allowed Leroy Barr to speak against the motion to table. The UFT's parliamentarian said nothing. After hearing from Leroy, the Unity majority killed the motion to table and supported the ban on standardized testing for our youngest kids. (I voted for the ban for the record.)
Most of the Unity dominated Delegate Assembly, including a huge group of retirees who do not have to work under the new system, agreed with the President that evaluations only need to be tweaked but there was strong support for MORE's position to scrap the whole system among the Delegates.
As usual, President Michael Mulgrew ignored Roberts' Rules of Order in conducting debate. No speakers were permitted to oppose a Unity Caucus resolution reinforced the UFT's support for the evaluation law. However, the UFT is calling for a moratorium on using the results of high stakes tests for teacher evaluations until alterations to the local portion of the Measures of Student Learning portion of the system can be worked out in contract negotiations. The Unity sponsored resolution was on the regular agenda. It was introduced a few minutes after Delegate Megan Moskop from MORE introduced a resolution for next month during the new motion period calling for the UFT to support legislation to scrap the entire teacher evaluation law.
When Megan raised the MORE resolution, Mulgrew had no choice but to allow her to speak on its behalf as it she had obtained the floor. In Megan's speech, she emphasized how using high stakes tests to evaluate teachers is a huge step back for the teaching profession, our members and the students. Megan skillfully pointed to some of the points made by Mulgrew in his Presidents' Report about how misuse of standardized testing and education profiteering is bad for kids as well as teachers.
MORE also had excellent literature in support of this resolution which noted that the UFT had a task force report in 2007 that completely opposed using high stakes tests in any way shape or form to evaluate teachers. MORE also was highly critical of the Danielson observation system in the resolution saying it "subjects teachers to a cookie-cutter observation system that limits professional autonomy and reduces teaching to a series of numbered scores." Megan received energized applause when she concluded her remarks by saying teachers need a voice and that the entire 3012c law needs to be repealed.
When Megan finished speaking, UFT Vice President Janella Hinds rose to defend the evaluation system law. Janella said that MORE misunderstood the new system as it rates teachers based on multiple measures which the UFT likes. This was also emphasized in the Unity Caucus literature that was handed out before the meeting. Janella argued that the new system took the power to rate teachers negatively out of the exclusive hands of principals. She added that we do not want to go back to the old system where ratings were exclusively the purview of principals. In addition, Janella objected to the criticism of the Danielson framework which she claimed was not part of the evaluation law. She also disagreed that tenure was weakened under the evaluation law as she pointed out that each teacher rated ineffective would be visited by an independent validator the following year.
Janella also said that the problem was not so much the law as the Department of Education's inept implementation of the law and that is why the UFT filed 17 grievances against the DOE on evaluations. She closed by saying that how her students do on the Regents is a very important part of what she does and that MORE is trying to organize through fear which is not good. Her remarks were politely, if not enthusiastically, received.
When a Delegate raises a resolution for the following month during the new motion period, one speaker is allowed both for and against the motion and then it is voted on. The Unity majority voted against trying to repeal the evaluation law.
Instead, they had their own resolution on the regular agenda that was introduced by Staff Director Leroy Barr several minutes later. Leroy stated that even though the new evaluation system isn't working, we can't go back to the old system because we favor multiple measures to evaluate teachers. He added how we have to fix what is broken in the new system by changing the way the local 20% of teacher ratings are measured. He argued how we should be judged by student work including projects, group work and homework. The Unity resolution is also calling for a moratorium on using standardized tests to evaluate teachers.
Next up after Leroy was a Unity Delegate who told us that we have to stop worrying about being observed. He claimed he wanted more observations. (A big Unity theme of the day was that the observations have to be for support and to improve teaching).
At this point Mulgrew did his usual abuse of parliamentary procedure as someone called for debate to be closed. Anyone who can read knows that Roberts' Rules, the dictionary and common decency all tell you that it isn't debate until both sides are heard. According to brother Mulgrew, it is up to the body to decide if the minority should be heard so he allowed the Unity majority, including the large bloc of retirees who don't have to worry about evaluations, to close debate. The vote to tweak the evaluation system was largely in favor. (I voted no. Some Delegates who supported MORE's call to repeal the evaluation law also voted for Unity's resolution to tweak it. I guess something is better than nothing.)
There was another motion that called for an end to high stakes testing for grades Pre K to 2. This was motivated illegally by Mulgrew from the chair and then by Vice President Karen Alford. Mulgrew stated that both State Education Commissioner John King and Chancellor Dennis Walcott told him they were against standardized testing for pre K to grade 2 but Mulgrew went on to say that 36 schools were giving bubble tests to kids of this age and that he talked to a teacher who reported that some of these students could not even hold a pencil.
When the two officers completed their speeches, Mulgrew called on a Delegate who asked if tests to see how well English Language Learners understand the language would be included in this resolution. Mulgrew did not know which prompted a retiree to move that the motion be tabled. A motion to table is not debatable but since this was a Unity person who made the motion to table a Unity resolution, there was real confusion in the room.
Unity people didn't know what to do so Mulgrew once again ignored Roberts' Rules by dismissing the voices yelling out that a motion to table is not debatable, as he allowed Leroy Barr to speak against the motion to table. The UFT's parliamentarian said nothing. After hearing from Leroy, the Unity majority killed the motion to table and supported the ban on standardized testing for our youngest kids. (I voted for the ban for the record.)
President's Report
UFT President Mulgrew called for a moment of silence for several UFT members who had recently passed away. He then brought up on stage the people who were involved in making the new UFT TV commercial that he said received 200,000 hits on Facebook.
Teacher Evaluations, Excessive Paperwork, State of DOE & Transition to New Mayor,
The new teacher evaluation system a disaster as is excessive paperwork. The schools are chaotic but the DOE is still hiring lawyers and accountability people even though they are on their way out. Mayor elect Bill de Blasio's people know the schools are in chaos and they acknowledge that other city agencies are in bad shape too.
Mulgrew then stated for the record: "God help the new Chancellor." The UFT is hoping for a quick transition; the process to pick the new Chancellor had not yet started. Members need relief from overwork but the transition to a new mayor is an amazing organizing opportunity. We can't only be against what is going on but will have an opportunity to have an important role in creating a model school system.
DOE called on an outside group to evaluate the networks that supposedly support the schools and they concluded that the networks don't work. However, reorganizing what is by far the largest school system in the US is a massive undertaking.
Arbitration on DOE mandating format of lesson plans will be held on Thursday.
Outside of New York City only 1% of teachers were rated ineffective in New York State. Our enemies want 15% to be rated ineffective and want to know how only 1% of the teachers are ineffective if only 30% of the students are proficient on state tests.
We are not going tack to the old teacher evaluation system. Networks are telling principals different things concerning the implementation..
There needs to be a paradigm shift. Administration's job is to support teachers and we are there to help kids.
NYSUT Calls for Three YEAR Moratorium on Teacher Evaluation System
The President noted that our state union wants the evaluation system put on hold for three years. (That would seem to put the state union at odds with the city union that just wants the system tweaked. I must be missing something. I will try to clear this up.)
Common Core
NYC state lawmakers wanted to know why Commissioner John King was not holding hearings on Common Core in NYC. Now there will be hearings in the city.
Common Core needs to be rolled out right. Mulgrew is not sure if Common Core can survive if parents oppose it. Combining teacher evaluations and Common Core has resulted in a big mess.
Teachers were never supported properly supported but deserve proper support.
December 5 Rally
UFT supports the New Day New York Week of Action from December 3-9 including a rally on December 5 at Foley Square.
SESIS Money Will be Going Out to Members
More money for doing SESIS work outside the school day will be sent to members in December.
Philippine Relief
City heavily recruited from the Philippines back in 2004. Thousands of our members have family members impacted by the recent storm. They need medical help badly and the UFT will be sending nurses over there.
The Finish
There is a food and clothing drive ongoing, Over 1,400 people came out to honor Mel Aaronson for Teacher Union Day.
We need a shift from fighting what is wrong to leading the way to what we have to do to make the schools work. We want a happy opening to the school year in September of 2014.
Staff Director's Report
Leroy Barr reported the following:
We rallied for Lexington School for the Deaf.
We support the December 5 rally at Foley Square.
Teacher Union Day honors the November 7, 1960 strike.
The Staff Director asked the Delegates who walked the picket line in 1960 to stand and be recognized and they were applauded by the body.
Question Period
Question: City says there is no money for any raises. How do we respond?
Mulgrew Answer: UFT and Principal's Union are two main unions that did not receive the 4% and 4% pattern raises in the last round of bargaining but the city managed to find money for contracts for other unions after the collapse of the financial system. It is amazing how the city projects annual $3 billion shortfalls and at the end of the year there are suddenly $ 4 billion surpluses. We subsidize Wall Street investment banks. If the city just did the paperwork for Medicaid reimbursements, there is $600 million a year out there to be recovered.
Question: Administrators are doing multiple observations but are not reporting on positive visits, only negative reports. What should we do?
Answer: An officer and the District Representative need to visit that school
Question: How would NYC teachers have done on state measures for 2012-13?
Answer: 8.6% of NYS teachers out of NYC were ineffective based on student test scores but only 4% of NYC teachers were ineffective. We have factors such as student attendance and others that control for the population we teach. We want class size to be a factor too.
Question: UFT created a math syllabus several years back. Will we use it?
Answer: No. It is not aligned to the Common Core. We have to acknowledge that we are competing with other countries who are spending more on education. There are 110,000 skilled jobs that can't be filled in NYC because workers don't have the skills. Common Core is a good idea that is being hijacked by the corporations.
Everything Else
The new motions were on the week of action and scrapping the evaluation law. Except for the resolutions already mentioned, the only other one covered was one opposing mandated lesson plans. It carried unanimously. Five other resolutions will wait until next month or will just become policy. Who needs votes anyway?
I will try to put up an abridged post on everyone's position on evaluations after I recover from yesterday's DA meeting.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
DE BLASIO'S CAMPAIGN PROMISES ON EDUCATION
Leonie Haimson, over at the NYC Parent's blog, yesterday listed candidate Bill de Blasio's campaign promises on education. Leonie's group sent a survey to all of the candidates during the campaign and also held a candidate forum in June.
Some of de Blasio's positions very promising. It's why Leonie and many progressive thinking people thought de Blasio was the best candidate in the Democratic Primary. For example:
Testing
Help schools improve rather than close them
Some of de Blasio's positions very promising. It's why Leonie and many progressive thinking people thought de Blasio was the best candidate in the Democratic Primary. For example:
Testing
- Minimize the use of high-stakes standardized tests and agree to not use tests to decide which schools to close and which students to be held back. (Forum)
- Craft a teacher evaluation system that depends as little as possible on standardized test scores. (survey)
- Refuse to expand standardized testing into other grades (Pre-K to 2nd). (Survey)
- Encourage other NYC high schools to join the portfolio/alternative assessment consortium as opposed to basing graduation decisions on the results of the Regents exams. (Survey)
- Develop a non-punitive process by which NYC parents can choose to have their children opt-out of standardized testing. (Survey)
Furthermore:
Small schools, vocational schools and online learning
· Relax the requirement that all new schools be of a small size. (Survey)
· Ensure that students have full, face-to-face, in-person access to teacher, or continue to expand online learning as the alternative. (Survey)
· Improve Career and Technical Education programs. (Survey)
· Focus on ensuring there are quality schools in EVERY neighborhood. (Survey)
Help schools improve rather than close them
· Support rather than close struggling schools. (Survey)
· Create an early warning system for schools that are falling further behind. (Survey)
· Schools identified as struggling will receive targeted support through a new “Office of Strategic Supports” housed in the DOE that will develop intervention strategies in conjunction with the school communities and target individual high-need schools which will receive short-term, intensive support. (Survey)
You get the idea. The list is not perfect but it's fairly promising in many ways. Now let's see what our mayor elect does.
Friday, November 15, 2013
EPSTEIN PART II ON HOW BLOOMBERG DISMANTLED THE SCHOOL SYSTEM
From the Diane Ravitch blog.
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/11/15/marc-epstein-the-task-before-mayor-de-blasio-part-2/
I think anyone who has worked in a school knows the results of the last twelve years have been catastrophic for public education.
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/11/15/marc-epstein-the-task-before-mayor-de-blasio-part-2/
I think anyone who has worked in a school knows the results of the last twelve years have been catastrophic for public education.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
COMMON CORE PROTEST IN MINEOLA HAS CITY PRESENCE WHILE GOAL FOR THE MOVEMENT IS STATED BY LI UNION LEADER
Newsday reports that yesterday's John King forum in Nassau County was more civil than the raucous event held in Suffolk County on Tuesday. However, it should be noted that yesterday's audience was invited according to the report.
Nevertheless, a spirited protest was held outside and one of the people interviewed was our friend Arthur Goldstein, the Chapter Leader at Francis Lewis High School.
See it and read all about it here. Some of the comments are worth reading too.
As for Tuesday, everyone should look at the Port Jefferson Station Teachers' Association's official page and listen to PJSTA President Beth Dimino. It is great to know that union leaders like this exist. This is part of their piece:
"...nothing short of full withdrawal from Race to the Top, the Common Core, and test based evaluations is acceptable. Not waivers for special needs students. Not a three year moratorium. Only a full withdrawal from the entire agenda is acceptable."
Nevertheless, a spirited protest was held outside and one of the people interviewed was our friend Arthur Goldstein, the Chapter Leader at Francis Lewis High School.
See it and read all about it here. Some of the comments are worth reading too.
As for Tuesday, everyone should look at the Port Jefferson Station Teachers' Association's official page and listen to PJSTA President Beth Dimino. It is great to know that union leaders like this exist. This is part of their piece:
"...nothing short of full withdrawal from Race to the Top, the Common Core, and test based evaluations is acceptable. Not waivers for special needs students. Not a three year moratorium. Only a full withdrawal from the entire agenda is acceptable."
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
COMMON CORE REBELLION GAINS STEAM
Nice to see the public's got real opinions on the Common Core.
Here is the first part of the Newsday piece on a forum on Long Island that was held last evening.
The right and the left are coming together against the ruling elite on Common Core.
Today there is another John King Forum at Mineola High School in Nassau County at 3:30 pm. If you are in that neighborhood, stop by please. Principal and leading deform opponent Carol Burris will be there.
I gather the people at the State Education Department are going to hear some more from parents and educators who are not pleased with so called education reform.
Here is the first part of the Newsday piece on a forum on Long Island that was held last evening.
An emotional crowd of about 1,500 parents and educators packed Ward Melville High School's auditorium and cafeteria last night for a forum with state Education Commissioner John B. King Jr., cheering speakers who assailed state testing and Common Core academic standards and at times shouting down King as he tried to speak.
Eric Gustafson, a teacher in Three Village school district, brought those in the 900-capacity auditorium to their feet, cheering and clapping, when he said that Common Core and a new system of teacher and principal evaluations are "draining us of time and resources."
"Your approach has taken the joy out of teaching and the adventure out of learning," Gustafson said, adding that parents and teachers are begging for delay in implementation of new curriculums and tougher tests, but "nothing is happening."
The right and the left are coming together against the ruling elite on Common Core.
Today there is another John King Forum at Mineola High School in Nassau County at 3:30 pm. If you are in that neighborhood, stop by please. Principal and leading deform opponent Carol Burris will be there.
I gather the people at the State Education Department are going to hear some more from parents and educators who are not pleased with so called education reform.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
EPSTEIN OVER AT DIANE RAVITCH BLOG HAS SOME ADVICE FOR MAYOR ELECT DE BLASIO
My colleague Marc Epstein, now in exile from Jamaica as we phase out, has some advice on how Bill de Blasio can clean out the stables (fix the public schools) when he takes office in January.
If the new mayor doesn't know already, he will see very quickly just how big a mess he is inheriting in the New York City Public Schools.
If the new mayor doesn't know already, he will see very quickly just how big a mess he is inheriting in the New York City Public Schools.
Thursday, November 07, 2013
LET'S MAKE SURE WE DON'T GET "PUNKED" AGAIN!
Congratulations to Bill De Blasio, Tish James and Scott Stringer for their sweeping victories in Tuesday's election. They have a real mandate for progressive change, especially in the public schools.
Some friends are seeing ominous signs in the aftermath of the de Blasio landslide. We have been through a very difficult time under Mayor Bloomberg and before him it was not much better under Mayor Giuliani. Add in how we were fooled by Barack Obama, who ran to the left and except for two Supreme Court appointments, has basically kept much of the Bush second term agenda, particularly on education, moving forward and you can see why people are nervous.
Will we get "Punked" again by a Mayor de Blasio and Public Advocate Tish James?
Reality Based Educator points out that the mayor elect is praising anti teacher Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanual and James has placed a prominent ed deformer on her transition team. Is this cause for concern? Yes but let's not jump off the ledge now.
What should we do?
I don't think we should wait for the other shoe to drop but instead we should stay active and demand real education reform that puts the public back in public education.
I would suggest everyone start by reading Diane Ravitch's education mandate for the new mayor.
We are going to see in the next few weeks where de Blasio is headed in terms of education. We need to push for what we want in an education mayor now.
We cannot get "punked" again by any politician.
We won so let's act like it and fight for what we need.
Some friends are seeing ominous signs in the aftermath of the de Blasio landslide. We have been through a very difficult time under Mayor Bloomberg and before him it was not much better under Mayor Giuliani. Add in how we were fooled by Barack Obama, who ran to the left and except for two Supreme Court appointments, has basically kept much of the Bush second term agenda, particularly on education, moving forward and you can see why people are nervous.
Will we get "Punked" again by a Mayor de Blasio and Public Advocate Tish James?
Reality Based Educator points out that the mayor elect is praising anti teacher Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanual and James has placed a prominent ed deformer on her transition team. Is this cause for concern? Yes but let's not jump off the ledge now.
What should we do?
I don't think we should wait for the other shoe to drop but instead we should stay active and demand real education reform that puts the public back in public education.
I would suggest everyone start by reading Diane Ravitch's education mandate for the new mayor.
We are going to see in the next few weeks where de Blasio is headed in terms of education. We need to push for what we want in an education mayor now.
We cannot get "punked" again by any politician.
We won so let's act like it and fight for what we need.
Monday, November 04, 2013
NYC EDUCATOR EXPLAINS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO VOTE DE BLASIO ON TUESDAY
I was all set to write up a wonderful endorsement on why it is important to go out and vote on Tuesday for Bill de Blasio, but NYC Educator did it already.
All I can add is that I will not be holding my nose when I vote tomorrow. I'm crossing my fingers with de Blasio for mayor and Scott Stringer for Comptroller.
I have a bit more confidence in Tish James for Public Advocate.
For a full list of UFT endorsed candidates, click here.
All I can add is that I will not be holding my nose when I vote tomorrow. I'm crossing my fingers with de Blasio for mayor and Scott Stringer for Comptroller.
I have a bit more confidence in Tish James for Public Advocate.
For a full list of UFT endorsed candidates, click here.
Saturday, November 02, 2013
MYTH THAT TEACHERS NEED A NOTE FROM A DOCTOR AFTER THREE ABSENCES IN A ROW IS BUSTED IN GRIEVANCE
Times are really bad for NYC teachers these days when the UFT has to go to grievance to uphold basic rights that anyone can read in our contract. One crystal clear provision in the contract entitles teachers and other UFT school based members to ten self treated sick days per year. Here is the language of Article 16A11:
Teachers on regular appointment shall be granted absence refunds for illness, without a statement from a physician, for a total of no more than ten days in any school year.
Article 16A11 goes on to say that we can use three of those ten days for personal business, providing we give notice, and two of the three personal days can be utilized to care for a sick relative.
Nowhere does it say that if a teacher is out three days in a row, then a doctor's note must be submitted, yet that is a myth that has been spread throughout the system.
The UFT had to go to grievance to uphold the right to take ten self treated sick days. Of course we won this case. Apparently, the UFT doesn't want to brag too loud about this victory as the result is buried at the bottom of the weekly Chapter Leader Newsletter on November 1 where it states:
A union-initiated grievance maintaining that members should not need to produce a doctor’s note after taking three self-treated sick days consecutively has been resolved in our favor. You may take up to 10 self-treated days a year without a doctor’s note. This is true whether the days are taken separately or some — or even all — are taken consecutively.
While we all should be gratified that the UFT Grievance Department fought this case and won, it should never have had to be filed in the first place. Obviously, the Department of Education knew it was wrong as the grievance was resolved and not ruled on by an arbitrator.
Unfortunately, this is how the DOE operates these days. They violate clear contractual rights and wait for the union to grieve. When they are finally confronted, they back down. Meanwhile, myths such as the one that says we need a doctor's note after being out for three days in a row spread throughout the system.
One more point on this issue: Is it good practice to submit a note from a doctor if out for a few days? The answer is that if someone visits a physician when sick, it is a good idea to obtain and submit a doctor's note because then a member preserves the ten self treated days. However, members can be adversely rated if absence is so numerous as to impede performance on the job even if doctor's notes are turned in.
Teachers on regular appointment shall be granted absence refunds for illness, without a statement from a physician, for a total of no more than ten days in any school year.
Article 16A11 goes on to say that we can use three of those ten days for personal business, providing we give notice, and two of the three personal days can be utilized to care for a sick relative.
Nowhere does it say that if a teacher is out three days in a row, then a doctor's note must be submitted, yet that is a myth that has been spread throughout the system.
The UFT had to go to grievance to uphold the right to take ten self treated sick days. Of course we won this case. Apparently, the UFT doesn't want to brag too loud about this victory as the result is buried at the bottom of the weekly Chapter Leader Newsletter on November 1 where it states:
A union-initiated grievance maintaining that members should not need to produce a doctor’s note after taking three self-treated sick days consecutively has been resolved in our favor. You may take up to 10 self-treated days a year without a doctor’s note. This is true whether the days are taken separately or some — or even all — are taken consecutively.
While we all should be gratified that the UFT Grievance Department fought this case and won, it should never have had to be filed in the first place. Obviously, the Department of Education knew it was wrong as the grievance was resolved and not ruled on by an arbitrator.
Unfortunately, this is how the DOE operates these days. They violate clear contractual rights and wait for the union to grieve. When they are finally confronted, they back down. Meanwhile, myths such as the one that says we need a doctor's note after being out for three days in a row spread throughout the system.
One more point on this issue: Is it good practice to submit a note from a doctor if out for a few days? The answer is that if someone visits a physician when sick, it is a good idea to obtain and submit a doctor's note because then a member preserves the ten self treated days. However, members can be adversely rated if absence is so numerous as to impede performance on the job even if doctor's notes are turned in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)