Appellate Court Affirms Right to Union Representation During Disciplinary Interview

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a transit authority employee’s right to have his union representative present during an interview he believed to be disciplinary. In affirming this right Justice Cozier of the Brooklyn Appellate Court found that this right, first affirmed for private sector employees by the US Supreme Court in NLRB v. Weingarten (and referred to as “Weingarten” rights—no relation to our esteemed president) applied equally to pubic employees in New York.

On April 24, 2001 the New York City Transit Authority received a written complaint from one of its employees alleging that Igor Komarnitskiy, a fellow employee and member of the Transport Workers Union, Local 100 made a racial slur. That same day a supervisor requested that Komarnitskiy prepare a written memorandum, known as a G-2 form, responding to the allegation. Thereafter, Komarnitskiy requested and was allowed to privately meet with a TWU Shop Chair at TWU's office, wherein the TWU Shop Chair assisted him with preparing the G-2 form.

After Komarnitskiy submitted the completed G-2 form to the petitioner, the petitioner requested that he prepare a second G-2 form in the office of its superintendent based upon its concern that the TWU Shop Chair either prepared the initial G-2 form or influenced its contents.

Although Komarnitskiy requested that the TWU Shop Chair be present in the superintendent's office while Komarnitskiy prepared the second G-2 form, the Transit Authority denied such request, requiring him to prepare such form in the presence of management, without any union assistance.

On May 8, 2001, TWU filed with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board an improper practice charge against the Transit Authority alleging that the TA interfered with TWU's ability to represent its members in violation of Taylor Law § 209-a(1)(a) and (c) by failing to recognize the employee's right under such law to have union representation while being questioned regarding an incident which could result in disciplinary action. In response, the TA filed its answer, maintaining, among other things, that a union member has no right to have a union representative present when interviewed by a supervisor regarding an incident occurring in the workplace.

PERB found that the TA had violated the Taylor Law and found that rights guaranteed under Weingarten were equally applicable to public sector employees. Under Weingarten the Supreme Court found that the right to union representation at investigatory interviews was based on the basic right of employees to engage in union and concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. It is an unfair labor practice to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights.

The Second Department affirmed the reasoning in the PERB decision. The Court found that despite some cases holding that individual rights are not specifically protected under the Taylor Law the right of representation was basic to the Act.

The Transit Authority can seek permission to appeal to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

Contract Implementation Woes Beginning: Union and DOE Disregard Staff Rights

In blatant disregard of members’ contractual and democratic rights the Union and the DOE, in at least one district, has decided that they know better than the members in deciding how to use the 37 ½ minutes mandated under the new contract.

In a PERB complaint filed yesterday Jeff Kaufman alleges that in the Alternative High School District, the Special Rep and Superintendent fashioned a secret deal that prevented Chapter Leaders and UFT members the right to vote on whether they wanted to change the contractually mandated 37 ½ minute period. They decided that the election, normally required under contract rules, was not “necessary.”
The election, referred to as an SBO election, permits individual schools to modify contract provisions, like the 37 ½ minute period, in a way that better serves the school. Any modification requires 55 percent of school staff to approve it for the modification to become effective.

SBO provisions have always been controversial since they permit changes in a Union ratified contract by a slim majority of staff members. In previous contracts a 75 percent, super-majority was required.
In their secret deal the Special Rep and Superintendent “decided” that the 37 ½ minute period was unnecessary in alternative high schools and forced those schools to accept the extra time added to each teaching period. A number of UFT members in at least two schools wanted the opportunity to decide this contract modification in the democratic process of an SBO election but were prevented from holding the election by this “deal.”

The PERB complaint which seeks immediate rescission of the secret deal alleges as follows:

1. On or about November 12, 2005 United Federation of Teachers (UFT) members ratified a modification of the collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the UFT and the Board of Education of the City of New York (DOE).
2. The CBA was ratified by the DOE on or about November 28, 2005.
3. The agreement provides, in relevant part, for a change in the way the school day is constituted effective February 1, 2006.
4. This change modified the prior CBA by providing at paragraph 7:
“1. Teacher contract Article 6 shall be replaced and amended as follows:
A. School Day
The school day for teachers serving in the schools shall be six hours and 20 minutes and such additional time as provided for below and in the by-laws. The gross annual salary of employees covered by this agreement will be increased in accordance with the salary schedules herein.

1. The parties agree, effective February, 2006, to extend the teacher work day in “non Extended Time Schools” by an additional 37 ½ minutes per day, Monday through Thursday following student dismissal. Friday's work schedule will be 6 hours and 20 minutes. The 37½ minutes of the extended four (4) days per week shall be used for tutorials, test preparation and/or small group instruction and will have a teacher student ratio of no more than one to ten. In single session schools, the day will start no earlier than 8:00am and end no later than 3:45pm.


2. Multi-session schools that cannot utilize the additional time in this manner due to space or scheduling limitations will have a 6 hour 50 minute day. “


3. During the ratification process the UFT engaged upon a campaign to convince its members that the then proposed 37 ½ minute period was not required to be a formal instructional period but rather a time when tutoring and small classroom instructions were meant for struggling students.


4. Shortly after the ratification of the CBA the DOE confirmed this interpretation by issuing through its labor relations counsel’s office, by Daniel Weisberg, an implementation memo which reiterated that the 37 ½ minute period was not for formal instruction and that formal lesson plans would not be required.


5. The CBA created three exceptions to this new 37 ½ period. For multi-session schools, schools with different start times for staff and students, the CBA provides that where this period cannot be utilized a uniform 6 hour and 50 minute day without the 37 ½ period will be implemented. Additionally District 75 schools (Special Education district) require a uniform 6 hour and 50 minute day without the 37 ½ period unless the principal and Chapter Leader (local UFT leader) agree to implement the 37 ½ minute period. The third exception is contained in the School Based Option (SBO) provision of the CBA.


6. The SBO provisions provides at Article 8 Paragraph 4(b) as follows:


7. “B. School-Based Options


8. The Union chapter in a school and the principal may agree to modify the existing provisions of this Agreement or Board regulations concerning class size, rotation of assignments/classes, teacher schedules and/or rotation of paid coverages for the entire school year. By the May preceding the year in which the proposal will be in effect, the proposal will be submitted for ratification in the school in accordance with Union procedures which will require approval of seventy-five (75) percent, and effective September, 2002, fifty-five (55) percent of those voting. Resources available to the school shall be maintained at the same level which would be required if the proposal were not in effect. The Union District Representative, the President of the Union, the appropriate Superintendent and the Chancellor must approve the proposal and should be kept informed as the proposal is developed. The proposal will be in effect for one school year.


9. Should problems arise in the implementation of the proposal and no resolution is achieved at the school level, the District Representative and the Superintendent will attempt to resolve the problem. If they are unable to do so, it will be resolved by the Chancellor and the Union President. Issues arising under this provision are not subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures of the Agreement.”


10. Upon information and belief no other modification of the CBA is permitted without UFT membership approval.


11. The undersigned is the duly elected Chapter Leader for Austin H. MacCormick Island Academy, a DOE high school located on Rikers Island serving incarcerated adolescents. Island Academy is a school located within the Alternative High School District. He is also a duly elected member of the UFT Executive Board representing all of the DOE’s high schools.


12. Chapter Leaders are charged with the responsibility of implementing the CBA at the local school level. Among the Chapter Leader’s responsibilities include implementation of the SBO provisions by conducting elections of the Chapter where modifications are agreed to by the Chapter Leader and principal. Should less than 55 percent of the local chapter not agree to the proposed CBA modification that modification is not implemented and the CBA provisions govern.


13. On or about December 15, 2005 I received an email from Marc Korashan, UFT Special Representative assigned by the UFT to represent all UFT chapters in the Alternative High School District, District 79. This email stated, in relevant part:


14. “D79 the schools that are multisited can be seen as multi-session and be allowed to go to the 6 hour 50 minute day. I disucssed this with the Superintendent and we agreed on this. These schools have small classes already and many have pm school where students can earn credits. They will get the most productive use of the time by increasing the day. This also does the least damage to the existing after school programs and the members earning per-sesion dollars for pm school. This does not require an SBO vote.”


15. Upon information and belief this “agreement” to deprive Alternative High School UFT Chapter Leaders and members of their contractual right to democratically decide what, if any, CBA modifications should be made at their respective schools.


16. Both the DOE and UFT had ample opportunity to modify school day schedules in the CBA which was ratified as evidenced by the District wide exception in District 75.


17. Several attempts were heretofore made to void the “agreement” entered into between Marc Korashan and the Superintendent, Timothy Lisante, all with negative results. These included requests to meet with the UFT President, Randi Weingarten and the Secretary, Michael Mendel.


18. This charge seeks the voidance of the “agreement” entered into between Marc Korashan and Superintendent Timothy Lisante and the restoration of the duly ratified CBA in the Alternative High School District.

No date has been set for further proceedings.

From the Teachers at Health Professions

To Transit Workers Union Local 100:

We, the teachers of Health Professions High School are in solidarity with the striking transit workers of TWU Local 100. We recognize that their strike is in the interest of the working class.

We would like to thank you for fighting back against fines, threats, and the power of the MTA, the city, and state governments. Thank you for, as Bloomberg says, “immorally and selfishly” breaking the anti-union, anti-working class, and unjust Taylor Law. By fighting for what is right, you illustrate the essence of justice and morality to all workers and students.

While the strike will cause short term suffering for workers living in New York, it is a sacrifice that benefits and supports workers everywhere in the long term. The strike exposes the underlying problem of the working class’ eroding standard of living due to rent, gas, and food prices rising faster than our wages. Executives use the lowest wage they can pay one union to set the pattern of bargaining for future union negotiations; you are forcing them to raise the wage for all bargaining in future union negotiations.

Thank you, the transit workers of the TWU for not just fighting over the narrow demands of wage increases and pensions, but against dangerous speed ups, toxic work conditions, and the general interests of the working class. Your working conditions are our living conditions, because we must ride the transit system on a daily basis. Your solidarity across racial and gender lines will help all who must work for a living. When unionized workers’ rights erode, the non-unionized workers suffer even more.

Thank you for not “eating your young” so that only one section of the TWU benefits, and illustrating solidarity across age, time, and experience barriers. You are fighting to raise the future wages of our students, as the rights you fight for now will set the pattern of bargaining for them in the future. We will support you by joining your picket lines during our off hours, raising funds for your sacrifice, distributing this letter, and by raising awareness of your struggle among students, parents, and staff.

You are fighting to preserve the legacy of a union’s power by fighting for your own self-interests, as opposed to hoping for the goodwill of the MTA at the bargaining table. You said that “cutbacks means fight back” and you meant it. Thank you for being an example to all workers in this time of unions capitulating to the bosses’ demands and thus sacrificing our living standards. We thank you, support you, and are emboldened by your actions.

In Solidarity,

The Teachers of Health Professions High School
UFT Chapter

WHICH RANDI DO WE BELIEVE?

By James Eterno

The Fighter or the Appeaser

     Ever since the membership was convinced to accept a substandard contract that gives away many of our rights, the UFT leadership has been talking tough about the next round of bargaining coming ahead in 2007.  President Randi Weingarten has said that her goal is to possibly return the UFT to a “No Contract=No Work” policy.  That would mean the October 12, 2007 date when our current contract expires would be a real deadline.  There would be tremendous pressure on the city to negotiate a new contract with favorable terms for us because if the city would not settle the contract on time, we would be prepared to go out on strike.  (The Transport Workers Union Local 100 has a No Contract=No Work policy in dealing with NYC Transit.)  Randi is talking real militancy, right?  Well, maybe not.

     At the same time that she is telling us we have to be ready to have a credible strike threat and a meaningful deadline, Randi is urging us to send postcards to Governor George Pataki in which we urge the Governor to sign a Taylor Law reform bill passed by the State Legislature that would allow the city to delay for six months after the date that our contract expires.  Then, after the six months are over, the impasse procedure that leads to the same mediation and arbitration process that resulted in the horrific givebacks in the current contract (37.5 minute extended time small group instruction sessions, hall and cafeteria duty, longest school year in the region, loss of the right to grieve letters to our files) would automatically commence.  

In the last round of bargaining, ICE representatives spoke out strongly at the Executive Board against going to arbitration because we knew we would lose.  However, Randi ignored us back then and now she is asking us to lobby the governor for a bill that would get us to arbitration even sooner in the next round and lead to a further erosion of what remains of our rights.

     Which Randi do we believe?  Is it the tough talking Randi who wants a “No Contract=No Work” militant union?  Or is it the conciliatory Randi who wants us to push a bill that would allow the city to stall for six months after our contract expires and then sends us right back to mediation and arbitration where we will lose again?  Only in the bizarre world of the UFT could the leadership push militancy and conciliation at the same time.  Talk about a contradiction.  It leads me to believe that Norman Scott is right and the renewed militancy is a mere facade for the members and there is no true reform going on in the UFT.    

New Contract Demonstrates DOE Plan to Pit CSA Against UFT

The current confusion over the implementation of the new contract is turning out to be a first look at just how the DOE will cause principals to absorb all of the blame for the contract’s failure. It is no secret that by shifting an unprecedented amount of discretion to principals the UFT leadership will join in this attack. In the end, no doubt, the teachers and students will suffer.

Two cases in point.

Under the new contract many schools will be starting a 37 ½ minute period for struggling students. The contract states, quite clearly, “The parties agree, effective February, 2006, to extend the teacher work day in “non Extended Time Schools” by an additional 37 1/2 minutes per day, Monday through Thursday following student dismissal. Friday's work schedule will be 6 hours and 20 minutes. The 37 1/2 minutes of the extended four (4) days per week shall be used for tutorials, test preparation and/or small group instruction and will have a teacher student ratio of no more than one to ten. In single session schools, the day will start no earlier than 8:00am and end no later than 3:45pm.”

The leadership’s massive spin machine “sold” this provision to the membership guaranteeing that this would not turn into another class period. The most blatant signal that this is or is not a “teaching period” is whether a lesson plan is required and whether it may be formally observed. As to the lesson plan we were and are continually assured that this is not necessary. No quick answers on formal observations yet but it is hard to imagine how they could be permitted if no lesson plans are required.

Then comes the regional principal meetings in which regional superintendents throughout the city are ordering their interpretation of this period. Are lesson plans required? No, according to at least one regional superintendent.

“But what happens when I walk into a classroom and no learning seems to be taking place?” a principal asks.

“Ask for a lesson plan,” is the reply.

Another issue starting to boil came up in these regional meetings. Under no circumstances may any teacher opt out of the 37 ½ minute period. That includes deans, programmers and other comp time positions. Disruptive students in this period under this plan will, we surmise, be supervised by supervisors.

And we haven’t even discussed Circular 6R. Stay tuned. It gets worse.

Executive Board Report - December 5, 2005

It’s hard to believe that we are on the cusp of a new contract and there is little to do at the Executive Board. One report from districts and one resolution. Of course, there were questions and I took a point of personal privilege to indict the leadership on the way they have handled my case and my school’s chapter. (The sole report was a defense of my accusation).

First, the resolution. We unanimously agreed to support the graduate teaching assistants currently on strike at New York University.

Second, the questions. On October 6, 2005 I was removed from my teaching position pending an investigation to be preformed by the Department of Corrections. At the time I was assured by the Union’s leadership that a PERB charge would be filed with all deliberate speed.

I met with NYSUT lawyers and was assured that this matter has a top priority and would be brought to a hearing as soon as possible. A resolution by the Executive Board and then the Delegate Assembly was passed unanimously in my support and ordered the filing of the PERB charge.

By December 5th, almost two months after I was removed and assured that the charge would be filed expeditiously the charge was still not filed. I asked why not and miraculously the charge was filed today.

The second question dealt with the way in which my Chapter was handled and is being handled by the Union in my absence. I designated two interim Chapter Leaders who have been in constant communication with me. The principal refuses to deal with me about Union issues. When I complained at a previous Executive Board meeting as to why my Chapter was being neglected by the Union, Randi ordered two District Reps, Marc Korashan and Rona Frieser to go to Rikers.

The reports I received about the meeting were appalling. The DR’s met with the principal without the interim Chapter Leaders (who knows what deals were made). When issues were raised concerning a major change in how staff gets to the school at least one member was told to change schools. This after working at Rikers for over 12 years.

Rona Frieser felt compelled to answer my allegations by reporting on a “wonderful” meeting she had with Rikers staff. The security problem was referred to the safety department of the Union and I was not allowed to ask questions of her.

At no time did the DR’s report to the interim Chapter Leaders or me about any of the actions they intend to take or the referrals they allegedly made. No plans to revisit or further report to Executive Board were made.

While I realize these issues directly affect me (and I am reluctant to raise them) I realize that there is no protocol or plan by the Union on how to deal with removed Chapter Leaders.

When a Chapter Leader is removed from a school the whole school is affected. The Union leadership’s complacency with dealing with this issue is further evidence of their disconnect with the membership.

Taking the Initiative in Labor Relations

If our past experience negotiating against a “formidable adversary” as our leadership calls Bloomberg and Klein produced a wholesale erosion of our basic rights as union members the interpretation stage of this new document will lead us further away from our professionalism and our right to be a positive force in the schools.

One of the most basic concepts in any negotiation is setting the parameters or playing field. Once you’ve set the boundaries for negotiation you’ve taken the upper hand. When the infamous “eight page contract” was announced early in our negotiations our leadership fought back proclaiming that our contract evolved from many years of negotiation and we were not scraping it.

Yet our leadership went ahead to fact-finding where the fact-finders set the parameters. We plunged forward and “used the fact-finding as a vehicle” despite the anti-union provisions called for.

Then came the contract with all of its provisions insuring that principals have complete discretion in most of the important issues in the school and eviscerating the grievance procedure not to miss potty patrol.

So the leadership’s public relations spin machine decides to find a myriad of ineffective ways to work around all of our givebacks.

Our leadership was out-foxed again. The DOE issued an implementation memo and set the parameters of negotiation yet again. Where is OUR implementation memo? Isn’t the contract half ours?

Our leadership, despite the years of experience in negotiation, approached and continues to accept the DOE’s lead. The DOE does and our leadership reacts.

When are we going to learn?

Shortest Executive Board Meeting Makes Up for Previous One

Reacting to the recent contract ratification debacle which caused some members to miss the opening kick-off of Monday night football, the Executive Board, Monday night, concluded its business in a record 20 minutes.

“I didn’t even get to finish dessert,” complained one disgruntled dissident.

Mendel distributed a letter written by Jeffrey Zaino, the Vice President in charge of elections for the American Arbitration Association, to try to provide cover for the charge that the ballot envelopes were translucent. Despite clear evidence to the contrary Zaino insisted that “the double envelopes….prevented someone who handled the envelopes from seeing how the voter voted.”

The Executive Board had no questions, no reports and considered only one resolution which, not to depart from past practice, elicited one disagreement.

The resolution called for the waiver of the dues increase, despite the alleged fiscal implications, from the retroactive monies we will receive on December 15th. When a question was raised about whether a resolution was necessary and whether this departed from past practice, Mendel stated that it was not unprecedented

An attempt was then made to amend the resolution to reflect this past practice and to prevent the current Union leadership from taking unwarranted credit for something that is always done; Jeffrey Zahler made a motion to table.

It appears that motions to table are becoming the preferred method of Unity Executive Board members to deal with issues that provide full disclosure to resolutions.

Needless to say the motion to table was passed and the resolution that will go before the Delegate Assembly will appear that Randi and her caucus are truly magnanimous.

Some members were seen taking cookies home. They made it home for the kick-off.

Living Under a Sellout Contract…Union Says, “Just SBO It!”

As the impact of the new contract slowly works its way through the schools it is clear that the pre-ratification spin can no longer be spun. Chapter Leader training is scheduled for the next few weeks in each borough. There are more questions than answers, as usual. And even if the Union takes the “aggressive” position it promises it will be hard to protect our members.

Here are a couple of examples.

Under the Circular 6R changes we are now limited to a “menu” of professional items and, of course, the dreaded administrative duties. The Union’s response…just SBO it. Like your principal will agree to forgo this wonderful opportunity to assign us to potty patrol.

The extra 10 minutes and the 37 ½ period at the end of the day….the Union’s response….just SBO it. Make it PD or whatever your chapter wants is the advice. Like we really have a choice.

Now, we are certain there will be Chapters out there with good working relationships with the administration who really can work out some of these things. But, don’t count on your arrangement either being approved or lasting very long.

Under our new contract there is no question that the DOE has the final word on these issues. We will have to learn to live with it.

And there’s more…how do you SBO “Letters to the File?”

New Contract Raises Puzzling Questions

Bob Reich writes in the current CSA News, the monthly newspaper for DOE supervisors, how the new contract will affect his members. He acknowledges that the UFT contract gives more power to the LIS and Superintendent and outlines how a letter to the file should be written since they can no longer be grieved.

Reich notes that administrators may now assign staff to a myriad of non-educational duties including cafeteria duty and bus duty. He cautions that supervisors should give careful consideration to the assignments and the number of staff assigned. “Your supervisor, the LIS the CSD Superintendent or the Regional Superintendent [will] hold you accountable for the decisions you make. A claim that insufficient staff assigned to a particular area (i.e. the lunchroom) resulted in a student injury could result in [an] action against you.”

Reich claims that the new contract gives supervisors the authority to place tardy employees on the time clock. He cautions, however, that letters to the file must be supported by timecards and the Cumulative Absence Reserve card.

The new letters to the file provision has created many unanswered questions. One of the first questions, which should have been dealt with in the contract, is the provision’s retroactivity. Reading the plain language of the provision gives no clue as to how letters which are now in our files more than three years should be handled. Randi, at the last DA, proudly proclaimed that they will all be removed but that is not clear.

What about currently pending Step II’s? Are they automatically converted to Step III’s?

The Union is sponsoring a Chapter Leader’s training on the new contract over the next couple of weeks. How many of our questions will be accurately answered?

Executive Board Report: UFT Re-Affirms Anti-Union Democracy Policy

In the first post-ratification meeting of the Executive Board our Union’s leadership sent a clear message that any attempt to reform our voting procedures to make them fair and free of the appearance of impropriety will be met with stiff opposition including tactics rarely used.

Opposition Board members proposed two resolutions to permit the UFT to denounce its recent anti-democratic shift in policy to permit unfettered access to staff mailboxes and to assure that voting procedures are secret and confidential. These resolutions, as proposed, were met with stiff resistance demonstrating that our Union’s leadership knows the ratification vote was tainted and needs to be rerun.

Back in 1962 when our Union was in its infancy the Board of Education passed a “General Circular” reaffirming opposition union members’ right to utilize staff mailboxes to distribute union-related material and denying the leadership sole access to this vital means of membership communication.

This right was reaffirmed, again, in the precedent setting grievance of Harriet Baizerman in which an opposition Union member, originally barred from placing literature in the mailboxes, was permitted the access. Chancellor Irving Anker reaffirmed this principle and opposition members have utilized this method of informing the membership of important issues ever since.

That was until October 21, 2005 when the Staff Director, acting on advice of Union counsel, instructed opposition members that the First Amendment does not apply during non-Union office election times.

Outraged by the fact that Special Reps and District Reps placed biased literature supporting the contract into members’ mailboxes and the absurd position that opposition literature was not similarly protected a resolution was proposed to clarify our right.

After much heated discussion the resolution was “tabled to kill,” which we surmise means that our Union no longer supports the First Amendment right of our members. There is talk that the article in the New York Teacher dated February 17, 2005 affirming these rights was issued in error. It was not clear whether a retraction will be printed.

The second resolution affirming the right of a secret and confidential ballot met with a firestorm of vitriol. After declaring that this right is “perhaps one of our most precious rights’ Randi proceeded to defend the fact that marked ballots could be easily seen through the two envelopes that were provided.

According to our president anytime there is knowledge of a potential impropriety in the voting process it is incumbent upon the opposition to bring these matters to the staff director so something could be done about it,

Just what could be done about transparent envelopes after they were all mailed to the schools?

In any case it does appear that our leadership is preparing for a full defense of the tainted vote and the denial of the protection of our First Amendment rights.

32,000 members voted no. How many will agree that the opposition must remain silent?

Ratification Vote Shows Leadership Disconnect

While the vote is in and most of the spin has been spun there are some important observations that must be pointed out.

Never in the history of the UFT has so much effort gone into the ratification process. No stone was unturned, union dues spent, or pressure exerted to get this contract passed.

Some examples…

Despite a clear message by the Executive Board last year, reaffirmed by Randi and included in an edition of the New York Teacher opposition literature was barred by UFT leaders from being placed in mailboxes. Yet UFT District Reps and other paid staff members were given unfettered access to stuff teacher mailboxes while ICE members were not even allowed into schools or saw our literature removed from the mailboxes when we did get access.

For God’s sake they even made a pitch in the rubber room (and “forgot” to discuss the new provision dealing with the new right of the DOE to suspend members without pay).!

Randi, herself, along with other high ranking leaders were dispatched to “trouble spots,” schools were information or poll data indicated a strong negative vote.

Union meetings were disguised as information about the contract where they were clearly clever pitches to support the ratification in which most of the negative points were omitted or downplayed.

Despite a resolution calling for the ballots to be mailed to members and that strict rules be followed for the ratification vote (the resolution was ruled “out of order” by our President) the Union insisted on providing numerous opportunities to permit misguided Chapter Leaders to be able to see how members voted by holding the “secret ballot” to the light and not following historical Union practice of requiring Chapter Election Committees to hold the vote.

All this and they only got 63% of the counted votes. With 37% voting no and almost 20% not voting or sending in invalid ballots, there is clearly something rotten at 52 Broadway.

The membership has spoken, to paraphrase Randi, and they want to take back THEIR union!

Results of the Ratification Vote

Teachers
Yes 39728
No 25962

School Secretaries
Yes 2455
No 618

Paras
Yes 8531
No 4491

Guidance Counselors
Yes 1325
No 538

Total
Yes 54473
No 32144

Total Votes Scanned 86847

This was released at 5:03 PM. The breakdown is approximately 60% Yes and 40% No for teachers. More analysis will follow.

UFT VP HINTS AT WAY VOTES WILL BE COUNTED: NO SCHOOL TALLY

In what appears to be the first indication of how the American Arbitration Association will tally the contract ratification vote today UFT Vice President Frank Volpicella announced last night at a high school committee meeting that providing individual school tallies will be “impossible” because of the nature of the voting process.

Numerous documented instances of improper voting procedures were uncovered over the last week indicating that the report of the vote today will be forever clouded in a shroud of impropriety. Of some of the more egregious instances uncovered include the systematic violation of Board of Education rules and grievance precedent in preventing opposition caucus members from distributing literature in staff mailboxes. Additionally “secret ballot” envelopes were hardly secret as votes were easily seen if the envelope was held up to a strong light leading many to conclude that negative votes were discarded. Additionallly enough information was provided to Chapter Leaders to allow for the easy voting tampering by submitting votes for members that were absent or refused to vote.

The vote tabulation begins this morning at the Election Department of the American Arbitration Association at 1633 Broadway, 10th Floor near 51st Street. Their phone number is 212-484-3224. Results will be published here as soon as they are received. Stay tuned.

Transcript of Final 2005 General Election Mayoral Debate

If the mayor is going to call it an "extra period" why should I call it anything different?  Does Randi know that this is an extra period, or was there miscommunication when selling this rag of a contract to us?
November 1, 2005

Transcript of Final 2005 General Election Mayoral Debate
On November 1, 2005, the New York City Campaign Finance Board and WNBC played host to a final debate with mayoral candidates Michael Bloomberg and Fernando Ferrer. It was moderated by Gabe Pressman. Questions were asked by reporters Melissa Russo, Jay DeDapper, David Ushery, and Jorge Ramos. The following is a transcript of the debate.

YEAR AROUND SCHOOL

Gabe Pressman: I’ve got a couple of questions on education requiring short answers. Do you favor, Mr. Ferrer, year around school as a way of developing students who can compete with students from other countries, who have much more intensive educational programs?

Ferrer: Yea, I think the kids who are struggling and need more time on task, extending the school year makes an enormous amount of sense, as does extending the school day and week.

Gabe Pressman: Do you agree with that?

Bloomberg: We are doing it. We have summer school for kids who need more help. And the new teachers’ contract has an extra period, four days a week for the kids who are struggling, every class, every school.

Gabe Pressman: Year around means virtually 12 months with a few vacations in between.

Bloomberg: School with summer-school goes almost year around.

WHAT WE KEEP ONLY IF WE VOTE NO

• The right to grieve letters in our file to have unfair/inaccurate material removed immediately. (Currently letters can't be used against us in dismissal proceedings after three years and we can attach responses to letters in our file.)


• The right to grieve unfair/inaccurate observation reports.


• The right to do professional activities during our professional period.


• The right to say no to hall patrols, potty patrols, and cafeteria duty.


• The right to maintain our current teaching load; no 37.5 minute small group extra teaching period at the end of the day.


• The right to transfer based on our seniority.


• The right to be part of SBO Committees made up of majority teachers that determine who transfers into our schools, not principals exclusively deciding.


• The right to due process so we can't be suspended without pay based on an allegation of misconduct.


• The right to a full and fair hearing if we are charged with lateness/absence issues.


• The right not to turn over confidential medical information to the DOE.


• The right to a vacant position if we are excessed.


• The right to widest placement choices possible if our school is closed or reorganized.


• The right to any in license position instead of worrying about becoming an Absent Teacher Reserve if our school is closed or reorganized.


• The right to a full summer vacation. (Many surrounding districts have school years fixed by contract at 183 days. If we vote yes, we will have a 190 day school year, the longest in the Metropolitan area.)


• The right to one less work day in June for teachers in Brooklyn and Queens.


• The right to current longevity and step increases without givebacks.


• The right to have our pay based on our education and experience, not some merit pay system called lead teacher where a committee with a majority of administrators decides who will get a raise based on whatever criteria they want.


• The right to grieve selection of our professional assignment to an independent arbitrator, not a city employee at the Office of Labor Relations.


• The right to ask the state for 55/25 pension that will be paid for by the city, not us.


• The right to push for a no layoff agreement like we had in the last two Contracts.


• The right to full breaks for secretaries.


• The right to demand real raises, not time for money swaps.

Contract supporters admit the contract is terrible. Be not afraid. Rejection does not mean strike. The law requires good faith bargaining.

DON’T SELL YOUR RIGHTS FOR PENNIES!
VOTE NO

Irregularities in Ratification Vote Mount as Members Worry Whether Fair Election Can Be Had

Reports are coming in from all over the City demonstrating that the leadership of our Union will attempt to use every tactic to cause our members to vote for this contract calling into question the legality of this referendum.

We have had reports of the following irregularities:

• balloting done in violation of the established rules by failing to safeguard ballots


• electioneering being allowed by pro-contract union member only


• access to mailboxes by out of building paid union representatives being permitted, but not by other union members


• leaflets printed with Union dues attacking opposition members and threatening that the only option is to vote yes or strike


• letters accompanying ballots mailed to members homes misrepresenting the delegate assembly vote


• voting occurring prior to the date provided with the ballots


• ballots left in teacher mailboxes which can be accessed by anyone in the building

In order to ensure union democracy and that this vote is being properly conducted, we need specific examples of any improper practices you are witnessing. We need dates, times and persons involved. There is no doubt that our Union’s leadership is desperate to achieve passage by a huge margin. We do have recourse but we need specific evidence of irregularities in the voting process should this sellout contract get ratified.

Email all allegations to Jeff Kaufman at jeffkaufman@ice-uft.org or James Eterno at jameseterno@ice-uft.org.

We must not let anyone rob of us of a fair election!

REALITY VIEWS ON THE PROPOSED CONTRACT

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School, and UFT Executive Board

Before deciding how to vote on the proposed contract, it's important to be based in reality. Don't rely on hearsay. Don’t rely on “SPIN”.

A lot of misinformation is being circulated. Most importantly, read the Memorandum of Agreement for yourself. (The following was taken from an “explanation” offered by supporters of the proposed contract).

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: Supervisors would have free rein to write letters in the file which will go unchallenged.

Their SPIN: Every member retains the ability to bring complaints about a letter to the principal and to append a written response. If a letter leads to disciplinary action, that letter can and will be challenged.If a teacher is denied a teaching assignment, a “per session” job or a transfer based on a letter in the file, the letter will be challenged as part of the grievance of the denial. And all letters not used in a disciplinary process must be removed after three years.In addition, the UFT will vigorously pursue charges of harassment against supervisors who use letters in the file to intimidate staff.The union also wrested from the city an agreement to re-open this issue "if there is a disproportionate increase in the number of letters to the file" as a result of this provision. Bottom line: no letter harmful to a member will go unchallenged.

THE REALITY: The truth is that if you can't grieve a letter in the file, it can be used against you for three years. If you are tenured, the letter in the file grievance is your first line of defense. We are surrendering it. If you are not tenured, it is really the only line of defense where you can get your case before an independent arbitrator who is not a city employee.U rating appeals go to Department of Education employees. The deck is stacked against us. The harassment article in the contract (article 23) only allows independent arbitrators to make recommendations. The final decision is left up to the administration.Make no mistake about it, the leadership can spin it how they like but giving up the right to grieve a letter in the file including unsatisfactory observations is a tremendous surrender on the part of the union.Also, remember if you are getting along with administration today, it doesn't mean your boss might find another job and then you could be stuck with a crazy principal. It happened to me when a principal who was well liked by the staff found a better position and we suffered under the replacement.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: All teachers would be assigned to cafeteria, hall duty or homeroom.

Their SPIN: Although some administrative duties are on the menu, there are many restrictions on the principal's discretion to assign these duties.Chapter leaders will continue to have a voice in determining how many positions will be allotted to each menu item. If a principal wants an unreasonable number of people doing activities like cafeteria duty and hall patrol, the chapter leader can appeal that decision outside the DOE.The principal can assign teachers to an activity only if not enough people volunteer. Assignments, if necessary, must be made in reverse seniority order and rotated. Teachers doing homeroom will not have to do another professional activity. A teacher who is assigned an administrative duty one year cannot be assigned any administrative duty the following year.

The REALITY: Who is going to volunteer for cafeteria patrol or hall patrol? I don't see too many hands going up. The Fact of the matter is that the principal can assign half of us to these administrative non professional duties every year and the other half the next year.Why would a principal want to give us homerooms for ten minutes if he/she can have us in the halls or the cafeteria for a whole period? In the contract before Circular 6, we could only be sent to do cafeteria duty once every six years. Since 1997, it's been up to us to decide if we want to do non professional activities.Now we could be assigned every other year to non professional activities such as the cafeteria or the halls. This is a huge step backwards in terms of our professionalism.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: Excessed teachers would lose their job rights and could be laid off.

Their SPIN: Spin: No excessed teacher can be laid off. Under the current contract, excessed teachers are limited to placements in schools in their superintendency; under the proposed contract, excessed teachers will be able to seek a position anywhere in the city, if they choose to do so. Excessed teachers who don't obtain positions may be assigned to a school in their superintendency or to Absent Teacher Reserve positions in the school from which they were excessed or another school within that superintendency.

The REALITY: The Union's Fact statement is not telling the truth. There is not a job security provision in this proposed agreement. The city could easily lay off anyone if we don't have a no-layoff agreement. It is absolutely true that people who are excessed or whose schools are reorganized will have to find their own position or they could become Absent Teacher Reserves and could of course be laid off based on seniority.People in certain license areas have already been threatened with layoff.The current contract gives us a right to a position if we are excessed or if our school closes. This proposal gives us next to nothing.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: The 55-25 pension reform in this proposed contract will never happen.

Their SPIN: The same argument has been made about every pension improvement the UFT has won, including the elimination of pension contributions for 10-year Tiers 3 and 4 members and the 2002 retirement incentive, which had a temporary 55-25 benefit for Tiers 2, 3 and 4. Usually the main obstacle has been the refusal of the city to support them, not the Legislature. In this case we already have the city's agreement to work out the details. But only if the contract is ratified!

The REALITY: We might get the 55-25, not because it is an added benefit but because it won't cost the city a dime; we will have to pay for it ourselves with higher pension contributions.Read the Memorandum of Agreement closely. It says in Section 6.2, "The [labor management] Committee will analyze the actual costs and additional contribution rates required to provide this benefit (including any additional health insurance benefit costs) without any cost to the City."This means that we will only get this benefit if members pay for it themselves. That is creating a de Facto Tier Five. It is not a new benefit if we have to pay for it with higher pension contributions.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: The reconfigured time in the proposed contract is a sixth teaching period.

Their SPIN: The language of the contract explicitly limits the new ten minutes, added to the former 20 minutes, to informal, individualized assistance to small groups of no more than 10 students [5 students in special education.] UFT President Randi Weingarten has made it clear that an additional teaching period is a strike issue for any proposed contract and will remain so.Under this proposal, the session will begin after dismissal. In multi- session schools and in District 75 schools, the 10 minutes will be incorporated into a 6-hour and 50-minute school day by adding a minute or two to each period.

The REALITY: We agree that the class size can't be 34 but ten students in a room with a teacher is a class. You can call it something else but it is an extra class. The ten to one ratio does not mean that they can't stick two or three teachers in the same room. It's only a ten to one ratio in the contract. This will be an extra teaching period for just about all of us.There is nothing in the proposed agreement defining what can be done in this class. There is nothing that I can see that will stop administration from programming these periods for makeup credits for pupils.There is nothing in there to stop them from observing us during that period and then writing us up unsatisfactory which we won't be able to grieve.As for the multi session issue, it will be up to the principal to decide if he/she has space available to give the extra class. When principals figure out how much they can cut their per session budgets by not having to offer PM School, tutoring, makeup labs and makeup gyms, you will see how they suddenly will find space where there is none today. Only the most crowded of high schools and district 75 schools will add an extra minute to periods.Everyone else will be doing the 37.5 minute teaching period.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: We would lose all our seniority rights.

Their SPIN:: Our seniority rights, including school seniority, are completely intact for layoffs, excessing, program preferences and other assignments under the proposed contract. The only change would be the end of the seniority transfer plan.

The REALITY: The SBO transfer plan is eliminated along with the Seniority Transfer Plan. Instead of a personnel committee deciding who to select, the committee makes recommendations but the principal makes the determination based on whatever criteria he likes with no expedited grievance process if you are denied a transfer. The only thing a principal cannot do is discriminate. Good luck trying to prove discrimination.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: There is no raise in this contract.

Their SPIN: Every union that bettered the basic 0-3-1 or 4.17% over three years civilian pattern set by DC 37 has made substantial trade-offs.Pattern bargaining has persisted since the fiscal crisis. Take the recent sanitation agreement. It cuts starting salaries (as did the police contract), lengthens routes and reduces the number of people on some trucks from two to one, producing both layoffs and huge savings for the city. In our case the time-for-money swap consists of 10 minutes a day and two additional work days a year (3 in Brooklyn and Queens) for a trade-off of 4.2%. The rest of the 15% increase - 10.8% -- is a clear raise.

The REALITY: Using the leadership's own math, 10.8% over 52 months and twelve days is less than 2.5% a year in raises for veterans and for new teachers that would come out to less than 2% and for per session it would be 1.7% a year. Not exactly a big increase.We can beat pattern bargaining by having a credible strike threat as the Transit Workers' Union did in 2002 and will again this winter when their contract expires. According to the NY Times of December 20, 2002, transit workers received a 4.5% annual increase in compensation without givebacks because their health plan received a huge infusion of cash as it was about to go bankrupt.In addition, they had their disciplinary code revised in favor of the workers. At the time, Randi Weingarten told the NY Times, "The health bailout is very significant. That helped turn a modest contract into a pretty good contract."Randi is head of the Municipal Labor Committee and as such she could also try to get coalition bargaining with other unions. She has not done so. The Professional Staff Congress (CUNY Professors) does not have a contract and they are holding out for a better deal. We should also.

The supporters of the contract claim this to be a MYTH: If we vote this contract down, we can always go back to the negotiating table and get a better deal.

Their SPIN: There is no legal obligation for the mayor or the chancellor to come back to the table. Given their history, there is no reason to believe that they would do so, let alone offer a better deal. Mayor Giuliani re-negotiated the 1995 agreement because he had committed a labor violation when he broke his promise and raised city managers' salaries. And the deal reached several months later simply moved money around, adding two months to the previous 61-month deal to reduce the 25-year longevity to 22 years and eliminate a temporary cut in starting salaries.If this contract is voted down, the most likely option is a strike authorization vote by the members. Waiting another five years is unrealistic for our members and would undoubtedly leave us further behind as we would NEVER win eight years of retroactive pay.

The REALITY: Bloomberg has to go back to the negotiating table as the law requires the Mayor to bargain in good faith. We will have significantly strengthened our hand if we vote no.Giuliani had no competition for reelection and yet he returned to the table after we voted the contract down in 1995. In the revised agreement in 1996 there was also a real retirement incentive tied to the contract, new P credit courses were added, Circular 6 was made stronger to ensure we would not have hall patrol or cafeteria duty and the city agreed to add money to our welfare funds. We can do better now; we can't do much worse.Many of the people who work full time for the union and will not have to live under this contract will get a 15% increase for spending ten more minutes per day in the UFT office. They won't have to do cafeteria duty or work an extra small group teaching period.Ask them why they are trying so hard along with the Daily News and the NY Post, traditional enemies to unions, to sell you this giveback laden contract?

Leadership Push Demonstrates Desperation

As it becomes clearer that our membership will not permit our leadership to destroy what is left of our Union and the protections it affords us, the Union’s leadership is leaving no stone unturned and actually forcing some representatives to go into the schools to try to sell this sell-out. It is rumored that some of these reps haven’t stepped foot inside a school since the Koch administration.

Reports are coming from all districts that district and special representatives have been put on a mission; a mission to distort the true impact of this contract proposal and convince our members that the loss of letters in the file grievances, step II grievances, seniority transfers, rights under Circular 6, due process rights and transfer of many of our disputes to a panel headed by the guy who negotiated the contract against us, is no big deal. To hear their arguments is painful.

Letters in the file all of sudden don’t mean anything. As Chapter Leaders we were trained (for almost a whole day) how letter in the file grievances really demonstrated the Union’s presence in the school. Special tactics were devised to get rid of them and most principals did not bother to get involved.

Step II’s were a waste of time. This coming from District and Special Reps who agonized over the presentation of our grievances, grievances that they could not reject if we insisted on going forward. Now with just a Step III we are at these fellows’ mercy.

Seniority transfers, according to at least one Special Rep were actually lost in 1995. It’s a good thing all of those teachers who used the transfer scheme since 1995 didn’t know that.

We kept Circular 6! Wow! You mean we get to pick which bathroom we have to guard. No, it was explained there still is a Circular 6. You know we could have lost it.

Suspensions without pay, mandatory dismissals and other goodies are somehow worth the hard bargaining that our leaders did. After all we still have tenure!

Thank you for not repealing a state law that affects every teacher in this state.

Oh, by the way, we won the right to keep receiving our pay in U.S. dollars. Thankfully, the Mayor did not have his way since he wanted to pay us in rubles.

Come out to the rally Friday at 4 P.M. at 52 Broadway. Let’s show our leaders that we care for our jobs as professionals and we care for our Union as the only true protection against DOE abuse. Together we can defeat this contract.

Union Leadership Rules Out of Order Measure to Ensure Democratic Ratification

In a blatant disregard to protect the democratic process of contract ratification Randi Weingarten ruled out of order tonight a measure that would help protect the rights of members who may want to hear both sides of the ratification issue.

Executive Board members from TJC and ICE jointly proposed a resolution requiring the New York Teacher to present both sides of the contract ratification issue and to require that Chapter Election Committees run the ratification vote instead of the Chapter Leader as is required by Union rule. An Executive Board member raised an objection based on the resolution passed at the last Delegate Assembly which required that the ratification vote be run as had been in the past.

Realizing that the Union rule, as enunciated in the booklet, How to Run a Chapter Election, requires that ratification votes be run by Election Committees in each school and that there may be some schools in which the Chapter Leader may decide to run the election the resolution sought to clear up any ambiguity.

As a result of Randi’s ruling there was no vote on the resolution and no clear direction to the Chapters on how to run this ratification leaving the whole process up for challenge. Hopefully this will not require governmental intervention and re-run of the election.

In other Executive Board business a request to Randi to direct district reps and other union paid spokespeople to stop attacking opposition caucuses was met with the response “well you call us names, too.” It appears that Randi took offense to the word “hack” and wanted us to apologize for using the word.

What she attempted to do and was unsuccessful was to throw the question back to the questioner. This tactic is old and wrongheaded. People paid with our dues should not resort to calling opposition caucus members terrorists or impugn their motives no matter what they are called. That being said we will try to extract the word “hack” from our literature.

What do you call a paid employee who espouses the views of their leader without question? Let’s come up with a new word.