RALLY ON MONDAY -- STAND UP FOR THE ATRs

4:30 p.m. Monday ---Rally for the ATRs at Tweed
Directions: (Broadway and Chambers Street -- any train to City Hall area). We will be there at 4:30 sharp!

4:00 p.m. Monday -- At the UFT (52 Broadway) President Randi Weingarten will speak at the UFT on the "side agreement" on the ATRs. Then they will walk up Broadway to the rally at Tweed.

After the rally -- Gather at Jerry's Cafe, at 90 Chambers Street (between Broadway and Church).

The UFT leadership is now saying that "the message is different" following the side agreement on ATRs signed last Tuesday. But what has actually changed? There are some financial incentives to place ATRs, but the principals still decide whether or not to take them. And in the present financial crisis and budget cuts, how much new hiring and placement will there be? Even if some ATRs are placed under the agreement, the "provisionals" will just be excessed again at the end of the school year. This is no solution for the ATRs who want to teach.

President Weingarten is seeking the "least bad" outcome in the framework of the contract, which abandoned seniority transfers, and thus continually produces new ATRs. We continue to demand that there be a freeze on hiring and placements until all ATRs who want positions are placed.

The union leadership says it will first have an informational session at 52 Broadway at 4 p.m. and then at the end of that, walk to the Tweed--DOE with however many are left. The ad hoc committee to support the ATRs is continuing to call on all teachers and defenders of the ATRs to rally at 4:30 p.m. at Tweed (between Broadway and Park Row). We will form up on the esplanade outside the Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall station on the 4, 5 and 6 lines, and then go around the corner to the DOE. Those who wish to go to the informational session at the UFT should do so, but the key is to have a strong showing at the Department of Education demanding that all ATRs be placed.

To repeat: There are over 1,500 experienced, licensed, capable teachers ready and willing to teach, while New York City classrooms are as overcrowded as ever. We say: Let Teachers Teach!

After the rally: Gather at “Jerry’s Café.” 90 Chambers Street, (between Broadway and Church). Good Coffee, good conversation, plans for next steps.

The ATR "Side" Agreement: for your comment

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

Absent Teacher Reserve and Vacancies

Memorandum of Agreement entered into this _______day of November, 2008 by and between the New York City Board of Education (hereinafter “DOE”) and the United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO (hereinafter the “Union).

All terms and conditions of the current collective bargaining agreements between the parties remain in full force and effect. This side agreement assists in using talent and resources more effectively:

1. In recognition of the realities of the evolving budget situation and a pool of available qualified, experienced teachers, the Chancellor will convey to principals that though they continue to have final say over teacher hiring decisions it is his clear preference that the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) pool be used as the first option in filling new and existing vacancies. Towards that end, the Chancellor will send a letter to principals strongly urging them to consider and interview members of the ATR pool to fill vacancies before considering other candidates, explaining the significant financial incentives created herein for them to do so, and underscoring that, as the city confronts the current fiscal crisis, responsible management principles require a commitment to actively and in good faith pursue hiring ATRs prior to filling open positions.
2. The DOE will also send principals lists of ATRS and their license areas and district/superintendency.
3. “ATR” refers to all UFT-represented titles.
4. When a centrally-funded ATR is hired to fill a regular position in a school (other than the school from which the ATR was excessed), on or after November 1st of the calendar year in which they were excessed, central DOE will pay the difference between the actual salary of the teacher and a starting teacher salary, and then, in subsequent years, will continue to pay the difference between the actual salary and the subsequent steps on the salary scale (for example, in year 2, the difference between actual salary and step 2A on the salary scale). This subsidy will terminate once the excessed employee has been in the position 8 years.
5. Until November 15, 2010 a school that hires a centrally-funded ATR to fill a regular position (other than a school from which the ATR was excessed) on or after November 1st of the calendar year in which they were excessed, in addition to being charged in accordance with ¶ 4 above, central DOE will credit the hiring school’s budget one-half of the starting teacher salary that would otherwise be paid by the school under ¶4 above.
6. After November 1, principals can offer to hire centrally-funded ATRs for the balance of the school year on a provisional basis whereby ATRs accepting this offer can be excessed, regardless of seniority, at the end of the school year in which they are hired, or can opt to be placed in excess again at that time. If the ATR is not excessed again at the end of the school year, and does not opt to be placed in excess at that time, the ATR will become a regularly-appointed pedagogue at the school. The subsidies provided for in ¶¶ 4 & 5 above will not apply to ATRs hired provisionally pursuant to this paragraph, but will apply should such an ATR become a regularly-appointed pedagogue at the school.
7. There will be a city-wide posting consisting of all schools that have a high enough rate of absences to benefit from a full-time ATR and that do not have an ATR already assigned, or have enough students to warrant one or more additional ATR’s. With principal approval of adding one or more ATRs, centrally-funded ATR’s may apply to transfer into the district/superintendency and be placed in the selected school as an ATR up to a limit of one (1) ATR per 500 students, with city-wide seniority determining priority among multiple applicants.
8. Excessed pedagogues will not be separated from other job applicants at job fairs, though they will be given the option to decline to attend briefing sessions for new teachers.
9. ATR’s will be used for classroom assignments, e.g. push-in, pull-out, intervention, remediation, to cover day-to-day and long-term teacher absences, to reduce class size, and other assignments within the teacher job description.
10. DOE will make its best efforts to modify its systems so that, by school year 2009-2010, applicants for specific vacancies in the open market or the excess hiring system will be notified when their application is received, if they are hired and if the position has been filled with another applicant.
11. It is the mutual objective of the DOE and UFT in reaching this side agreement to reduce the size of the excess pool by 1) eliminating any financial disincentives to fill open positions out of the ATR pool; 2) creating a financial incentive for the school to hire out of the ATR pool; and 3) improving processes and procedures that will facilitate the hiring process for ATRs. The UFT and the DOE will review the results of this side agreement after it has been in operation for one year and, on that basis, will work collaboratively to determine if it is necessary to find additional solutions aimed to reduce the size of the ATR pool in a manner that serves the best interests of the students of New York City public schools and reflects the need to address the fiscal challenges we face together.
12. This agreement will expire on December 1, 2010 although paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 will continue to apply to hiring done on or prior to that date, according to the specific terms set forth above.
13. The UFT will hold its arbitration (case number A-079-C16257) in abeyance to allow this agreement time to go into effect.


Agreed to this ______ of November, 2008.

For the Board of Education For the United Federation of Teachers


--------------------------------- ______________________________

The UFT and Green Dot Schools: Pragmatic Unionism or Trojan Horse?

By Michael Fiorillo, Chapter Leader, Newcomers High School

The September issue of the New York Teacher hailed the opening of the Green Dot Charter School in the Bronx. Expanding from its origins in Los Angeles, Green Dot has come to the city with great fanfare: it has received praise in the mainstream press in California and elsewhere, and the blessing of UFT and AFT President Randi Weingarten. In 2007, Weingarten sidestepped the AFT affiliate union in Los Angeles, which had been feuding with Green Dot, to meet with its founder and CEO Steve Barr. At that time, Weingarten announced an agreement with Barr to sponsor and bring a Green Dot charter school to New York City, despite the Los Angeles local’s charge that Green Dot had been poaching resources from the LA school system and privatizing public high schools.

Randi has claimed that Green Dot is a special case among charter schools, that, rather than avoid unionization, it seeks to create partnerships with teacher unions. It can be a compelling argument, since most trade unionists would agree that having a union is preferable to being unorganized, and since the overwhelming majority of charter schools are agressively anti-union. The UFT leadership has additionally argued that the Green Dot contract in effect in Los Angeles contains features that are superior to those we currently have. But is this really the case? Is the UFT’s cozying-up to Green Dot an example of a creative and far-sighted strategy, or is it going to permit a corporate Trojan Horse into the New York City public schools, weakening the contract we work under, splitting the work force, and furthering the privatization of public education?

In September after the NY Teacher article appeared I called Academic High School Vice President Leo Casey and asked him to send me a copy of the contract between the UFT and Green Dot. To my surprise he told me that no contract had been negotiated yet, and that teachers in the Bronx school were working under the terms of the LA contract between Green Dot and their house union, The Asociasacion de Maestros Unidos. While I found this rather odd, since the partnership between the UFT and Green Dot had been announced months before, I said nothing and proceeded to obtain a copy of the LA contract, which can be found on Green Dot’s web site.

Here is a summary of some important contrasts between their contract and our current one:

- Lower Salary: although a Green Dot teacher’s salary maxes out much sooner than ours- 8 years versus 22- the maximum salary is far lower: $80, 992.

- No Mandatory Arbitration of Grievances: grievances are handled by mediators and thus even if a teacher wins there is no binding legal precedent set for the future; the battles must be continually re-fought, a guarantee of long term abuse and teacher demoralization.

- No Set Work Day: the contract calls for a “professional work day,” which is to include the student day, staff meetings and time needed for preparation. In effect this means that the workday will be set by the most obsequious and sycophantic teachers who are trying to impress the principal. In
addition, the principal can call staff meetings before the beginning of the school day and continue them after school “if school business was not otherwise completed in regularly scheduled meetings.”

- No Tenure Worthy of the Name: “Any teacher receiving a ‘practice does not meet standards’ rating shall be given a six month improvement plan” If it is judged that the plan has not been met, the teacher can be fired the following year. There is nothing approximating the protections we currently enjoy regarding the 3020-A dismissal process.


- No Seniority Regarding Teaching Assignments

- Overly Detailed Teacher Evaluation Procedure: ripe for abuse by nit-picking or vindictive administrators.

So there we have some of the salient features of the Green Dot contract. But what about the school vis-à-vis students and parents?

- Students Chosen by Lottery: sometimes called “cherry picking lite,” this process favors the most informed and committed parents, skewing the student body towards those who’ve enjoyed greater parent involvement in their education, and foisting more troubled and academically challenged students on the remaining public high schools, which will then be blamed for their increasing problems, punished and closed.

- Compulsory Parent Involvement: parents must sign a participation contract, opening up further possibilities for subtle, or brazen, efforts to mold and manipulate the composition of the student body, as we have seen with reports about Eva Moskowittz’s Harlem Success Academy.

- Cagey Language Regarding School Statistics: Green Dot claims that “98% of seniors graduate,” but this ignores the attrition rateprior to senior year. As has been documented with KIPP schools, the student attrition rate in charter schools can be high, giving a false sense of their effectiveness.
Potentially most disturbing is language in the contract regarding the assignability of the contract. By this is meant the ability to maintain union representation of teachers in the event of “corporate merger affiliation, change of affiliation, employer or transfer of employees.” While the contract calls for the participation of the union in this process, the ultimate power is held by the Board of Directors. And while the contract also states that the “current” contract shall remain in effect, it must be asked, what would happen should the contract expire: would a new corporate entity be able to walk away from the union? As I understand it, the Green Dot teachers in NY are employees of the corporation that runs the school and are not covered by the Taylor Law, which would enable them to continue working under the terms of an expired agreement. Should I be correct in my interpretation, the Board of Directors could essentially “run away” from the union at an opportune moment. This would likely be when the school has “scaled up” and can function as a franchise operation, which is the emerging model of corporate and foundation supported charter schools.

I raise this issue because of some of the powers behind Green Dot. While Steve Barr, founder of Rock the Vote, is the public face of Green Dot and is its spokesman, in fact the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Green Dot in NY is Jeffery T. Leeds. Mr. Leeds is the head of Leeds Equity, a private equity firm. These are firms that make their money by purchasing publicly-owned businesses, reconfiguring them, and then selling them back to the public, often after stripping away resources and enjoying hefty fees in the process. In Los Angeles, the COO is a former partner in Bain Capital, one of the most prominent private equity firms, and Mitt Romney’s corporate alma mater. Traditionally, private equity firms have taken public corporations private - in a process known as “strip and flip” – but we may be seeing these operators entering into the public sector and applying their model to privatize these schools, after getting the taxpayers to fund their start.

In additon, Leeds Equity is the owner of The Sexton Corporation, a supplier of contingent – read temporary- labor which “helps its clients reduce recruitment and labor costs.” It is also the owner of Datamark, which owns and does marketing for private, for-profit proprietary schools, which are consistently mired in scandals regarding their hard sell recruitment procedures. In fact, Leeds has partnered with disgraced former Massachusetts governor William Weld, whose reputation was tarred by his association with Decker College, a scam proprietary school that was forced to close for fraudulent and unethical practices. Rudy Giuliani is Chairman of the Board of Advisors of Leeds Weld Equity Partners.

While I’ll probably be accused by some of undue paranoia, I’d respond that in the past two years we have seen corporate greed, self-dealing and self-delusion on a scale that continues to dwarf the most extreme accusations of Wall Street’s critics, and that it’s fair to ask whose interests are really being served by the expansion of charter schools like Green Dot.

And it’s fair for UFT members to ask if their union is making the correct choice in allying itself with corporate entities whose commitment to public education, and to the continued existence of strong, viable unions, is open to question.

DA REPORT: UNION REFUSES TO OPPOSE KLEIN FOR OBAMA’S ED SECRETARY

By James Eterno, UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

In what can only be described as another example of proof of the wide gap between the UFT leadership and its membership, the UFT at the Wednesday, November 12, 2009 Delegate Assembly would not go on the record opposing Joel Klein for Federal Secretary of Education. They will only go so far as to encourage members to send our thoughts about the Chancellor to the Obama transition people and they will send results of surveys we did last spring.

The Unity leadership spoke out strongly in opposition to an ICE amendment to a resolution that would share information about Klein and encourage UFT members to contact the Obama staff about Klein. ICE’s Lisa North proposed that the UFT oppose any nominee such as “Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Paul Vallas or any other potential Secretary of Education who supports corporate style, top-down, high stakes test crazed, teacher bashing accountability.” We wanted the UFT to go on the record and declare that twenty-five years of teacher bashing is enough. The UFT leadership declined to join us in saying enough is enough.

Instead, the normally sensible Secretary Michael Mendel gave a powerful speech against opposing Klein. He said that the teachers should be encouraged to make statements, not the UFT because then the battle lines are drawn. If I correctly understood this argument, he basically wants the rank and file to throw the snowballs while the UFT leadership stands back and watches. This way they can say, “It’s them not us Chancellor.” I have one question: Who does the UFT leadership represent?

The corporate style, top-down, test crazed blame the teachers and close down schools if the tests scores don’t go up fast enough accountability system has been a disaster for our schools and our members. That much is clear. Joel Klein is just one of a number of city school superintendents who have bought into the “It’s the teachers’ fault!” accountability. Randi Weingarten has talked repeatedly about how the Federal No Child Left Behind law is the real problem. Even after a favorable election where Randi spoke about how hard the UFT toiled to elect Obama and a Democratic Congress, our Union still will not take an official stand against the “blame the teachers” crowd that now run urban schools in many cities.

As for Klein himself, I have emailed back and forth with the Chancellor on several occasions about Jamaica High School issues. I have nothing against him personally. It’s the policies that try to quantify everything into data driven accountability that I find lacking as well as trying to apply the free market system to schools. It doesn’t work. We need to go in a different direction. If the leader of the UFT-AFT will not move us there, then we are in big trouble. The UFT’s decision to leave the rank and file out on our own to lead the battle against Klein while they stand back and watch from the sidelines might be indicative of where they stand.

After Mendel spoke, there was no suspense about the outcome of the vote. We knew we would lose in the Unity dominated DA, however Michael Fiorillo, the Chapter Leader from Newcomers High School, did suggest that when the UFT encourages teachers to tell the truth about the Klein administration while not directly opposing Klein, it is a distinction without a difference. I have to respectfully disagree with my friend from Newcomers.

For the membership, UFT leaders will say what we want to hear while behind the scenes they can wink and who knows what they are telling the Chancellor. Maybe they are saying they are just letting the teachers blow off some steam. Perhaps they want to be everything for everyone. The amendment to oppose Klein and company was defeated; the resolution to provide information to the Obama team on Klein carried.

ATR’s: Rally or Candlelight Vigil?

Controversy erupted at the DA over the November 24th rally at Tweed in support of Absent Teacher Reserves. The ATR supporters from the Ad Hoc Committee asked for clarification from President Weingarten if this was to be a raucous rally or a candlelight vigil. The latest word from UFT leaders is that this would be a vigil now but the DA in October called for a rally which Randi supported. Yesterday, Randi decided to mock the controversy and belittle the people who want a loud gathering. She said it gets dark early in November and candles would allow everyone to be seen.

ICE’s Julie Woodward took offense at being ridiculed by the President. Julie passionately voiced her feelings to the DA on behalf of the ATRs. At the end of all of this, I’m still not sure if there will be a rally or a vigil but I will encourage the members in my school and those who read this blog to attend either way.

In other DA News, we heard a long report from Randi about Obama’s election, the Democratic Party majority in Congress, control of the New York State Senate, the horrific State and City budget situations, budget cuts for schools in the middle of the year, No Child Left Behind, civil rights, an economic stimulus package that would hopefully include money for state and local governments, the DC 37 settlement that keeps to the 4% and 4% pattern, and possible layoffs. (If the city were to declare a financial emergency, layoffs would have to come in reverse seniority order within license citywide.) She also did not even hint that Bloomberg is close to declaring a financial emergency where there could be layoffs.

There were questions about parking and rubber rooms. Staff Director Leroy Barr reported that things are much better in the Temporary Reassignment Centers than last year. Finally, the UFT will rally in support of UFT members at the Art Institute today and at the Merrick Charter School on November 20.

No Klein Or His Ilk In Obama Ed Dept.

    ICE congratulates everyone who worked so hard to have Barack Obama elected US President. The multitudes of teachers who donated and worked for Obama expect that we will be respected by an Obama administration. We have suffered through a quarter century of teacher bashing in this country since the infamous A Nation at Risk was published. First, there was competency testing of teachers (supported by Hillary Clinton incidentally). Then, the one-way accountability system was introduced that blamed teachers for all of the social ills of the country. This led to the high-stakes testing movement which combined with Mayoral dictatorships over schools in many of our large cities. Blaming teachers became an acceptable form of discrimination. ICE states emphatically: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF TEACHING BASHING IS ENOUGH! We must send real educators to Washington who will support an education policy that respects our work. ICE would like to see the following motion added to the agenda today:

 

Resolved, that the UFT will work to see that the Secretary and Under-secretary of Education share our values and we will toil to defeat any nominee such as Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Paul Vallas or any other potential Secretary of Education who supports corporate style, top-down, high stakes test crazed, teacher bashing accountability.

 

The November 24 Atr Rally Is About All Of Us

    Every UFT member is a potential future Absent Teacher Reserve. The DOE can easily set up a school to fail by giving that school the area's most challenging students and then blaming the educators when test scores don't rise fast enough. The November 24^th Rally at Tweed in support of our ATR's and RTR's (teaching fellows threatened with termination in early December) should be used as a springboard to win back preferred placement rights for teachers who are excessed. Before the punitive 2005 giveback laden Contract, if a school or program was closed or reduced, teachers had "preferred placement rights" to vacancies. We didn't bump appointed teachers. In addition, in prior Contracts provisional employees were specifically covered by Article 18F: "No Layoff Agreement." It's time to mobilize to put these provisions and an SBO or seniority based transfers back into our Contract. The massive rally called for by the DA (We do not favor a candlelight vigil as an alternative.) should be used as an attempt to start the fight to win back what we gave up in 2005.

 

Ice Says Yes To Democracy In Schools; No To Mayoral Dictatorship

    The law giving the Mayor complete control of the schools expires in June 2009. The State Legislature must renew it or come up with something new. If they do nothing, the city system would revert to the old system of an appointed seven member Board of Education and elected community districts.

    ICE has spent over a year discussing a governance plan that would value the democratic participation of all constituents and restore dignity to students, staff and parents. This is a golden opportunity to right what was wrong with the system prior to 2002 and correct what can only be considered a seven year disaster under Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein.
    The BOE must be politically neutral and removed from any one political office. A school system cannot change/adjust according to the whim, caprice, political aspirations, career, or ideology of any Mayor. It must be run as an independent office with responsibilities to the people of the City and operate within the regulations and laws of the NYS Ed. Department.
    ICE believes in democracy.  Therefore, the local and central Boards of Education should be elected by the voters and non-registered parents/guardians, and there should be checks and balances built into the structure.  Furthermore, the actions of theses boards should be transparent. At the school level, Shared Decision Making among parents, teachers, and administrators (also, students in the high schools) must become a reality.

    ICE has three members on the UFT's School Governance Committee. Underlying our proposal is the recognition that the doors of the schoolhouse must be open to all.

Letter from Marjorie Stamberg and John Powers to UFT President Randi Weingarten and and Executive Board Members

We have been informed that the November 24 Rally to Defend ATRs is now to be officially a "candlelight vigil." We strongly object to this change. The motion passed at the UFT delegate assembly October 15 said that "the UFT will organize a mass citywide rally to show our unity and strength." Instead of a show of strength, this turns it into a toothless gesture of "bearing witness" or silently standing by and observing as a travesty is taking place.

Furthermore, we were not consulted on this change, which was made without our knowledge, despite assurances from Randi Weingarten and Michael Mulgrew that we would be included in the planning. The first we heard of this was in a changed rally leaflet we received this morning.

A candlelight vigil is a silent "protest at the suffering of some marginalized group of people, or in memory of lives lost to some disease, disaster, massacre or other tragedy."

We want to make precisely the opposite point -- that ATR teachers are not marginalized, that we stand by them, and the UFT will fight to ensure that they do not become "lost lives," a "massacre," a "disaster" or other "tragedy." We can "bear witness" all we want, but it won't stop Joel Klein from trying to drive out our colleagues. And it won't stop the likes of the New York Post from vilifying them and our union.

We will continue to plan for a mass citywide rally as "a show of our unity and strength" as the motion called for. I think many teachers will feel as we do that we need strong powerful action, and will not stand by in silence.

In the words of Joe Hill, the famous labor organizer, "Don't Mourn For Me--Organize!"

That is what we will continue to do and we encourage the UFT leadership to reconsider its plan.

John Powers
Marjorie Stamberg
for the Ad Hoc Committee to Defend ATRs

Teaching Fellows Layoff: How Can They Do This?

A recent article in the Daily News, reporting on the dismissal of a Teaching Fellow from Global Enterprise Academy in the Bronx, highlighted the alleged basis for his dismissal but missed an important issue involving the future of unassigned Teaching Fellows. ESL teacher Steven Clarke, the News noted, was terminated for alleged verbal abuse. A closer look at the decision reveals a disturbing finding concerning the legal status of these teachers.

When Mr. Clarke was terminated he was an unassigned teacher who was hired for the 2007-2008 school year. The Court found "that Clarke was employed as a teaching fellow in the New York City Teaching Fellow 2007 program, an alternative means by which individuals who are not certified teaclicrs may become certified. The program pairs a teaching fellow with an experienced teacher during summer school. After the summer, fellows are expected to secure a regular teaching position on their own, failing which they are placed in a "teacher reserve pool" where they may be assigned to assist or substitute for regular teachers. Clarke had until November 10, 2007 to obtain a teaching appointment or be automatically dropped from the program."

Clarke's NYSUT lawyer argued that he was entitled to reinstatement since he was a probationary employee who was illegally terminated. The illegal termination, she argued, was based on the statutory requirement that Superintendant's and not the principal dismiss probationary teachers and that Clarke was entitled, by law, to 30 days notice.

The DOE argued that while it is true that probationary employees must be dismissed by a Superintendant and are entitled to 30 days notice it is not true that Clarke was a probationary employee. They argued that Clarke was, in fact, a provisional employee.

In Civil Service Law there is a marked difference between probationary and provisional employees. While probationers have few rights provisional employees have no rights to employment. They may be hired and dismissed "at-will," entitled to no civil service protection whatsoever.

Justice Shafer in Clarke v. Board of Education sided with the DOE finding that Clarke was a provisional employee entitled to no notice or dismissal from a superintendant. She found that Clarke had never been appointed. Only appointed teachers can become probationary. Since Clarke was terminated "automatically" at the end of the fellow's program he has no legal recourse and his petition was dismissed.

UFT PSEUDO DEMOCRACY EXPLAINED

By James Eterno; UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

Usually around UFT election time, members approach me and say, "Why can't an opposition group win control of the UFT?" They tell us all the time how we are great fighters who could do a better job than the UFT leadership. I usually smile, say thanks and ask for their help to spread the word, knowing full well that being in opposition to Unity Caucus (Randi Weingarten's faction of the UFT) is not a great career move.

Around the time of the giveback laden 2005 Contract, many people approached me to find out how such a horrible Contract was approved by teachers. They questioned their fellow teachers reasoning skills. I answered that their colleagues are very busy people who often trust their Chapter Leaders to do what is right. Most UFT members do not have the time nor desire to learn about the UFT's internal structure.

If anyone is interested, the best place to look for information on how and why the UFT operates more like an insurance company than a labor union, then please read one time AFT President David Seldon's book, The Teacher Rebellion. However, since most teachers don't have the time to be able to find let alone read this excellent book right now, here is a very brief rundown on the UFT's power structure.

This is a good time to review UFT 101 as teachers are once again asking me how it is possible that the Delegate Assembly (the highest policy making body of the UFT) does not represent what people are feeling in the schools. We proposed a very sensible amendment at the October DA to unequivocally oppose the power grab by the City Council to extend term limits for themselves and the Mayor. 89% of city voters in a recent Quinipiac poll said they were against the Council bill. We are quite sure that a similar number of teachers would be opposed to the City Council voting to end term limits without going back to the voters who twice voted for the limits. However, we only received support from 30-40% of delegates at the DA. Some were puzzled by this low number. Is the DA that out of touch with the rest of NYC? The answer is no. In reality, 30-40% in favor of something the UFT leadership opposes is actually not bad when you consider what we are up against.

HOW DOES THE UNITY MACHINE OPERATE?

The UFT, basically since it was founded in 1960, has been controlled by a closed, invitation only political party called Unity Caucus. Unity, under the leadership of Al Shanker, organized a strict, top-down corporate structure that pretty much ensures that they will retain power but it inhibits true unionism that should come from the rank and file. This does not mean that there aren't good trade unionists who care about education and the members in Unity. I've worked with Unity officials who have helped my Chapter on many occasions. It's just that within the top-down hierarchical structure, the Unity machine stifles any real movement from the rank and file that would be necessary if we are to exert our union power.

We must first understand the most important obligation for a Unity member. Mr. Education Notes, Norm Scott, calls it the "Prime Directive." In order to join Unity Caucus, a potential recruit must agree as part of their membership obligations to "Support the decisions of the caucus and Union leadership elected from the caucus in public or Union forums." Some call this the "Unity Loyalty Oath."

When the Unity leadership makes a decision on any issue, Unity members must support that decision and publicly advocate for it or they could be sanctioned by the Caucus leadership. Some have been banished from Unity for opposing an important caucus position. If a Chapter Leader or a Delegate belongs to Unity and represents the members in their schools who don't like a leadership proposal like the horrible 2005 Contract, then that Chapter Leader or Delegate could end up in trouble. Unity leaders are all over the Delegate Assembly and can easily see whose hands go up when an issue is voted on. The next question then is how does Unity enforce this strict party discipline?

The answer is quite simple. Since Unity wins every UFT Election (Explaining slate voting and the at large election system is another post.), they control the decision making bodies of the Union (the Ad Com, Executive Board and DA). Just as importantly, they are in charge of the perks of the Union. At the bottom of the Unity food chain are Unity members who receive free all expense paid trips to the American Federation of Teachers and New York State United Teachers' Conventions. These free convention jaunts only go to Unity loyalists. Next up the line are those whose loyalty is rewarded with part time paid Union jobs. These are after-school positions and also jobs for retirees. These jobs are only opened to Unity Caucus members and lately to New Action supporters. New Action was a traditional opposition group that I once belonged to that has not run a candidate against President Randi Weingarten in the last two UFT elections but the Caucus is still on the ballot. Now, their people are on the Union payroll too. They were not in the past.

Finally, there is the grand prize of being able to escape the classroom and get a full-time Union job with a salary that is tens of thousands of dollars greater than a senior teacher and also includes an expense account and a second pension to go along with the City pension. These jobs virtually all belong to Unity members. One moves up the Union food chain by being loyal to the leadership who then pick people for the prized jobs. Competence is not necessarily a requirement.

Functionals (the Retired Teachers Chapter and other non-teachers in the UFT) now make up a clear majority of the Union. Each Functional Chapter has their own elections and their own perks to dole out for delegates to ensure their loyalty to Unity. Add to this the school Chapters that are controlled by Unity Chapter Leaders and Delegates and Unity easily controls the Delegate Assembly and thus the Union.

Therefore, when a resolution comes up to oppose the City Council power grab that 89% of the people in the City would agree with, it is not surprising at all that the DA does not represent the will of the teachers and other UFT members working in the schools. The only way to change this system is to organize an opposition in every school and demand that each Chapter Leader and Delegate follow the will of their Chapter. Or maybe, just maybe, there will be a revolt within Unity as there was a split in the majority caucus in Chicago. I've been involved in UFT activities for over a decade. I truly believe that one day this Union's top-down corporate structure that serves itself better than the membership will crumble.

Teachers’ Political Button Case: A True (Unintended) Win for Union Democracy

The last thing that Randi Weingarten thought when she decided to challenge the Chancellor's Regulation dealing with political expression in the classroom was that the court would provide additional legal precedent for teacher access to staff mailboxes.

As much of the media has reported Judge Lewis Kaplan has denied the UFT's request for a preliminary injunction seeking the overturn of the Chancellor's Regulation dealing with political expression in the classroom and elsewhere in schools. The DOE sought to prohibit all forms of political expression in the schools including leafleting mailboxes and posting political literature on Union bulletin boards. As predicted in this Blog Judge Kaplan saw no merit in the Union's position on campaign buttons in the classroom but found the constitutional challenge to the mailbox and bulletin board prohibition compelling and ordered that the DOE not prohibit access to those areas without student access. The Court held,

"Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted to the extent that defendants are hereby enjoined, pending the determination of this action, from enforcing the Regulation to the extent that it prohibits (I) posting materials containing candidate-related political content on UFT bulletin boards located in areas closed to students and (2) placing materials containing candidate related political content in staff mailboxes. It is denied in all other respects."

For many years teacher and opposition access to staff mailboxes has enjoyed legal protection but has often been interfered with by misguided principals and Unity Chapter Leaders. Despite clear precedent in Baizerman and Chancellor Directives opposition caucuses have been harassed and prevented from distributing their political literature in staff mailboxes. While things were better during union election times there clearly was no legal difference between distributing literature in either period.

In the recent case, Weingarten v. Board of Education (full decision) Judge Kaplan decided that mailbox access was constitutionally protected, even on the weak record that was before him. The Judge rejected the DOE's argument that mailbox access would interfere with school business and held that teacher 1^st Amendment rights outweighed the alleged speculation of disruption. The Court reasoned,

"The Regulation, as construed by the Chancellor, permits the distribution through teachers' school mailboxes of partisan political literature so long as that literature is an integral part of regularly published union newsletters or newspapers. I fail to see a permissible basis for distinguishing between political advocacy in union newsletters and in other campaign literature.

"Furthermore, the rationale offered by defendants - "leafleting" through the mailboxes might overwhelm a school's ability to review and distribute mail - does not appear on the record before me to be a reasonable justification for a blanket bar on the union delivering candidate-related materials in mailboxes that are not open to students."

We are confident that the 1^st Amendment applies with equal force to opposition caucus members. We call upon Randi and her crack legal team to continue the fight for our precious rights no matter how unintended they may be!

DA REPORT: ICE SAYS NO TO FOUR MORE YEARS OF BLOOMBERG-KLEIN and YES TO A RALLY FOR ATR'S

by James Eterno, UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

UFT leadership presented as their main focus at this year's first Delegate Assembly, a lengthy, "wishy-washy" resolution that joined together the financial crisis, electing Senator Obama and term limits for the Mayor. The October 15 meeting at UFT headquarters had two main resolutions: the first supported the UFT's proposal to work with a coalition of unions and other groups to fight for public education, to advocate for rights for working people in the midst of the financial crisis, to work to elect Senator Obama as President and to send the issue of extending term limits for the Mayor and City Council to the voters who approved term limits in the first place. The other major piece was to support the ATR's.

Lisa North of ICE questioned UFT President Randi Weingarten on why there was nothing in the UFT resolution on term limits that specifically opposed the City Council's blatant power grab, where they have a bill which would basically do away with two referendums that supported a two term limit for the Mayor and City Council. Randi responded that since Lisa spoke on the issue, she could not introduce an amendment to the UFT resolution on this issue. Randi then asked if anyone else would like to make that motion. Enter yours truly.

I proposed the following amendment to the UFT resolution on term limits, the financial crisis and the election of Barrack Obama:

"Resolved, that the UFT unequivocally oppose the city council's bill to extend term limits and the UFT will seriously consider withholding endorsements and COPE money from any Council member who votes in favor of this legislation that circumvents the will of the people."

I was able to address the issue and was received rather well by the delegates. I pointed out that in 2006, one of the UFT's major selling points for our current Contract was that it would be the last one we would have to negotiate with Bloomberg and Klein and now that no longer holds true as the rules are being changed in the middle of the game. I said that we needed to organize the opposition to the anti-democratic City Council bill that would extend term limits for the Council and the Mayor without first going to the voters. I told the delegates that the financial crisis will be used against us if the Mayor buys his way to another four year term. I also stated that I fully understand that we are taking a risk to pick a fight with the City Council, but a greater risk would be four more years of Joel Klein as Chancellor as the attacks on teacher unions are a national problem and the UFT should lead the fight to stop them dead in their tracks. I closed my remarks by saying that there have to be consequences for the City Council and the Mayor if they circumvent the will of the voters.

I was followed by three Unity speakers in a row (so much for Roberts' Rules where Presidents should try to alternate between speakers for and against a motion), two of which were full time Union officials so Randi knew where they stood. One of them, Paul Egan, talked about how we can protest as individuals but not as a Union and then Vice President for Middle Schools Richard Farkas discussed the financial crisis in the seventies. The question was then called so there was no further debate. A vote on our amendment followed. A Jamaica delegate, UFT stalwart Ellen Fox, my wife Camille and I estimate that we received from 30-40% of the vote. That's not bad when you consider that most of the delegates are from Unity Caucus. Caucus obligations require Unity members to support the decisions of the caucus in public and union forums. To put it another way, their union perks depend on their supporting the UFT leadership. The "wishy-washy" resolution on term limits, Obama and the financial crisis then received overwhelming support.

In the other major resolution, the UFT's call to battle in support of Absent Teacher Reserves by "Letting Us Teach." received a large boost from ICE's John Powers and Marjorie Sternberg. They had formed an AdHoc Committee which came up with a petition to support the ATR's by having a giant rally to let them teach. ICE and the UFT leadership agree on a demand that ATR's who want a regular job should be placed in permanent positions to lower class sizes before any new people within a particular license are hired. There was a rally out in front of the DA with ATR's and new fellows who were hired by the Board of Education but cannot find a position who are now called RTR's. RTR's could soon be terminated. The Ad Hoc Committee has had petitions signed by UFT members in well over a hundred schools calling for a giant rally at DOE Headquarters in support of the ATR's and RTR's.

Randi Weingarten endorsed John Powers' amendment to the UFT's ATR-RTR resolution. Powers told the delegates that any one of us could be an ATR as schools are closed all the time these days. He also stated that we have had resolutions in the past to support ATR's being allowed to teach, but they never have convinced the DOE to remedy the situation. The amendment calling for a rally overwhelmingly passed.

The ATR resolution also said the UFT would fight financial disincentives for hiring experienced teachers and also that the Union would take action against layoffs of new fellows who have not been hired. There were also other provisions in the resolution that included a public relations campaign to get the truth out about ATR's. It carried easily with the Amendment attached.

Another resolution was passed saying the UFT would do everything it could to spare the classroom of budget cuts in these difficult financial times. The resolution called for cuts to be made administratively instead.

Before all of this, Randi spent well over an hour giving a report on the financial crisis, the horrible budget situation at the State and City level, the UFT campaigns against rating teachers based on test scores, job security for ATR's, budget cuts that will impact on schools, Sarah Palin, Obama's headquarters in New York being located at UFT headquarters, Obama working with teachers, the UFT's opposition to term limits but support for the principle of the people deciding on the issue, and more. She also told us that the welfare fund should be safe because it is invested mostly in fixed funds while our pensions are protected by the New York State Constitution. She briefly mentioned No Child Left Behind too.

Finally, striking Stella Doro bakery workers were greeted warmly by the delegates and a resolution was passed in support of their strike. We gave them a financial contribution as well.

There was no time left at the end for a question period or a new motion period so rank and file delegates had no chance to bring up other issues.

Footnote: Randi's President's Report was quite detailed but when she talked about job security she again made what in my opinion is a great mistake by referring to the provision that ended seniority transfers and preferred placement for educators if a school closed in exchange for the ATR provision as an iron clad job security agreement. It is not better than what we had in the past. She said we only had job security clauses in 1991 as part of a mid-year loan to the city and 1996. This is not true. The ICE fact meter researched previous contracts.

We discovered that there was a provision in the 1995 Contract that was Article 17F, "Job Security." It stated that "no employee covered by this Agreement shall be displaced or involuntarily separated from service except for cause or reason related to state civil service law (e.g., the movement of appointment lists and/or requirement to hire certified teachers, if available)." This job security provision lasted from 1995-98. The Tentative Contract at a Glance for the 2000-2003 Contract continued Article 17F. The UFT stated at the time: "No layoff agreement. For the duration of this contract, no UFT member shall be terminated except for cause." Article 17F was removed from the giveback laden 2005 Contract and its successor agreement and replaced by the ATR provision. I wish the UFT would just once admit that it made some mistakes in the past and stop trying to spin the terrible 2005 contract into something that it is not.