Post a comment about the budget cuts at your school on our interactive comment map. more »
GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools
contract sport
November 18, 2009
Mulgrew asks union for power to call impasse in contract talks
Teachers union president Michael Mulgrew is calling for the power to declare a deadlock in the union’s contract negotiations with the city.
At a meeting of the United Federation of Teachers’ delegate assembly, Mulgrew asked members to vote and grant him the authority to call an impasse in negotiations, setting things in motion for contract talks to proceed toward the complicated and lengthy fact-finding process. A spokesman for the UFT said that Mulgrew was not declaring an actual deadlock, but was signaling that if talks do not improve, he will do so.
(Update: At 5:41 p.m., by UFT spokesman Dick Riley’s watch, the delegate assembly passed the resolution)
Declaring an impasse would mean calling in the state’s Public Employment Relations Board to verify that contract talks have stalled and then bringing in a mediator to restart negotiations. If the mediation fails, then the fact-finding process would begin — something that the union isn’t exactly looking to avoid, as fact-finding commissions in years past have recommended wage increases and prevented the city from laying off teachers who are excessed and can’t find new positions.
“There’s no downside and it shows his members that he’s doing something,” said Peter Goodman, a long-time UFT member, of Mulgrew’s request for the authority to call an impasse.
The UFT’s contract with the city expired on October 31, but a statute allows teachers to work under an expired contract until a new one is in place.
A press release from the UFT states:
The Delegate Assembly of the United Federation of Teachers, the union’s highest policy-making body, will consider at its meeting Wednesday a resolution that authorizes the union leadership to seek the intervention of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in stalled contract talks.
If PERB were to find that an impasse exists, the state agency would appoint a mediator to bring the sides together. If mediation were to fail, PERB would then appoint a fact-finding panel to hold hearings and make a recommendation for a settlement.
UFT President Mike Mulgrew said, “We have had a number of meetings and have made some progress. But many other issues remain and our contract has expired. We will continue to negotiate, but to help ensure that we can reach a fair agreement I want to have the authority to declare — if necessary — that we are at impasse and to ask the state to intervene.”
The UFT’s most recent contract was a two-year pact that expired October 31, 2009.
Under the Taylor Law that governs relations between management and public employee labor unions, all the terms of an expired agreement continue in place until a new agreement is reached, including during the impasse/mediation/fact-finding process.
Fact-finding produces non-binding recommendations designed to help the parties craft a final settlement. In 2005, 2002 and 1993, the recommendations of fact-finding panels helped the UFT and the Board of Education* to reach agreements to replace expired teacher contracts.
-
November 18th, 2009 9:11 pm
I have an even better idea.
How about both sides announce to the public, which will be paying for any agreement, what their demands are? The Mayor is wrong to negotiate this contract in secret.
Important issues are at stake (one would hope), including performance pay, tenure, rubber rooms, ATRs, moving towards a slimmer contract with more school-level flexibility, etc.
The public has no idea whether the “impasse” is the result of a principled clash of competing ideals or something much more mundane.
Let the sunshine in! Regardless of one’s viewpoint, we all should be able to agree on this obvious first step.
-
November 18th, 2009 10:06 pm
i agree…the secrecy disguists me and makes me not trust either side
-
November 18th, 2009 10:12 pm
Great idea, Mr. Carroll! Let’s make all contract negotiations open to the public. Let’s start with yours.
-
November 18th, 2009 10:40 pm
Reality-based educator,
I am glad you agree that both sides should let the public know what their positions are.
As for your attempt to make a snide comment about me, it would be difficult to make my contract negotiations public since I don’t have and never have had a contract at any point in my entire life. Also, I have never had lifetime tenure, and am not on a school payroll or any public payroll.
The point of my suggestion was not to go after Mr. Mulgrew or Mayor Bloomberg personally. I am not looking to explore their personal finances. I just want their positions in negotiations, which have tremendous public policy implications, made transparent to the public.
As you know from our extended public exchanges on this blog, I have made my positions on the pending UFT contract public on numerous occasions. Of much more significance, though, are the negotiating positions of Mulgrew and Bloomberg.
-
November 19th, 2009 4:06 am
Mr. Carroll,
Since the DOE has spent many hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on no-bid contracts in recent years - to companies such as IBM and consultants such as Alvarez and Marsal that helped engineer the school bus fiasco a few years back - am I correct in assuming that in the interest of fairness and intellectual consistency you will likewise insist that those negotiations be made public?
When can we expect a post from you on this topic?
-
November 19th, 2009 5:53 am
Taxpayer dollars pay for the salaries and benefits of your job,then your contract negotiations should be public.End of story.That goes for all taxpayer funded jobs.Enough with the secret negotiation and no bid contracts.We are fed up. And i am a huge union supporter.And believe teachers deserve every penny they are paid. I am just fed up with the way things are being handled. And I am one of many.
-
November 19th, 2009 8:56 am
I was at the DA last night and although I belong to no Caucus, what I saw and heard last night really made me think about voting ICE when election time comes. For months we’ve been hearing about how it’s the strength of the Union that helped elect John Liu and Bill deBlasio. Last night, Mulgrew admitted that the UFT could only help Thompson with a couple of percentage points at the most and would not have helped his cause in any way.
For months we’ve heard about our need to stay neutral in the Mayoral election to better our chances with contract negotiations and here we are post-election with no contract and going through the same process that has created more red-tape for teachers.
I am a huge union supporter as well but this is just disappointing.
-
November 19th, 2009 9:49 am
Michael Fiorillo,
Let me clarify. On the UFT contract negotiations, I did not mean to say that every meeting in which negotiations take place should be held in full public view. In fact, if that was done, the negotiations would be wrapped up in about 150 years.
Just given the importance of the contract to the future of education in the City, it would be nice if both sides let the public in on what they both hoped to get out of the negotiations and what major issues were at play. I think everyone, regardless of their viewpoint on specific issues, would agree that makes sense.
On City contracts, I am not familiar with the specific contracts you mention and thus won’t comment specifically on those cases, but let me draw several distinctions.
On commodities - pencils, staples, desks, etc. - beyond a certain threshold these contracts should be publicly noticed and bid, with the award going to the lowest bidder. The opportunity to bid should be publicly noticed, and the winning contract should be available for public view.
On professional services — lawyers, accountants, certain technology services — a lowest-bidder approach makes no sense. I certainly would not want to be represented by the cheapest attorney, for example. In these cases, a RFP is issued. The RFP is public as is the list of bidders and the final contract.
-
November 19th, 2009 9:54 am
Elliot Ness,
I am surprised that more union members are not demanding that the Mayor and Mulgrew publicly disclose what they are trying to achieve.
With the secrecy, the rank-and-file has no idea whether Mulgrew is actually fighting for the issues they care about. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t.
This is why both sides should join together to demand a more open process.
-
November 19th, 2009 10:43 am
Tom and All:
The union surveyed it’s entire membership, created a 300 member negotiating team, presented the demands to the 1000 member Delegate Assembly, and produced a rather brief and transparent list of goals.
I’m sure the City also submitted demands, they have decided not to make their demands public.
I would hope the final contract contains an approriate raise, ends the ATR pool, speeds up the discipline rules without diminishing the rights of union members, and, perhaps creates a “zone,” in which school communities, teachers and principals, can create “innovative” approaches to school management/administration.
Unfortunately, in spite of their rhetoric, this administration has micromanaged schools and classrooms.
For reasons that elude me the Department has chosen to confront both the union and teachers rather than to work in a collaborative spirit.
The increasing evidence that charter schools are not “better” than public schools, but not as good is ignored by the Mayor and the Chancellor.
Contracts can be “win-wins” for teachers, parents and kids.
Tom, you see the union free climate of charter schools as a path to more effective schools, I demur, effective schools are little impacted by contract language, ineffective principals use the “contract” as an excuse for their own lack of competence.
In weeks or months ahead a contract will emerge, in this climate of distrust it will probably be a contract without major changes.
-
November 19th, 2009 11:06 am
Tom,
I am all for a more public negotiation. We keep hearing from Mulgrew how absurd the list of demands from the DOE are, but we have no idea what they are demanding. If it were made public, the teachers and parents could respond in real-time to the absurdity of the demands and perhaps shame the DOE for their lack of understanding on matters of instruction.
The same goes for the UFT, but I guess I’m an idealist who believes the UFT still has the best intentions for teachers and students when it comes to contract demands.
-
November 19th, 2009 11:23 am
“..believes the UFT still has the best intentions for teachers and students when it comes to contract demands”
teachers, maybe
students? heck no -
November 19th, 2009 11:30 am
Peter and Eliot Ness,
We may or may not have reasons to argue about the relative virtues of unions, but the beauty of what I am proposing is that we can set all those issues aside for the moment.
We all have a common interest in transparency right now.
Peter, as an aside, I don’t accept your claim that there is “increasing evidence” that the performance of charter schools is no better than that in district schools. But, we can debate that another day.
For now, let’s all push for greater transparency.
-
November 19th, 2009 4:09 pm
The students today are the teachers and workers of tomorrow. The fight for teachers now is a fight for our students’ future.
-
November 19th, 2009 5:57 pm
Tom,
you may not want a cheap lawyer but I do not want a cheap pencil either. Just what my kids need, pencils made by child labor. My point is would you really know what the teachers issues are, or their value, not being one or knowing what your looking at? -
November 19th, 2009 6:43 pm
John Hancock,
Wow, out of the blue I am accused of favoring child labor because I attempted to explain the public bidding process for commodities! That was a bit out of left field.
But, let me take the bait anyway. If you are concerned about child labor and pencils — frankly I had missed this issue — any public bidding for commodities includes specifications for the products being ordered. If one wanted, one could specify that products produced with child labor could not be purchased and that the lowest price of the remaining bidders would be followed. I frankly don’t know whether this current specification exists now or not.
But putting aside this digression, do you favor both sides making clear their current positions in the negotiations on the UFT contract? That was actually the question we started the discussion with.
-
November 19th, 2009 7:10 pm
I’m fairly certain Chancellor Klein’s already laid out his wish list on an eight-page contract. Has anyone got a link to that? I can’t find it anywhere.
-
November 19th, 2009 7:38 pm
Arthur
The “thin” contract concept was broached by Al shanker twenty or so years ago, a brief contract, entered in joinly by the staff and the principal, with the staff sharing some elements of leadership with the school leader.
Boston and LA, with strong teacher unions, both have negotiated “zones of choice,” clusters of schools with “thin” contracts.
In the last set of neotiations Klein seized on his iteration of a “thin” contract, basically gutting the current contract.
This time round the DOE has been totally silent on their demands. Five or six years ago the DOE launched the Autonomous Zone, I had hoped that the 25 or so schools would have evolved into a “thin” contract zone, alas Klein ginned up AZ to Empowerment.
Encouraging staff staffs, union and management, leeway in the construction of a school-based contract would essentially eliminate the argment for charter schools.
-
November 19th, 2009 8:49 pm
Mr. Carroll,
you are paid (receive a salary) to engage public policy debate. What is it?
-
November 19th, 2009 8:51 pm
Tom: When will your transparency trial balloon appear as a column in the NY Post?
Your last Op-Ed piece on Commissioner Steiner’s proposals for reforming teacher training/preparation was really a news story disguised as an opinion piece. I don’t know why they ran it in the editorial section. How about giving others a chance to opine.
PS: I appreciate your knowledge of DOE bidding and procurement SOP.
-
November 19th, 2009 9:01 pm
Mr. Carroll,
You neglect to address the issue of no-bid contracts in the DOE, which are rampant. Are you suggesting there is no negotiation between the DOE and its vendors, professional or otherwise? If there are, then why are you not aghast at the lack of transparency, as you seem to be whenever the union is concerned?
Your seemingly objective push for transparency masks the anti-union animus behind your commentary and your actions as a privatizer. It may be mild, in tone but is toxic in purpose towards teachers and public education.
As for the issue of transparency in negotiations, as a union activist who often criticizes the UFT leadership, especially on matters of openness and transparency, people should nevertheless understand that the ability of negotiators to do their work in privacy, without the intrusion of outside parties, has its place.
-
November 19th, 2009 10:44 pm
Roger,
“How about giving others a chance to opine?”
Do you really think that this is a City with a shortage of opinions or venues in which to express them?
-
November 19th, 2009 10:52 pm
Michael Fiorillo,
I concede that you and I are on different pages on a host of issues. That’s what is great about America. Room enough for both of us.
On unions or any other issue, I assure you I personally possess no animus towards anyone or anything. Not in my makeup.
As for my “actions as a privatizer,” to what specifically are you referring?
On transparency, I would like both sides to let us all know what their current bargaining positions are. Then they can go back into the negotiating room and close the door. As I explained in an earlier post, I did not intend to call for actual negotiating sessions to be held in open.
Simple request. Would not advantage or disadvantage either side, but it would let the public know what is going on. Presently we don’t.
-
November 19th, 2009 11:59 pm
On transparency: how much are you paid by FERA?
-
November 20th, 2009 2:52 am
Carroll and his lot are privateers who are out to destroy public education. If all the schools are doing so well BY BLOOMBERG”S DOE DESIGBED MEASURES why are we even discussing chrter schools? Because charters have one mission to enrich the founders and the leaders who see educationas a BUSINESS- you dont need child development or child psychology coursework-just an MBA and a plan!
-
November 20th, 2009 5:58 am
Mr. Carroll,
Yet again, you have neglected to address my questions about no bid contracts in the DOE. Why the apparent discomfort?
As for your professed lack of animus toward unions or anyone else, on the level of personal temperament I will accept what you say at face value.
However, that is rendered meaningless by what you actually seem to be doing. As chair of the Brighter Choice Charter Schools, you are objectively undermining public education by creating private schools with public money.
You use your platform as head of the Foundation for Ed reform and Accountability to editorialize against teachers and public education in privatization-friendly venues such as the New York Post and Daily News op-ed pages. Your Board of trustees includes Peter Flanigan of UBS (Wall Street being behind the curtain of charter schools), Bruce Kovner of the right-wing, pro-privatization American Enterprise Institute, and Richard Gilder, former Chairman of the Manhattan Institute.
As I said before, your mildness of tone is belied by your institutional connections and the work you actually seem to be doing. Ultimately, that counts for much more than your tone on these pages.
-
November 20th, 2009 6:59 am
What do you expect when the Mayor is a billionaire who doesn’t have a clue as to the real world and has been put in charge of the schools despite the fact he doesn’t have one iota of an idea about education and a civil rights lawyer masquerading as an educator who is totally inept, incompetent and unqualified as well as being uncertified for the position which he holds and was granted a waiver by SED for political reasons. Between them, they have not spent one day in a classroom and have no idea of just what teachers go through on a daily basis.
It’s very simple. It’s called walk a mile in my shoes. I cannot take anything these people say seriously as they simply don’t have a clue. And that includes people who are heads of foundations with names that talk about educational reform. There are supposed to be regulations regarding who can serve as District Superintendents (which is in effect the position Klein holds but it’s given this fancy name reserved for politicians) for a very good reason. Schools are not businesses. Kids are not widgets. And as far as this age old argument about charter schools, when the day comes that charter schools have to take in all kids, kids who come in off the streets after arriving in the country and never having had a day of formal education (but because they’re 14, they’re put in the ninth grade and we’re told we are not allowed to use tracking so they go into classes with kids performing on a far higher level) or behavioral problems or whatever. Because, as everybody knows, the first variable in education is the kids. Good schools are made by good kids. It has always been that way and will always be that way. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try but let’s not bring down the good kids.
As far as the UFT negotiations, certain things have to be deal busters for the UFT leadership. One is the ATR issue. With the budget cuts coming into effect, more and more teachers will be excessed. And more and more Principals will want to staff their schools with teachers on the lowest salary level possible. UFT has already given the incompetent civil rights lawyer too many things that he has used to destroy education in this city. There comes a time for self protection and when teachers are protected, that does not mean kids are not, Mr. Carrol.
-
November 20th, 2009 7:00 am
Peter,
While Tweed may not have expressly made public its demands, the Chancellor seemed to express his ideals in that 8-page contract, and nothing he’s said or done since has persuaded me he’s changed his mind. Do you know if that contract represented the city’s demands in 05?
-
November 20th, 2009 8:28 am
Well, my simple idea for both sides to tell the rest of us their current bargaining positions seems to have unleashed all kinds of pent up issues.
These are all very interesting, and I will try to address as many of them as I can, but regardless of our disagreements on all these unrelated issues, let’s agree that the current bargaining positions of both sides should be made public.
First, as for various people who have asked for financial disclosures, I have not asked Mr. Mulgrew or Mr. Bloomberg to declare their net worth or annual earnings, just to declare their bargaining positions. I have fully disclosed my position on the negotiations, apparently to the dismay of some of the participants on this blog, but my positions nonetheless are transparent.
Second, because I chair a charter school (which by the way is the top rated elementary school in Albany on math, science, and ELA) does not mean I am “objectively undermining public education by creating private schools with public money.” Since charter schools are public schools this argument makes no sense. And, just for the record, I receive no compensation from the Brighter Choice Charter School and the school does not contract with a for-profit management company. So, the privateering comment is nonsensical.
Third, I am criticized for using my position as head of the Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability to express my views. Yes, I do. I do not rail against “teachers and public education.” Would love to know the specific quotes that you thought did that.
Fourth, I am criticized for having opinion pieces published by “privatization-friendly venues” such as the New York Post and New York Daily News. You conveniently left off that my views have been published in the Huffington Post, New York Times, and Washington Post. At any rate, I have been published in the same places that Randi Weingarten has been published. Is she thus deemed privatization friendly?
Fifth, it is argued that I can’t be a nice guy since my board of trustees includes several individuals who at different points have worked on Wall Street or served on the boards of AEI and the Manhattan Institute. Egads, my critics are becoming mighty intolerant now. I didn’t realize that any of those three associations would be viewed as intellectually scandalous. Silly me. By the way, it was interesting that you chose to ignore the other affiliations of the people you attempted to caricature, presumably because it would have undermined the picture you were trying to paint.
Sixth, on the repeated questions on alleged no-bid contracts by DOE, I will leave it to DOE to defend themselves. I have no particular knowledge of the contracts you are referencing and thus have nothing profound to add to that side debate.
I doubt my answers to these various questions will satisfy, but can we return to my simple proposal: let’s have both sides reveal their current bargaining positions to the public?
-
November 20th, 2009 9:26 am
Arthur
To the best of my knowledge the DOE does not release their demands to the public, although the chancellor has discussed particular issues.
The “thin” contract has been mentioned by the chancellor, but what would the “thin” contract contain?
Does it mean deleting the grievance clauses, or, from the union perspective allowing chapter a significant role in school decision-making?
It’s not the “thin-ness,” it’s the content.
-
November 20th, 2009 9:39 am
Tom
The UFT demands, actually called “goals” are public, they were crafted with the participation of the entire union membership and are listed on this website.
It is the City that has not released demands.
In the sophisticated world of negotiations there are “public posture” issues and then the actual discussions across the table. Public posturing delays the process.
Much of what you advocate, pay for performance, relaxation of tenure rules, etc., are not the subject of contract negotiations.
The Gates-funded Methods of Essential Teaching program, jointly supported by the DOE and the UFT, which hopes to identify particular practices that lead to higher pupil achievement is the type of collaboration that could lead to alternate methods of compensation.
These are complex issues and require levels of trust on both sides, trust that is currently absent.
-
November 20th, 2009 12:31 pm
“Egads”? I rest my case. Who the hell uses the word “egads”? Out of touch folks out to profit from children in poor communities. Why are there no charter schools in wealthy communities? Egads the thought of Billionaire Boston Bloomy and his uber rich cadre of upper east side out of touch carpetbaggers makes me ill… At least it will only be 1461 days after January 1st!! I will start counting-even his billions could barely buy him a miniscule plurality- TIME TO CHANGE YOUR BLOOMERS!!!
-
November 20th, 2009 4:11 pm
Hold on, Fedup. Gadzooks is coming next, Then Odsbodkins.
Wait, since Carroll has a free pass to write Op-Eds for the NY Post (even if the last one was a warmed-over press release)–he’s saving those quaint exclamations for Rupert’s rag.
-
November 20th, 2009 5:38 pm
If you are being paid to express these opinions, then we have a right to know, how much?
-
November 20th, 2009 7:51 pm
Mr. Carroll,
To address your last post:
You claim that the charter school you chair is the highest-rated elementary school in
Albany. If so - and we will leave the debate about the meaning of these ratings to another
time - then in the interest of the transparency you hold so dear, please- tell us the percentage of special needs students you serve compared to the
percentage served by local zoned public schools.- tell us the percentage of ELLs served in your school compared to the percentage
served by local zoned public schools.- whether a child’s acceptance and continued enrollment is dependent on parent’s signing a
contract of any kind.-the student attrition rate.
-the teacher attrition rate.
As for charters being public schools, it is simply not so. They are publicly-funded, privately managed corporations. The public has no input over the composition of the board or the policies it promulgates. You say it is non-profit, and while that is true (for the moment) it ignores the gravitational force of the profit motive that drives the business model you and your fellow free market- now, that’s a misnomer if there ever was one - fundamentalists celebrate.
You use deceptively loaded language to refer to my criticism. It was you, not me, who used the word “rail” in regard to my description of your op-ed pieces. In fact, I used the far more neutral term “editorialize.” Please don’t put words in my mouth. Your asking us to point out specific attacks against teachers is disingenuous: your frequent writings about seniority, tenure and merit pay are objectively anti-teacher, no matter whether they’re couched in the fake-objective prose of policy analysis.
As for the platforms from which you speak, I can’t quite believe you even try to use them as a defense. The Huffington Post, despite it limousine liberal trappings, is a frequent venue for ed deform propaganda. The New York Times has been a consistent enabler of Bloomberg’s policies here in the city, and the Washington Post is a nationwide loudspeaker for school privatization. This is - or in a less corrupt and intellectually dishonest world, should be - a particular conflict of interest scandal , since they own Kaplan, a direct beneficiary of corporate ed deform.
Then there’s Randi Weingarten. Sad to say, she has her peace with the privatizers, as long as the union gets its cut and she can be feted as a labor statesperson. She actually seems to think that the union can continue to exist if public schools are destroyed. She has signed a tenure and seniority-free contract with Green Dot, and she is pushing the recently signed New Haven teacher’s contract - which will accelerate public school closings and their replacement by charters - as a national model.
You accuse me of being intolerant - there’s that loaded language again - when I merely noted the background of people on your Board, two of whom have close connections to explicitly pro-privatization groups. You are free to recruit anyone you like for your Board, but please don’t play the victim when their backgrounds are pointed out. And by the way, facts are not intolerant; they merely stand in mute contrast to deception and self-deception.
Once again you refuse to deal with the transparency issues raised by the proliferation of no-bid contracts under Bloomberg and Klein, saying you know nothing about them and will leave it to the DOE to comment. But you also say you don’t know anything about the contract negotiations, yet you are clamoring for the parties - but in reality just the union, so you can attack them in your “objective” way in Rupert’s and Morty’s rags - to reveal their positions. You don’t seem to grasp, or refuse to acknowledge, the hypocrisy of that.
And, finally, we don’t agree that the current bargaining positions should be made public. Your faux-objective claim of wanting ‘transparency” in the name of taxpayers is belied by your interests, actions and ideology.
-
November 21st, 2009 7:53 am
Amen Jonathan. Can I get a witness?
-
November 21st, 2009 11:05 am
Excellent post Michael.. Could not have said it better. Anyone pushing ed reform by privatization should be exposed for the true Charlatan that they are. This has never been about the kids for them. Its the corporations syphoning dollars from the public into their pockets. This is an anti labor campaign against the last bastion of middle class unions in this country.
-
November 22nd, 2009 7:38 pm
Amen- I witness and double witness that!!! Good man Michael.
Leave a Reply
Mapping the Budget Cuts
38 Comments
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack