Post a comment about the budget cuts at your school on our interactive comment map. more »
GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools
Office Space
December 2, 2009
It’s odd to see the New York Post up in arms over the possibility of teachers receiving the same pattern of raises established by Mayor Bloomberg for other city unions. Usually, there’s a highly undesirable pattern, and the papers insist we’re lucky to get it. That’s what happened in our 1995 double zero contract, which resulted in city workers getting no raises for two years as the dot com boom swept the nation. I don’t recall a whole lot of tabloid outrage over that.
The first union to be offered the double zero was the UFT. We rejected it, though then-UFT President Sandra Feldman had sent a stern letter warning anyone who thought we’d do better must be “smoking something.” The contract next went to DC37, which voted it up, followed by every city union, including a second-round UFT. There was a modification though-UFT teachers reached maximum salary in 22 rather than 25 years. As someone who’s now been on maximum for two and a half years, I’d like to personally thank every single teacher who was “smoking something.”
But there was more to the double zero contract, and I’m not certain the Post ever picked up on it. It turned out that particular DC37 election was rigged. And though every single union after DC37 voted up this stinker, I never heard crusading mayor Rudolph Giuliani express a word of outrage about it. In fact, DC37’s then-leaders were jailed as a result. Sir Rudy was busy with other priorities, like trying to force welfare recipients to work in public schools. Apparently, people chronically unable to find work were adequate role models for public school kids. And why not? His kids, like Mayor Bloomberg’s and Chancellor Klein’s, never set foot in public schools anyway.
So here we are, over a decade later, with another four years of working-class hero Michael Bloomberg, whose recent commercials claimed he was all about jobs. But jobs for a union that endorsed his opponent were not a high priority. Even before his election, Mayor Bloomberg fired 500 of the lowest-paid workers in the city to save 13 million dollars, while he spent 14.5 million to have custodians lock and unlock gates, amounting to 50 thousand bucks a gate.
The UFT, on the other hand, remained neutral during the mayoral election. That, along with an endorsement of mayoral control by then-UFT President Randi Weingarten, led many to believe there was some sort of quid pro quo, and that a teacher contract was an inevitability.
Now, of course, Mayor Mike has put that rumor to rest by laying out his same old laundry list of demands: more charter schools, tenure based on test scores, ATR teachers fired, and other teachers fired whenever he feels like it, seniority and tenure be damned. Naturally, the Daily News editorial board thinks this is a fabulous idea. After all, non-unionized charter school teachers can be fired for any reason whatsoever, including telling colleagues how much UFT members earn.
When tabloid editorial writers declare their abiding love for charter schools, they rarely mention inconvenient facts like that. Here’s another thing you won’t see in tabloid editorials: In 2005, the pattern was bad, and Mayor Bloomberg asked the UFT to give big to surpass it. In 2009, the pattern is good, and Mayor Bloomberg asks the UFT to give big just to get it.
The Mayor’s posturing notwithstanding, in 2005 PERB asserted that pattern bargaining was essential. Now, UFT President Michael Mulgrew has got the right to once again go to PERB and negotiate. GothamSchools seems to think such negotiation could ultimately favor the UFT:
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.
Perhaps that’s true. But if it isn’t, it means that PERB is willing to insist teachers take the pattern when it’s unfavorable, and ignore it when it’s relatively attractive. If that’s the case, there’s hardly any reason for PERB to exist-it’s little more than a rubber stamp for the mayor, like the PEP.
Call me cynical, but that wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
-
December 2nd, 2009 1:18 pm
“give the shoemakers a raise because the blacksmiths got one
i don’t care where the money comes from. i actually have no idea where the money comes from
and it doesn’t matter some of the shoemaker’s shoes have no sole or broken laces. they al ;lhave to keep their jobs. it’s only fair.
and please pay the shoemakers long after they stop working, and let the shoemakers stop working as soon as possible. its only fair.”that’s how nyc unions think
can’t negotiate with that -
December 2nd, 2009 5:45 pm
Give the shoemakers a raise because they are trying to make Prada pumps out of styrofoam and duct tape and, more often than not, they actually succeed.
-
December 2nd, 2009 7:31 pm
I know a great way to plug the budget gap and assist public education. Put a sales tax on newspapers!!!!
-
December 3rd, 2009 12:41 am
Shoemakers, blacksmiths???? Is that how you compare teachers, police and firefighters??
Shame on you!!
-
December 3rd, 2009 2:04 am
You just can’t win with the UFT. There is always an outcry over educators getting raises; even though, they’re not compensated nearly enough for what they do. These days, educators do more than only teach. They also serve as baby-sitters for the 1.1 million kids in NYC public schools. I don’t believe teachers get properly compensated for this function. Additionally, in high schools, educators might be have to be administrators as well as teach. For example, I believe two of my former high school teachers, Mr. Lobel and Ms. Ali, now also serve as administrators in addition to teaching. I think they get compensated more for these functions but not by much. Teachers do deserve yearly raises and better sick-day benefits as Mr. Goldstein pointed out in one of the previous entries.
-
December 3rd, 2009 8:33 am
PERB recommendations in regard to salary are governed by the principles of patttern bargaining, what other similarly situated employees received, and ability to pay, the economic circumstances of the employer.
Back in July at the MTA-TWU arbitration Labor Commish Hanley testified that the city put aside 4 + 4 for the UFT, the city and state fiscal situation has eroded, to what extent is the question?
The last two fact-finding reports rejected most of the city demands and were quite circumspect, the contracts resulted in substancial raises above the pattern.
The PERB process is time consuming, easily 6-12 months, depending on the parties.
The end result, the fact-finding report is not binding on either party. In an era when there are ten applicants for every NYC teaching position the marketplace says current levels of pay are adequate to attract highly qualified teachers.
The Dinkens contract came 18 months after the expiration of the prior contract, teachers may be facing a long contentious struggle.
Keep in mind the Bloomberg demands require legislation and are not mandatory subjects of collective bargaining under PERB rules.
Then again all this strung und drang may ease after the RttT decisions are made in DC.
-
December 3rd, 2009 10:05 am
i certainly hope “schoolgal” isn’t a teacher
i’d want her no where near my child with that brainand “Miss Eyre”, your definition of “succeed” is debatable (to put it mildly), but i would much rather see the UFT defend raises, etc on their own merit, instead of crying “they got a raise, I want one too”. And they’d get much much more respect if they agreed to weed out the bad and reward the good. you know, like how America works
but let me guess - there’s no such thing as a bad teacher
-
December 3rd, 2009 10:43 am
Why not, Mel? Because Schoolgal pointed out the absurdity of your comparison? You also clearly didn’t get Miss Eyre’s point either- but I will explain it to you: she is pointing out that we are expected to succeed in situations where we don’t have what we need, as far as support with curriculum, from administrators, from parents, we often don’t have materials, reasonable class sizes, or many of the other things that would make success more likely. I’m sure some of my colleagues can add to my short list of the things we need and don’t have.
NOW do you understand, mel?
-
December 3rd, 2009 5:25 pm
Peter,
My question, really, was not about what PERB did in the past, but one of whether it will be consistent in the future.
Also, I would hesitate to characterize every compensation increase as a “raise.” If I work 50, rather than 40 hours at Burger King, did I get a “raise?” If I have to come in extra days, and I lose seniority, and I risk becoming an ATR, and have to teach an extra class, and patrol the halls and bathrooms, is that a “raise?”
As an avid reader of Edwize in those days, I distinctly recall a column raving about the brilliant victory the 05 contract represented, characterizing the non-binding contract as, “in effect, binding.” I also distinctly recall dire warnings about what the tabloids would report if we failed to vote up the contract that dumped so many of our colleagues into the ATR. In fact, with school closings, four yesterday, four more today, and who knows how many tomorrow, the ATR may get very crowded indeed. And five minutes after we signed that contract, the tabloids went back to hating us. It doesn’t pay to appease them.
I certainly hope you’re right, however, about this being a big show for DC. Only time will tell.
Let me say also, that I regret some on this thread see fit to utilize juvenile invective rather than argument.
-
December 3rd, 2009 6:37 pm
Arthur
Salary is what the salary schedule says it is. Yes, it may result in longer school days or more school days, or fewer for that matter.
In the last two contracts the conundrum was how to go beyond pattern bargaining, and the negotiators, for good or for bad chose the path of a longer school/day year, converting to a dollar amount and claiming the settlement was within the pattern.In a time frame when, shortage areas excepted, at least ten teachers are applying for every position negotiations will be difficult.
It’s easy to say “no givebacks,” but how do you define a giveback? All negotiations are a two way street, the complexity is finding win-win issues.
This mornings State budget settlement borrowed from next years stimulus dollars, resolving one problem and creating another. Should the union, either through PERB or otherwise seek a quick but meager settlement or push for a larger settlement, with the specter of enormous city and state deficits?
How much would you be willing to support (relaxing charter caps, performance bonuses, etc.) to assure the RttT funds?
Should averting layoffs be the number one goal?
Really hard decisions that a union president has to make, hopefully consensus decisions with all union members through the union deliberative bodies.
-
December 3rd, 2009 7:23 pm
“You know, like how America works.” Mel, I’m not sure if your aware, but a lot of America isn’t actually working. This, because greedy Wall Streeters and bankers took advantage of merit pay/bonus/get rich at all expense schemes. The government and the rich seem to also be having a heckuva time weeding out the people who’ve recently done the country the most harm.
Oh, but let me guess, there’s no such thing as a bad CEO.
-
December 3rd, 2009 7:31 pm
Peter,
My point, frankly, was not about salary but raises, the word you chose–a raise is an increase in compensation for doing the same job.
It is indeed easy to say no givebacks when I’ve been hearing for four years that it was the fault of the pattern that we took the disastrous 05 contract, among other stinkers. This is the one time in my living memory that the pattern seems worth taking, and also the one time it appears to be eluding us.
How can you talk about “win-win” when we’re staring straight up the barrel of “lose-lose?”
-
December 4th, 2009 12:23 am
Arthur
Contracts are only settled when the union president can convince a majority of the union membership that the contract is a “win,” and the Mayor can convince the public that the contract is a “win,” it could make a month, many months or perhaps more than a year, at some point the parties will have to agree.
-
December 5th, 2009 12:39 pm
Mel is obviously not a teacher. And yes there a “bad” teachers and “bad” principal, but working conditions in most schools are horrible. Teachers can decorate around the holes and roaches and spend their own money on supplies and supplement materials. But we can’t afford new texts, computers, printers, etc. We can’t force parents to get their kids to do homework and behave in class. All the support is on one thing only–test prep. Nothing to improve the life of the child through counseling and after school programs. The Arts have been cut so students no longer have a creative outlet. If your definition of a good teacher is teaching how to bubble in an answer sheet, then I have to question what’s inside your brain.
A new contract should at least reduce class size and give teachers the support they need in order to make all schools great.
Now what is it you do for a living???
Leave a Reply
Mapping the Budget Cuts
14 Comments
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack