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???

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.

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?”

Oh, but let me guess, there’s no such thing as a bad CEO.

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.

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.

NOW do you understand, mel?

and “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

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.

Shame on you!!

that’s how nyc unions think
can’t negotiate with that