New Action – UFT

Finally, after over a week of waiting, the data is out on how each title voted on the UFT contract (see also here for the 2018 comparison). Yes, we already knew that just under 75% voted yes in general, and that one division (OT/PTs) voted no. Now we know the specifics of how teachers, paras, guidance counselors, and the many other UFT-represented titles voted. Before people get nervous, don’t worry – this data is as basic as it comes. No one knows how we personally voted. Heck, we don’t even know if every chapter’s ballots made it through after ‘mailgate’ (UFT leadership, the HS Executive Board is still waiting for that data). But, we do have some interesting larger trends to analyze.

• Teachers voted roughly the same as the general UFT numbers (about 3/4 yes and 1/4 no). We don’t have breakdowns yet on how different divisions voted (high schools, elementary schools, middle schools, 6-12 schools, etc). We’ll likely never have it; in fact, I’m not even sure it exists. Rather than speculate on how I think each sub-division voted, I’ll just leave the thought that we should record these numbers in the future. Contractual language can be very different for teachers of different grades – not to mention teachers of different licenses. It would be of considerable interest to see if numbers are different for subgroups than they are overall. That could lead to critical information that might help us improve contracts in future years.
• Paraprofessionals voted yes, but it was closer (just under 3/4) than many might have expected based on previous years. This is unsurprising. In 2018, raises were roughly consistent with inflation and paraprofessionals had big wins on due process. In 2023, paraprofessionals did not have major labor gains and were amongst the most ill-affected by sub-inflationary pay ‘increases.’ Discontent amongst paraprofessionals also translated into Unity not winning all of the functional chapter’s seats in the last chapter election.
• All ‘supervisory’ titles didn’t have a single no vote. Teachers and paras may be wondering what I’m talking about here. Doesn’t CSA represent supervisors? Yes, for principals, assistant principals, and most others. But, surprisingly, the UFT does represent a small group of supervisors who exert disciplinary power over other UFT-represented subordinates. Specifically, UFT represents the supervisors for nurses, therapists, and school security. As the OT/PT and nurse supervisors were inexplicitly grouped with their subordinates as a bargaining unit, their contract was ironically voted down. This, I imagine will cause some interesting rifts between supervisors and OT/PTs in the coming weeks/months. I’m absolutely vexed that UFT leadership grouped them all together. I can only imagine that this was an approach to ‘gerrymander’ their way into diluting no votes into yeses. Boy, did that plan go wrong.
• OT/PTs voted no in higher numbers than they did in 2018, with about 2/3 voting no and with a much higher number of members voting in general. And yet, in 2018, 52 Broadway listened to members and actually renegotiated a second contract. Fast forward to 2023, and we’re seeing the ruling party orchestrate a ‘revote’ campaign to plow through contrived acquiescence to the contract a majority voted down, despite an even more overwhelming ‘no’ this time around. This cannot stand.

For other titles, make sure to check out the official numbers.

On Monday, 7/10/23, when UFT leadership announced that the 2022-2027 contract had passed “overwhelmingly,” the numbers weren’t as unanimous as suggested. Reduced support for the teachers’ contract—at under 75%—meant the highest ‘no’ vote percentage for that particular contract since 2005. But the larger omission from the UFT announcement was that not every bargaining unit’s contract had even passed.  OT/PTs once again voted down the first offer for their functional contract (1,129 no to 782 yes), along with nurses, audiologists, and supervisors of nurses and therapists, some of whom were inexplicably combined with the OT/PT chapter for the first time.

Why did OT/PTs vote no?

OT/PTs appear to have predominantly voted no due to their position of economic precarity – a position which is exacerbated by graduate degrees and certifications being a condition of employment. Indeed, OT/PTs have similar and sometimes more extensive higher educational requirements when compared to teachers (including doctorates), despite being paid much less than pedagogues. As per Chalkbeat, “by January a therapist with 10 years of experience and a master’s degree would earn $86,131, according to UFT documents, while a teacher with the same years and degree would earn $103,594.” An internal survey conducted by the city-wide OT/PT chapter suggests that about 2/3 of their members must work two to three extra jobs just to pay back student loans and make ends meet.

The City’s line is that OT/PTs are paid at or above the market rate, something UFT officials have suggested puts them at a bargaining disadvantage. The entire industry of occupational and physical therapy needs major pay reforms, just as is the case industry-wide for teaching. However, the job of being an OT/PT in a public-school environment is apples and oranges to what a typical OT/PT job looks like in the private sector. It often requires traveling, creative scheduling, IEP-writing/interpretation, matching therapeutic regimens to educational needs, and sifting through various layers of regulatory compliance. For similar and other reasons, titles that technically exist in both the DOE and the private sector rarely match financially. Teachers in the public sector, along with counselors and social workers, tend to make above the ‘private sector’ rate. Nurses actually make below it, though interestingly don’t appear to be a major factor in why their combined contract with OT/PT got a ‘no’ vote.

OT/PT activists such as Chapter Leader, Melissa Williams, believe that their titles deserve parity with social workers, who are paid at a higher rate that is almost identical with teachers. OT/PTs were offered the option of earning more by working extra sessions, but this was a controversial proposition as it would have required working longer hours only to still make less than similarly educated peers. The option was particularly unpopular because it was negotiated by paid officers/staffers over the heads of rank-and-file members of the OT/PT negotiating committee.

How has UFT leadership responded?

In theory, one would think that the ‘no vote’ of a majority of OT/PTs would nudge union leadership into an energized position of solidarity with their aggrieved workers. However, the response by UFT leadership has been disappointing, generating widespread concern that OT/PTs will be up not just against the City—but against their own union officers—as they fight for a fair deal. For instance, immediately following the (non)-ratification vote, a UFT vice president sent out an email that bordered on paternalistic, fear-mongering, and accusatory, dangling what those members didn’t get because they voted ‘no’ and pointing to a “difficult road ahead” instead of validating that the contract was not good enough for them to vote ‘yes.’ He also left out the obvious – that pattern bargaining protects members from receiving a worse economic package in the end, even if a stalled contract means those pay increases will come later as ‘retro.’

A meeting on 7/13/23 with UFT President, Michael Mulgrew to discuss this ‘difficult road ahead’, did not go much better, according to attendees. Mulgrew quickly dismissed the financial concerns of members, conveying that pay parity was a negotiating non-starter, and that the problem of OT/PTs having to work second/third jobs was one for ‘society as a whole’ (rather than for him as the union president). He was similarly dismissive of the argument that heavy education requirements as a condition of employment should factor into compensation, suggesting that degrees don’t necessarily mean more money, and that ‘we all agreed to work for the public.’

The Road Ahead

The dismissive response by UFT leadership begs the question as to whether they will support the OT/PT bargaining unit at all. Some members fear political motivations. The OT/PT chapter is the only functional group with a Chapter Leader not elected under the ruling union party, Unity Caucus, which controls the union at large. Is it possible that Mulgrew and his affiliates would use this moment as a political opportunity to sow dissent against non-Unity representation rather than work to achieve contract goals? Is it possible that the Unity-controlled UFT might intentionally disrupt the second negotiations to achieve a result that could serve as a cautionary tale against other members voting ‘no’ in the future?

I hope not. But the fact that President Mulgrew and his officer associates are spending their time explaining why members were wrong to vote no, rather than spending a single second suggesting strategies to achieve their goals, does not bode well. In general, UFT leadership has poo-pooed union tactics that tend to work to achieve higher compensation, such as job actions, giving the UFT the dubious distinction of being perhaps the only teachers union that has publicly advocated against its own legal right to strike.

To that end, OT/PTs, along with the other groups in their bargaining unit, may be officially on their own if they want to achieve their goals. Opposition union groups are organizing to help support in whatever ways they can. Still, without official support from UFT leadership, i.e. those with any official negotiating authority/power, OT/PTs may be left only with ‘wildcat’ tactics to achieve their ends. Rank-and-file UFT members, sister-unions, and community groups are encouraged to do whatever they can in support.