Paraprofessional Chapter Chair Priscilla Castro kicks it off to First Vice Chair John Kamps. Here to give everyone information. It’s the first step in a long fight. Turns it over to Michael Mulgrew.
Mulgrew:
Spread the word after the Town Hall. We climbed a difficult and challenging hill to get to this point. You should all be very proud of yourselves. We did this together. Cannot be accomplished by any individual or small group.
The whole idea of this RESPECT check legislation was to put pressure on NY because we are in a financial crisis. We’re in a crisis. City pays a billion dollars in legal fees. City even admitted to us that 9,000 paraprofessional substitutes are being used at a large rate. That’s evidence itself that it’s a crisis. If you have 25,000 full-time paras, there shouldn’t be 9,000 substitutes. Not properly staffed. We are short paras. A lot of you are picking up extra work. Not fair. That was the first part of this fight. You shaped the argument about what a paraprofessional is.
We get the check passed. If you haven’t seen a recording of the day of the actual vote, council members spoke eloquently about paraprofessionals. A lot of council members spoke about your work. They felt they had to do something because the City was failing you and the children you serve.
A couple things went on behind the scenes. We tried to get this passed in the budget. Couldn’t get it in the budget. The City came to us and said they wanted to make a deal. In the end, we want the raises permanent. We also want changes because of how they rig the system against you. How can you work as a sub for four years and not get a full-time job and benefits? The different agencies in the City – OLR and OMB – were not interested in doing this the right way. Wanted to do pattern bargaining. We were not interested in you working an extra week or these other things. Just disrespectful. Why would you even want something like that? Pattern bargaining has been the problem since the very start of this. The City and its bureaucratic agencies use pattern bargaining to abuse its workers. We have to fix it. We had those conversations. It was not going to happen. The agencies had no interest in trying to do this a new way even though the City did this before in the ‘90s. Presented cases to the City and a mediator. They were not going to do this correctly, so we shut it down. I called the First Deputy Mayor and said we’re voting on the bill. Going into the day of the vote, we did not expect a unanimous 49-0 vote. We had been told there were some dissenting votes from different people. Everyone spoke to each other letting them know we were trying.
So now we have a law. The City and Mayor have 30 days to act. If he signs it, it becomes law. If he does nothing, it becomes law. If he vetoes, it goes back to City Council for another vote. If he vetoes it before August 12 – he has until August 15 to act – then City Council can override on September 9. If he vetoes between August 12 – August 15, City Council would vote on October 10. You keep hearing the bill is illegal. We had to be very careful about how this bill was written and structured. An appellate court case guided us throughout. It’s not part of your regular salary. It’s a separate program to stabilize the workforce, so we’re good there. Number 2 – are you being required to do anything extra for this money? No, so we’re good there. And the third, which is a biggie, we keep hearing from members of your chapter, either because they’re playing political games or don’t understand it and putting the whole chapter in jeopardy, it cannot be tied to collective bargaining agreement. That would be illegal. We can say we checked all of this and the bill is legal. Those are the things we did to make sure the bill is illegal. When people say I want it pensionable, people lobbying city council to vote no because it’s not pensionable – please don’t do things when we tell you not to do them. We told you why it can’t be pensionable through this program. It doesn’t mean it can’t be pensionable through a separate agreement with the City. We have 30 days to discuss that. If we have an agreement, this won’t have to be a yearly fight. We can only do these programs legally. Sunsets after a year, but City Council has ability to renew.
The City wants to keep saying it’s not legal because of collective bargaining. We have to act. Period. Not enough people to fulfill mandated services because you’re disrespectful to your workers.
Visual on screen with bullet points that reads:
– All paras working in 2026-27 would receive the check. Substitutes are pro-rated. If you retired this year, you will not be eligible. Starts in September of this year going forward. They would not do retroactive pay. I don’t like it, but I understand it.
– The check comes in four payments.
– Payments in January, March, June, and August 2027.
– Substitute paras get a prorated amount based on the number of days worked.
– Retired paras are not eligible.
All sorts of games going on behind the scenes. If they veto and we override, we’re prepared to go to court. We’re trying to figure out as fast as possible a way to come to a Memorandum of Agreement so we can make this permanent for all of you. Right now when we open in September, if we have permanent solutions to all of this, that will make a difference. How do we use things differently, become more creative? A lot of people are upset, the usual people who hate all the workers. Let them pay more taxes because they need three yachts. They say this has never been done before. Do you think we wanted it this way? The other side wasn’t willing. Wanted paras to work for weeks longer. Collective bargaining is strength, but pattern bargaining within collective bargaining is wrong. We showed why we have a crisis, what a para actually does, a new administration comes in. Yes, our new mayor was a huge supporter of this bill when he was running for office. He now says he wants to do it through collective bargaining. But his agencies are a pack of asses and they don’t respect workers. Their job is to make sure city agencies are staffed properly, not screw over workers. Thousands of children going without services because of their actions. Our mayor needs to think about that.
Q&A
1. With the overwhelming support from council, is there anything that will prevent a first payment on 1/1/2027?
MM: If it’s vetoed. If the council overrides, the City would likely take it to court. It would come down to the courts. I won’t give you our legal strategy here but we are prepared. That’s on the table. The City has the right to do those things.
2. If the mayor did veto the bill, how long does it take for City Council to overturn?
MM: If he does it Aug 12-15, Oct. 10. If before, Sept. 9
3. Do we get this check every year?
MM: Right now, the bill has an automatic sunset at end of year but has a provision for reauthorization. If the City hasn’t dealt with the issue of para pay. City Council is basically telling City Hall to fix it the right way, not with nasty pattern bargaining stuff.
4. In the next round of collective bargaining, are we still eligible for a pay raise and will we work to get this $10k as part of it?
MM: We’re working right now for it. The issue is that it’s not permanent right now. If we come to an agreement, that agreement would be permanent. Whatever the pay raises are, are usually for everyone, but sometimes there’s for individual titles.
5. Why is it in four checks?
MM: That’s the way the City Council wanted to do it. We think it’s the best way. Our people who are the experts in costing and payroll said four checks is the best way.
6. If this bill needs to be renewed for the following year, will it be a fight like this year?
MM: I expect it would be. Not as much because it’s already been passed. You don’t have to go through all the same steps for reauthorization. Not as big of a fight. If there’s no agreement, the City will try everything in its power to stop it. They’re telling other unions they should be made at us.
7. How do full-time subs benefit from these payments?
MM: Pro-rated, so they’d get more money. Big problem. What is your definition of a vacancy? The DOE is nuts. If child has an IEP saying they need a para, is that a vacancy? DOE says “maybe.” The maybe is if the principal put money for a full-time para in their budget, but they also tell the principal if they can’t get a full-time and need a sub, they need to take it out of that funding line and put it under substitutes. If that money is put into the substitute fund, you cannot hire a full-time para. That’s insane. If you work 30 straight days, you should have an option of being a full-time para. When you ask them, they’re admitting to 1600 vacancies, but only the ones that are in the full-time para line. They don’t count the 9,000 substitutes as vacancies. We have to tell the DOE to stop manipulating the data to create a fraudulent situation for the public. Enough is enough. You’re using pattern bargaining and crazy policies. You’re nuts and up to no good.
8. If they changed title and became a teacher, would they be eligible for para check?
MM: If they’re working as a para for any portion of next school year. If they’re moved to teacher, you’re not entitled to any para RESPECT check money.
9. Will these payments be a supplemental check or regular pay check?
MM: Supplemental. That builds our case for why it’s separate and not part of your salary.
10. What could this look like when it comes time for negotiations? Can these payments be rolled into contract negotiations?
MM: If we’re moving forward and haven’t gotten into collective bargaining agreement ahead of time. Once it’s rolled into regular salary, it becomes pensionable. It costs more but it’s a good thing. That’s where we’ll get into a fight with the City. They’ll say the UFT has to pay for it.
11. Why does the City seem so reluctant to make these payments permanent?
MM: The City Council is rightfully saying to the City that we are taking this step because of your mess-up and you need to make it part of collective bargaining, do it the right way. Now when you go to the City, you have to deal with these agencies. OLR and OMB have gotten lazy. For three decades now, they’ve become extremely obstinate with their interpretation of what pattern bargaining is. It’s as if pattern bargaining overrules collective bargaining. “We can’t do it unless you want to pay for it.” Is it right that other workers have to pay for this? When it comes to righting a wrong that they created – they created this. For 30 years, this has been their stance. They’ve abused every union in the City. We’re the first union that said no, we’ve had it with you. I’ve been quite loud against some of the arbitrators in touch with me and our union. You stood by and watched this happen. You’re at fault, also. Pattern bargaining goes back a long way. The last 30 years they went crazy with it to make their jobs easier so they can say no to whatever they want when it comes to our money. They say we’re breaking provision Taylor Law. We’re not. We want to get to a place where this is a permanent part of collective bargaining. They do not want to change their abuse of their own workers. We pay taxes to the City of New York. They’d rather pay billions in lawsuits than give you a raise that costs $240 million. That’s insane. If we can’t come to a collective bargaining agreement, we’re ready to go to court.
We got this passed in a unanimous vote, which nobody expected. A testament to paras and union members who helped out. We are not done yet. It’s like Tier 6. Major progress on both fronts but we still have more to do. So many people said this would never happen, well you’re wrong. Have a good summer.
I’m pretty sure this was all of it, but if I missed anything, please leave a comment below.
Thank you for reading.
New Action - UFT 