2022-2027 UFT Contract Approved: An Analysis
Today, the 2022-2027 contract was ratified by a roughly 3/4 majority of voting UFT members. We have yet to see all data on divisional groups and functional chapters, some of whom were particularly ill-affected by sub-inflation pay increases and are thus expected to have closer numbers. To that end, OT/PTs once again voted down their functional contract (1,129 no to 782 yes), along with nurses, audiologists, and supervisors of nurses and therapists. But, teachers overwhelmingly voted to ratify – albeit with a much smaller ‘yes’ margin (under 75%) than in 2018 (87%) and a smaller margin than 2014 (77%).
While New Action Caucus recommended voting ‘no’ on the contract, it’s no surprise that the result was ‘yes.’ Unlike 1995, when the givebacks were so blatantly obvious that teachers voted ‘no’ in overwhelming numbers and somewhat successfully negotiated a better deal, the issues for the 2023 deal were subtler. A record-fast voting process met with a bombardment of intimidation and misinformation made it easy for Unity to sweep many of the problems and potential problems under the rug, while implying that minor wins were far more major in scope than they actually were. But make no mistake, the givebacks and potential givebacks are there. Until 2027, here is some of what we have gained:
- PD is now 20 minutes shorter each week, though most of that time has been repurposed into parent outreach rather than OPW time.
- Teachers can perform parent outreach remotely, but with new paperwork requirements and other red tape.
- We now have more flexible bereavement time.
- Elementary school teachers now get dismissal responsibilities factored into their workdays. They also should not be made to work more than three periods in a row, although only when administratively possible.
- We get a few other minor and conditional perks here and there, most of which I go over in this post.
But, here is some of what we must now worry about:
- Wage increases that are significantly below inflation.
- If all healthcare givebacks weren’t factored into the record-low 3%ish salary increases, we could also see additional healthcare cuts going forward, as Mulgrew has already prepped us to accept. This possibility goes double now that Judge Frank has ruled in favor, even temporarily, of retirees not having their healthcare pillaged.
- A portion of our income is now in the form of unpensionable bonuses that could have just been a pensionable part of our salaries.
- There is no explicit language in the new TA specifying class size caps for virtual schooling. We do not want to have to rely on an arbitrator if our implicit assumptions aren’t shared by the City. This could be a disastrous situation, especially in the high schools.
- As a condition of remote parent outreach time, there is new language requiring excessively collected paperwork/documentation. A principal can also take away your right to work from home without due process. Consequences without procedural guidelines or recourse is a blatantly anti-union premise and opens a pandora’s box for further future language chipping away at our due process rights.
- We now have new paperwork possibilities. Curriculum Mapping is against the language of the previous contract. But in the new contract, it’s a C6 option. Should teachers who were promised reduced paperwork in fact be preparing for new paperwork responsibilities?
- Teachers now have less of a say in what is done with their professional time. Specifically, principals no longer must wait for chapters to SBO non-credit bearing advisory. Because of its class-size limits, in fact, advisory will likely be the only real C6 option for most members at schools who adopt it. Not office hours. Not IEP time.
Many of the supposed ‘gains’ in the contract were also misrepresented, somewhat blatantly, by Unity staffers. Teachers at many schools will soon learn the hard way that:
- Principals don’t have to give you a single PD that grants CTLE hours. They simply have the option to give you up to two.
- Only multi-session schools get an unassigned professional period. The majority of us (who work in single session schools) will still get 5 assigned C6 periods a week.
- No, we don’t get new ‘choices’ for C6. Rather, principals have new choices of what to put as the menu options for ‘their’ schools. As I discussed above, that will primarily be a loss for teachers where hitherto regulable options (like non-credit bearing advisory) can now be exercised without chapter consent at the expense of necessary activities like IEP writing.
Moreover, until 2027, we will be locked into a contract that did nothing to solve problems like:
- The lack of due process for untenured teachers, who can remain probationary for indefinite amounts of time.
- Lack of real recourse for teachers who are discontinued for unfair reasons.
- The many bargainable issues that face special education teachers.
- Class sizes, which now may even be worse for teachers with new remote responsibilities.
- Massive caseloads for related service providers.
This is all disappointing, but unsurprising in the context of a union whose leadership does everything it can to pre-empt debate, sweep inconvenient facts under the rug, oversell mediocrity, and convince members that the tactics we would need to get real gains for labor shouldn’t even be an option. Still, a note: while a number of irregularities characterized the voting/mailing process, thus prompting the High School Executive Board to pre-emptively seek out chapter-specific data, the surprising turnout numbers and margin of ‘victory’ were enough to suggest that the results (ratification) would not have been different. UFC affiliates were also present during day-time portions of the count to observe what they could of the process, but didn’t see any concrete malfeasance resembling what DC37 officials were caught doing to rig a ratification vote back in the 90s.
This contract, despite its faults, is now our contract. Indeed, it will be for some time.
21 Comments
-
-
BaconUFT
Yes, I clarify this point in an earlier article, which I’ll quote here: “Unity falsely implies that all members will benefit from a new stipulation that “one professional period each week will be converted to OPW.” They omit a key detail: this is only true in multi-session schools (see page 4 of the TA). The majority of teachers, who work in single-session schools, will not get the contractual right to a self-directed C6 period. Multi-session schools probably only get this, by the way, because they get significantly less remote parental engagement time – just 80 minutes a month (single session schools would get 220).”
-
-
DrDru
Do you know what percentage voted YES in past contracts? It seems like the NO votes are increasing. IF we add the no and the non-voting it’s close to 40% good to know for upcoming elections.
-
BaconUFT
Yes, this contract being less than 75% of voting members means it’s the lowest yes vote since 2005. 2014 was 77% and 2018 was 87%.
-
BaconUFT
Updating article to include those numbers.
-
DrDru
To paraphrase the phrase, “the best time to organize for a better contract/leadership was 30 years ago, and the second best time is now.
-
-
-
Teresa Maher
Please cover the story of why OT/PT’s and nurses voted down the contract. During COVID, nurses were in the field working long and late hours. OT/PT’s were live remotely way before teachers who just posted work in the google classrooms. PT’s are not compensated for their doctorate degrees. The DOE gets back millions for our services through the , but also fails to collect millions due to not following policy requirements. We still get a 30 min lunch and no sabbaticals……
-
BaconUFT
Absolutely, and I’ve seen a copy of the email UFT leadership sent to you all following the no vote. It looks like they’re blaming you, not recognizing that you voted no because you deserve better.
-
-
Shelley
In America two things matter: money and money. Don’t fight the Fed. Most members simply can’t resist money on the table, so the UFT puts the money on the table and get almost 75% of members to grab it. Setting aside the myriad of reason why members should have voted NO, I will focus on one reason members voted Yes; The Money.
Did we get sub-inflation “raises” or real wage losses with this new contract? Maybe. We don’t know because we don’t know what inflation will average over the life of this contract, but we do know that the Federal Reserve Bank is currently in the middle of one of the most aggressive tightening policy regimes in history. That is, the Fed is currently raising interest rates and shrinking its balance sheet, while tightening credit to banks, and using several other methods designed to squeeze inflation out of the economy at unprecedented pace and percentage. No, this is Volker’s Fed, but the Powell Fed is bringing inflation to its knees even as unemployment remains historically low and even while real wage gains for non union workers continue to rise. Non-union workers have the power to negotiate higher wages and better work conditions, and yet, inflation, that was driven up by massive pent up demand from Covid supply side constraints and that shifted to the service part of the economy where wages stick, is coming down, now only 3%. True, the Retro wage increase fails to address the inflation average in the months it covers, Sept. to July, when inflation averaged 5.6%, but looking at the future, it looks like Mayor Swagger is fighting the Fed and will lose as union members will benefit from inflation averages at or below 2% (the Feds target rate).
-
DrDru
Shelly, beating inflation for one year is like leading a baseball game for one inning. If we look at 8B + L22 in June of 2018 – $119,472 and look at 8B + L22 for Jan 2024 – $136,492, according to https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ we should be making $145,165.14. That is just to EQUAL inflation, NOT beat it. Since I have been a member (1998) we have never beaten inflation. I can honestly say I have never had a raise. I have gone up in steps, but those steps have had their worth eroded over time…..
-
Shelley
My comments are specific to the recent contract agreement. As I stated, we can’t know yet if the raises in the new contract will be real wages, that is wages that exceed the inflation rate. We do know that the retro period “raise” is actually a cut because inflation averaged 5.6% during the time when we worked without a contract. But, to use your baseball analogy, that “raise” is but one inning in a 5 inning game. The contract includes raises 3 3% raises, a 3.25% raise, and a 3.5% raise.
Will inflation be higher than the average raise over the live of the contract? Well, we lost the first inning by 2.6% but we have 4 more innings to play and the Fed is pulling out all the stops to push inflation back to its 2% target.
And, inflation is dead. That is, the extraordinary event (Covid) that lifted inflation above 2% is now in reverse while the economics that had inflation anchored below the Fed’s 2% target are still there, are, indeed, a greater force of disinflation then before Covid.
So I think we beat Mayor Swagger with these raises and that over the life of the contract, if UFT keeps its dirty hands of it, we will actually get real wage increases ofr the first time in decades.
-
BaconUFT
This is an interesting take. Of course, had we gotten real raises at percentages similar to LA or Oakland (about double what we will get), the result would still be better.
-
DrDru
Shelly, I am neither an actuary nor a math teacher. However I know that if inflation is higher than my “raise” and is compounded; as is my “raise” is, it will take years of sub 3% inflation for my salary to catch up and actually get a true raise. We may win a few “innings” but somehow we are still losing, I always have hope…I am a Mets fan!
-
-
Shelley
From 2009 to 2021 (the first year of Covid Recovery Inflation) inflation in the United States averaged 1.55% with only one year (2011 @ 3.16) above 3% and only 3 years above 2% (2012 @2.07, 2017 @2.13, [email protected]).
Inflation has been on a downward disinflationary trend since the late 1980s and the causes of its decline and really its demise are, with one exception (globalization) all increasing.Moreover, disinflation that threatens to become deflation is a far greater risk to mature economies (i.e., U.S.) than inflation and this is why the Federal Reserve held interest rates at zero (negative real rates) for so long, and why the Fed engaged in extraordinary measures (quantitative easing etc…).
The Feds inflation fighting cycle is near its end. And, while we can’t know for certain, there is ample evidence to support a case where we can expect the Fed to start cutting rates once the cycle is complete to address the secular problem of deflation.
Given the above, I project we will come out ahead on real wages. That is, our new contract raises will beat the average inflation rate over the life of the contract.
Remember too that we enjoyed a 7% TDA during the low-flation period and that this return was a risk free real return that averaged over 5% when risk free assets were paying negative real interest rates.Not bad. Yes, not as great as the bosses but still out of this world.
On the future of the TDA return I am not as sanguine because the Fed will keep REAL interest rates high. That is, even as inflation drops below the 2% target the Fed will not have to go to the Zero bound again but will keep rates elevated resulting in a lower Real rate on our TDA.
What we need to be vigilant about is Health Care. Obviously UFT is in a box now and needs to find a away to save the City a ton of money. We all know what’s ahead, so we need to fight very hard and support the retirees on this.
But I’m not optimistic about this because there is little incentive for Tier 6 in-service to fight this.
Did we every get enough signatures to force a vote I health care? Why can’t we get these?-
BaconUFT
We did not yet get the votes needed for the healthcare referendum, sadly. We have about half what we need. That’s roughly 10,000 names, which is no small sum, but 20,000 is about what is needed. I think it would take a major healthcare decision happening over our heads to put a jolt in that organizing effort. If we heard GHI was on its way out for instance, we could probably get those names.
-
BLT
Can you elaborate on your statement about multi session and unassigned professional periods?