Archive for the 'Contract' Category

Out-Negotiated, Again: How Other Unions’ Recent Contracts Outperform the UFT’s

Published October 29, 2023 Contract 1 Comment

UFT members have our new contract. Mulgrew’s Koolaid vendors will tell you it’s the best deal we’ve ever had. But, the truth is that it’s a snore of an agreement, complete with inflation-adjusted pay cuts despite very few gains and even some losses. Other teacher contracts over the course of the last few years have been much better. Teachers’ Unions in cities like Los Angeles, Oakland, and now San Francisco all majorly surpassed our wage gains, for instance, in some cases doubling them. But, in the urban California unions, the word ‘strike’ isn’t met with heckles by union officials; it’s met with actual organizing that leads to educators beating inflation. That’s one reason why, when adjusted for cost of living, New York City teachers make far less than our colleagues on the west coast.

Pay and benefits, of course, aren’t everything. And while working conditions did not improve all that much under this contract, including in places we expected them to, there were some highly lauded improvements. Probably the biggest supposed UFT win this year was our newfound—but conditional—ability to conduct parent outreach from home, though the fine print on this, which created a potential for systemic micromanagement through newly onerous paperwork requirements, put a bit of a damper on things.

Enter our bosses, principals and assistant principals. Their union, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (CSA), just signed their own tentative deal with the City of New York. Unfortunately for them, they’re already stuck with a pattern that DC-37 originated and UFT solidified. Other than pay, however, the CSA seems to have out-negotiated teachers in other ways. Their bonuses are completely pensionable (some of our bonuses are, some aren’t). And they get up to several remote days a year. While we’re working long (but rewarding) hours in classrooms, under a new pilot program, principals and assistant principals will sometimes be at home, conducting business from a screen. Based on their contract at a glance, the number of available days for CSA members to work fully remote appears to be as many as one per month from October to May and two per week for applicable titles during the summer.

Our first impulse upon learning that CSA doesn’t have to come in every day anymore is probably to make a joke: ‘see, we don’t need principals in schools after all!’ But the truth is, the work of most administrators is highly ‘in person.’ Many of the principals I’ve spoken to have frankly been confused about their newfound ability to sometimes work entire school days from home. In other words, CSA was able to negotiate a contractual benefit so good that their members are puzzled by it, whereas UFT leadership took something that was common sense and turned it into a densely packed 55 minutes of codified micromanagement.

Teachers were never going to get the remote work gains of other titles, of course. But remote days are far more valuable than an hour of remote time packed onto a full day of in-person work, even without accounting for potential new paperwork, prior authorization, or reporting requirements. And I mean ‘valuable’ literally. Research suggests that those working in person spend more than $30 more per day than those who work from home. Given that other titles stuck with the DC-37 pattern were able to negotiate alternate forms of value, why wasn’t UFT leadership able to negotiate some corresponding benefit on our end – a vacation day or two, fully CTLE-compliant PDs done remotely and asynchronously, or simply just outreach without micromanagement overkill? Heck, 7% of the nation’s school districts have moved to four-day school weeks; and many are doing so without cutting teacher pay. If this sounds like science fiction to you, that’s because our union’s complacency has made the gains that are being made across the country feel like fantasy here in New York.

If we start acting like a union by showing the City that we are willing to do what it takes to improve our working conditions and pay, we can get what we deserve. But that’s not what we are doing. Instead, our UFT leadership comes to the table to willfully reduce our medical coverage by 10%. Instead, our union leadership suppresses member voices who think we should push for the level of wage increases we see in California. Instead, our union leadership heckles members who suggest the mere idea of ‘strike readiness.’ The bottom line is our union leadership emphasizes what we can’t do, even as all the unions around us display the boundlessness of what is possible. Let’s join the rest of the labor movement and aim for better, instead of ‘just 10% worse.’

-Nick Bacon, Co-Chair of New Action / UFT and Member of UFT’s High School Executive Board

Remote Parent Engagement: Analyzing the Fine Print

Published September 21, 2023 Contract 3 Comments
Tags: ,

During the 2023 contract campaign, UFT leadership opted not to fight for better pay. They did, however, push hard on reducing micromanagement. And, when—out of the blue—a final contract draft was dropped on us for a rushed ratification vote, many of us were happy that at least we’d get out of the building for about an hour a week—that we’d be able to do our parent outreach in peace. As a bonus, 20 of those minutes at home were repurposed from our weekly professional developments. We’d now have less time in meetings – and get home a little earlier on Mondays too.

For the rest of America, many of whom are working from home anywhere from 50 to 100 % of the time, 55 minutes of work-from-home time may seem like an unlikely ‘ace in the hole’ to get members to vote yes to a sub-inflation contract.  But, truthfully, the rallying cry of ‘parent outreach from home or your car’ worked. One of the worst UFT deals in history, financially speaking, passed with about ¾ of the vote.

Then, we saw the fine print.

A Glimpse at the Fine Print

Even back in June, some of us noticed a couple of issues in the way the contract was written when it came to remote work. There was a new emphasis on documentation, for one thing. And documentation usually means more micromanagement. Worse still, there was distressing language allowing for principals to take away your right to work-from-home without due process. All administrators had to do was ‘feel’ that teachers and paraprofessionals weren’t doing enough outreach, and with a week’s notice and no hearing to plead your case, you’d have to do those 55 minutes of outreach from school for the rest of the semester. That kind of unchecked power, like a new emphasis on documentation, also fuels micromanagement. But UFT leadership never mentioned the fine print in their promotional materials. And they left precious little time for us to read the contract ourselves—so little, that despite writing copiously with analyses of the contract, I missed some of the fine print myself.

The Cracks Widen

By 9/18/2023, just a few weeks into working under our new contract, enough of a stir was made on social media and in the schools that UFT leadership felt the need to make reports at the executive board on remote work. A new document had just been sent to principals about parent outreach and other ‘work from home’ guidelines for functional members.  Cambria and Collins said it was mostly fine, but the subtext was that there were absolutely issues. Some Unity members even admitted to me later that the document contained tons of things that we never agreed to and some aspects perhaps missed the spirit of why we’re doing this work remotely. Indeed, functional members were scrambling as some of their supervisors began weaponizing this document to deny their requests to work from home (for functional members they don’t get 55 minutes – they only get up to 55 minutes). Teachers began being threatened with losing their right to work from home or finding that the new emphasis on paperwork was leading to a new era of micromanagement. All of a sudden, 15 extra minutes of parent outreach seemed to make many principals think teachers had unlimited time to call (and only call) parents. Teachers were getting quotas—to call a certain number of parents by a certain date, often with unreasonable timelines. The trouble was that, while yes, parent outreach is now supposed to be entirely self-directed, and there is a menu of options to choose from in how we conduct said outreach, many principals disagree with that stipulation. And after all, we conceded them the right to judge teachers as not doing enough outreach without any guidelines—and the right to punish them for that without a hearing. In many schools, in short, things weren’t going so well.

It was after the reports by Cambria and Collins at this week’s executive board that I asked a series of questions. At the time they may have seemed a bit arcane and pedantic, but what I thought were earnest and politically neutral questions had by accident clearly touched a nerve – LeRoy Barr didn’t even let me finish asking my final point of inquiry, making a scene while threatening to rule me out of order. What I discovered through that sequence though was that we must do 55 minutes of outreach every week, no matter what. It’s no longer tied to Tuesdays. The problem here isn’t parent outreach itself – it’s that this difference negates the flexibility we thought we had. Instead of having 55 minutes on Tuesdays but getting to do it whenever you want during the week, we now know that we must work 55 minutes of remote outreach every single week, even if say there are holidays and Friday is the only day that week. What we thought was going to save some minutes during the week is therefore sometimes going to add minutes to our week relative to what we would have worked under the previous contract. This is compounded by the fact that some of the time that turned 35 minutes of parent outreach into 55 minutes of outreach comes from Mondays – and Mondays are the days that UFT members are most likely to have off. So, while in former times, we would shave 80 minutes of time off our schedules on a common long weekend with a Monday off, now we only shave 60 minutes off and have to do 55 minutes of outreach even if we get the Tuesday off too. This may seem like a small difference to some, a bigger difference to others, but it’s still a difference.

One place this difference has already been a problem is for people who are sick for a few days. Say you are out with the Flu from Monday to Thursday and return Friday, not exactly working at 100% but scraping by on enough energy to get through the day. Maybe, usually you would have done all your outreach by Thursday, because you can’t work after school on Friday for religious or other reasons. Because outreach is framed as ‘weekly’ you owe that time now, and a vindictive principal can now say you haven’t successfully done your outreach and remove your right to do any from home. If that seems bad enough, imagine the reverse situation: you’re fine on Monday, plan on doing outreach on Wednesday, but end up out with COVID for the rest of the week. Technically, you were there this week and owe the outreach, despite being too sick to do it. And some principals will hold you to that, with contractual language that technically supports them. These are the types of situations that clearly are not in the spirit of our contractual agreement, and why I think the UFT needs to go to arbitration rather than just accept the bad-faith interpretations of ‘weekly-no matter what.’

Ending with Some Good News:

Even with the three major problems on parent outreach—(1) new emphasis on paperwork, which is collected and monitored weekly rather than just potentially spot checked once in a while, as in previous years; (2) the ability for principals to take away your right to do outreach at home and/or on your own time without due process; and (3) having to work extra minutes relative to how much we would have last year, including on days we didn’t anticipate and may not have time—there is still a silver lining.

The silver lining is that: (1) outreach does not have to be done consecutively; and (2) principals don’t have the right they used to have to occasionally direct how we do our outreach. Therefore, teachers and paraprofessionals can log extra outreach in weeks when they come into some time and prepare for weeks where they won’t be available on Friday. And at many of the schools where principals aren’t getting the memo that we choose what outreach we do (not necessarily phone calls to a long list of parents), all it should take is a simple conversation in consultation to get them to understand. For some principals, that conversation won’t be enough. And stronger chapters can fight back – going to an operational complaint or grievance hearing to get those principals to comply. The list of schools where even this won’t be enough, or where executing this fight will lead to so much retaliation that members won’t think the fight is worth it, is hopefully small.

Epilogue

Principals will still have the right to take away teachers’ rights to do outreach from home without due process, and that’s an ace we never should have handed them, especially with the aforementioned outreach issues we still have. I would have liked to see UFT leadership insist on fixing issues like this before they rushed through the contract vote in June. But they didn’t—they pretended everything was hunky dory, leaving out many of the fine print they did know about, because they knew it would get them a yes vote. And I believe they missed some of the fine print too.

The least we can do now is make sure to reel the City in from bad-faith interpretations of the contract – and go to arbitration for some of the more egregious bad-faith interpretations. Teachers voted for a sub-inflation contract because they were told that they were at least getting less micromanagement and more flexible schedules. We owe them to try and make that true.

-Nick Bacon, UFT Executive Board Member and Co-Chair of New Action

A Farewell to Collective Bargaining?

Published August 31, 2023 Contract , Healthcare , United Federation of Teachers 6 Comments
Tags: , ,

Over the last several years, UFT leadership has claimed repeatedly to be in an existential fight for our very right to collectively bargain. Infamously, they’ve made the absurd claim—over and over again—that pushing retirees onto Medicare Advantage isn’t about saving money at the expense of our most vulnerable members. Rather, they’ve suggested, Medicare Advantage is about our ‘collective bargaining’ rights. To Mulgrew and company, any judicial decision or piece of legislation that keeps the City/MLC from throwing retirees off their healthcare somehow diminishes the union’s negotiating power. What UFT leadership doesn’t say in their communications to members is that, for them ‘collective bargaining’ on healthcare primarily consists of promising away billions of dollars of funding and managing our losses by robbing Peter (in this case, retirees) to pay Paul (in-service members, who by the way, will probably soon be Peter). For UFT leadership, that beats actually organizing—which is precisely what they would need to do in order to preserve existing healthcare coverage for both in-service and retired members. That, of course, is unacceptable, especially since in some models doing the right thing on healthcare might mean losing valuable Unity patronage jobs.

But, since collectively bargaining away our healthcare is so important to UFT leadership, there’s a certain irony to yesterday’s AAA certification of the OT/PT revote. While in most circles a ‘yes vote’ would be a positive thing, in this case it’s not so simple. As readers know, the contract that just passed is a carbon copy of a deal that was voted down by a 2/3 margin earlier this summer. When our UFT President communicated to membership that he wouldn’t be able to do the job of collectively ‘re-bargaining’ in a timely manner, Unity orchestrated a divisive and undemocratic re-vote campaign to avoid going back to the negotiating table.  

But why would UFT leadership—who would rather throw retirees to the wolves than give up a chance to collectively bargain—forego their right to negotiate with management? Why would they instead ask membership to simply take the first deal the City threw at them?

The truth is that the UFT hasn’t seriously engaged in ‘collective bargaining’ for decades. Instead, they’ve engaged in ‘concessionary bargaining,’ accepting the bulk of what our employer demands, including a decline in real wages, reduced healthcare spending (for the City, not us), and changes in working conditions that have predominately favored management rather than labor. When workers, like the OT/PTs, have had the audacity to ask for more—for true collective bargaining—the UFT has responded by disorganizing them into acquiescence.

So, as MLC/UFT leadership pretends that we are on the verge of losing ‘collective bargaining’ rights because of a bill that would preserve retiree healthcare coverage, let’s call their bluff. They bid farewell to collective bargaining in the interests of membership long, long ago. What UFT leadership is fighting for is the right to concede.

Nick Bacon is a co-chair of New Action Caucus (NAC) and a member of the UFT Executive Board

Learn more about

our UFT Caucus

Content Policy

Content of signed articles and comments represents the opinions of their authors. The views expressed in signed articles are not necessarily the views of New Action/UFT.
Follow New Action – UFT on WordPress.com
November 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Blog Stats

  • 399,881 hits