Uncategorized | New Action - UFT

Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

UFT: Let’s Organize for a Fair Contract

Published January 22, 2023 Uncategorized 4 Comments

UFT members need a decent contract. With inflation at sky high levels and our pay rates stuck in the 2021-2022 school year, we frankly need that contract yesterday. On Jan. 30, many chapters across the city will engage in ‘teach ins’ to learn about and organize around the contract. Hundreds–if not thousands–of UFTers took part in initial trainings, so I’m optimistic that chapters will actually do them. Like my fellow UFT executive board member, Mike Schirtzer, I want these to be successful. Rather, I want these events to be a part of ensuring that our actual contract is successful.

Of course, readers likely know that I’m rather pessimistic on this subject. That isn’t to say I already plan to vote no on the next contract. Indeed, without seeing the final version, I can’t comment on whether it is a good contract or a bad contract. What I can say is that if we don’t organize and the City doesn’t see us organize, we’re less likely to get a good one. UFT leadership is therefore right to have organized these ‘teach ins.’ However, we always need to take what leadership gives us with a grain of salt. Back in 2018, I believed Michael Mulgrew when he said there were no givebacks. Heck, I turnkeyed his powerpoint back to my chapter and sold it to them. As we all now know, it turned out that in a hidden appendix there was a huge trojan horse with dangerous healthcare givebacks. Needless to say, I deeply regret organizing that ‘yes vote.’

We don’t yet have the UFT’s powerpoint on the next contract. We do have their powerpoint and lesson plan for the ‘teach in’ meant to organize for that contract. There’s some good here. The sheer fact that it encourages members to think about the contract and how it affects their lives as well as the broader New York City community is fantastic. For that reason alone, I think the ‘teach in’ is worthwhile. When teachers are conscious of the contract, they’re more likely to appreciate the rights they have, make sure those rights are enforced, and fight for rights they should have but currently lack.

Of course, back to that grain of salt. Is this just the 2018 powerpoint all over again? Is what seems like a presentation about organizing ourselves to fight the City for the best possible contract, really just propaganda by UFT leadership to organize us into thinking that whatever contract they come up with is worth fighting for? Is that why they’re asking us what we want in the contract despite knowing that negotiations have already been going on for months? Is that why they’re talking about organizing a fight, even though they’ve given us no reason to believe that the City is fighting our demands? Is that why in their official materials, the current contract is painted as the culmination of decades of brilliant bargaining and not the watered down shell of former contracts that it actually is? Is that why the parts explaining the negotiation process make it seem so fool-proof that a teacher would be crazy not to accept whatever comes out of it? Is that why nothing is said about a no-vote?

Maybe. But we should still do the ‘teach-ins.’ Members need to know about their contract. They need to think about their contract. And they need to be organized in case of a need to mobilize for a contract fight. That also means being ready to vote no and push for something better if the contract we’re given ends up not being worth the paper it’s printed on. Luckily, many of us in the progressive wing of the UFT have been thinking about this. On Sunday, Jan.29 at 7:00 PM – the night before the teach-in – please join Educators of NYC for their Contract Teach-in Pep Rally. Prepare to discuss: “

What does a fair upcoming contract look like? What does an unfair contract like?
There are items in any contract that require costing … are there some working conditions that we can demand for this contract that don’t really cost the city anything? What are they?
What does saying “no” to an unfair contract mean? Does it mean we strike?
In our teach-ins we will be sharing what actions we should take collectively. Do you believe we are prepared to take meaningful actions? Why or why not?
Some believe that the biggest obstacles for us taking meaningful actions are fear and apathy …How do we overcome fear and apathy in our union?”

These are just the things we need to discuss to make sure that the ‘teach in’s in our schools are not just infrastructure for an undeserved ‘yes’ vote, but a true means for chapters to think about what the contract means to them – and what sorts of contracts are worth that ‘yes’ vote.

Mulgrew to Members: Prepare for Premiums – Analyzing the 1-18-2023 Delegate Assembly

Published January 18, 2023 Uncategorized 5 Comments

The UFT’s first delegate assembly of 2023 was an incredibly rich source of disappointing information – particularly Mulgrew’s nonchalant remark that in-service members will likely now pay premiums. The big topic tonight was healthcare. For more exhaustive minutes, including the many resolutions that were passed, such as a twice amended version of an anti-charter reso, check out the ICE-UFT blog.

Mulgrew didn’t seem to want to discuss healthcare tonight. He had given a full report without mentioning anything about it. We had moved onto Barr’s Secretary report. Then, just before the question period, Mulgrew jumped back up to say someone ‘reminded’ him to give the healthcare update. A bit out of custom, the president’s report then resumed with some big information: (1) that the MLC likely won’t agree to the Aetna deal for MAP; (2) that ‘given the arbitrator’s decision’ this will likely mean in-service members will now pay premiums; and (3) that things are looking good for the in-service RFP (for healthcare at 10% a cheaper cost than GHI). Note that point three was strangely divorced from point two. Also, to my recollection, Mulgrew, surprisingly didn’t mention anything on the fact that an amendment to 12-126 likely won’t even be put to a vote. Retirees and others (including myself) appear to have successfully lobbied City Council to keep our healthcare protections in place, despite our own union leadership’s attempt to get rid of it.

These are not your everyday bits of healthcare news. Many of us had questions, and a few of us in the progressive opposition were called on to ask them. One big one (asked by two delegates): what happens to our resolutions after they are passed? Do they have an expiration date? The source of this question was a resolution passed a few years back in support of the New York Health Act, which would have created a state-based universal healthcare system. Despite membership voting in its favor, UFT leadership has since vocalized that it does not want the law to pass. Mulgrew’s response was hostile to one of the delegates (Martina Meijer), implying that she was being anti-democratic for raising a point of information, not that the UFT leadership was being anti-democratic for reversing course on a resolution without democratic consent. He also responded that resolutions can become ‘moot’ over time, although I’m not sure why universal healthcare has less appeal today than yesterday. Unity applauded Mulgrew, despite the flawed logic.

I asked the following question: given that, after my question at the last DA, Mulgrew confirmed that the arbitrator’s decision is not binding, and given that 12-126 is still law and protects members from paying premiums up to the HIP benchmark, how is it possible that we would end up paying premiums? Also, how does all this relate to the announcement that the MLC has an RFP to potentially replace GHI/HIP and reduce our health costs by 10%? Mulgrew responded (in a less hostile, but still annoyed tone) that premiums would not apply to HIP members, only to GHI members. He also responded that the RFP has nothing to with this. This is interesting, but begs several questions:

UFT members have had GHI without premiums for decades. Why is Mulgrew blithely saying we’ll have to pay premiums now, and not saying how he plans to fight such a move? Can we assume that UFT leadership won’t be fighting this?
If UFT leadership is not organizing against the historic move to force in-service members to pay premiums, why aren’t they doing so? Does it have anything to do with a certain hidden appendix in the last contract that inexplicably committed us to hundreds of millions of dollars in healthcare givebacks?
If we do end up paying premiums on healthcare, do we see the difference in raises that exceed the rate of inflation by at least the cost of the new premiums? Or do we just take a loss in this time of record inflation?
Our premium costs for GHI (or lack thereof) are pegged to HIP via the stabalization fund. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the stabalization fund. If GHI will no longer have its price pegged to HIP using stabalization money, what does that mean for the stabalization fund?
Seriously, we need an answer to what all of this has to do with the apparently ‘promising’ news of an RFP that reduces healthcare costs by 10%. I can’t do justice to the many questions I have here, but for starters: does such a move save us from premiums? At what cost does it do so? Is Emblemhealth the intended provider? If it’s not, what happens to the HIP benchmark? Indeed, if it is what happens to the HIP benchmark?

Retirees and their allies fought healthcare givebacks. So far, they’ve been winning. In the process, they’ve shown that we sometimes need to organize our own ‘wildcat’ actions in moments when our union leadership is working against us. But, in-service members are at a bit of a disadvantage. They have less time to organize, and have everything to lose. Moreover, thanks to half a century of increasingly concessionary unionism, they’ve come to expect less. But, given that we can expect that Mulgrew and co. are not going to fix this healthcare fiasco, what will we do? Because, like the retirees, in-service members can either organize on their own, or watch Mulgrew play his fiddle as our healthcare burns to the ground.

Who actually needs time to read a contract anyways? – Executive Board Meeting, 1-9-2023

Summary: The full minutes are below, but here are some highlights:

The meeting started with two librarians talking about the specific issues they face. They called for better union infrastructure, such as the creation of a functional chapter.
Then, Luli Rodriguez (ICE/Solidarity) was ‘sworn in’ as the replacement for Lydia Howrilka (Solidarity), who recently left the DOE and thus her HS Executive Board seat to pursue other opportunities. We thank Unity Caucus for not running a candidate of their own against Luli. They agreed that UFC should keep the seat we won. I look forward to working with Luli in the future (her full endorsement by Ibeth Mejia can be seen below in the full minutes).
Two resolutions were presented on the floor. One, made in solidarity with the nurses, had no opposition. The other, motivated by Nick Bacon, was supported by MORE, New Action, Solidarity, and ICE, but voted down by Unity. That resolution asked that (1) After the experience of 2018’s rushed contract vote, especially in the DA, UFT members be given more time to read/understand contracts before holding pre-ratification and ratification votes; (2) all changes to contracts be summarized neutrally – i.e. not just claim in the ‘contract at a glance’ or equivalent that ‘there are no givebacks and we preserved premium free healthcare,’ if we actually ‘bargained’ away $600 million in healthcare ‘savings,’ basically compelling the privatization of Medicare; and (3) we get to vote on all MOAs, which function as addendums to contracts but often aren’t voted on even when they have profound effects on the workday (think ‘mandatory per session office hours when any student in your class has COVID). In any case, this resolution met with fierce resistance from Unity. Some of the points made sense. Carl Cambria in particular made a few fair arguments, like that the resolution would prevent timely votes if agreements came up in June. I still think an informed executive board, delegate assembly, and general membership is more important than a quick vote on something as important as the contract. But his point is taken. Amy Arundel, on the other hand, gave ad hominem attacks on either Nick Bacon or the High School Executive Board more generally depending on how you read her arguments – accusing the motivator(s) of having political motives. She also argued that somehow ‘being in schools and talking to members’ (a strange false dichotomy to make as a UFT staffer in opposition to school-based members) or doing the ‘teach in’ in January (where there won’t be a contract to read) is what is really needed, not additional time to actually read said contracts. It was a confusing set of ad hominem attacks and irrelevant points in an otherwise calm meeting. But, nevertheless, many in Unity applauded when she was done. And they voted down our right to vote on MOAs or have time to understand our contracts before we vote on them. A disappointing finish.

Full minutes below:

Open Mike

Victoria (Librarian): 22 year veteran. Came in as a teacher. Always felt like I had a union presence in district 85. Feel like I’ve been thrown into the waters since I’ve moved into being a librarian. Gave up money coming out of teacher leadership to become a librarian, find out I’m teaching 6 different courses and a librarian all at once. I want to be fair – a lot of people tried to help. But, no one really knew. Got into contact with other librarians. Felt like I had to come down and speak for those librarians. We went to school to be librarians and are treated like substitute teachers. Need support on a union level. UFT librarian ‘Check me out’ shirt design was disturbing. Good intentions, but our questions weren’t answered. So I’m just here to see we need help. I’m on my way out, but we’ve got new people coming in and they deserve help – the kind of union that I saw helping me all my years as a teacher.

Daniel Leviathan: Long-time librarian. Was also at the above UFT librarian meeting. The question of what can be done in libraries, especially in elementary schools, is a big question. There are library tasks (e.g. skills) that we can teach while teachers focus on content. But that isn’t happening in most places. We often find that UFT unable to help here. So, we need to ask about a functional chapter for librarians. This will help students get what they deserve.

LeRoy Barr: Introduces new district reps. Minutes approved.

Reports from Districts:

Karen Alford: For this year, instructional coordinators and social workers will remain in their original positions and not be excessed. Know the fight isn’t over, but enjoying this moment.

Amy Arundel: Update on success academy. Hearings on Success Academy. Well attended – long hearings. Asking people to get ready to come to Long Island City to join us in being vocal opponents to co-locations. Success will bring plenty of people, so we need to do the same. Another vote for a Bronx school coming up.

Debra Penny: In March of 2020, COVID death benefit, created. It has been extended to December 2024. Amazing benefit, but I hope no one has to use it. 50% of salary + health benefits for qualifying beneficiaries.

Seung Lee: Some well attended pension meetings mentioned. CDC training weekend. Next week, Asian American Lunar New Year banquet tickets. Everyone is invited to buy a ticket (March 10).

Adam Shapiro: District 21 met CLs and want to do district-wide contract negotiation activities. Button making, 75 people volunteered to donate their labor.

Nancy Armando: Feb. 2, Brooklyn will celebrate SRP event.

Carl Cambria: 500 negotiating committee. Wednesday, Feb. 1. Over 800 schools with CAT teams. Going to hold trainings for CAT members. Gearing up for teach-ins late January so they can gather to discuss contract benefits.

(one speaker missed).

Special Order of Business: H.S. Executive vacancy.

Ibeth Mejia: Nominates Luli Rodriguez (H.S. for Economics and Finance). Leader who received the majority of high school votes in her campaign for Treasurer. She was tapped for this for her extensive experience of accounting. She can follow the money on school budgets. Led evacuations out of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Staunch advocate for students of disabilities. Used to call her the IEP maiden when worked together. Battled two abusive administrators who were trying to change IEPs. She is respected for these reasons. Elected as a UFT delegate and a member of the consultation committee in her current chapter. Her experience in advocacy makes her the ideal candidate for this position.

With no other nominations, Luli gets the nomination. She is welcomed to the Executive Board.

Resolution Supporting Striking NYSNA Nurses:

Mary Vaccaro: We support the NYSNA nurses that are striking seeking a better nurse to patient ratio, so they can provide better patient care. We support patients before profits.

Resolution passes unanimously.

Resolution Supporting Full Disclosure of Finalized Tentative Contract Agreements and Memorandum of Agreements.

Nick Bacon endorses the resolution. Full language is here. This resolution is inspired by the experiences of many chapter leaders, delegates, and regular members during the 2018 contract vote and during 2020. In 2018, there was a sense that CLs and delegates didn’t have any time to read the contract (only a few hours) before having to hold a pre-ratification vote. There was also a sense that some of the changes in that contract (later I note the commitment to healthcare ‘savings’) weren’t adequately and neutrally communicated to members. So this resolution would give members a bit more time before each vote to read over the contract. It would also ask UFT leadership to communicate neutrally and completely any changes in writing to the various bodies before their pre-ratification votes. Finally, it would obligate that all MOAs in the future are held to a vote. Many MOAs during COVID, for instance, changed our working conditions (e.g. mandatory per session ‘office hours’ when students tested positive for COVID). But we didn’t have a chance to vote on them at all. This resolution would mean future MOAs would be subjected to a vote.

Karen Alford: Stands in opposition. Charged with taking information back to our schools. It seems like a bureaucracy. We’re entrusted to make a decision. Teach in becomes very important as we make contract decisions. But we don’t negotiate in public. Would hate for all our work to lead to stuff getting leaked and the City saying ‘deals off.’ This isn’t what happens for negotiations for any City.

Alex Jallot: Supports. Giving folks to read over what’s going in our contract and to be informed decision is not just good for morale but good for participation in our union.

Ilona Nanay: Supports. Understand some of the concerns, but what we’re asking is that members have a chance to understand what they’re voting on before they vote. In elections, we have time to think about things before voting. But what often happens here is that we’re given an hour or so, don’t even understand what voting on, and asked to vote. Under COVID, I often got MOAs from my principal before the union even sent anything out. I certainly never had a chance to vote.

Mike Sill: One resolved at that time. Says it’s theatre because all this is done in terms of appendices for collective bargaining. COVID was not a typical time, was unrealistic to do some of this. Summarized.

Geoff Sorkin: Opposition. Don’t negotiate publicly. If you wait too long, beneficial agreements go away.

Carl Cambria: Stand in opposition. Can’t do everything in this reso. It will put our membership at a disadvantage. Can’t wait until every member understands every part of everything before we vote. How could we do it? Good goal, but how would it be possible. Second resolved is something that already done. Contract at a glance form is an example of that. That’s used for many functions including arbitration. Orally, not sure what’s meant there. Certain people will have certain opinions. Parts of this reso would require ratification only in Fall/Winter if something came up in the June resolution. We’d be handcuffed by some of the language.

Amy Arundel: Ask people to join us in what we’re doing at the school level. When I read these, I wonder if people are in schools. I had lots of meetings. We had lots of structures that bring member voice back to our leadership. Speaking hostilely, says she’s offended (looking at Bacon) at all these political resos that make it seem like people aren’t doing their jobs. The key is the ‘teach in.’ Asks everyone here to join the teach in.

Nick Bacon: Point of personal privilege. This isn’t political. We’re here today because people need more time to read contracts before we vote on them. We’re here because things aren’t communicated neutrally – Michael Mulgrew said there were no givebacks. It turned out we were promising healthcare savings. Teachers didn’t know and didn’t have time to analyze. Not sure what teach-ins have to do with anything since there’s no contract there for people to read/understand.

Name Missed: Question called. UFC votes in favor. Voted down by Unity.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

New Action – UFT

Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

UFT: Let’s Organize for a Fair Contract

Mulgrew to Members: Prepare for Premiums – Analyzing the 1-18-2023 Delegate Assembly

Who actually needs time to read a contract anyways? – Executive Board Meeting, 1-9-2023

Content Policy

Blogroll

Pages

Recent Posts

Meta

Blog Stats