Summer is shaping up to be a busy time for our union/caucus, as strikes and strike threats erupt around the country, while major contract battles still take place at 52 Broadway. NAC will meet as a caucus on August 8th at 3:00 PM via Zoom. We will discuss a variety of issues, including healthcare, pension reform (Tier 6), and the new UFT contract. If you would like something added to the agenda, please let Nick, Greg, or Mike know. Our emails, as well as joining information, is here.
On Friday, reports surfaced that the data of thousands of NYCDOE students and employees was compromised, after a breach that also affected several companies and governmental agencies. In some cases, the information hacked included sensitive identifiers like social security numbers. We don’t know who was affected yet or even the specific date when we will.
UFT headquarters was slow to communicate with members about the issue, but finally sent out an email on Sunday night. (CSA had done so by Friday). In that email, we learned that: “The DOE is in the process of determining precisely which staff and students were affected and which confidential information was compromised in each instance. The DOE plans to notify affected staff and caregivers and offer them access to an identity-monitoring service. In the meantime, all of us should be extra vigilant and be on the lookout for any unusual online activity or communications.” We also learned that “The union will continue to closely monitor the situation to ensure the DOE and the city expeditiously take the appropriate steps to protect us and the families we serve. We are advocating that the DOE provide credit fraud protection to any UFT member whose confidential information was compromised in this breach.”
It’s indicative that the response is vague. UFT appears to be advocating for the DOE to do what it already planned to do, which is to offer access to an “identity-monitoring service,” unless they distinguish that from “credit fraud protection.” There’s also no information about how much protection UFT members might be afforded, and how much they themselves might be on the hook for if their identity is stolen and unauthorized accounts or major purchases are made. There’s also precious little information about how long this unspecified protection would be given to UFT members. When a similar situation occurred to postal workers in 2014, for instance, employees were only offered a single year of protection. If cybercriminals wait 366 days before using the compromised data of UFT members to cause financial or other harm, will we be on our own?
In the age of big data, where employer-stored data that could be used to destroy the lives of members is at a hacker’s finger tips, our union needs to be proactive. Our new would-be contract ups the amount that the Board can reimburse teachers for damaged personal property from $100 to $500. That’s an improvement, but the data breach and our union’s delayed and lackluster response exposes that the bigger risk to members’ finances may be our cyber-vulnerability.
Vague and reactive procedures aren’t enough. The UFT must ensure that no member is at risk of employer-caused identity theft and the catastrophic financial consequences that this act can engender. Period.
This blog predicted months ago that Mulgrew would try to rush a contract ratification vote. “If we rush a bad contract, after all, we can get limited money quick. Summer is around the corner –a tempting time to dangle a few bucks in front of teachers and say ‘sure, we didn’t fix any working conditions, but wouldn’t you rather have this money now than wait until Fall to renegotiate?” At one point, UFT leadership threw us all off by announcing at what seemed like the last possible moment that a contract looked unlikely.
At that point, I offered the possibility that there might still be a contract, but considered the terms under which that might happen. “There is still time, of course. Maybe UFT leadership will get a last-minute agreement finalized this weekend. But under these circumstances, how good could it be? With such harsh wording in the DA email, isn’t it implicit that there’s no way we’re close to a good deal – one which would come close to meeting UFC’s 5 core demands? I sincerely doubt it.”
Then, at what was clearly past the last possible moment, Mulgrew switched gears, calling emergency meetings and presenting us with a PowerPoint with a ‘yes vote’ leaning version of a new TA. He was in sell mode, just days after saying a deal wasn’t likely at all.
To be sure, the deal wasn’t good. New Action, along with all the opposition caucuses, recommends a no vote. There are issues here: givebacks on C6, portions of income that are unpensionable, a new precedent of disciplinary action without due process at principal’s discretion (for PE), no real gains in places we expected them like special education, wage increases below the nonunionized average, no class size limits written in for virtual instruction. And that’s even without touching the mystery of healthcare. These are reasons to vote no, especially because previous no votes have gone better for us. We’ve always done better renegotiating after voting no – every time.
The Carrot
But those givebacks are getting lost in UFT-Unity ‘yes vote’ propaganda that often obfuscates the cuts. In recent viral postings on social media, for instance, members have erroneously claimed things like ‘we all get a self directed c6’ (we only do if we are in multi-session schools)’ or that ‘we now get two PDs a month that confer CTLE hours’ (we don’t – we get up to two PDs that do that – the minimum is still zero). There is tons of misinformation going around, much of it from members of Unity, who claim that members should only trust what UFT leadership says. I tell readers this, check anything you read/hear, including information published in this blog, against the actual MOA.
The Stick
In addition to a carrot that is being touted as much better than it actually is, we’re also getting the stick. Even we didn’t think that UFT leadership would stoop to the level of holding the specter of the 2023-2024 school year against us, playing ‘chicken’ with no votes by holding the SBO vote hostage. See this at the disclaimer of all SBO votes—which most schools are conducting simultaneously with the contract vote.
“I understand that this proposed SBO is subject to the ratification of the 2023 MOA. If the 2023 MOA is not ratified, I understand that the default workday will be 6 hours and 20 minutes followed by 37.5 minutes of small group instruction Monday – Thursday as per Article 6a. The school day shall not begin before 8:00am or end after 3:45 pm.”
I wonder why Mulgrew et al didn’t plan for contingency SBOs or a contingency Pilot workday in the event that the contract did not go through?
The Voting Falls Apart
As our members are rushed through a ratification process, we have multiple problems occurring. (1) They are being given information that is inaccurate or misleading; (2) they are being threatened with 37.5 if the contract doesn’t go through; (3) they are being rushed to vote before they fully understand the details of the contract; and finally (4) the voting process itself is falling apart.
As Chapter Leaders already know, there were issues with the mailing envelopes that were sent out. UFT central responded by emailing out labels to print themselves (from where, UFT business from DOE printers?). There’s also confusion about who is voting from chapters and who has to wait to receive ballots in the mail. Then there’s the problem of UFT staffers telling many chapter leaders they must have the contract vote all on the same day. What happens to members who aren’t there that day, because, say, they’re attending their child’s graduation?
The bottom line is this: the process is falling apart, because it is being rushed. There’s language that needs to be changed. There are people who won’t be able to vote. And there are votes that were sent in that may be returned by the post office. This is a problem.
Mulgrew, our contract ratification process is in jeopardy. Given that UFT leadership knows this, what’s the rush?
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.
New Action - UFT 