Archive Page 19

OT/PTs Continue to Fight for a Fair UFT Contract

Published July 14, 2023 Contract 9 Comments
Tags:

On Monday, 7/10/23, when UFT leadership announced that the 2022-2027 contract had passed “overwhelmingly,” the numbers weren’t as unanimous as suggested. Reduced support for the teachers’ contract—at under 75%—meant the highest ‘no’ vote percentage for that particular contract since 2005. But the larger omission from the UFT announcement was that not every bargaining unit’s contract had even passed.  OT/PTs once again voted down the first offer for their functional contract (1,129 no to 782 yes), along with nurses, audiologists, and supervisors of nurses and therapists, some of whom were inexplicably combined with the OT/PT chapter for the first time.

Why did OT/PTs vote no?

OT/PTs appear to have predominantly voted no due to their position of economic precarity – a position which is exacerbated by graduate degrees and certifications being a condition of employment. Indeed, OT/PTs have similar and sometimes more extensive higher educational requirements when compared to teachers (including doctorates), despite being paid much less than pedagogues. As per Chalkbeat, “by January a therapist with 10 years of experience and a master’s degree would earn $86,131, according to UFT documents, while a teacher with the same years and degree would earn $103,594.” An internal survey conducted by the city-wide OT/PT chapter suggests that about 2/3 of their members must work two to three extra jobs just to pay back student loans and make ends meet.

The City’s line is that OT/PTs are paid at or above the market rate, something UFT officials have suggested puts them at a bargaining disadvantage. The entire industry of occupational and physical therapy needs major pay reforms, just as is the case industry-wide for teaching. However, the job of being an OT/PT in a public-school environment is apples and oranges to what a typical OT/PT job looks like in the private sector. It often requires traveling, creative scheduling, IEP-writing/interpretation, matching therapeutic regimens to educational needs, and sifting through various layers of regulatory compliance. For similar and other reasons, titles that technically exist in both the DOE and the private sector rarely match financially. Teachers in the public sector, along with counselors and social workers, tend to make above the ‘private sector’ rate. Nurses actually make below it, though interestingly don’t appear to be a major factor in why their combined contract with OT/PT got a ‘no’ vote.

OT/PT activists such as Chapter Leader, Melissa Williams, believe that their titles deserve parity with social workers, who are paid at a higher rate that is almost identical with teachers. OT/PTs were offered the option of earning more by working extra sessions, but this was a controversial proposition as it would have required working longer hours only to still make less than similarly educated peers. The option was particularly unpopular because it was negotiated by paid officers/staffers over the heads of rank-and-file members of the OT/PT negotiating committee.

How has UFT leadership responded?

In theory, one would think that the ‘no vote’ of a majority of OT/PTs would nudge union leadership into an energized position of solidarity with their aggrieved workers. However, the response by UFT leadership has been disappointing, generating widespread concern that OT/PTs will be up not just against the City—but against their own union officers—as they fight for a fair deal. For instance, immediately following the (non)-ratification vote, a UFT vice president sent out an email that bordered on paternalistic, fear-mongering, and accusatory, dangling what those members didn’t get because they voted ‘no’ and pointing to a “difficult road ahead” instead of validating that the contract was not good enough for them to vote ‘yes.’ He also left out the obvious – that pattern bargaining protects members from receiving a worse economic package in the end, even if a stalled contract means those pay increases will come later as ‘retro.’

A meeting on 7/13/23 with UFT President, Michael Mulgrew to discuss this ‘difficult road ahead’, did not go much better, according to attendees. Mulgrew quickly dismissed the financial concerns of members, conveying that pay parity was a negotiating non-starter, and that the problem of OT/PTs having to work second/third jobs was one for ‘society as a whole’ (rather than for him as the union president). He was similarly dismissive of the argument that heavy education requirements as a condition of employment should factor into compensation, suggesting that degrees don’t necessarily mean more money, and that ‘we all agreed to work for the public.’

The Road Ahead

The dismissive response by UFT leadership begs the question as to whether they will support the OT/PT bargaining unit at all. Some members fear political motivations. The OT/PT chapter is the only functional group with a Chapter Leader not elected under the ruling union party, Unity Caucus, which controls the union at large. Is it possible that Mulgrew and his affiliates would use this moment as a political opportunity to sow dissent against non-Unity representation rather than work to achieve contract goals? Is it possible that the Unity-controlled UFT might intentionally disrupt the second negotiations to achieve a result that could serve as a cautionary tale against other members voting ‘no’ in the future?

I hope not. But the fact that President Mulgrew and his officer associates are spending their time explaining why members were wrong to vote no, rather than spending a single second suggesting strategies to achieve their goals, does not bode well. In general, UFT leadership has poo-pooed union tactics that tend to work to achieve higher compensation, such as job actions, giving the UFT the dubious distinction of being perhaps the only teachers union that has publicly advocated against its own legal right to strike.

To that end, OT/PTs, along with the other groups in their bargaining unit, may be officially on their own if they want to achieve their goals. Opposition union groups are organizing to help support in whatever ways they can. Still, without official support from UFT leadership, i.e. those with any official negotiating authority/power, OT/PTs may be left only with ‘wildcat’ tactics to achieve their ends. Rank-and-file UFT members, sister-unions, and community groups are encouraged to do whatever they can in support. 

2022-2027 UFT Contract Approved: An Analysis

Published July 10, 2023 Contract 21 Comments

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.

Judge Frank Grants TRO for Retiree Healthcare Switch

Published July 7, 2023 Healthcare 9 Comments

Today, Judge Lyle Frank granted a TRO which will temporarily halt the City and the MLC from switching all retirees from GHI SeniorCare to a for-profit Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan. While the case, initiated by the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, is far from over, this is a very good omen. These excerpts in particular bode well:  

“First, the Court finds that the petitioners have shown by clear and convincing evidence that there is a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court agrees that it is likely that this Court will ultimately find that the respondents are estopped from switching retirees into a Medicare Advantage Plan and that New York City Administrative Code section 12-126 does not permit the action that the City plans to take….The petitioners have shown that numerous promises were made by the City to then New York City employees and future retirees that they would receive a Medicare supplemental plan when they retired, and that their first level of coverage once that retired would by Medicare.”

Make no mistake: the timing of this TRO decision alongside a new contract that is almost sure to be ratified within the next several days is meaningful. Mulgrew’s nightmare scenario of a ratified contract followed by the necessity of making major negative changes to in-service health care plans now seems more likely and more imminent than it did before. Mulgrew, after all, will still need to find savings to pay back the City for promised healthcare spending reductions. Now, however, he will have to pillage elsewhere than our retiree coverage. For those next steps, we must wait and see; against those next steps, we must be ready to fight.

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
September 2026
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Blog Stats

  • 414,790 hits