Archive Page 33

UFT Members Deserve to Vote on Healthcare Changes

Published March 21, 2023 Healthcare 16 Comments

The cochairs of NAC ask that you please sign the petition to give UFT members a right to vote on healthcare changes, as reported in The City today. Some Faqs on why we need this vote are noted below (written in collaboration with other UFC-affiliated writers of the petition).

UFT MEMBERS FOR PREMIUM-FREE QUALITY HEALTHCARE

Quick Facts

  • Mulgrew voted in the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC) to force retired City workers off of traditional Medicare and onto an Aetna-managed Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP). Despite knowing full well that there was significant opposition, Mulgrew denied membership the right to vote directly. 
  • Major changes to our healthcare were made as part of our citywide contracts in 2014, and again in 2018.  Mulgrew was instrumental in negotiating both. In the last healthcare agreement, in 2018, he agreed to $600 million dollars in healthcare savings for the City for every year, in perpetuity. These changes and agreements were negotiated behind closed doors without member input. UFT chapter leaders and delegates were not given Appendix A to read beforehand which delineated the healthcare concessions when they voted in support of our 2018 contract.  
  • UFT Leadership is currently working on a mysterious new health plan for in-service members that would replace GHI with something cheaper. As of now, membership will not have a say in this decision either, or given meaningful details about our potential options.
  • Even without switching us off of GHI, UFT leadership has greenlit various new, significant healthcare expenses for in-service members without a membership vote. 

For instance:

  • ER visits now cost us triple digit copays, which are waived only if a patient is admitted, even if they are deemed to need emergency care. 
  • Copays for most urgent care centers (including CityMD) have also risen to triple digits, from $15 to $100, since 2016.
  • Major providers, such as CityMD, Montefiore, and almost all radiology centers, are no longer ‘preferred,’ leading to higher copays.
  • Despite many healthcare expenses more than doubling, UFT leadership has not fought for fair increases in pay. Because we did not even attempt to stop DC37 from accepting a sub-inflation wage increase, UFT members will not only be seeing higher health costs – they’ll be taking a pay cut. 

Why do we need a petition to request a member-wide referendum to vote on healthcare changes?  

According to the UFT Constitution, members can demand a member-wide referendum vote on any issue other than a constitutional amendment or actions on the status of an individual member.  First, ten percent of the membership must petition the UFT executive board for a referendum, and then the executive board must bring the matter to the entire body for a member-wide vote.  Given the serious nature of the healthcare changes that have been made without member input or democratic decision-making, we must take this matter into our own hands.

So sign this petition today. We deserve a say on healthcare.

Why ‘the UFT’ can threaten to sue its elected opposition representatives without a vote – and other notes from the 3/20/2023 UFT Executive Board Meeting

Published March 20, 2023 UFT , UFT Executive Board 12 Comments
Tags: ,

Quick Summary/Analysis:

There was a bunch of debate about why the UFT is using our dues/resources to threaten to sue its own members (members who happen to be in the opposition) without any known process of coming to that decision. Two members came in to plead to keep our healthcare (traditional Medicare and GHI). Another member came in to thank UFT staff for responding to gun violence around their school. We heard slightly more detail on the new curriculum news, and heard some reports from districts. Most other news mirrored what was said at the Delegate Assembly last Wednesday.

Informal minutes follow.

Open Mic:

Norm Scott: UFT member since 67. Wearing a UFT logo and hope no lawyers contact me. Healthcare: MAP isn’t Medicare. If I were to pay someone to go to the grocery store for me, that’s kind of like what Aetna is going to do with our healthcare. If you don’t understand that healthcare hasn’t increased in cost because of profits and denial of benefits…I hear some people say I don’t really care about it – it’s just politics. I’m really disturbed by the fact that I may not have access to my doctors. I’ve got doctors for every part of my body. I’m getting calls from all over the country by people saying they might not get access to doctors. 60% of people are now on MAP. But what happens when it’s 80 and 90%? I’m sorry to say but this union is acting like the Republicans – the Republicans will end up killing Medicare. Mulgrew talks about representational voting at MLC, but not in the UFT. Even though Retiree Advocate got about 1/3 of the vote in the retiree chapter election, we get no say at all – not a single delegate. We think there should be a vote on questions of healthcare. We are starting a petition campaign, where if we get 1/3 of this body, we can get a referendum to vote on any healthcare changes. You might win that vote  anyways – why not support it. Give members a choice to vote.

Name missed: Last Tuesday, there was a shooting at my school. There was a panic. We were telling parents to go the other direction. Chris Verdone has an appointment coming this Thursday. They found out shortly after us. Then there was a lockdown for 30-40 minutes while it was going. Just want you to know how responsive the UFT was and how unresponsive the DOE was. SSA only found out 50 minutes into the shooting.

S. Cohen: Teacher at Aviation on exec committee. Been teaching for 29 years. Concerned about proposed changes to our healthcare. Concerned about what’s happening with GHI. Are we going to be maintaining our GHI for free? Concerned with losing healthcare that everyone is happy with. We’re in solidarity with the retirees – we’re tomorrow’s retirees. Everything said before is very concerning tomorrow. Why is it incumbent on the UFT to get savings for the City when we were promised something similar?

Minutes: Approved.

Questions:

Ilona Nanay: Following up on what a member asked around GHI. Just curious what the plan might look like for in-service members. What happens next?

Joe Usatch: RFP out there. Some bidders. Not sure who. Plan as good or better without a premium.


Nick Bacon: I have a question about process. I received a letter from a law firm, Stroock, asking me, on behalf of “the UFT” – I assume they meant on behalf of the officers –  to remove material from a blog I write.

I sit on this body and listen closely to the proceedings. I read and vote on minutes of AdCom. But I was completely unaware that either of those bodies engaged lawyers to write to me.

Who decided to have the lawyers send me, a UFT Executive Board member, this letter? Where was this decision taken? Who was involved? Why is there no record?

LeRoy Barr: Think about the election complaint. Tons of complaints there about using the UFT logo. The logo belongs to the UFT.

Nick Bacon: I remember the election complaint. We had records for that. We had debate. We came to a decision. There was none of that this time. Also, I’m an executive board member – elected by the members. I’m being threatened by the UFT for using the UFT logo? Am I not UFT? Who is?

LeRoy Barr: There’s a record now.

Nick Bacon: Yes, because I brought it up after the fact.

Alex Jallot: When is it appropriate to the use the UFT logo? A lot of those schools are modifying slides. When would it be appropriate for members who use dues to use the UFT logo?

Barr: If you’re using the UFT logo to denigrate it, that’s when it’s a problem.

Nick Bacon: Feel free to call me out of order, but I have to say it. Do we mean UFT or U-nity, because I haven’t seen anything about the caucus, Unity Caucus, using it in their logo.  I’ve seen opposition members get in trouble for using it. Sounds like it is about which UFT members use the logo?

LeRoy: We sent letters to everyone who used the logo in a denigrating way. Add that to your records.

Alex: When is it appropriate to modify? Because we were told to modify.

Amy Arundell: Part of team of people who created the teach-in slide show. Saw the slideshow created with the UFT logo. There was a slide that said givebacks. That was not part of the slideshow we created. That’s an opinion – a political one. By putting the UFT logo on a slide on a slide that says givebacks – there’s an implication that the UFT agrees with that. So to clarify, I did say to people to use this slideshow. But to put in a slide with a political viewpoint over whether or not the UFT has successfully bargained over the last 50 years. UFT obviously doesn’t agree that we’ve had givebacks. Yeah, we said modify – you might take out a slide, take a different kind of action.

LeRoy Barr: Don’t use the UFT logo to make a political point.

President’s Report:

Mulgrew: We can keep having these debates. We can play politics, but is it moving our agenda or are we just trying to play games. I hope people are not trying to do things for the wrong reasons. But game playing is a part of our society now I guess.

State: Budgets are out. Major primary season in June. Some will be unopposed, but others will have 5 or 6. So we’ll have to work on that.

City Council: Mayor still claiming that NYC is gonna fall off a cliff. That will be fight number one.

Contract committee, when doing at a level when we’re doing what we need to do. Need to wait for DC37 full vote, then see PBA piece, then is there retribution for UFT blowing up Mayor’s plans to do healthcare in this round of bargaining?

LeRoy Barr: Contract action survey coming out.

Brad Alter: Thinking strategically, this will come out to membership. Leading into March 30th action. For instance, what percentage of your day is spent doing tasks that don’t contribute to helping students?…

LeRoy Barr: Lobby day – several things like fight against charter schools. A lot of what we fought for has ended up in the budgets put out. (Missed some, but see DA minutes for more specifics). Mayor is proposing cuts to the City budget. Going to fight school cuts, especially as DOE now has to comply with class size law.

Special Order of Business:

Mary Vacarro: There will be curriculum, not saying we’ll like it. 3 choices in elementary: wit and wisdom, h and h (inter reading), expeditionary learning. Algebra – there will be 165 schools that are a part of it. Under Karen’s realm, there will be an early childhood curriculum.

DOE is telling us that DOE engaged their community. With that happening 15 districts will be doing new curriculum. Other 17 will be the following year.

We’re going to work with DOE to help do PD across the City. So we want to make sure that every para/teacher who works in ELA gets support in their classrooms before the curriculum is actually sent out. Hopefully we’ll get started in next month and a half. By June, we’ll be pushing into schools to provide some PD. In July, we have the citywide training at the teacher center. Anyone will be able to come in and work on the curriculum. We have put in a request that every teacher in these schools gets everything before they leave for the summer. It doesn’t mean you’re planning all summer long. Algebra, 165 schools. We’ll work with Janella to see how you are going to get supported.

Ibeth Mejia: How do we know who will be participating in high schools?

Mary Vacarro: We don’t know yet. We’ve been told it’s a diverse setting – low, medium, and high.

Melody A.: Schools were asked to choose other curriculum. Can they keep it?

Mary Vacarro: Yes and no. Only if it was the one chosen by the Superintendent. Some other curriculums will still be supplementary.

Luli Rodriguez: Will it be differentiated?

Mary: Yes. Will also include self-contained.

Reports from Districts:

Janella Hinds: Two events. Last Saturday, Queens UFT had an annual herstory event. Had students including jazz band welcoming into space. Had cosmetology services from students. Did gallery walk. Thanks many UFT officers and staffers.  

Gratitude to Nick Cruz, Bronx division of UFT in support of 2500 students in the house. Thanks others. Many came to talk about scholarships and college life.

Karen Alford: Early childhood conference is coming. We give out awards. Honoring ICs and social workers this year.

Camile E.: Happy to report we opened a teacher center in district 16. Teacher centers are a missed opportunity. Especially good for colocations.

Name missed: District 23/school. Had a wonderful time celebrating the UFT birthday. Appreciate your duty free lunch.

Name Missed: meeting on Saturday at Gateway school. 20 teachers and paras. Good info.

Melody A.: May 13th is the AFT/UFT teacher leaders action showcase. Randi’s favorite program. She will be in attendance. Program expected to get attention it deserves. Small but mighty cohort.

Seung Lee: March 1st Manhattan borough office had sabbatical workshop. Lunar new year banquet was lovely.

Rashad Brown: Daniel Dromm scholarship deadline is May 1st. A lot of help given to members for student debt – lots of debt forgiveness.

Amy Arundell: Queens has March madness too. These aren’t reports about bragging, they’re reports about muscle building. You can’t just wake up and fight. So sitting down during lunch builds a muscle, so when we do an informational picket the muscle built.

Why doesn’t UFT leadership want us to have the right to strike?

Published March 19, 2023 UFT 15 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , ,

At last week’s DA, James Cole of MORE proposed an amendment to a resolution celebrating the UFT’s 60th anniversary. Had it passed, the amendment would have added language that recognized the role of striking in the formation and early success of the UFT. More controversially, it would have also compelled UFT leadership to lobby New York State to pass legislation guaranteeing the right to strike.

Immediately, multiple members of Unity Caucus took the mic to speak in opposition. Most powerfully, LeRoy Barr gave an impassioned speech about why we’re better off with the Taylor Law than without. As I pointed out when I spoke, this created a false dichotomy of ‘the right to strike’ vs ‘Taylor Law protections’, since the amendment didn’t ask to repeal the good parts of the Taylor Law and only asked to re-grant the right to strike. Barr also argued that if we really needed to strike, we’d go ahead and violate the Taylor Law. His rhetorical style here was compelling, but misleading. He simultaneously painted the UFT as being willing to strike while arguing against having the right to do so. He also left out the obvious – that we haven’t actually struck since 1975.

There were other Unity speakers as well, though Barr probably single-handedly did the convincing. One Unity speaker probably actually lost them a few votes when she absurdly suggested that striking was only for people with generational wealth and white privilege. For some more analysis on the blow by blow see MORE’s statement or my minutes (linked above). In the remainder of this article, however, I’d like to examine why Unity Caucus actually argued against our right to strike.

  • Possibility 1: Unity isn’t against the right to strike. They just didn’t think it was appropriate for the amendment to go into a resolution celebrating the anniversary of the UFT. This is an argument I’ve seen circulating on social media. It was also brought up to me by a few people who attended the D.A. I’ll admit that, while I spoke in favor of the amendment, even I was a little surprised to hear it raised in the context of a resolution celebrating the birth of the UFT. But, while a sense that this amendment was out of place might explain why some people were turned off enough to vote it down 62-38, that’s clearly not why Unity Caucus spoke against it. If that were why, they would have mentioned it. They didn’t. They did, however, argue against the logic of petitioning for the right to strike.
  • Possibility 2: Unity actually thinks we’re better off without the right to strike.While opposition clearly disagrees with this position, it’s possible that Unity believes it to be true. After all, there are provisions of the Taylor Law / Tri-borough Amendment which ostensibly help us and which likely only exist in ‘exchange’ for public sector workers giving up their right to strike. A good example of this is that our contracts don’t expire if a new one isn’t negotiated by the time of its ‘expiration.’ It behooves us, of course, to keep this right, but again—currently we’re only talking about adding the right to strike, not getting rid of the parts of NYS labor law that we do like. So, until we’re directly facing legislation that only gives us back striking rights in exchange for getting rid of other labor rights, this argument falls flat.
  • Possibility 3: UFT leadership represents the City more than it represents its own members. This argument is commonly mentioned in arguments and conspiracy theories, as to why, for instance, UFT is throwing retired members onto MAP. So it’s worth considering. There is an uncanny resemblance, after all, to LeRoy Barr’s arguments against striking and the City’s own in their amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court during the Janus case (follow the footnote for an excerpt).[1] Nevertheless, the argument is unlikely. UFT leadership is commonly at odds with the City; they are not ‘lockstep’ on everything. Possibility 3 falls apart when we look at the many times UFT has represented our members in opposition to the City. Frankly, our years with Bloomberg are case and point. Therefore, while the City of course benefits from UFT not having the right to strike, that doesn’t necessarily explain why UFT leadership is also against it.
  • Possibility 4: Unity thinks that UFT leadership and the labor bureaucracy is better off without the right to strike. Unity of course did not make this argument. If they had done so, they would have clearly lost the vote. But, as the caucus that makes up the leadership and paid staffers of our union, Unity clearly benefits from us not having the right to strike. First of all, it’s much more difficult to organize a strike than it is to do backroom deals with the City. If they could keep their jobs and not have to organize strikes, that would benefit them. Second of all, without the right to strike, rank-and-file educators seemingly aren’t directly involved in union fights. Therefore, Unity can take credit for all of our union’s wins (‘we do the work’), while hiding behind the downsides of labor law (like bad ‘patterns’) when things don’t go our way. This helps them hold onto power both during and between elections. Finally, Unity itself doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of being a weak union (i.e. subpar working conditions and low pay). Members of UFT leadership either barely work in schools or don’t work in them at all. They also enjoy Wall Street level salaries that aren’t paid by the DOE; they therefore aren’t affected when we are forced to take a bad pattern. Neither are the many Unity members who get patronage jobs. Many of those jobs, I’d add, only exist because we are so committed to Post-Taylor business-style unionism. If our organizing abilities got strong enough, they might limit the need for some of the positions in our union bureaucracy. This means that many UFT staffers have a direct interest in keeping membership from having a right to strike.

Possibility 4 is the most likely reason why Unity Caucus argues against our right to strike. Sorry, but that’s not a good enough reason to deny us what the U.N. has called a ‘human right.‘

[1] Excerpt from the City’s amicus brief in Janus: “When a ban on strikes paired with collective bargaining and automatic dues collection proved an ineffectual response to the crisis, the City and State turned to agency shop agreements as part of a broader labor management strategy designed to promote labor stability. The City’s collective bargaining system flourished thereafter, and its success has helped protect public health and safety ever since. Over the decades, the reliable funding provided by agency fees has enabled the City’s public-sector unions to pursue informed bargaining strategies that benefit the workforce broadly, rather than short-term or confrontational approaches designed to serve only the interests of those most willing to pay union dues. Effective collective bargaining regimes are time- and resource-intensive, and must protect all represented employees, whether active or inactive, member or nonmember. Financial stability helps empower unions to build long-lasting and constructive bargaining relationships with the City, improving the provision of public services to the benefit of all residents. Indeed, disagreements between the City and its unions now rarely result in the sort of public disruption that plagued New Yorkers before agency fees were used.”

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
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Blog Stats

  • 409,370 hits