By now, we all know that there is a severe problem when it comes to paraprofessional pay. Paraprofessional salaries are straight up disrespectful and do nothing to reflect their importance in the school system. Paraprofessionals need to be acknowledged. They are irreplaceable colleagues, often working with our most vulnerable students. To be clear, there is no argument: Paraprofessionals deserve to earn much more money than they currently make. Full stop.
The only controversy when it comes to the topic of increasing para pay is how to get it done. There have been several possibilities floating around in the public discourse. Current UFT leadership is pushing for the Para Respect check, a one-time $10,000 non-pensionable payout that can be renegotiated/renewed from year-to-year. Many outspoken opposition voices have vociferously opposed the Respect check, proclaiming that it’s not enough. They often refer to the $450 million that the UFT used to pay for all members’ retention bonuses as money that could have gone directly to paraprofessionals. There are two glaring problems with this theory that must be addressed. The first is that there is a serious lack of forethought in this proposal, specifically because the math simply doesn’t add up. The other issue is that certain people and groups are pandering to members by claiming the moral high ground and tugging on emotional heartstrings rather than actually surveying members to get their input. Specifically, they take for granted that all titles would be willing to sacrifice their retention bonuses to subsidize raises for paras. We’ll explain why this is a dangerous assumption a little later.
Let’s delve into the math issue first. After all, it’s the least murky of the two. For the sake of argument, we’ll look at what would have happened if the UFT earmarked the $450 million solely for paraprofessionals instead of allocating retention bonuses to all titles. The argument we often hear is that the $450 million could have paid for permanent, $10,000 pensionable raises for paraprofessionals. Mathematically, this could not be further from the truth, and the fact that we have members spouting this publicly to a legion of readers is damaging to the credibility of the opposition.
Ten seconds with a calculator yields the following results: $450 million divided amongst 26,000 full-time paraprofessionals would come out to $17,307.69 per paraprofessional. That money would only be enough to support a one-time payment, not recurring raises. We have opposition folks in conniptions over the Para Respect check when their “solution” – using the $450 million strictly for paraprofessionals – would have yielded only a slightly better outcome that, by their own logic, would not have helped out at all in the long-term.
Providing a $10,000 raise to all full-time paraprofessionals would cost $260 million for a single year. Consequently, the $450 million pool would be exhausted before the end of the second year if allocated toward permanent $10,000 raises. Furthermore, it is doubtful that this $450 million—originally designated for 2024–2027 retention bonuses—could legally or structurally be converted into a permanent salary increase. Standard recurring salary figures remain protected if a contract expires before new negotiations conclude, and it is unclear whether funds drawn from the hard-to-staff pool would count toward baseline figures in future pattern calculations. This also excludes pensionability considerations, which the City would certainly calculate into total costs. Ultimately, the proposal rests on flawed math: whether its proponents know it or not, they are distributing misleading information.
This brings us to issue number two…
Pandering. In a vacuum, giving the $450 million to our lowest paid members would not have been such a bad idea. Some may even say it would have been thoughtful, righteous, and kind. However, we don’t live in a vacuum. Presuming that all active members from all titles would be okay with sacrificing their retention bonuses is a huge ask, especially when members clearly haven’t been surveyed regarding their thoughts on the matter. Although paraprofessionals are the most egregious example, we have members from every single title that are living paycheck to paycheck, or experiencing some sort of financial hardship. Ripping retention bonus money from the pockets of OT/PTs, guidance counselors, secretaries, social workers, nurses, and teachers, many of whom are struggling to meet the cost of living while paying back exorbitant graduate education debt, may not go over too well with membership. I do believe a decent amount of members would be willing to sacrifice their bonuses to help our paras, but I’d also be willing to bet that many members wouldn’t want to give up their money, and plenty of our union brothers and sisters likely can’t afford to take the financial hit. And they shouldn’t be judged negatively for that.
Moreover, using a common fund to raise only the lowest wages creates new inequities for other underpaid members. Unions consisting solely of higher-paid positions, such as the CSA or many uniformed services, do not face this tradeoff. Relying strictly on pattern bargaining to fix wage gaps puts the burden entirely on UFT titles while leaving other unions untouched.
There’s already enough to be angry about. There is no need to make questionable claims that make the opposition look unreliable. What we need to do is work together as a single, functioning unit, to figure out the best way to net our paraprofessionals the raises they so sorely deserve. One-time, non-pensionable payments is not the answer, but neither is pushing solutions that are completely unrealistic.
Disclaimer: This opinion is that of the author and does not represent an official New Action Caucus position.
