Norm Scott on the UFT Contract 2018: Vote "No"

NYC Chancellor Richard Carranza, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, and UFT President Michael Mulgrew

Norm Scott's blog is a wealth of knowledge on UFT business, and his opinion on the new contract is below:

EVERYTHING BUT THE KITCHEN SINK ON WHY YOU SHOULD OPPOSE THE UFT CONTRACT (25 BULLETS)

I sent these 25 bullet points to Diane Ravitch as a response to Arthur Goldstein's pro contract piece.
Update: Arthur is a decent guy and an excellent chapter leader. We just disagree politically on the contract.
This is everything you could want and more on why the contract should be voted down.
My wife's ballot.

25 BULLET POINTS ON WHY UFT MEMBERS SHOULD VOTE NO ONTHE PROPOSED UFT CONTRACT

On October 11 the UFT and the City-Department of Education reached agreement on a new 43 month contract. The UFT’s Delegate Assembly sent it to the schools for ratification votes. Those of us in opposition have no way of countering the UFT’s huge spin machine but here are 25 reasons to oppose the proposed contract. If there is a fair debate, I am confident we would easily win and the contract would be voted down but don’t hold your breath waiting to see any of these criticisms in the union’s newspaper or the mainstream press.

Salary increases don’t keep pace with expected inflation.

2% on February 14, 2019,

0% on February 14, 2020

2.5% on May 14, 2020,

3% on May 14 2021,

0% on May 14, 2022.

Contract doesn’t end until September 13, 2022. That is 7.5% over 43 months. It is 7.7% compounded but if we look at the expected inflation rate for four years from the International Monetary Fund, U.S. Inflation is expected to increase at an average rate of 2.2% a year through 2022. Our raises are spread out so they won’t make 2.2% annually. If we agree to this contract, we are expected to take a de facto pay cut.

  UFT Propaganda only counts inflation through 2021 when trying to sell the deal as if it were a three-year agreement but the contract extends through almost ¾ of 2022. Why doesn’t the UFT tell the truth about the salary increases most likely not beating inflation?

  The Cost of Living Adjustment for Social Security for 2019 is 2.8%?NYC is a very expensive city to live in. Can’t we even win a cost of living adjustment in our contract?

 The City of New York is swimming in cash. This year’s city surplus was $4.6 billion and there is an additional $4.4 billion squirreled away in the retiree health benefits trust. The NYC economy has never been stronger. Growth is at 2.7% in the latest quarter. City investments are beating expectations. The city says this contract is costing them only $570 million plus the minimal cost of what they put aside for this round of municipal labor settlements. The city can afford much more for raises for its employees. I understand pattern bargaining (one municipal union settles on a raise and it sets a pattern that other unions are stuck with) and DC 37 set a pattern for municipal unions in June for these paltry raises. However, pattern bargaining is a tradition and not the law. The state law from PERB (Public Employees Relations Board) considers as part of their calculations if a union can’t reach an agreement with a government employer:“ b. the interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the public employer to pay;” The city has the ability to pay much more. It is in the interest of the public to have the best teachers in NYC. Yonkers teachers should not make tens of thousands dollars more than NYC teachers.

Healthcare givebacks are for all of us in this contract, not just new teachers. The Municipal Labor Committee agreed to huge healthcare savings in June. This is from the City Hall Website article on the new UFT contract: “The agreement will provide total health care savings of $1.1 billion through Fiscal Year 2021 and $1.9 billion of annual savings thereafter.” Putting new teachers on HIP managed care for their first year, which is a major contractual concession as our contract says the city has to offer us a choice of free health plans, will not save the city $1.1 billion or $1.9 billion annually after 2021 as the city will still be paying their health insurance. Where are the new $1.1 billion in healthcare savings ($600 million must recur annually) going to come from? They will come from all city workers just like when we agreed to this kind of deal in 2014 to settle a contract and then in 2016 we received emails saying Emergency Room copays would rise from $50 to $150 and Urgent Care copays in GHI would go from $15 to $50.

 

More to come like possibly tiered hospitals where we would have to pay more to go to certain facilities. The UFT is not being completely up front about our out of pocket costs probably rising. Why not? The letter from the city Office of Labor Relations will become part of the UFT Memorandum of Agreement. Even though the MLC negotiates healthcare for city employees, UFT members have the final say with our vote on whether to accept this huge concession as part of the contract.

Class size limits are not reduced at all by this contract and haven’t been lowered in half a century. The state passed a law in 2007 to settle a lawsuit so average class sizes in NYC schools had to be reduced by law to 20 in grades k-3, 23 in grades 4-8 and 25 in high school core classes. Back in 2005, the UFT contract called for a labor-management committee in Article 8L to use money from the lawsuit settlement for “a program for the reduction of class sizes at all levels.” Money is there from the State. It’s called Contracts for Excellence. Why do principals have discretion on how to use that C4E money and all we get in the new contract on class size is new labor-management committees on oversize classes who will meet before oversize class grievances go to arbitration. The last thing we need is more committees where full-time appointed union representatives can talk to their DOE friends, but teachers still have classes of 34 in high schools and exceptions the DOE can drive a truck through to go above 34. There are several labor-management committees in this agreement. Does the UFT want to represent us or be co-managers of the school system? I think we can conclude the answer is the latter.

Labor-Management committees on paperwork, curriculum, professional development, adequate instructional supplies, workloads and space are free to set new standards, thus basically rewriting the contract after it is ratified. As Marian Swerdlow noted in her critique of the Tentative Agreement for the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE), the committees are not limited in what they can change in these areas. This is directly from the MOA: “Nothing precludes the parties from agreeing to the addition of new System Wide Standards with respect to operational issues.” To make matters worse, only chapter leaders, not individual UFT members, will be able to file official complaints about operational standards not being adhered to.

Safety: It says in the MOA we have further rights on school safety but School Safety Plans still go into effect if don’t sign off on them. In prior times, a lack of a Chapter Leader or Parent Teachers Association President’s signature meant the principal had to negotiate on the plan. According to this new contract, all we are acknowledging by our signature is that the Chapter Leader participated in making the plan and has received a copy. That has no teeth.

Speaking of no teeth, what happens to administrators who violate the new no retaliation against UFT members for whistleblowing contractual clause? We already have Article 2 in the contract that prevents retaliation against us for engaging in union activities. Some of us with perfect records for many years ended up as Absent Teacher Reserves (teachers who don’t have a regular class but must instead be a substitute) because we exercised our union rights. Best UFT could do was to parachute members out of schools via transfer in many cases. People left behind just put their heads down so they won’t be the next person targeted. Nothing changes because we will have a new provision against retaliation for whistleblowing. Where is the sanction for an administrator for retaliating? That certainly could be inserted into a strong Chancellor’s Regulation which would become part of our contract via Article 20 (Matters not Covered). It’s not part of this deal. Put something in or no deal.

This contract did not fall from the sky. It must be seen in the context of prior contracts. The givebacks from the infamous 2005 contract(the next five bullets) remain in 2019. *

On Absent Teacher Reserves, the UFT said this was a temporary position back when we gave up in 2005 the right for teachers to be placed in a school in a district if excessed because of budget cuts and the choice of six schools on a wish list- and we were placed in one of them- if a school closed. We gave that up to allow principal discretion for hiring which created the ATR pool. As reported by City Limits, “Now, most agree that the ATR has led to more problematic consequences, and many teachers in the pool assert many of these consequences were in fact the intention all along.” That temporary situation will go to 17 years through 2022 if this contract passes. That’s a lifetime for HS seniors and a career for many of us. Why can’t the UFT just say no deal until the ATRs all have a position in a school of their choice?

On transfers, the open market system created in 2005 is a joke. It’s not what you know, it’s who you know. Why doesn’t the UFT even attempt to win back Seniority Transfers or the progressive SBO Transfer and Staffing Plan where a committee that had a majority of teachers and included parents did all of the hiring so at least there was a check on principal power?

 

Hiring is now principal patronage and that does not change in this contract. The bias against senior teachers being able to transfer continues as nothing in the new contract changes Fair Student Funding which makes principals average the cost of their teachers on their budgets so they are charged more to have a veteran staff.

Circular 6R (Professional Activity Assignments). Why didn’t the UFT get teachers out of lunchroom and hall duty in 2019? Instead, we gave principals the right to create more deans and lunchroom coordinators without our approval. That could increase class sizes right there as those new deans won’t be teaching for part or most of their day. How about some extra funding for those new deans?

Extended time: No changes on extended time which started in 2002, was lengthened in 2005 and was altered in 2014 to include 80 minutes of “Teacher Detention” on Mondays for endless professional development and 75 minutes on Tuesday for parent outreach and other professional work. Former UFT President Randi Weingarten pledged to get us “voice and choice” in how extended time was used. In too many schools that have difficult principals that choice has never come to pass.

Letters in the file. UFT members must wait three years to get an unfair/inaccurate letter removed from a personnel file. That is too long. Since there are these so called improvements in the grievance process in the new contract where the DOE is agreeing they will attempt to abide by the timelines that are already in the contract and are routinely ignored with no sanctions, why didn’t the UFT get an expedited process to have letters removed from our files quickly if they are inaccurate or unfair as we had before 2005? (Note that in 2002 the UFT gave arbitrators the authority to rewrite letters so the UFT had already weakened our rights on this subject.) What kind of union allows its members to be reprimanded and then tells them to go write a response and then wait three years? By then, a probationary teacher can easily have been terminated and never had recourse to a neutral person unless they go to court which can be quite expensive.

Paraprofessionals winning better due process is all well and good from their contract which is a totally separate contract from teachers. The UFT has many distinct bargaining units. What about paraprofessional pay? They too are receiving paltry salary increases so that the starting salary for paras will be $28,448 a year in 2021 in this contract. In NYC that is basically subsistence wages for paras. That is less than half of what a starting teacher makes. Another non-teacher chapter in the UFT isn’t catching up with teacher salaries either. Occupational-physical therapists are not anywhere near pay parity with teachers and these professionals have advanced degrees. That is an outrage that has not been addressed. In addition, guidance counselors, school secretaries and other non-teaching titles did not get an arbitration provision in their workload dispute complaint procedures so administrators are free to just pile on the work and the dispute is never heard by an outside neutral party. Most of the non-teacher UFT contracts are not any better than the teacher deal. Because the paras have better due process, it is no reason to say yes to the teacher or guidance counselor or any other of these UFT contracts.

A minimum of two observations for some teachers is a gain. It is better than this year’s minimum of four observations. However, it only impacts tenured people who are rated effective or highly effective the prior year or effective the past two years. The teachers who need relief are the people rated ineffective who will now have a minimum of one additional observation for a total of five and many of the probationary teachers who are drowning in work. Their observations remain unchanged at a minimum of four. How about a maximum number of observations like they have in Buffalo and many other districts in NYS? How about agreeing with the DOE to jointly go up to Albany to attempt to enact legislation to rid New York of the wholestupid evaluation system where teachers are rated based on scores on invalid-unreliable student assessments and classroom observations from the awful cookie cutter Danielson Framework?

The UFT now wants to continue mayoral control of the schools. This is a quote from Michael Mulgrew from the press conference announcing the deal: “Given the importance of the issues and the long-term initiatives that are part of this contract, the UFT is calling for the continuation of mayoral control as the governance structure for New York City public schools.” Mayoral control is linked to this contract. Here’s what contract supporter Arthur Goldstein said about mayoral control of NYC schools in 2015, “…mayoral control, in the long-run, it's a disaster for democracy, for New York City, and for 1.1 million schoolchildren.” He had that right. The closing schools, ignoring the voice of parents and communities, the constant reshuffling of the bureaucracy, the 300 DOE lawyers from the Bloomberg days who are still around to do everything to destroy teachers, etc. will continue.

Psychological testing for new teachers: Why would the UFT agree to invalid- unreliable psychological testing for new employees? It’s more money wasted that will not go to the classroom. Becoming state certified to teach is difficult enough.

A+ differentials: Why is the UFT saying new teachers must take courses the UFT and DOE design instead of college courses for much of the final pay differential (30 credits beyond the Masters)? Isn’t that just a way to make more money for both the UFT and DOE from our lowest paid teachers? We need to diminish, not increase the bureaucratic DOE-UFT patronage gravy train.

Where is paid family leave? We got 0% raises for an additional 2.5 months in the current contract. In exchange, all we obtain is unpaid DOE leave for new parents and the UFT Welfare Fund agrees to pay them their salary for up to six weeks but they cannot even guarantee it will be at 100% pay. What about paid time to take care of sick relatives? UUP (SUNY Teachers) won that benefit as part of their new contract earlier this year.

How is extra money for these titles not discredited merit pay?
-Teacher Development Facilitator
-Teacher Team Leader
-Master Teacher
-Model teacher
-Peer Collaborative Teacher

Put these 1,500 teachers in the classroom fulltime and we could actually lower class sizes a little.

How is it helpful at all for the UFT to set up a two-tiered pay structure? This seems antithetical to trade unionism. By agreeing to the Bronx Plan as well as the merit pay scheme described above, the UFT says it’s okay to pay more for certain schools and certain teachers. Here is how CUNY Professor David Bloomfield reacted on his Twitter page to the differentiation of teacher salaries.

David Bloomfield‏ @BloomfieldDavid Oct 11

 Historic teacher contract line is crossed by @UFT on differential pay, allowing higher salaries for some teachers over others. What further differentials might be engineered? More for STEM teachers than humanities teachers, etc.? Distance learning is another step in the wrong direction. Having teachers lead classes of students not in front of them is a bad idea. Let’s go to David Bloomfield again. This time from City Limits: “Increased distance learning poses an existential threat to teacher jobs and is of dubious instructional worth.”

Why settle the contract four months early? The only reason to have an early contract is if it is a great contract. Certainly, a contract that has raises that are not projected to keep up with inflation, has huge healthcare concessions for all of us and gets us back none of the huge givebacks from 2005 cannot be agreed to unless we have to settle for it after losing a fight. If a union asks for very little, that union will get very little; no guarantee but if you fight for more, you may win more. We’ll never know what we could obtain, however, unless the unlikely happens and a majority vote NO!

A majority voted no on a proposed new UFT contract in 1995. UFT leadership predicted layoffs and other dire consequences that never happened. Instead, a few months later the city and UFT negotiated a better deal where new teachers weren’t forced to withhold 5% of their pay until they survived four years in the system, longevities went from 25 years to 22 years and there was a generous retirement incentive thrown in that was not in the deal that we rejected.

PS Why is the UFT taking union dues when the city pays us back the huge interest free loan we gave to the city in the last contract that is being repaid in five installments in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020? Before the 2014 contract, the UFT never double dipped by taking dues twice. We paid dues on this money during the original pay periods.   

There is one exception on 2005 givebacks. The one concession that was taken out of the contract was having school for the final two weekdays before Labor Day for professional development. That has been changed. Getting those two days back in summer vacation cost us the guaranteed 8.25% interest on the fixed TDA that our supervisors and CUNY teachers still have. UFT members since 2009 get 7%. The city gained $2 billion from that deal so I would not exactly call it a takeback of the giveback.

To Win a Reversal of a U to an S An Educator Must Cite Violations of the UFT Contract and Show Bad Faith

The point of the First Department Appellate Division in reversing the decision to grant a change to the U-rating is that the Appellant teacher did not raise the issue of the violation of the UFT contract at the school level observation.

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

IN RE JEROME RAZOR, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.

CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

3013, 101079/13.2017 NY Slip Op 00932

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Decided February 7, 2017.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered April 9, 2015, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, granting the petition to the extent it annulled respondents' April 3, 2013 determination denying petitioner's appeal of his U-rating, and directing respondent Board of Education to expunge the rating and replace it with an "S" rating, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Emma Grunberg of counsel), for appellants.

Glass Krakower LLP, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman, Gesmer, JJ.

Petitioner failed to preserve the issue of whether the U-rating should have been annulled based on an alleged procedural deficiency or deviation from the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by his union regarding observation practices, since he never raised the issue at the administrative level (see e.g. Matter of Bottom v Annucci, 26 NY3d 983, 985 [2015]; Green v New York City Police Dept., 34 AD3d 262, 263 [1st Dept 2006]).

Petitioner has failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith.

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Must Read: Current Rules For ATRs Posted on ICE/UFT Blog

It is most certainly amazing to see the UFT befuddled about what to do with the complete mess they and the DOE have made in protecting the rights of Absent Teacher Reserves, or ATRs. At least they got rid of the one-day termination hearing.

Hey, something is a little better than nothing! A smidgen better? I agree, the ATR situation needs a total overhaul.

Betsy Combier
 betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice

CURRENT RULES FOR ATRS

It has been confirmed from the UFT that "There is no new agreement" on Absent Teacher Reserves concerning extending the disastrous 2014 ATR contractual provisions (Rule 11A). Therefore, Rule 11A has expired and Article 17B Rule 11B takes over. We first reported on this on Saturday.

Rule 11B is the 2011 ATR agreement. It includes weekly rotation but does not include one day rapid fire termination hearings for ATRs or automatic resignations if an ATR misses two interviews or second class status for an ATR who survived a termination hearing. It is a step up.

Here is Rule 11B in its entirety from the contract:

B. Excessed Employees/ATRs

General Provisions

Except as expressly provided herein, this Rule 11(B) shall not in any way constitute a modification of, limitation on or a waiver of any other provision of this Agreement or past practice.

For purposes of this Rule 11(B) the term “Excessed Employee” shall refer to all UFT-represented employees that have been excessed, including Excessed Employees that have been sent to a school to be considered for placement and not selected (an “ATR”).  For employees that do not have licenses, the term “license” as used herein shall mean the appropriate title. 

Consideration for Placement of Excessed Employees

An Excessed Employee/ATR, upon notification of being excessed, shall be required to register on the Open Market System for purposes of providing updated contact information.  Failure to so register shall eliminate the DOE’s obligation as to that Excessed Employee/ATR under this Rule 11(B).

Employees excessed after the execution of this Agreement shall be sent to schools for consideration for placement as follows:

(1)  When one or more vacancies occur, the DOE shall send the most senior Excessed Employee in the district/superintendency with the appropriate license to the school(s) for consideration for placement, except that the DOE shall not be required to send Excessed Employees who have already been sent to a school for consideration for placement pursuant to this paragraph.

(2)  An Excessed Employee sent to a school for consideration for placement shall meet with a Principal or Assistant Principal. For non-school based employees, the term “Principal or Assistant Principal” shall refer to the equivalent supervisory title.

(3)  If the Principal denies the placement, and the vacancy remains, the DOE shall send a second Excessed Employee in the district/superintendency with the appropriate license to be considered for placement.  Such Excessed Employee shall be the most senior in the district/superintendency who has not previously been sent for consideration for placement.  No school shall be required to consider for placement more than two (2) excessed employees in a term.  For purposes of this Agreement, a “term” shall be from September to January 31 or February 1 through of the end of the school year.

(4)  If the DOE notifies an Excessed Employee of the school he or she is being sent to for consideration for placement before the school year begins, he/she may choose to meet with the supervisor before the school year begins if a mutually agreeable time can be arranged.  The DOE shall inform Excessed Employees that are notified subsequent to the start of the school year as soon thereafter as reasonably possible of the school to which he/she is being sent for consideration for placement. 

(5)  Notwithstanding the above, an Excessed Employee who has not been sent for consideration for placement shall be sent for consideration for placement prior to an Excessed Employee with the same license who has been excessed in a subsequent term, even if the subsequently excessed employee has more seniority. 

(6)  No release by an Excessed Employee’s current Principal/Supervisor shall be required if a Principal/Supervisor accepts the Excessed Employee for placement.

(7)  The Principal or Assistant Principal shall meet with the Excessed Employee/ATR for consideration for placement during the regular work day.  No supervisor shall prevent the Excessed Employee/ATR from attending such meetings.  If Excessed Employees/ATRs fail to appear at a school for consideration for placement when properly notified, the DOE shall have fulfilled its obligation to the Excessed Employee/ATR under this section, except if the Excessed Employee/ATR has a reasonable excuse. If reasonably possible, the Excessed Employee/ATR shall notify the Principal of his/her inability to attend.

All employees currently in excess status shall be sent, in seniority order, to schools in their district/superintendency for consideration for placement in vacancies in their license area prior to any employee excessed after the date of this Agreement.  Employees who are sent to a school for consideration for placement pursuant to this Rule 11(B)(3) shall count for purposes of the provision in Rule 11(B)(2)(b)(3) limiting the number of Excessed Employees that a school must consider for placement to two (2) per term.  

                   

Leaves and Long Term Absences

The Principal shall select an appropriately licensed Excessed Employee/ATR in the district/superintendency, if any such employee exists, to fill all leaves and long-term absences.   The Principal retains the right to remove an Excessed Employee/ATR from the filling of such leaves or long-term absences at any time and replace him or her with another appropriately licensed Excessed Employee/ATR.  In the event that only one (1) Excessed Employee/ATR in a license area in a district/superintendency is available, the Joint Oversight Committee created in Rule 11(B)(7) shall address the issue.

    

As used in this Rule 11(B)(3), the definition of “long term absences” shall be absences of longer than twenty-nine (29) work days.

Vacancies

After September 15th an appropriately licensed Excessed Employee/ATR in the district/superintendency shall be temporarily utilized in a vacancy until the Principal makes a final determination whether to keep the employee in the position.  An Excessed Employee/ATR that is filling a leave or long term absence may decline to be moved to or utilized in a vacancy.  If the school has not yet considered two Excessed Employees/ATRs pursuant to Rule 11(B)(2)(b)(3), it shall do so as soon as possible so long as the vacancy exists.  

If a Principal decides not to continue to utilize an Excessed Employee/ATR in the assignment, another Excessed Employee/ATR shall be utilized pursuant to the terms of this Section 4, if such an employee exists, beginning no later than the first work day of the following work week, except where three Excessed Employees/ATRs have been utilized or declined to be utilized in that vacancy.  From the day the Principal decides not to continue to utilize a particular Excessed Employee/ATR until the first workday of the following week, the Principal may utilize a substitute.  

At the end of the school year in which the temporary utilization occurs, if both the Principal and the Excessed Employee/ATR agree in writing, the employee shall be appointed to fill the vacancy in the school and take his/her rightful place in seniority order.  If the employee or Principal do not wish the assignment to continue, the employee shall remain an ATR in their district/superintendency in a different school.

An employee that is temporarily utilized in a school shall maintain all of his/her contractual rights.

The prohibition against moving an Excessed Employee/ATR during a week pursuant to Rule 11(B)(5)(b) below shall not apply to an Excessed Employee/ATR who agrees to be moved to a vacancy pursuant to this Rule 11(B)(4).  

      

Assignment of Excessed Employees

To the maximum extent possible, as provided herein, an Excessed Employee/ATR shall be used to cover for a UFT-represented employee in his/her title who is absent, prior to the employment of a substitute or paying another employee in the school to cover a class or classes (or other appropriate assignments).   If the Principal determines for a legitimate educational reason that it is unacceptable to allow the excessed employee/ATR to continue to cover a particular position, the principal may employ a substitute for the remainder of the work week.  The Principal shall not be permitted to hire a substitute beginning with the first work day of the following work week for the same absence, unless no Excessed Employee/ATR is available.

      

An Excessed Employee/ATR shall be assigned to a school within his/her district/superintendency for no less than a week, but may be assigned to a different school within his/her district/superintendency each week.  A “week” shall be Monday through Friday, or shorter if the work week is less than five (5) days.

An Excessed Employee/ATR shall be notified no later than Friday (or the last work-day of the week) if he/she will be assigned to a different school the following week and, if so, to which school.  An ATR who has not been notified that he/she has been assigned to a different school by Friday shall report on Monday, or the first work day of the work week, and for the duration of that week, to the last school to which he/she was assigned. 

Other Applicable Provisions

For purposes of this Rule 11(B), the terms “rotated” or “rotation” shall refer to the assignment of certain Excessed Employees/ATRs to a different school within his/her district/superintendency on a revolving basis.

The parties agree that for purposes of Rule 11(B)(3), starting with the commencement of the rotation, the DOE will assign ATRs/Excessed Employees to schools on a temporary basis to fill positions caused by leaves or long term absences as defined above that are not covered internally by a school through contractually permissible methods and where a substitute teacher would otherwise be utilized to cover for the absence or leave.  The ATRs/Excessed Employees covering leaves and long term absences will not be rotated until the completion of the assignment unless the principal requests the removal of the ATR/Excessed Employee prior to its completion.

The parties agree that for purposes of Rule 11(B)(4), the date the DOE shall begin temporarily utilizing appropriately licensed ATR/Excessed Employee will be the date of the start of the rotation of ATRs/Excessed Employees as determined by the DOE in a given school year.

It is expressly understood that the obligation in this Rule 11(B) to send Excessed Employees/ATRs for consideration for placement or to cover vacancies, leaves or long term absences in their license area shall not apply to those Excessed Employees/ATRs who are not in the weekly rotation (e.g., those temporarily utilized to cover a vacancy, leave or long term absence/assignment) to cover other vacancies, leaves or long term absences/assignments.

The parties agree that ATRs/Excessed Employees in the Brooklyn and Staten Island High School District (BASIS) who are rotated, shall be rotated within seniority district but not outside the borough in which the school they were originally excessed from is located.

It is expressly understood that the obligation in this Rule 11(B) to send Excessed Employees/ATRs for consideration for placement or to cover vacancies, leaves or long term absences in their license area shall only apply to BASIS ATRs within the borough in which the school they were originally excessed from is located.

Joint Committee There shall be a Joint Oversight Committee comprised in equal parts of representatives appointed by the President of the UFT and the Chancellor of the City School District, respectively. The Joint Oversight Committee shall meet regularly, but no less than twice each term, as defined herein. The Joint Oversight Committee shall monitor the implementation of this agreement to maximize cost savings and ensure proper implementation.  The DOE shall promptly provide the Joint Oversight Committee with all appropriate data and information, so long as it is requested in a reasonable amount of time.

The parties agree that starting in October of the school year, the Joint Oversight Committee (the “Oversight Committee”) will meet monthly, and at each meeting the DOE will provide reports on the number of ATRs/Excessed Employees by license and district, the number of ATRs/Excessed Employees in long term assignments and the number of leaves commenced at the start of each month.  The parties also agree to discuss any and all particular issues concerning the implementation of this or  Rule 11(B) at these Oversight Committee meetings.

It is the intent of the parties to resolve issues relating to compliance with this agreement through the operation of the Oversight Committee.  The UFT agrees that issues will be raised at the Oversight Committee prior to the commencement of any union initiated grievance or arbitration.  The DOE agrees that should the committee agree about an issue of non compliance, the Division of Human Resources and Talent will reach out to DOE Staff and/or the school to ensure compliance.  If a particular issue at a particular school warrants further intervention, the Deputy Chancellor for the Division of Talent, Labor and Innovation will intervene with appropriate DOE staff to ensure compliance with this agreement.  At any time after an issue has been brought to the Oversight Committee, upon five (5) days written notice to the DOE, the UFT may proceed with a union initiated grievance.  The DOE will issue a memorandum to schools outlining all the changes above and share a draft of the memo with the UFT for consultation purposes before issuing.  This memo will be issued prior to the start of 2012-2013 school year.

Provisional Agreement

The parties agree that after the end of the open market hiring period, if both the school’s principal and the Excessed Employee/ATR agree in writing, the Excessed Employee/ATR will be staffed to a school on a provisional basis for the school year or remainder of the school year.  An agreement to be staffed provisionally for either all or the remainder of the school year shall be in writing and signed by both the schools’ principal and the Excessed Employee/ATR.

An Excessed Employee/ATR that has been provisionally staffed for the year or remainder of the year by a school shall be treated in all respects as an employee on the school’s table of organization for that year or remainder of the school year.

An employee that has been provisionally staffed by a school shall become an Excessed Employee/ATR again at the end of that school year unless both the employee and school principal agree in writing that he/she be hired and placed on the schools’ table of organization in their rightful spot in seniority order.

d.   Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter or change the right of a principal to temporarily utilize an Excessed Employee/ATR in a vacancy and, if both the Principal and the Excessed Employee/ATR agree in writing at the end of the school year, to staff the employee to fill the vacancy in the school pursuant to this Rule 11(B).

Posted by James Eterno at 7/07/2016 12:40:00 AM 

Chaz' School Daze Post on the UFT Contract, ATRS, and Ebola: A Must-Read

A Must-read for all people anywhere is the new post on Chaz' School Daze blog.

I am re-posting here, but go to the original and read the comments which I am sure will continue to be entertaining.

Chaz is my favorite blogger, he gets it right.

Betsy Combier

Friday, October 03, 2014

Ebola, ATRs, And The 2017 Teachers Contract.

Now that we have a contract, its time to look ahead to 2017 and see how the UFT and the City will finally resolve the more than decade long ATR crisis that wastes talent and money.  

In 2017 New York City finds itself with an Enola outbreak and with close to a 50% mortality rate, its important that the City develop a vaccine as quickly as possible.  How will they get the volunteers to help? However, help is on the way in the form of the 2017 teachers contract.

The provisions of the new 2017 teachers contract will allow the DOE to "force place" ATRs into the City's voluntary Ebola vaccine trials. Any ATR who refuses to participate in the voluntary trials will have been considered to have voluntarily to have resigned.  Moreover, any ATR who refuses to be infected with the Ebola virus in the trials will be charged by the DOE with "problematic behavior"and terminated after receiving an expedited one day show trial by a DOE appointed hearing officer.

The expectation is that of the 2,000+ ATRs, half will be removed from the City payroll either by death, resignation, or termination.  In the New York Teacher Paper UFT President Michael Mulgrew calls this new ATR procedures a victory in draining the ATR pool of 50% of its members.

The DOE wants the surviving ATRs to be fired since they are infected with the Ebola virus and cannot be exposed to the students.  However, in a joint press conference with the new Mayor, Michael Mulgrew stated that the surviving ATRs will be put on a disability pension and receive 33% of their final average salary.  Mr Mulgrew further stated that its a win-win for all parties as he hugs the Mayor, Eva Muscowitz. Not only does the 2017 contract end the ATR crisis but increases educator salaries by the inflation rate and lengthens the school year to 225 days and increases the school day to 9 hours.

Yes, the new 2017 teachers contract is a win for the UFT leadership and the City and we all know that's the only thing that really matters.

Mark Naison: 5 Reasons To Vote NO on the New UFT Contract

5 Reasons to Reject the UFT Contract

(Friday May 23, 2014)

Recently, the administration of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), worked out a contract with Mayor Bill de Blasio. Now, Michael Mulgrew, president of the UFT, is trying to cajole and bully members of the union to accept this contract. However, this contract is horrible for what it proposes and what it leaves out. Below, we have summed up 5 basic reasons why UFT members should reject this contract. If you are a UFT member please VOTE NO, if you know someone who is a UFT member, please share this information and ask her/him to VOTE NO!

1. Tomorrow is Not Promised to Anyone!

In this new “contract” the UFT members are promised raises that we were supposed to get when Mayor Bloomberg was in office. However, unless you are retiring by this June, you won’t see all the money that’s owed to you until 2020, two years after de Blasio’s term in office expires. Why would I wait to get what’s owed to me in 2020, when money later is worth less because of inflation and the rising cost of living? Also, when the Transit Workers negotiated their contract they were paid their money up front, not later when it is worth less. If we are serious about adequately paying our education workers then let’s not rip them off, let’s pay them now! Who knows if we will be here tomorrow to collect what de Blasio is keeping from us now? Tomorrow is Not Promised to Anyone!

2. We need to Unite, not be Divided and Conquered!

Currently, almost half of the active members of the UFT are not teachers, yet they are treated like second-class citizens. When paraprofessionals are under investigation they do not receive any pay, even when they are totally innocent. Also, out of the eleven UFT officers only one is elected to represent non-teachers and only if they don’t work for the Department of Education. Moreover, there is nothing in this contract that addresses the disappearing of Black and Latino educators. As less and less people of color are being hired to teach in our schools, and more and more of them are becoming ATRs (education workers without permanent schools), our teachers are looking less and less like our students, yet this contract says nothing about this racist injustice. To make matters worse, with this new contract, education workers are further divided by allowing some teachers to make more money by evaluating other teachers and being promoted to “master” and “ambassador” teachers. Using union members to regulate other union members violates a very fundamental union principle; In Unity there is Strength!

3. We Need to Stop the Lies and the Double Dealing!

Last year Mulgrew told union members that it was in our benefit to keep records of everything we did so that we could submit “artifacts” and justify our jobs. In this new contract he is now saying that we don’t need to do that. In the recent past, he said that we needed our evaluation to have 27 domains (or things to worry about) but now he says we only need to worry about 8 domains. Now, he is also telling us that ATRs should have a quicker process for being fired… but … they won’t be fired. Well, which is it? How is this supposed to be good for education workers, parents or students? It can’t be that everything is good for us as long as Mulgrew says it is. Can’t we figure out right from wrong? We need to demand RESPECT! Let’s stop the Lies and the Double-Dealing!

4. Privatization of our Public Schools Continues!

Despite Mulgrew and de Blasio’s supposed opposition to Charter Schools and the privatization of our public schools they have done nothing to stop this process. In fact, the current UFT administration has a contract with a company called Green Dot Public Schools to run charter schools. Moreover, the mayor is now trying to win over the Wall Street hedge-fund millionaires who are funding those privately run “charter” schools that are receiving public space and money. Instead of working to ensure that every neighborhood school provides a quality education for all of our children, there is not one single initiative that works towards this most basic principle of public education. This contract also does not challenge the current mayoral dictatorship of our schools! What happened to support for Popular Control of our schools, where parents lead the decision making process in collaboration with administrators, education workers and students? We need Popular Control of our schools!

5. Racism and Patriarchy Continue in the Curriculum!

There is nothing in this contract that changes or moves our current curriculum away from static, mind numbing racist, sexist and homophobic ideas and interpretations. In fact, the new “Common Core” and Danielson Evaluation have made it more difficult for educators to innovate and expand learning in their classrooms. All subjects should push to be more truthful about the accomplishments of all societies and people in our global village. We should also be more willing to challenge students with alternative answers and questions, which will enable them to be more creative, thoughtful and engaged in the learning process. However, there is not one word about challenging the curriculum status quo in this new contract. This contract also does not adequately address the current over-testing madness, the lack of funding for services students need, overcrowded classes, school discipline or the school-to-prison pipeline. There is too much that this contract leaves out!

Prepared by the Education Workers of the

People Power Movement-Movimiento Poder Popular

For more information please contact (917)289-0964 or

email 2011peoplepower@gmail.com