Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

The Beck Amendment - Get Your Union Refund



Welcome to UnionRefund.org
 
LINK
A new way to help American workers keep their working wages free.
Under the 1988 Supreme Court decision Communications Workers of America v. Beck every member of a union is entitled to a full refund of their dues that are not directly used for representing them. Until now though, it’s been almost impossible for any member to find out exactly how much their refund should be.
The process is simple. Choose your labor state from the list below. Fill out some basic information and UnionRefund will automatically generate a letter that you can print and mail to your union representative to claim your individual refund. UnionRefund will also send a courtesy notification letter to your union to ensure a quick resolution for your request. It’s that easy!
Get your refund today!
Step One - Select Your State
District of ColumbiaWashingtonOregonCaliforniaNevadaIdahoUtahArizonaNew MexicoColoradoWyomingMontanaNorth DakotaSouth DakotaNebraskaKansasOklahomaTexasMinnesotaIowaMissouriArkansasLousianaWisconsinIllinoisMichiganMichiganIndianaOhioKentuckyTenneseeMississippiAlabamaFloridaGeorgiaSouth CarolinaNorth CarolinaPennsylvaniaWest VirginiaVirginiaNew YorkVermontNew HampshireMaineMassachusettsRhode IslandConnecticutNew JerseyDelewareMarylandAlaskaHawaii
re-posted from this blog in October, 2014:


How To Stop Paying For The UFT Political Action Committee, COPE

Are the UFT political statements and campaigns annoying you?
 
You should opt out of COPE, or The Committee on Political Education, which is the UFT political action committee.
 
How you can choose not to donate: Fax a letter  to 212-510-6435 with your name, school, file #, and state that you want to opt out of COPE as of the day you fax it. Sign the letter. 
 
You will receive a cancellation notice and you should send this to the NYC DOE payroll office. 
 
Below you can read the UFT urging all members to sign up and pay for COPE, and below that I have re-printed a post from January 21, 2014 on the BECK Amendment and the movement away from compulsory payment of union dues.

The movement argues that as long as leaders of a union do not fairly represent members, dues should not be paid.

This country is founded upon "no taxation without representation", right?

Betsy Combier

COPE - 1

Politics is union business.
In hard economic times, political action is needed more than ever.
Every member needs to enroll in UFT/COPE.

WHAT COPE IS

The Committee on Political Education (COPE) is the UFT’s political action arm. It covers the expenses of meeting with and educating legislators, and helps elect officeholders who respect our members, support education and work for union goals. With COPE, we work for laws and policies that further education and safeguard our rights; we back candidates who back us; and we support public officials who get things done for our members, parents and students.
In recent years, teachers and teacher unions have become the new favorite punching bag for politicians and policy makers. And labor continues to be the number one target of anti-worker politicians. The UFT’s record – on both legislativematters and in elections – would be impressive under any circumstance, but under these conditions it is truly extraordinary. It is made possible by the incredibly hard work of thousands of UFT members and by the funding that COPE provides. None of this would be possible without COPE, and COPE is not possible without you.

WHY COPE NEEDS YOU

COPE is entirely funded by voluntary contributions. We do not use any union dues money for political action. In these hard economic times, it is critically important that you contribute to COPE. COPE enables us to continue to fight for lower class sizes and additional funding for the classroom, and it will help us make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes by extending the millionaires’ tax. Thanks to COPE we are able to make sure that our voice is heard loud and clear.
Thanks to UFT/COPE, we get results.
We need your support to continue this vital political work.
See your chapter leader to sign up or contact COPE at 212-598-7747.

Movement Starts: Toward an End To Involuntary Payment of Dues to the UFT 
The BECK Amendment deals with the issue of members' dues to their union, and where to draw the line. It's an issue that needs to be addressed, especially in New York City and particularly with teachers, paras, and other members who pay UFT BIGs - Mike Mulgrew, Leroy Barr, Ellie Engler - a lot of money basically to do nothing. 

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights," and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

And the worst part of this is, UFT members do not have a choice; in blunt language, if you join the UFT you MUST pay your dues. Paying is not voluntary. Doesn't this leave the BIGs to do whatever they want, from helping someone to doing nothing, as they will get your dues money anyway?

Time to do something about this:
1) make paying dues voluntary
2) permit a member to pay their dues money to benefit THEIR welfare, not that of UNITY folk who couldn't care less what classroom or rubber room you are in.

Betsy Combier

Free the teachers from automatic dues

, NYPOST, Jan 21, 2014

AFT President Randi Weingarten and UFT President Mike Mulgrew
LINK

A favorite talking point for the teachers union is that charter-school operators earn more than the schools chancellor.
Funny thing: As the United Federation of Teachers’ own spending reports show, at least five UFT executives earn more than the chancellor’s $212,614 base salary; union president Mike Mulgrew makes $250,000.
More interesting is that the source of this money is force. While everything about charters is voluntary — no one forces children to attend, teachers to teach there or foundations to pay executive salaries — it’s the opposite for the rest of the system.
For the salaries of Mulgrew and Co. come courtesy of an automatic payroll deduction from every teacher’s paycheck that goes for dues. And the city does it for them. Thus, Mulgrew is spared the expense of having to persuade the UFT members he’s worth the dues he asks. And taxpayers underwrite public-sector unions that then use their dollars to buy political influence to extract even more money from the public till.
 
 

Teachers’ union boss spent $18K in Bond-like HQ spy sweep

, NYPOST, Jan 20, 2014
Something’s bugging teachers-union boss Michael Mulgrew — or, at least, he thinks so.
The United Federation of Teachers president blew a huge wad of union cash to play out a paranoid James Bond fantasy when he paid $17,849 for a security team to sweep his headquarters for bugs, documents show.
A crew from Protective Countermeasures & Consulting Inc. was hired to sweep for listening devices at the UFT’s offices at 52 Broadway, a review of union spending reports reveals.
The payments were made in January and March of last year, just as the union leadership grappled with key strategic decisions such as labor-contract negotiations and who to support as the next mayor.
The union would not say if any surveillance devices were found.
Some union members thought it was unlikely anyone would bug the union — and that it was ridiculous that Mulgrew is using Cold War tactics to play a game of “Tinker, Teacher, Soldier, Spy” in the UFT headquarters.
“I have no idea why they’re doing it. It’s very odd,” said James Eterno, a dissident UFT member who ran against Mulgrew for president in 2010. “I didn’t know we were like the CIA and have to keep secrets. I didn’t think we were that important. It’s not like someone is going to get killed if something leaks out.”
Protective Countermeasures, a New Rochelle-based firm, specializes in identifying security threats such as “corporate eavesdropping” and helps craft “counter espionage” plans.
Its Web site says it uses equipment that “neutralizes” bugs. The sweep also checks the electric grid, light fixtures and walls for video transmitters, infrared recorders and laser technology.
Eterno wondered if Mulgrew was looking for the UFT version of Edward Snowden. “I don’t think there’s any worry about me or anyone else planting a bug in Mike Mulgrew’s office,” he said.
A UFT spokesperson would say only that it pays for “routine security services.”
The anti-spy initiative was just one of the entries listed in the UFT’s $190 million spending report covering its massive empire, fueled by $50 semimonthly union dues paid by rank-and-file teachers. The UFT also poured nearly $4 million into political campaigns through its super PAC, United for the Future, and spent an additional $4.2 million on TV and radio ad blitzes and advocacy.
The teachers union defended its spending as appropriate.
“The UFT’s financial report covers funds spent on our 200,000 members, including refreshments, reimbursement for transportation and parking and other expenses, along with routine security services,” a union spokesperson said.
“We are proud of every dollar we spend on our members and on advocacy groups fighting for better schools.”

$tate of the union

  • 54 union reps and staffers got salaries of more than $100,000. The average was $144,000 — triple the starting teacher salary of $45,000.
  • Five UFT officials were compensated more than the $212,614 base salary for the schools chancellor. UFT chief Michael Mulgrew makes $250,000.
  • $264,000 to groups that campaign against charter schools, including the rebranded ACORN, now called New York Communities for Change.
  • More than $1.7 million on food, including conferences at the Hilton and Waldorf.
  • $150,000 for tickets to movies, the Radio City Music Hall Christmas show, Mets and minor-league baseball games, and union swag such as mugs and tote bags.
 

Saturday, March 7, 2015

The SSHAT, or the Test For NYC's Specialized High Schools, Should Not Be Changed; How Students Apply To Take The Test Must Be Changed

I believe that the SSHAT Test should not be changed, but the procedures for taking the test must change. FYI, two of my daughters were accepted to Stuyvesant HS after taking the SSHAT. This fact does not change my opinion.

When I was President of the PTA at Booker T. Washington MS 54, the school was racially segregated and I tried to change this. I also tried to stop the misallocation of funds by the Principal. I was attacked, of course, by a group of the white parents, all of whom wanted their children to continue to receive the favors and treats of being white. Ironically, one of the parents who attacked me is the current Parent Coordinator of JHS 54, Anne Pejovich. I have a mountain of information on her duplicity to share in my book in the sad chapter of parents fighting parents who speak up.

 The DELTA Honors program fed students directly into Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, Edward Murrow, Brooklyn TECH. The four other programs inside Booker T. did not permit students to take the SSHAT test. This was the problem. Let all kids who want to take the test TAKE IT. The unfairness in telling a child he/she cannot take the test simply because they are not "ready" or just "can't" is unfair and unjust. I and several other parents did a random survey of the schools in the upper west side of Manhattan by standing outside the schools after Parent visiting day, and we asked 2 questions: 1) is your child in 8th grade? 2) is your child taking the SSHAT test? The answers were surprisingly, no, they knew nothing about applying for the test or when it would be given.

DELTA was more than 90% white. The other programs at MS 54 reflected the neighborhood, mostly black or Hispanic. I live on the Upper East side, but my kids were accepted at DELTA because the former head of the program, Fred La Senna, accepted them, starting with my oldest, who had an IEP. She, and one of her sisters, wanted to go to Stuyvesant, took the test, and got in. No other school would have challenged either daughter, and Stuyvesant was the right learning environment for their learning style.

Change the way students apply to take the test, and we may begin to see more diversity in the Stuyvesant pool of incoming students. Don't change the test.

Betsy Combier
Stuyvesant High School

New Study Explores Strategies to Diversify NYC’s Specialized High Schools
Today, the NYC Department of Education announced the results of the City’s high school choice process, including data about students admitted to the City’s eight specialized schools. As in past years, Black and Latino students are starkly under-represented among those receiving offers to these elite schools. A central question is whether the schools’ admissions policy—based exclusively on the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT)—is to blame for the lack of diversity. 
 
A new brief, Pathways to an Elite Education: Exploring Strategies to Diversify NYC’s Specialized High Schools, examines students’ pathways from middle school to matriculation at a specialized high school, highlighting opportunities to intervene and improve access for underrepresented groups. The brief also simulates the effects of various admissions criteria that have been proposed as alternatives to the current SHSAT-based admissions policy, including state test score, grades, and attendance. In general, we found that these rules would increase the share of Latino, White, and female students. But, most of them would not appreciably increase the share of Black students nor reduce the concentration of offers in a small number of middle schools.
 
“The real take-away is from this study is the lack of diversity in the specialized schools is a much bigger problem than ‘to test or not to test?’” said James Kemple, the Research Alliance’s executive director. “We need to think more broadly about how to reduce inequality in New York City’s schools—identifying strategies that create opportunities for traditionally disadvantaged students will be a primary focus of the Research Alliance’s work in coming years.”

The brief is based on a working paper by the Institute for Education and Social Policy’s Sean Corcoran and the Research Alliance’s Christine Baker-Smith.
The Research Alliance for New York City Schools is a nonpartisan research center housed at the New York University Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. The Research Alliance conducts rigorous studies on topics that matter to the city’s public schools. The organization strives to advance equity and excellence in education by providing evidence about policies and practices that promote students' development and academic success. 

The OPI Problem Code and How To Get Off of It

Joseph McCarthy
The Problem code" in NYC DOE personnel files is a problem. Once put into your file, you can never get rid of it unless you make a deal or get exonerated at your 3020-a hearing (or overturn your discontinuance, if you are not tenured).

About a year ago I brought up the issue of a problem code during a settlement conference with the DOE Attorney and she told us it did not exist. But I showed proof, and then the arbitrator called me in to tell her about it, and asked me to speak to all the arbitrators there at 100 Gold that day. So, I did that.

 See my post

Down The Rabbit Hole: The NYC Department of Education's "Problem Code"


I am also re-posting a very important post on Chaz's School Daze  about the problem code, see below.

The UFT is not willing to end this blacklist? The last time I spoke with UFT's Amy Arundel, she insisted the "Problem Code" does not exist.

Indeed, when I worked for the UFT from 2007-2010, and my office was right next to Amy's office, I used to get calls all the time from members who wanted to know whether or not they were on this list, and I would walk next door and ask Amy, who would look up their file, and then she would tell me yes or no.

The problem code is a red flag put onto your file number to alert anyone that your fingerprints have been tagged as not cleared to work for the DOE or any vendors.

When a potential employer calls up the Department, and they ask about you and say that they are thinking of hiring you, all the DOE is permitted to say is how many years you worked for them. But seldom do they stop there. They go on to say that your file has a "Problem code".

Try it. Have a friend call DOE Human Resources and ask if you can be hired.

Joe McCarthy, where are you?

Anyway, if you are on the problem code, you must try to get off of it. What you need to do is, contact the Office of Personnel Investigations (OPI) at 65 Court Street, and ask for an appointment to talk with an "investigator". Bring someone with you, anyone.

At this meeting make an argument as to why you must have this red flag removed from your employee profile. Get the person's name and email address with whom you spoke, and email them what your argument was, after the meeting. Then wait for the decision. When you get the OPI decision, than you may file an Article 78 to overturn it, and then you can also sue the DOE if you have filed a Notice of Claim.

Read Chancellor's Regulations C-105.

OPI is here:

NYC Department of Education/DHRT
Office of Personnel Investigation
65 Court Street, Room 200
Brooklyn, NY 11201

Betsy Combier

Former OSI Director and The Gotcha Squad

Saturday, March 07, 2015


Why Has The UFT Leadership Failed To Take The DOE To PERB On The Problem Code Issue?



























Back in 2012, the DOE decided that any teacher who was subject to a DOE investigation (SCI, OSI, OEO) and found to be substantiated will have a"problem code" attached to their file.  It mattered little that if the teacher decided to go through with their 3020-a hearing and the independent arbitrator found that the DOE investigation was flawed and found no serious misconduct, the DOE still kept the "problem code" on the teacher's file.  At the time the UFT leadership objected and claimed they will take it to PERB.  However, the UFT leadership failed to pursue the PERB complaint.  The question is why did they quietly drop their promise to file a PERB complaint, or did they ever really intend to fire one in the first place?

The union's failure to protect their members shows up yet again, be it the second class status of the ATRs, reassigned teachers put on ice in a different borough, or the labeling of the unfair "problem codes".  Our union's failure to remove the"Scarlet Letter" from their member files is a disgrace and must be corrected.

As a member with one of those "problem codes"on my file.  I will be more than happy to be the test case, if the union leadership wants to challenge the unfair DOE designation that has damaged many member chances from obtaining a position.  However, I doubt that the disconnected leadership will do the right thing and file their long promised PERB complaint.