Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Cablevision Union-Busting Impacts Teachers' Union


GOTHAM
At Cablevision, Norma Rae’s Been Escorted Outside
Michael Powell, NY TIMES
LINK 


A group of Cablevision employees who were fired after asking to speak, during work hours, to a company official about union matters. From left to right: Back: Jerome Thompson, Andre Bellato, Malik Coleman, Steve Ashurt. Front: Andre Riggs, La’kesia Johnson, Clarence Adams, Corey Williams.

 

At Cablevision, Norma Rae’s Been Escorted Outside


Cablevision takes pride in its open-door policy for employees.
So two weeks ago, a tight-knit band of cable television installers gathered at a company depot in Canarsie, Brooklyn, to pick up route sheets and put ladders and tools in their vans. Then they trooped inside to ask a vice president for a few minutes of his time.
Last winter, these workers overcame fierce management opposition and voted to join the Communications Workers of America, only to spend nine months in rancorous contract talks. They wanted to ask the vice president if Cablevision was serious about a contract agreement, or if it wanted only to break their union.
They waited for 20 minutes to talk, then 20 more. La’kesia Johnson, 44, grew restless and walked to the front office. A manager told her to go back inside. Then the vice president walked in and asked, essentially: Who’s supposed to be working now?
Every worker, 22 in all, raised a hand.
“Ladies and gentlemen,” the vice president said, according to multiple accounts, “I am sorry to tell you that you’ve all been permanently replaced.”
“I said, ‘Whaaat?’ ” Ms. Johnson says. “Replaced? You just fired us? You don’t even know what we want.”
Ms. Johnson says the vice president looked at her and stated: I don’t care what you want.
Unions are in the definition of an existential crisis. Michigan, a cradle of labor, passed a law greatly curtailing union power. New York is Democratic Party blue, but the percentage of private sector employees who are union members has dwindled into the single digits.
Some unions are insular and self-interested, and a few are corrupt. But the battle, arduous and uncertain, of a few hundred broad-shouldered men and women to organize a union in Brooklyn underlines the extent to which union organizing has become a clamber up a Himalayan rock face.
Unions win just 50 percent of elections; then they successfully negotiate an initial contract just half of the time. The National Labor Relations Board is a dog missing teeth. If workers engage in an illegal strike, the board legally must seek a court injunction. If a company illegally fires workers, the board takes months to investigate and cannot levy any fines.
James L. Dolan, the owner of Cablevision Systems Corporation, sings in a rock band, hangs out along the baseline at Knicks games, and slaps hands with his multimillion-dollar unionized athletes. But in the hard-tack precincts of his empire, the guys and women who climb poles and crawl through basements, he takes pride in not stomaching union drives.
His Fortune 500 company started an anti-union Web site and hired an anti-union law firm. Two weeks ago, a company official sent an e-mail explaining where the remaining workers could learn about decertifying their union.
Cablevision workers are not impoverished. But neither are they paid as well as their unionized brethren at Verizon. Cablevision insists that it pays an industry “standard.” But, it notes, no union company is the “‘standard.”
I asked Charles R. Schueler, a company spokesman, about the firings. He said that “22 employees refused to go to work after multiple requests to do so.” The workers, I noted, all said they intended to work that day. He repeated his original statement. He also said that Cablevision negotiated in good faith. Then he said: “That leaves us with the issue of your conflict. You ready?”
Sure, I replied.
You, he said, are a vice chairman of a Communications Workers of America union.
He’s got me, sort of. Like most reporters at The New York Times, I’m a member of the Newspaper Guild, which is part of the C.W.A., which has about 140,000 members in the Northeast. I receive no union pay and I have no duties. I’m also a Knicks season-ticket holder and a Cablevision cable customer.
I pay far more to Mr. Dolan’s companies than I pay to my union in dues.
With that, back to the story.
Ms. Johnson feels guilty she persuaded her colleagues to risk being fired. She speaks of waking in the middle of the night and of bills piling up. Her husband is a freelancer; they depend on her health benefits. “It’s stressful — the air in our house is very thick,” she says.
The Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, notes Cablevision holds an exclusive franchise in parts of the city, and plans to hold hearings on these firings. But the bad news piles up for these workers. Last week, some Cablevision workers filed for a vote to decertify the union.
“Sometimes I break down,” Ms. Johnson said, and asks herself if she had been selfish. “But my husband reminds me: ‘You have a home family and a work family. You must be loyal to both.’ ”
E-mail: powellm@nytimes.com
Twitter: @powellnyt 
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: 
Correction: February 12, 2013 
An earlier version of this column referred imprecisely to Cablevision’s franchise in New York. While it has an exclusive franchise in parts of the city, it does not have "an exclusive franchise in the city.”

38 Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Comments Closed
    • amanda
    • New York
    I feel sorry for the Cablevision workers, and hope they get their job back.

    But I am disturbed that newspaper journalists belong to the Communication Workers of America, a union which even by labor standards has an abnormally strong left-wing bias. How can we trust anything said on political issues by foot soldiers of the CWA?
    Doesn't being a journalist require staying a little further from political activism.
    • Chilena
    • New York, NY
    Hey Cablevision,

    I just had to pick a cable service for my new apartment two weeks ago. I didn't pick you because I knew from earlier news reports that you treat your workers like this. Learning about this newest incident (which I actually first heard about by chance last week, from a guy I was talking to on the 7 train) only confirms I made the right choice.

    And to Cablevision employees -- stay strong! You deserve the same pay and benefits as union members. You will beat Dolan if you stick together. Right is on your side.
    • bocheball
    • NYC
    Slobhan. the rate we are paid is relatively the same within the union. If one does not belong to the union, thus doing a non union job, the budgets are smaller and are reflected in lower rates, but not always. they can be exactly the same. 

    The irony being that when there was no union our OT started after 10 hours, now with the union it does not start until hour 14. It was a tradeoff to get the medical benefits, P&W and mandatory that all union jobs must have one of my tradesmen on it at all times. It works if you're making the hours for benefits, it stinks if you're not.
    • Gil Harris
    • Manhattan
    They should be happy to have a job in this awful economy. Unionism has destroyed much of our industry in the last 50 years and any CEO with any brains will fight it tooth and nail
    • MAJ Collins
    • Omaha
    I find it far out that when i was growing up my father told me that it is an honor to have a job and if someone is kind enough to give it to you then you accept it, always do your best, and be grateful for havin that job. Fastforward many years and now its "our six sigma analysis says we can do twice the work with less people for wages at 70% of what we pay now.... fire them". We've taken the person out of the workforce and replaced it with corporate logo and worship of the corporation our new god. When did we go so horriby awry? People switch jobs every 3-4 years and start over thus stagnant wages. Corporations are getting richer as we type, look at the stock market. Seems to me to be equivalent to modern day slavery.
    • Leslie
    • PA
    I would love to see the publicity this receives if those technicians are hired by Verizon.
    • Keith Roberts
    • nyc
    The brave union members who received such despicable treatment deserve our support. Few among us would risk our families' well being for the sake of others as well as themselves. Most of us just keep our heads down, take what we get, and try to make do. Where is Robert Wagner's NLRB now?
    • T.Oliver
    • Brooklyn, NY
    Let me ask ya'll a question. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOUR EMPLOYEES WERE INSUBORDINATE??? I work at this office here in Brooklyn. I'm one of the other 100 employees trying to petition to get CWA OUT OF HERE. We are not treated unfairly, we have wonderful benefits. No one here is afraid of anyone. These 17 decided to be insubordinate. They refused to work. Ask them about the other 20 that was with them but when manager said " go to work" they left and went to work. These people above decided not to work during work hours, wearing company uniforms on company property. BY THE WAY, WE HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH CWA. THIS IS NOT A UNION SHOP. STOP LYING CWA!!
      • Duchess
      • NYC
      Why do u want CWA out of Cablevision?
      If it was the issue was that these workers were petitioning for a response to a labor dispute on company time, why didn't the management tell the workers to come back after their shifts were over? The article does not say they refused to work. It makes it seem like they were kept waiting for a response from management--who asked them to wait in fact--and then fired for sitting there.
      • Tim
      • Brooklyn
      T oliver, It is dissappointing that you are taking the side of Dolan and seem to be endorsing his scare tactics. How can it be insubordinate to use the company's Open Door Policy? How can you not support 22 of your coworkers who tried to use managemnet's open door policy and got illegally fired as a result? I suggest you get the real story, go to www.thecablevision99.org
    • Patrick J
    • Hempstead
    As an employer no one can tell me how to run my business. Ever!

    We are still a Union contractor, but let me tell you, our Union does absolutely nothing. The workers are fat, dumb, and complacent. We are still Union out of habit, but 80% of my volume is non-Union.

    The non-Union workers work harder than my Union employees. Don't get me wrong, I like my union workers, but they are trapped in the past. They never go to Union school (at my expense to stay current in their trade). They have done it to themselves.

    They day is coming when I do not sign again with the Union for three years (July 1st 2013).
    • Vince
    • Hudson valley
    There are no friends in business anymore - the days of taking care of your neighbor because they take care of you went the way of the modernization of the country, We export work out to other countries and accept lessor quality because, we as people in this country refuse to pay the higher costs required to cover the price of what ever comodity or service we would have to - that would reflect the higher wages and bennifits that would be necessary if the work or service were done here.

    Its easy to look at the bottom line - and say company "x" took in "Z" dollars so they can afford it.... unitl your the investor who ends up with a lower return then you could have goten in some other business, so it makes no sense to make less profit in business #1 when you could make more in business #2 with less efforts.
      • MAJ Collins
      • Omaha
      Youre on to something. We as comsumers are partially to blame too. Just remember that your next trip to walmart. Buy local, buy american, and we'll get back to wages i nthis country that matter and a better situation for all americans. Until then, keep arming the chinese military.
    • KarenLaRae
    • Utah
    There has been a concerted effort the last couple of decades to convince the general population that there is no longer a need for unions. Since the recession, the general population is so afraid of job loss, that they also buy into "unions are keeping business from coming to your area or may make businesses leave your area." The fact is anything negative one can say about unions is 50 times more true of lobbyists. Big business spends a fortune on lobbyists to promote their agenda. The ONLY thing the general population has to promote their agenda is NUMBERS -- and purpose of unions it to organize people paying affordable dues in numbers that allow them to have a voice while lobbyists fight for big business. Unfortunately, epopole have bough tinto the "ultra liberal" label big business has given them. My city has DANGEROUS levels of pollution to the point that children can't go outside for recess. Yet parental protests at the legislature ALWAYS loose against lobbyist dollars. I would be willing to give up unions if lobbyists were outlawed. But as long as there are lobbyists pumping millions of dollars purchasing congressmen and senator support for their big businesses, unions are more necessary than ever. Since only money talks in Washington, if unions go away, any voice the masses have will continue to recede into the background against the shout of big business dollars.
    • Bill Gargan
    • Brooklyn, NY
    Ironically, the manager's gross abuse of his power in this case argues the need for strong labor unions.
    • David Johnson
    • Elmhurst, NY
    Cable Vision is one mean and ugly employer. If I were treated like that at work I sure would start a Union and fight back until my employer learned some respect and some manners.
    • Siobhan
    • New York
    It was unions that provided some push back against management thugs a century ago. They enjoyed popularity because a lot of people agreed with their aims.

    Now, most people seem to think that wanting to be treated fairly, and paid fairly, is some kind of outrageous demand. 

    We've moved backward in many ways, eg, our illiteracy rate is much higher than 100 years ago. And we seem to be proud of it.

    I fear for where we're going.
    • MisterJayEm
    • Chicagoland
    "Jack Donaghy is an economic war criminal." -- Nancy Pelosi, Jan 31, 2013
      • amanda
      • New York
      But she doesn't like unions in her family business.
    • Anne Russell
    • Wilmington NC
    The film Norma Rae is one of the best movies ever made, and I am inspired each time I watch it. I am a PhD communications professor, and certified union organizer.
    The treatment of these Cablevision employees is outrageous. It should not be allowed, for it defeats collective bargaining.
      • shirls
      • Manhattan
      I concur re film Norma Rae. Sally Fields was amazing. However, most of my friends went away with the impression that things had been markedly improved for textile workers. However, that was not the reality in the end. As a textile designer/stylist working for weeke on end in southern mills (non union all) mid '60s-80s I had first hand experience with the labor abuses there. In NYC. when the designers tried to unionize our bathrooms were bugged and those heard talking of unionizing were summarily fired! Home furnishings manufacturers to this day require freelance designers to sign away any and all rights to their original work! None of us get the benefit of residuals. Outrageous? Absolutely!
    • Thomas Pain
    • Washington, CT
    I am not a raving fan of Unions, nor do I condone the callous disregard for people demonstrated by the Cablevision executive. It is his type of "dismissal" of people's livelihood that creates workplace violence and distrust of all management by workers - union and non-union. 

    Before unions begin to be "offended" by management's stance, they should look within at some of the work rules; expensive, yet unneeded benefits; and the pervasive attitude that Union Leadership represents the membership. "Enlightened" Union Leadership would, I imagine, be willing to rework contracts to put more money in workers' pockets, reduce no-show jobs, insanely expensive "time off" provisions, etc. It is not the wages that corporate management is fearful of, it is the "work rule" that it takes four "experts" to fix a leaky sink - an electrician to turn on the light in the room, a "maintenance man II" to agree that it is, indeed leaking, a plumber to fix the leak and then a "master plumber or master maintenance man" to certify that the work was done. No wonder no one welcomes unionization - productivity plummets, number of workers multiply and workmanship suffers. (There are many unions where the above does not happen and who run efficient, professional operations). The problem is that union leadership, in order to be viewed as "strong" feels it cannot "give in" on anything or they will be viewed as weak by the membership and not be re-elected. Time to represent reality, not perpetuate stupidity.
      • MAJ Collins
      • Omaha
      You know thats funny you say that. When i hear about employee x shooting up people like this i do think wow that a hole got what he deserved while thinking that a law has been broken and killing is not the answer. I guess at the end of the day, it all comes down to corporate run business not being in line with natural orders of things. Its artificial and using six sigma to impact people's lifes is pretty cold and callous but yet we accept it and even laud it in the majority of business circles. Kinda wish we could have something in between and get the shareholders out of business.
    • bocheball
    • NYC
    NYT Pick
    I belong to a union that does nothing for me. I don't qualify for medical benefits because I don't work enough yet I'm forced to pay the same dues as those who get benefits. I don't really have the option of not being a member, because I can then no longer get union jobs, yet I'm 'supposed' to turn down non union work. The whole thing stinks, and I wish my job hadn't been unionized. I would say my situation is applicable to at least 35% of the membership and probably more.
    Maybe being a union member is good for some, I hope, but not for all.
      • slartibartfast
      • New York
      AEA, right? I feel your pain.
      • Siobhan
      • New York
      Just curious--is the rate you're paid for your work a reflection of your union membership, and is it the same as what people make if they do not belong to the union?
    • PJ
    • Brooklyn, NY
    Both Cablevision and their employees were within their legal rights in a right-to-work state. This argument isn't about who is right, but about civility. 

    The bullying tactics of the employees was unnecessary. The group should not have pressured a response by showing up in mass - a method of intimidation - to provoke a response. Negotiations were on going, and as the article states, the first contract is extremely challenging to work out. The workers should have contributed to the negotiation efforts, not attempt to strong arm a response.

    That said, the lack of compassion and social skills of the Cablevision vice president is stunning. I expect more tact from a senior level executive in a "Fortune 500" company. Firing was unnecessary unless he wanted to send a message of intimidation. It shows a profound lack of respect for workers and their families. A simple acknowledgement of the workers' stress caused by the uncertainty of the contract negotiation, and a non-committal statement endorsing contract negotiations would not have hurt the company in any way.

    Treat others as you would want to be treated - its a simple rule of civil society, played out here at its most fundamental.
      • tnypow
      • NYC
      " unless he wanted to send a message of intimidation."

      That was exactly the point...hence the lack of "tact".
      • MAJ Collins
      • Omaha
      Followed his six sigma/corporate management principles playbook to a tee it would seem. Zero defect minimize inneficiency. People are a resource like a copy machine. Once they dysfunction, fix them or jettison them. GOOOOOOOO CORPORATE!!!!!!!! They shouldn't have tried to strong arm a strong armer though!
    • tom franzson
    • brevard nc
    Unionized athletes, are a disgrace to every hard working man or woman in the United States. One " union" baseball player in NYC, in all likelihood, makes more in just one year than the entire membership of some blue collar NYC locals. That being said, our long time allies seem to be turning their backs on us. Democrat's just don't seem to be interested in organized labor anymore. A case in point, the continual delaying of ratifying an agreement on the pipeline from Canada to the U. S., which will more than likely go to the West Coast of Canada, and be tankerd to China. Yet, the Obama-Biden team were glad to be seen glad handing union leaders nation wide, and accepting those checks from Union PAC's. I am sure, if it was not for those campaign contributions, the Democrats would have severed ties with us long ago.
    In an ideal world, all good union people would boycott whatever it is this Dolan guy owns. But, that doesn't happen anymore. We, union member's are a big part of our own demise. In 1976, you would not see a foreign car on any union construction site in the country. We used quality pipe and fittings, made in the U. S. not this shoddy garbage from China or India. But, we can't offend our "trading partners" we export rice and sugar, and import low quality construction material.
    As organized labor, we are in this alone, and, it seems, we can no longer count on each other!

    To Franzson. Brevard N. C.
    • csmithsmithusa
    • NYC
    This story comes as no surprise to unionized needleworkers, printers, traffic controllers. When free enterprise and union power meet at a crossroads, the
    winner is a foregone conclusion. Those who pay exorbitant union dues have to
    ask themselves if their sacrifice purchases job security.
    • S B Lewis
    • Lewis Family Farm, Essex, New York
    Yes, indeed, and The New York Times management speaks with forked tongue, also... 

    Mr. Dolan and Cablevision have company... in The New York Times... 

    Message One on the Editorial Page....

    Message Two in its approach to the employees pension set up and all that...

    Mr. Sulzberger meet Mr. Dolan.

    America is experiencing deflation... a nasty, nasty time when all boats float lower and lower in the international scheme of things... not to mention our currency...

    A time of competitive devaluations... the product of deflationary bias at The Federal Reserve - doing the bidding of a president left few choices by the debt crisis and a GOP president that needed a Seeing Eye Dog to find the men's room.

    The FED speak talks of controlling inflation - when what inflation we have is a product of the printing press, or monetization, as the treasury sells bonds for which the buyer, ultimately, is the FED. This circle of sorts spells trouble for the currency and for the bond market - for bonds only produce currency, while stocks reflect earnings and can produce a dividend... when earned. 

    And, Oh, Yes, I am a member of a union, too... Actor's Equity claims my name, but no thoughtful producer has called.... yet. 

    I live in hope of the one man show... 

    To Truth, in a Time of Denial...
    • Morty
    • Vancouver, BC
    If nothing else, Cablevision, through its actions, demonstrated quite clearly why its employees were right to try to organize in the first place. That corporations can so blatantly engage in efforts to deny their workers the right – and it is a right – to collective bargaining is an embarrassment and shows only how far the country has fallen in its race to embrace the failed economics of the so-called "conservative" movement (which is, of course, merely good old-fashioned Victorian trade liberalism in disguise).
    • Avi
    • New York
    I agree that this is alarming and disturbing. However, this seems to be only one side of the story. The story about the workers going into the VP's office peacefully and their claim that they were going to work that day is only from their side. Its just their word against Cablevision's. Could their claims be corroborated. And if they can, have they?
    I also do not necessarily agree that the comparison to Dolan's Knicks players unionizing is parallel. When Dolan purchased the team they were already unionized. Furthermore, they are part of a league-wide union that negotiates with all of the owners, not just Dolan and the Knicks. Unless I am mistaken, the Communication Workers of America want to negotiate directly with Cablevision. Also, unlike in the CWA case, the Knicks' players, each negotiate their own contract with management, not collectively as a union.
      • Joe
      • NY
      As a former Verizon Union employee and later management employee who was laid off to guarantee stock dividends, I think you need to further research Unions place in Labor negotiations. In the comparison to Unionized athletes, Cablevision would be the league, not the team. Cablevision has a long and storied history of strong arm tactics in fighting Unionization of employees, including personal knowledge of 24/7 surveillance of a Cablevision employee who attempted to organize.
      • slartibartfast
      • New York
      Actually, the story doesn't mention that the workers went to the VP's office peacefully. Nor does it mention that they went non-peacefully. It makes no mention of their collective demeanor at all. They made no claim to be having been "peaceful" not does anyone make a claim to the contrary, so there is no "claim" to be corroborated.
      • Avi
      • New York
      For the purpose of the analogy that may be true, that Cablevision is more like the league. However, the point I am making is that saying that James Dolan is being unfair because he lets his players unionize and doesn't let Cablevision workers unionize does not hold here.
    • Gil
    • Fix
    This boils down to money and power. Mr. Dolan is saving money, likely by providing inferior benefits (does NYC benefit from a race to the bottom?). He also doesn't like to share any of his immense power. This demonstrates in a nutshell the difference between American business leaders and those in virtually every other industrialized nation. Mr. Dolan's arrogance, and anti-union vitriol, is intricately linked to the failed policies of the Republican party. These brave technicians temporarily may be out of a job, but the loser now will be later to win...

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Harris Lirtzman, Whistleblower, Wins His Career Back After His Claims Are Found To Be True


All whistleblowers must stay on course and fight for right.

Stay the course. I wrote about Mr. Harris Lirtzman in 2012, and now give him our well-known "A For Accountability Award"

Parentadvocates.org awards him the "A For Accountability Award" for 2012

Betsy Combier

Harris Lirtzman


July 6, 2012

On Special Education, Spurned Teacher Is Vindicated


Perhaps it pays to heed Harris Lirtzman.
A passionate fellow, this teacher warned his principal last fall that their Bronx public high school was routinely violating the rights of the most vulnerable children, those in need of special education.
For speaking up, Mr. Lirtzman — who served as a deputy New York State comptroller before turning at age 53 to public-school teaching — saw his career ground to dust. He was denied tenure, and the principal, Grismaldy Laboy-Wilson, asked him to leave immediately. When he took his worries to the investigative arm of New York City’s Education Department, the investigators opened a file on him instead.
I wrote of Mr. Lirtzman’s struggle in May. His vindication arrived in the mail in June.
The State Education Department investigated his charges and sent him a copy of its report. It sustained Mr. Lirtzman’s allegations, one violation of state regulations after another.
High school administrators at the Felisa Rincón de Gautier Institute for Law and Public Policy in the Bronx had put unqualified teachers in charge of special education classes. They pushed these students into classes crowded with general education students.
And most egregiously, when faced with teaching vacancies, the administrators brought in a conga line of substitute teachers on “rotating” one-week stints to teach special education classes. That treads perilously close to educational malpractice.
It’s hard to scrape a usable quote from the state report, which is written in Haute Bureaucratese. Perhaps better to leave the talking to Mr. Lirtzman.
“There are a lot of gray areas in teaching special education in a big city,” he says. “But a fair amount is black and white: A kid is either getting the services required by federal law or not.”
This is not quite the end of the story. The city’s Education Department evinced little interest in Mr. Lirtzman’s allegations in May. Now a spokeswoman says it has commenced its own investigation.
The Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, which represents principals, argues that the fault lies with the city’s Education Department, which imposes budget cuts and ever more demands on principals. Higher-ups, they say, approved Ms. Laboy-Wilson’s decisions, including placing substitute teachers in special education classrooms on a rotating basis.
The principal, they say, is not at fault.
“You’re going to find that the mistakes they make up above are landing on the heads of my members,” said Ernest A. Logan, the council’s president. “This is a case in point.”
The council added in a written statement that history shows that the city and the state often have “inconsistent special education guidelines.”
Let’s posit, as it is true, that Mr. Logan and his staff are intelligent advocates who often stand at the forefront of fighting the most unreasonable aspects of the Bloomberg Education Revolution. They offer a properly stout defense of their members. And they passed along internal department memos that indeed show education officials have turned a blind eye to special education violations, and have directed principals to make do in ways that skirt these regulations..
It’s also true that the city’s Education Department shoulders a heavy burden. It dedicates 18,000 teachers to special education. Each student is required by law to have an individual educational plan.
But those words — “inconsistent special education guidelines” — are a not-so-lovely euphemism for violating the rights of underserved children.
I asked the State Education Department if it is unfair to blame a principal for failing special education children.
“Kids are supposed to get an education, and they are supposed to get it from properly qualified teachers,” said Tom Dunn, a department spokesman. “We said there are violations. They should fix it now.”
All of which brings us back to Mr. Lirtzman. He went to that high school in the Bronx for a job interview just before school began in 2009. The principal hired him on the spot, and a few days later, he was teaching a special education math class.
He had a wild toboggan ride of a time and came to love his students. Several parents said he was one of the best teachers their children ever had.
But when the department denied him tenure and the principal forced him out, he had enough. He retired.
His coda arrived a few days ago, again in the mail. The principal, Ms. Laboy-Wilson, filled out his final evaluation, in accordance with regulations. She rated him satisfactory over all.
On a long list, she listed him as unsatisfactory in just two areas: He did not keep a professional attitude and maintain good relations with supervisors.
If that’s the price of dissent, suffice it to say Mr. Lirtzman can live with that.
E-mail: powellm@nytimes.com

May 21, 2012

Helping Special Education Students, and Paying With His Career



There was no particular moment when Harris Lirtzman decided to blow the whistle, and so close the door on his teaching career.
A former deputy state comptroller, he had decided to give public school teaching a midcareer whirl. In 2009, he landed a job as a special education math teacher at the Gautier Institute for Law and Public Policy, a Bronx high school.
He describes that first year as a cross between a hurricane and a tornado, learning his craft in one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. He came to love his work.
But in September 2011, school administrators placed uncertified teachers — and a conga line of unemployed teachers who came for one-week stints — in classrooms filled with special education students, which is to say those children most in need of expert help.
This violated federal regulations.
Mr. Lirtzman, 56, decided to speak up. As he was not yet tenured, he stepped gingerly.
“I am NOT trying to cause problems,” he wrote in an e-mail to his assistant principal, but, he added, “we’re violating” court-mandated educational plans for students.
Mr. Lirtzman, unwittingly, became sand in the school’s gears.
He had received nothing but satisfactory evaluations. But in December, he said, the principal, Grismaldy Laboy-Wilson, said that she would not recommend him for tenure. The next day, she told him to leave immediately.
Mr. Lirtzman took his allegations to the Office of Special Investigations, an in-house unit at the Department of Education. An investigator asked for proof.
Mr. Lirtzman handed over 20 student programs, all of which showed that administrators placed students in classrooms with uncertified teachers. The investigator informed Mr. Lirtzman that these were confidential documents.
Now I am opening an investigation of you, she told him. It would be enough to bring a smile to the lips of Kafka.
“These are the most vulnerable kids, the ones no one really looks out for,” Mr. Lirtzman said. “This wasn’t a gray legal area. This was black and white, and the Department of Education decided that I was the problem.”
The Department of Education portrays Mr. Lirtzman as disgruntled at his failure to get tenure, and the principal declined to comment on his allegations.
New York City does not shoulder an easy burden trying to care for its tens of thousands of special education students. More than 18,000 teachers are dedicated to special education. Each student is required by law to have an individual educational plan, or I.E.P.
It’s also true that the city, over many administrations, has failed many of these students. Therapy is in too short supply; students — who wrestle with emotional and learning disabilities — are crammed in classrooms that are too large; and administrators sometimes conspire to push out troubled children. Graduation rates for these students are vanishingly low.
As Kim Sweet, executive director of the nonprofit Advocates for Children of New York, said: “We see cases of schools violating I.E.P.’s all the time. Our phones ring off the hook.”
Mr. Lirtzman acquired a crash course in these multiple neglects. And, although he does not phrase it so grandly, he also helped rescue a few of these children.
One such teenager, Derek Chestnut Jr., had more or less thrived in middle school, but ran upon the academic shoals at Gautier, where he was stuck in classes with a changing cast of uncertified teachers. One day, Mr. Lirtzman talked to the student’s father, Derek Chestnut Sr.
“He kept hinting something was wrong, and finally he told me there were rotating aides and teachers,” Mr. Chestnut recalled about their conversation. “The administrators told me otherwise, and I really didn’t appreciate when they tried to pull the wool over my eyes.”
Mr. Chestnut took his case to the upper reaches of the education bureaucracy. Quickly, without the usual resistance, he obtained an unusual legal letter that entitled him to place his son in a private school for special education children, all paid for by the city.
“They admitted off the bat that my son’s I.E.P. was being violated,” he said. “I owe this to one honest man, Mr. Lirtzman. He became an advocate not just for my son, but for all special education students in that school.”
Mr. Lirtzman acknowledges that he burns hot. The Department of Education now says Ms. Laboy-Wilson filed a harassment charge against him after he sent her several particularly heated e-mails. Mr. Lirtzman, who showed me dozens of his e-mails, insists his correspondence included no threat.
He has worked at high levels in city and state government. He was not intent on career suicide.
“I wanted to be a teacher; I wanted to get tenure,” he said. “I wasn’t trying to commit kamikaze so that I would feel good about myself.”
E-mail: powellm@nytimes.com

New York Exonerates Sped Teacher Fired For Reporting Legal Violations


Saturday, February 9, 2013

Emails Concerning The Hiring of Cathie Black To The NYC DOE Must Be Released

City loses battle to keep e-mails about hiring of failed schools chancellor Cathie Black secret

Last Updated:5:58 AM, February 8, 2013
Cathie Black
  The city was dealt another blow in its attempts to keep secret a series of e-mails surrounding the selection of failed schools chancellor Cathie Black.
The Bloomberg administration was denied its request that the state’s highest court reconsider the ordered release of the information.
Black moved from head of Heart Publishing to head of New York City’s schools for a brief, tumultuous stint before her ouster in April 2011.
Sergio Hernandez, 23, a former reporter for the Village Voice, had tried to get access to e-mails between Black, the mayor and his office, using the state’s Freedom of Information Law in 2010.
Hernandez told The Post he was “gratified” by the most recent decision.
He suspects the e-mails will reveal public-relations strategy over Black’s controversial appointment, given that she had no background in education.
The city said the e-mails were private, and Hernandez turned to the courts for access. Two lower courts ruled in his favor last November.
“We are still reviewing our potential next steps,” a city Law Department spokesman said, adding that releasing a public servant’s e-mails could discourage others from public service.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

OSI Investigator Dennis Boyles Needs To Be Investigated.

Many years ago I was asked by two parents to help them with the suspensions of their daughters after both girls were beaten by a school aide who worked in the school office.

Both girls attended Sheepshead Bay HS, and both went to the program office to have their schedules changed. They were talking, and suddenly a man ran out of the office and started hitting one of the girls on her chest. He ripped her shirt, and continued hitting her. The other girl tried to get him to stop and both girls dropped their backpacks on the floor. He realized that the hallway was videotaped, so he grabbed both girls' backbacks and ran with them into the office where there was no video. In the office he continued to hit one of the girls while the security guards entered and tried to stop him. The second girl tried to grab his arm, and he took both of his hands, picked her up and flung her into a nearby desk. He then started walking toward girl2 as if he was going to start hitting her. She
saw a small pink plastic ruler on the desk right above her (she was now on the floor), and she threw it at him. The ruler bounced off of his forehead.

The school aide was ushered out of the office, and both girls were sent to the hospital in an ambulance.

That's when the parents were called and told to meet their daughters in the emergency room, and one of the parents called me when she found out that her daughter was being suspended. I sat with both parents and we obtained a copy of the video. Both parents had taken pictures of their daughters' injuries. Both girls lost their suspension hearings and were suspended for a year.

Stunned, I went to the police department, and was given the file on the man who beat the girls. It was moderately large, with a conviction for vebral harassment by a woman several months earlier. I called the DOE and a person told me that he was the cousin of the Superintendent. I then made an appointment for both girls to speak with an investigator at the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). We met with a short, gray-haired stocky man named Dennis Boyles. "Investigator" Boyles is the same man who created the report on Glenn Storman.

Mr. Boyles met with each girl separately, but I stayed in the room the entire time. After the
first girl was interviewed, Boyles told her to get her friend. She left the room to get her friend. Boyles told me that when his daughter was in trouble when she was 15, it only cost him $5000 to get her 'out of trouble'.

I told him, forget it, I was not going to give him $5000 or $10,000 and I was positive that neither parent would pay him, either. He shrugged his shoulders and said ok. After the second girl's interview we all left. Dennis Boyles found both girls' testimony not credible, and submitted his findings to OSI which said that the school aide had been physically assaulted by these two girls.

Betsy Combier

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

The Arrogance of Mayor Bloomberg is His Legacy

NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg
  February 4, 2013

Explaining, or Maybe Not, Failure in Talks With Teachers

Our mayor being true to himself, Michael R. Bloomberg journeyed to Albany last week to lecture state legislators on his decision to blow up negotiations with our teachers union and so lose $240 million for New York City schools.
In his telling, his was a courageous act of self-destruction.
If only school officials throughout the state were as principled as he, he suggested, they would admit that teachers unions are fundamentally incapable of agreeing to measure their members honestly. And they too would blow up their negotiations and forfeit many hundreds of millions of dollars in state aid.
“Everybody is just interested in getting money and committing what I would call a fraud,” he told legislators.
Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan of Queens is a ferocious advocate for the city’s schools. She leaned forward and squinted at the mayor, as though convinced either that he was daft or that she was deaf. “Maybe I’m losing my hearing a little,” she said. “Don’t you feel some responsibility for this disaster? And it is a disaster.”
The mayor pursed his lips and wagged his head. “Money,” he explained a bit later, “is not the answer to everything.”
As it is relatively rare for a mayor to lose $240 million in one sitting, the past few weeks have been consumed by competing explanations of how Mr. Bloomberg and the union, the United Federation of Teachers, could have allowed that to happen. Listening to their accounts, it’s as though the Education Department and the union sat not in a single negotiating room, but on far sides of the moon from each other. (The Council of School Supervisors and Administrators also saw the mayor dissolve their seemingly successful negotiations in a late-night puff of smoke, although it might be seen as collateral damage in his feud with the teachers.)
In the mayor’s telling, the union — which in truth has crafty and tough negotiators — tossed down one barrier after another, much as a movie villain tosses darts in the path of pursuing police cars. He has drawn huzzahs from the editorial pages of The Daily News and The New York Post, where the perceived duplicity of the teachers union passes for religious conviction.
In particular, the mayor insisted that a deal on an evaluation system must extend for perpetuity. The teachers union, he says, pushed a two-year agreement, in hopes of sabotaging reform.
This narrative, however, falls on harder times as you cast around. John B. King Jr., state education commissioner, who was once a middle school principal and perhaps as a result seems preternaturally calm in dealing with the feuding parties, said that city negotiators had signaled that they had intended to sign off on a short-term plan.
Dr. King also gave city officials a failing grade in homework. They had failed to properly train principals and teachers in the event that a new evaluation system was put in place.
There is also the matter of handshakes. Michael Mulgrew, the union president, has described shaking on a deal with education officials at an early morning hour. Ernest Logan, president of the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, has described a similar scene in his negotiation.
A little later, in these accounts, Dennis M. Walcott, schools chancellor, called back and said: The boss, which is to say the mayor, says no deal.
Mediation, too, was tried. One of the more experienced mediators in New York talked with the union, and the city’s lawyers and labor commissioner.
This mediator, those on both sides say, saw a proposed path to a settlement, in which teachers rated unsatisfactory could be let go under the expired agreement. The day of the mediation, Bloomberg officials canceled.
The mayor likes to note he gave teachers a generous contract in 2005. He neglects to note that the same union generously declined to endorse his mayoral opponent that year. And his bedside manner is lacking. If you want to persuade tenured, unionized teachers to accept a rigorous new evaluation system, you might frame those efforts in terms of helping teachers to improve. The mayor prefers to oil his guillotine.
THE mayor, finally, makes for a diffident diplomat. His journeys to Albany feature elbow shots at the governor and legislators. Last week, he offered a seminar in how to turn off friends and fail to influence enemies. At one point, State Senator John A. DeFrancisco of Syracuse cast him a wry look. Our districts have negotiated agreements, often with lots of work. Yet you make insulting statements. ...
The mayor shrugged again. “If you take a look, Senator, in this state, the city school kids are doing a lot better than the rest of the state. It’s a big problem.”
No doubt it is, although city schools might get the resulting headache.
E-mail: powellm@nytimes.com
Twitter: @powellnyt