Mr. Talk Weighs In on the Contract

Now that the new proposed contract has been analyzed (and given the stamp of approval by the New York Post), the REAL question that I'm sure has been burning in your minds bobs to the surface, namely:

What does Mr. Talk think about all this?

I'm glad you asked. Personally, I think it's great for people like me who are on the verge of retirement. We get to walk out the door with a decent increase and we will receive our retroactive payments immediately, unlike the vast majority of teachers who can't retire and will have to wait until 2020 to get all the money that Bloomberg stiffed us on.

I'm still voting no.

I'd vote no for any contract that sells out our members, and this one hangs the ATRs out to dry. There was no reason why ATRs couldn't have simply been sent back to the classroom and evaluated based upon the same criteria as the rest of us. Instead, the UFT decided to make it relatively easy to fire ATRs at the whim of principals who don't want to have a veteran's salary on their payroll.

There's lots more not to like here. The retro pay really isn't retro pay: if you get paid more in future years, that's a raise, not retro. Unless you retire, you will have to work another four years to see all that money. I hate the de facto merit pay and the stealth charter schools that are being created by "relaxing" contract rules (will YOUR school be chosen? Who knows?).

There are a few more things I don't like that I haven't seen discussed much elsewhere. If anyone can enlighten on these points, please do.

• It seems we will NOT be getting interest on the "retro" money. If that money had gone into our TDAs like it should have back in 2009, we'd be earning 7% on it. Instead, your "retro" money will be LOSING value because it's not earning that interest and inflation will continue to gnaw away at it before you ever see a penny. 
• While there we some adjustments made to the evaluation system, the burden of proof at a 3020 termination hearing is still on teachers. In other words, if you are found ineffective, you will have to prove, somehow, that you are not or be fired. This should have been addressed in the new contract
• Artifacts are gone. While I hate that word, artifacts were one of the few ways teachers had of demonstrating that they were effective. While I know that compiling artifacts was a pain in the ass, it at least gave us ONE way to counter bogus evaluations. Now that is gone.
• Campbell Brown and E4E both got their way in this contract. Brown has apparently succeeded in persuading the DOE that they need to get tougher with teachers who abuse children, even when there is absolutely no proof that any abuse has taken place. E4E got their merit pay. This all proves that if you have big money backing you, you can get the union to bend over.
• It appears we will all be given a "new curriculum" that we will be forced to teach, even if it stinks on ice (and it will).

The only positive things I've found in the contract are 1. that sabbaticals are apparently still in place, and 2. the 37.5 minutes of faux instruction is history (but I'm reserving judgment on this one until I see what they replace it with and how much paperwork it will involve).

So, weighing the positive against the negative, there's only one thing to do. I don't mean voting "no"--that will make no difference whatsoever as this POS contract will sail through. What you should do is retire.

That's my plan. See you in Florida.

Time for the UFT to Lead, Not Follow

A piece in the Times examines how "popular" Michael Mulgrew is with the prospective democratic mayoral candidates. One even offered him a trip to Finland. It's easy to see why. The endorsement of the UFT would mean a great deal to any candidate looking for the support of teachers. Not only are we a significant voting block, but education is the topic of the day in the press. Despite all the bashing we've endured, most people still like their children's teachers, and trust us to have the best interests of children at heart. A mayoral candidate who could claim the support of teachers would receive a huge boost.

Sadly, the UFT has a piss poor record of endorsements. Most recently, we endorsed no one in the last election, despite the fact that Bill Thompson supported us and Mayor4Life was out to destroy us.

If the UFT runs true to form, they will wait until one of the candidates--Quinn, Liu, Thompson, or DiBlasio--gains a clear advantage and we will tag along. The UFT likes to back a winner. This time around, that strategy would be a huge mistake.

What we need to do is this--publicly declare our demands for the next election, and endorse the candidate who comes closest to meeting those demands. If the candidates want our support, let them earn it. I can think of a few items that would be on my list:

• An end to mayoral control of the schools.
• A promise that we would receive the same raise as other municipal unions got, retroactive to 2009, when our contract expired.
• An end to the senseless closing of schools.
• A pledge to place all ATRs before any new teachers are hired.
• A vow to reduce class size and restore all the positions recently lost through attrition.
• The implementation of a fair evaluation system that is not based on test scores.
• An end to the vilification and public shaming of teachers.

I'm sure there are many others I've missed, but that's a good start. The UFT is the big dog in the upcoming election, but only if we stand up and insist on something in return for our support.

Mulgrew must lead, not follow. An early endorsement would catapult any of the candidates to instant front-runner status and set the education agenda for that glorious day when Mike Bloomberg finally vacates City Hall.

Electing the Anti-Bloomberg

I've had my ear pretty close to the ground when it comes to contract negotiations. PERB should have finished their work long ago--why they haven't is a mystery. There have been all kinds of rumors, the latest of which is that if Mulgrew agrees to the Cuomo evaluation plan, there won't be any layoffs and we'll get a raise. I seriously doubt that one. In fact, I doubt we will see any kind of contract any time soon without giving up something we treasure, like seniority rights or tenure.

And I say the hell with that. No deal.

Mulgrew should draw a line in the sand right now, and tell the membership that we should be willing to wait for a new contract until we have a new mayor. No agreement on evaluations, no nothing.

The city budget for next year has a 1.25% raise for municipal employees built into it. Screw that. In order to get even that pittance, you can bet that Mayor4life will want to extract his pound of flesh. I don't want to give up even one more right, not one more clause in the current contract, to get that meager sum. I'd rather wait.

That doesn't mean we should do nothing. The UFT has sat idly by on the sidelines while Bloomberg has vilified us. We didn't endorse a candidate in the last election, fearing some kind of retribution from the Mayor King. How has that worked out for us?

What we need to do--right now--is find a candidate we can endorse in the next election. We need someone who will be willing to run on an anti-Bloomberg campaign--someone who will promise to save teachers, keep firehouses open, and tax the current mayor's rich pals to pay for it all. We need someone who will restore sanity to the way the city is run by vowing an end to no-bid contracts and money-sinks like CityTime. Someone who will stand up to the ed deform crowd and charter school hedge fund criminals and put life back in the public school system.

Who is that person? I can think of two possibilities. Bill De Blasio, the current public advocate, stands out. He is currently working to avert teacher layoffs, and his campaign to raise teacher status through video testimonials by parents is just the kind of thing we need. Another possibility is John Liu, the NYC Comptroller. He seems bound and determined to root out the corruption that Bloomberg's contracts have made a way of life in this city. He has also stood out as a supporter of unions.

Mulgrew should sit down with both of these men, and see who has the most to offer the teachers and citizens of this city. He needs to find out which one will work hardest to reverse the draconian policies of the current dictator/mayor. Mulgrew should then back that candidate to the hilt, starting immediately.

This candidate should be, and run as, the anti-Bloomberg, Support the schools. Bring back the middle class. Make the rich pay their share plus the share they've avoided in the 12 year reign of Bloomberg. Be fiscally responsible. Bring parents back into education discussion. Put the people first, before new stadiums, bike lanes, and anti-smoking regulations. Recognize that there are five boroughs--not just the Manhattan Bloomie loves.

The public mood is right for all of this to happen. Citizens are tired of plutocrats like mayor4life running their lives. The question is: Will the UFT be at the forefront of the next mayoral campaign, or will we sit back, hoping the political wind blows in our direction?

If we want the anti-Bloomberg, we need to act. No deal on a contract if any strings are attached. No cooperation on evaluations. Support a pro-teacher, pro-union candidate for mayor. It's within our grasp if we want it.

Your move, Mr. Mulgrew.

The Latest Negotiation Strategy--Lay Off Every Teacher

The city of Providence, RI, has issued layoff notices to ALL of its teachers.

Yes, ALL.

Of course, no city can lay off all of its teachers. So the question remains--why do this?

I think the answer is simple. Since Providence requires lay off notices to go out by March 1, this covers their asses should they decide to go after senior teachers. They are jockeying to terminate their highest paid teachers, and they are sending pink slips to everyone as a way to make sure they can do it.

If you doubt this, read the last paragraph of the CNN piece:

The city and the union will soon start negotiations on the teachers' contracts, which expire June 30. City and school district officials stressed that Tuesday's move was not related to the contract expiring.

The war on teachers rages on. Frankly, I can't even believe it. Every day brings some new horror to teachers somewhere. If politicians had gone after Osama bin Laden with the same relentless vigor with which they pursue teachers, he'd have long ago been squatting in Guantanamo Bay.

When was it decided that teachers were the enemy? When did we become the bogey man and the scapegoats for every situation in the country? Obama wants to recruit 100,000 new teachers? Is he serious? Who in their right mind would want to become a teacher in this hostile environment?

Of course, some group is always the scapegoat for society's ills. God forbid we blame the Wall Streeters and hedge fund managers who brought about this fiscal crisis. Far better to persecute teachers than prosecute the bastards who got us here.

How Not To Negotiate, Part Two

In case you didn't read How To Negotiate, Part One, here is it. I didn't call it that because I had no idea the UFT would stoop to even lower levels of stupidity, but they've outstupided me again. According to GothamSchools, the UFT is trying to work out a deal with the city regarding the rubber rooms outside of contract negotiations.

Excuse me? The rubber rooms are a huge black eye to the city in times of fiscal crisis. They'd love to announce some kind of victory in advance of a contract settlement. So my question is, why is the UFT seemingly willing to hand the DOE a victory with a ribbon wrapped around it while we are fighting to get ourselves a contract? Why not tie any changes to the Rubber Room system to a 4% contract with no givebacks?

Trust me, I fully understand that many of our colleagues are languishing in those hell holes, and some movement towards getting them out would be a boon. But the UFT has done nothing for the past 7 years while the RRs continued to get bigger and bigger, so why the sudden need to negotiate when the city has not budged an inch in our contract talks?

It would be different if I thought that the UFT had any chance of coming out on top in these negotiations, but their history is--shall we say--somewhat spotty? Let's not forget that it's already in the contract that RR cases are supposed to be settled in 6 months--the city has steadfastly refused to follow that rule.

Gotham suggests that the UFT may give in on suspensions without pay, with the caveat that anyone found not guilty would get backpay of 150%. That sounds good, except that given how long the DOE drags these cases out, a person could lose their house or starve before getting that back pay. They've dragged their feet on cases for years, so what's to make us think the DOE will expedite them now? It would benefit the DOE not to resolve such cases in the hopes that the accused teacher would go bankrupt and have to resign in order to find a new job. And it seems to me it would be pretty easy to recoup that 150% with fines.

Let's face it--the DOE is looking for a way to empty the rubber rooms by firing people. They have no intention of expediting cases or holding fair hearings. If they wanted that, they could do it right now, without any kind of negotiations. The UFT has an abysmal track record on these issues, and there's no reason to trust them now.

Especially as they're not even using this as a bargaining chip. Don't forget that we are headed into our 6th month without a contract. If the DOE wants the rubber rooms on the table, they should sit down at the negotiating table. Now.

My Contract Demands

As much as I despise Klein and Bloomberg, you have to give them some credit for knowing how to negotiate. They ask for the moon and the stars, and when they get just the moon, they're pretty happy. The UFT generally begs for scraps from the table like a starving dog.

Take the current negotiations. The city has asked for the right to suspend teachers without cause and without pay, cutting our sick days in half, changing the salary structure, ending seniority by changing the ATR rules, and so on. And the UFT asked for...what? A "substantial" raise? How much is substantial? In these economic times, a lot of people see the 4% the city budgeted for us as as pretty substantial. Even the 2% looks good to people who are out of work.

By now, our UFT leaders should have learned from BloomKlein and put a list of demands on the table that PERB would have to consider in their decision. Here's what I would have asked for:

• Teacher's Choice should be increased to $2o00 per teacher to reflect what teachers actually need to make their classrooms work. In addition, each teacher would receive a copy machine and an unlimited supply of paper and toner.


• A 14% salary increase, which includes the 4% pattern plus 5 per cent for each of the years we took zeros when the city lied about its financial crisis.


• Teachers should retain their 10 sick days per year. In addition, teachers would get two extra days for every documented day they stayed home due to a disease they contracted at schools, such as flu, the common cold, or lice.


• If a teacher has tenure and is made an ATR or placed in the rubber room for incompetence, a principal must pay $10,000 from his own pocket to a charity of the teacher's choosing. If the teacher is found incompetent, the principal who granted the teacher tenure would pay. If the teacher is found competent, the principal who filed charges would pay.


• Randi Weingarten would be officially declared a fluke, and all programs negotiated by her would be declared a do-over.


• Five snow days would be built into the school year. If the days aren't used, school would end a week earlier.


• 37.5 minutes would be reduced to 3.75 minutes.


• Seniority would be strictly enforced, by gunpoint if necessary.


• Teachers would be subject to a new Three Smacks and You're Out rule. Each teacher would be allowed to smack two students of his or her choosing every year, or be allowed to choose a hefty gym teacher to do substitute-smacking. On the third smack, you'd be subject to the same old corporal punishment rules as before. Blood-letting would be strictly forbidden, of course, unless the child was being a real asshole.

Of course, these are just suggestions, the kind of ask-for-the-moon-and-stars type negotiating the city has used so successfully. I'd be willing to give any or all of them up for a contract that paid teachers well and showed us some respect. Well, to be honest, I'd really like at least a one-smack rule, because there's a kid in 815 who's really getting on my nerves. But you know what I mean.

Mr. Talk Plays Negotiator

Some view Mayor4Life's 2% contract offer a strong arm tactic, but I'm not so sure I agree. It's likely that M4L knows that PERB will give us the 4% we are asking for because they have always insisted on following the pattern. So I think the mayor is trying to offer us a nice shiny carrot in the hope that we'll grab it before PERB rules in our favor.

That 2% means a lot to the mayor. If he gets it, it will show him as a tough guy and fiscal watchdog, and possibly set a pattern for the next set of negotiations. So I say, let's give it to him.

In exchange for givebacks FROM HIM, of course. I'd be happy to accept the 2%. Here's what I'd ask for:

• 2% for teachers at all salary steps, not just up to 70K.


• Restoration of seniority transfers and the elimination of the open market. (This would effectively end the ATR crisis by allowing ATRs to "bump" teachers with less seniority. This move would help teachers and save the city 80 million a year--a fiscal win for Bloomy and a real win for teachers).


• An end to "Fair" student funding that makes principals want to fire senior teachers.


• The elimination of potty patrol and lunch duty.


• Restoration of the right to grieve letters in file.


• An agreement that teachers in the rubber room must have a hearing within 90 days or be returned to the classroom.

I'd ask for the elimination of 37.5 minutes, too, but I'd be willing to give that up in favor of all the above. Bloomy wouldn't ever surrender 37.5 because it would look like a big loss for him, especially since parents would notice their kids coming home earlier every day. But the other points above would hardly matter to the public at all, but they'd be a big win for teachers. M4L could claim that he saved the city millions, which would be true, and Mulgrew could claim that he got a raise while eliminating the most egregious points of the 2005 contract.

I don't think this will happen, because Unity would never want to admit what a mistake the 2005 contract was after humping it for five years. Still, you never know. This could be Mulgrew's chance to seize the reins once and for all from Randi's continued grasp and take us in a new direction. If Mulgrew has the cojones, I'd vote for such a contract. Would you?