I really do not have such rosy memories of the Dinkins administration either, with its rampant racism and anti semitism. I remember NOT getting the two days for Passover off one year during his administration. The Union, of course, never did ANYTHING to get us back those days, or have them restored to our banks when we were forced to take them off. Not everyone could afford to take them off as religious observance days, either. So much for romantic memories of Dinkins and our union....
Well, I was referring to Dinkins' one-year contract with a 5% raise for teachers, if I recall correctly. The media pilloried him, and he hemmed and hawed over it. Had he stood up and said, "I think our teachers are important and deserve a raise," he'd have come out much better.
He then failed to deliver another contract, if I recall correctly, and the UFT declined to endorse him for re-election. I marched in the UFT labor day parade and we all wore black t-shirts that said "Shame on City Hall" on the back. We were going to turn our backs to the mayor and give him our message, but he skipped off to a tennis tournament before we had a chance.
I don't doubt what you said either, but Dinkins did sort of stand up for us. He just failed to remain standing very long.
That raise was partly financed by lowering the return on the tier one pension funds. Also we gave back 1% of that raise to save rookies from layoffs. We were returned the money in two installments after three years. The first payment was interest free while the second payment was 7 or 9 % in Dinkins dollars. That raise while the last one we received without a giveback, was perfunctory at best, and no cause for celebrating one of NYC's most incompetent mayors.
I don't think I celebrated him--I just gave him credit for one decision. I was perfectly ready to show him my unfavorable opinion at that parade. But I either forgot or wasn't aware of most of what you brought up, I gotta admit.
Compared to what followed him (Giuliani and Bloomberg), David Dinkins was the education mayor. In exchange for loaning back part of that 5.5% raise, we got the midwinter recess as well as no layoffs. We also didn't have to return after a sabbatical. You could retire right away. I think there was a huge retirement incentive in 1991 too.
Which of our rights did we have to give back in those days? I don't recall any. The big fights were about the book Heather has Two Mommies. Compared to now, you must be joking. Those certainly were not good old days as Dinkins abandoned us and the 1993 Contract put us way behind the suburbs but those years were better than what we have now.
I have been saying that for that last two years. The UFT rather talk than act. As for being proactive, they rather be shocked and outraged while more and more experienced classroom teachers leave the city and the field for better working conditions.
You quote City Sue: "By then Klein and Company will be packing their bags."
I've heard the same line from a high-up in the union in relation to giving up tenure: "They'll be gone in a couple of years."
These people a're not leading us. Leaders know what we're all about, then get proactive. Weingarten just puts her hands up over her head to ward off the next DOE blows, regurgitating mantras all the way.
Yes, the Dinkins years were less than idyllic. We could also wax sentimental over the Giuliani administration when we had a 4 or 5 year contract where the first 2 years had 0% raises. However, we no longer did any of those demeaning, time consuming, exhausting duties...that contract professionalized us. We were just nickeled and dimed during the remaining years of that contract, and all contracts after that during Generalissimo Giuliani's administration.
However, we no longer did any of those demeaning, time consuming, exhausting duties...that contract professionalized us.
And now we do them on a permanent basis, rather than once every third semester. Like you, I remember those zeros. I'm afraid most teachers nowadays have fewer than five years in and simply do not.
I still, still can't get my mind around the UFT forgetting the zeros and giving all that up for less than cost of living. It's simply unconscionable.
The doulble zero contract(no raise for the first two years of a five year contract) was the only one that we signed with Giuliani. The next three contracts were with Bloomberg and they have contained givebacks upon givebacks. At least we didn't give away the store back in the Dinkins days to get a small salary increase.
Didn't the 100 extra minutes start under Rudy??
I too remember giving up our pension money and getting the February break instead. But I can't recall if we gave up other holidays to compensate, like Election Day.
The 100 minutes started under Bloomberg (20 minutes a day, five days a week or 50 minutes twice a week was how we did it at my school.) That contract was signed in 2002 and went into effect in September of that year.
At the time, a veteran teacher said "Watch out, they're going to add another 20 minutes and give you a sixth class."
He was wrong. They added another 10 minutes and gave us a sixth class.
Along with added days (now we're back before Labor Day, taking nearly a week away from the summer vacation), lost grievance and seniority rights, merit pay, 8 additional standardized tests a year and autocratic mayoral control.
Thanks, Randi. Thanks, UFT Patronage Mill.
The UFT has used the "they'll be out of office" excuse forever starting with Koch. Remember how they had a campaign of following Giuliani around? We know the UFT has enabled Bloomberg and to now argue they'll be gone as a way to try to give the impression all will be well is part of their usual tactics of obfuscation and misdirection.
I got an email recently from someone who has been somewhat screwed by the union but who wanted me to publish something with the following caveat because of my association with ICE.
"I'm uncomfortable about the factionalism in our union. I believe the city and the UFT leadership use the "divide and conquer" strategy successfully to keep us weak. Let's stay united!"
I'm not sure he is clear about who has to stay united when the leadership is part of the problem. This is the line Unity/New Action when we are called traitors to the union.
I responded:
It is the union leadership that is aligned with BloomKlein against us but tries to make it seem they are on our side.
As long as your "let's stay united" includes Unity Caucus in the definition, there will be manipulation on this basis to defanging militancy. To me "staying united" means the people who feel there will never be changes until an alternative to Unity springs up.
I blame the union more than BloomKlein for what has happened because they have undermined any kind of adequate response.
So my political message it to constantly point to these things they do which contradicts what they say for the consumption of the members.
The UFT has many high priced consultants like Hillary's Howard Wolfson who advise the union on how to manage the membership. And for those who think Randi and co. are incompetent, when it comes to this they are extremely competent. But then again, that is what they devote most of their time and attention to.
Sometimes that does result in service and the union functioning like a union is supposed to. But that is only when forced and to some extent a corollary effect of trying to put out the fires of militancy when they arise.
So NYC Educator, are you saying we shouldn't back anyone or we shouldn't get involved as a union in the politics of our city, state or national governemnt?
That's not precisely what being proactive represents to me. Nor does sitting around waiting for Bloomberg to leave, or sitting around waiting for Giuliani to leave, or sitting around waiting for Koch to leave.
It's been the UFT that backed Bloomberg this past election. They made sure not to endorse someone else and took away our ability to have a strike vote so they wouldn't hurt him.
They also backed Pataki when McCall was always an ally. So we know they will stab even their friends in the back and claim it for the good of education.
Leo is now spinning lies about Obama when Leo himself has backed charters, merit pay, ATRs, rubber rooms, extra time, loss of vacation days, potty duty, the loss of due process...
I would like to know just what, if anything, has improved under these last 2 contracts besides blood money.
He claims more people got jobs under the Open Market, but refuses to give stats on how many senior ATRs got positions and how many were turned down.
Commenting by HaloScan
