Perdido 03

Perdido 03

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Municipal Labor Committee Backs UFT Contract Agreement

If anybody out there was hoping opposition from the other unions would put a shiv into the UFT contract agreement announced on Thursday, that hope was dashed yesterday:

Leaders of the city's municipal labor unions gave their blessing Friday to a proposed teachers contract imposing $1.3 billion in health care savings, but several unions of cops and firefighters signaled unease with the deal.

By a vote of 20 to 2, the steering panel of the Municipal Labor Committee approved the agreement, between Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration and the United Federation of Teachers.

The committee is an umbrella group representing the 150-plus bargaining units that make up the city's 300,000-strong mostly unionized workforce. The group must green-light changes to health care because what happens with one union influences negotiations with the others. All of the committee's units are set to vote on Monday.

The two "no" votes were Stephen Cassidy of the FDNY's Uniformed Firefighters Association and Michael J. Palladino of the NYPD's Detectives Endowment Association.

"Congratulations to Michael Mulgrew and the teachers union," Palladino said, referring to the teacher union head. "However, I think police and fire have a very difficult, dangerous and at times a deadly job, and that package doesn't meet our needs."

...

Harry Nespoli, the head of the Municipal Labor Committee and also a sanitation union official, said that he respects the dissenters but: "I think this is a fair contract for the City of New York."

It looks like only the cops and the firemen are going to hold out for a better deal than what the UFT and the city announced on Thursday - the rest of the unions look to be going along.

That means the only the UFT deal doesn't happen now is if the UFT membership votes it down.

28 comments:

  1. The bloggers must really be missing something if the labor unions went 20-2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be interesting to know if the MLC members were given any more details about the contract and the "health care savings" than the UFT contract negotiating committee was.

      So far, a lot of this stuff seems to exist nowhere other than the ether.

      I am hoping we get some concrete writing, numbers and details about this contract by next week.

      As much as I'd love to trust UFT press releases, I just feel better about actually seeing some details and numbers in writing.

      Delete
    2. Michael FiorilloMay 3, 2014 at 5:13 PM

      The other unions aren't being asked to fund a ten-year, interest free loan to their employer, as we are.

      Delete
    3. Michael FiorilloMay 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM

      The above comment was intended for Anonymous.

      Delete
    4. Indeed - a loan some will never see repaid.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. There had been some talk that the MLC would balk at the "health care savings" - I think that was in Juan Gonzalez's DN piece.

      But in the end, only the cops and firemen are balking.

      Delete
    2. In all fairness, I could live with some of the stuff that was included. A lot of it seems like it is up to the school to make most decisions on the basis of the school.
      I think the 3 most pressing issues are the ATR issue on unprofessional conduct, not performance review, merit pay and how the raise is be accrued. It seems to me that anyone in the city, even current employees can be disciplined for unprofessional conduct. Why are they just singling out the ATR's? I dont know. Seems fishy.

      Delete
    3. I agree, so long as the contractual stipulation is subject to a 65% SBO vote, then I could live with that too. In my school, you couldn't get 6% of the staff to vote to kill the contract, let alone 65%

      As for the $, I get why they're doing it the way they're doing it - it's to save the city some cash and to spread the payments over the years so that the city can "book" it that way. I just wish they would be more upfront and open about this - it's really not "retro" the way it's structured. More like future compensation for past work.

      Delete
    4. I agree with you on the $$ too, RBE. I get why its being spaced out. They dont have to call it 'retro' when its not necessarily retro pay.

      I also wonder exactly what the healthcare cuts will be. Although, most of the health care coverage for city workers are very good...I wonder..

      Delete
    5. It's interesting that the papers are pointing out the same questions around the "health care savings" - although from their perspective, they're worrying it won't be big enough to suit them.

      De Blasio mentioned centralizing some of the health care during the campaign primaries, so I guess I wasn't so surprised by that part of the contract.

      But as always, when things get left "fuzzy," it's a concern.

      Still, I was happy to see that they didn't come down with straight up paying a part of our salary to health care, which is no doubt what would have happened had Quinn or Weiner won.

      Delete
  3. I tell ya, doesn't seem like to many "givebacks" at all. The money is tricky but at least we know that in 4 years, top pay is close to 120K. This isn't bad at all as a base salary. Again, the givebacks were pretty much invisible. It could've been way way way worse with Quinn or another mayor. This isn't bad at all. 4 years of dribs n drabs which eventually bust at 120K? C'mon, this is a score!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TeachmyclassMrMayor(andyoutooMrMulgrew)May 3, 2014 at 10:47 PM

      The money, is a giveback...it is $20-$40k that we will never get back. We are paying plenty for "give backs" & 'healthcare".

      Delete
  4. How does a teacher get selected to be a "master teacher". I'd like the additional 20K.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Juliet MarinelliMay 4, 2014 at 7:17 AM

    This contract is a slap in the face to every experienced educator, and a kick in the butt to every ATR (which I will be in one year, if I am not able to secure a position--and how hireable am I when I will cost close to 100K? Not very, I'm guessing...so all teachers in closing schools are being sold out.).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Juliet,
      You have to ask yourself:
      Why am I still in a closing school?
      Why did I choose to remain in a closing school when I knew it was closing?
      When I was told my school was closing (years ago), why did I not effectively seek a position to set myself up for the remainder if my career?
      You guys are unbelievable. You're told your school is closing and you elect to stay the while 4 years, then you complain. Guess what? It's your fault! Sorry, but it's true. My school closed 2 years ago. We were told 6 years ago. I left in the 2nd year. Some if my coworkers stayed the entire 4 years. Now they are screwed. It's like you're on the Titanic and you're still saying I don't think this ship is actually sinking. I'm going to remain on it. Why in the world did you decide to stay in a school that is closing when you knew it was indeed closing??????

      Delete
    2. Some of us already had too many years in to be desirable to prospective principals when we heard that our schools would close.

      Delete
  6. Yes I never understood why future ATR's claim they couldn't get hired. I pounded every school in my district until I was hired, and at 20 years in. They don't try and then they complain. Enough already, really.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RBE, after looking over the #'s the $$ isnt bad over time. However, thats the problem most of us are having. Why didnt UFT negotiate more upfront money? Maybe they asked and was shot down. We wont know because we weren't in the room. However, the retro is really deferred compensation, I agree! So my question if anyone can answer, so if the contract is approved, when will we get the $1, 000 & when will the 2% kick in? Also, will the 1% from May 2013 be put in with the retro?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Supposedly the $1000 comes right after the contract is ratified, as does the 2% increase (1% from 2013, 1% from 2014.) I don't think there is any "retro" for the May 2013 1% increase that we wouldn't be getting until after the contract is ratified.

      Delete
  8. We need to go back to the bargaining table. Everyone needs to vote this contract down! We need to vote Michael Mulgrew out of office in 2016! He does not speak for ALL his members! I actually wonder who in fact does he speak for? Vote NO!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mulgrew speaks for Mulgrew - and Weingarten.

      Delete
  9. Go to the Facebook page Vote no to the UFT contract and like the page! We need to send a message. Write a message on the UFT site on Facebook as well. Tell them how you are voting a HELL NO!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am voting yes. Everyone I know is voting yes. There will be no more ATR's and the city is already putting in place that down the road since no more schools are closing, there will not be any more ATR's. Take the $ and the buyout. The contract will pass easily 80-20.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is an embarrassingly inadequate contract. I can only assume that you are being paid to create propaganda for the Unity caucus.

      Delete
    2. What is a unity caucus?

      Delete
    3. There will almost certainly be more ATR's - de Blasio may not have school closings on the top of his to-do list, but that doesn't mean his priorities won't shift after years of getting attacked by the DN, Post and Times and that doesn't mean that whomever follows de Blasio won't be into school closings.

      Vote for the contract if you want. I can see reasons for why it might pass 80-20.

      But do not jive anybody that there won't be any more ATR's.

      We need to see the ATR stipulations much more closely before this vote.

      Delete