Perdido 03

Perdido 03

Friday, May 2, 2014

Will UFT Members Approve This Teachers Contract With So Much Delayed Compensation?

James Eterno at ICEUFT has all the details of the tentative UFT contract and you should go over to ICEUFT blog and get the scoop.

Yesterday I focused on two parts of the tentative agreement I find very troubling - the termination proceedings ATR's will face if they don't find permanent placement after two "trials" in schools and allowing the city to run 10% of NYCDOE schools outside of the contractual rules of the UFT contract.

Today I want to look at the money.

The news media is reporting that teachers are getting an 18% raise, including the 8% that was owed from the 2009/2010 pattern + full retroactive pay for the years since, but the reality is much more complicated than that.

Here's how James Eterno at ICEUFT blog describes the compensation schedule:

For the seven years from 2011 to 2018, where the UFT will set the pattern for raises that other city unions will now follow, we will be getting a total of 10% in raises for seven years plus a $1,000 signing bonus.  That works out to less than 1.5% per year.

Specifically, this is how the CFO crunched the numbers:

2009-2010 = 4% raise
2010-2011 = 4% raise
2011-2012 = 0% raise but we will get a $1,000 signing bonus if we ratify the contract.
Nov 2012- April 2013 = 0% raise
May 1, 2013 = 1% raise
May 1, 2014 = 1% raise
May 1, 2015 = 1% raise
May 1, 2016 = 1% raise
May 1, 2017 = 2.5% raise
May 1, 2018 = 3.0% raise
Total: 18% (compounded it will be a little more)

But there's a catch on when the 4% + 4% from the 2009/2010 pattern gets paid out - it doesn't get added to salary schedules now but gets gradually added in from 2015 on:

May 1, 2015 = 2%
May 1, 2016 = 2%
May 1, 2017 = 2%
May 1, 2018 = 2%

The news media is reporting that teachers are getting full retro for the 2009/2010 pattern, but that's a much more complicated story too.  Here's how that gets paid out:

October 1, 2015- 12.5% lump sum
October 1, 2016 - Nothing
October 1, 2017 - 12.5% lump sum
October 1, 2018 - 25% lump sum
October 1, 2019 - 25% lump sum
October 1, 2020 - 25% lump sum

My wife was over on the UFT Facebook page when the tentative contract agreement was first announced and noticed that a lot of comments were positive on the deal.

But as the night wore on and news started to spread that the 8% from the 2009/2010 pattern was going to be delayed for years and we were really only getting a 2% raise in the near future, some of the comments started turning negative.

People weren't too happy to hear that the 2009/2010 raises weren't going to be fully paid until 2018.

I think that's what's going to happen in general as people get the news of this contract.

At first, when they hear 18% raise and full retro, they're going to say "That sounds great!", but then as the understanding spreads that much of this compensation won't be in their pockets for years, there is going to be dismay and a little anger at the UFT leadership.

I've been around for three contract votes - 2002, 2005, 2007.

Not a one of those votes has ever been close and while I know from my older colleagues of a contract that was voted down during the Giuliani Years, I have a hard time seeing this one getting voted down.

In the end, I think this contract will be passed by the UFT membership, but I don't think there are going to be too many happy campers out there today as they learn that most of the money the media is reporting they're getting isn't actually going to arrive in their checks for years and the retro is so delayed that this 9 year contract will actually be expired by two years before its finally (and fully) paid out.

There is a reason the other union leaders are so pissed at the UFT leadership over this contract agreement.

Given the concessions the UFT agreed to - essentially throwing the ATR's under the bus, de-linking 10% of city schools from the contract, merit pay, unstated health care concessions - and given the piss-poor salary increases the leadership got, about 1.4% a year for 7 years (after the 8% from the old pattern), the UFT membership ought to be pissed at the UFT leadership too.

This is a terrible contract that was negotiated and while the UFT shills will tell you it scrapes the skies because they got you full retro, the reality is, they gave up a whole lot to get money that you're not going to see for years.

36 comments:

  1. The newbies I know will ratify a ham sandwich on stale rye..

    ReplyDelete
  2. The contract voted down in the Giuliani years came back to bite the membership in the derriere when it was rewritten. The UFT was going to show a membership that had the where with all to vote against a bad contract that they had better not do that again.
    If I remember correctly the no lunch duty provision was in the original version and disappeared in the revised and then ratified version. No lunch duty did not come back until a later contract.
    It's true, the newbies that I've seen don't have a questioning bone in their bodies.
    That's why we've got what we've got in our plutocracy. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scary thing is, given the negotiating skills of the UFT, I'm not sure that we won't get screwed worse if its voted down. Dunno about you, but I'd rather have the PBA leadership negotiating for me. But point is probably moot, since I expect this will pass by a pretty wide margin (as has been my experience with the '02, '05 and '07 contracts.)

      Delete
  3. Vote no and take your chances. We already waited....and we are going to wait anyway let's make it worth it!

    ReplyDelete
  4. how does the voting work??

    ReplyDelete
  5. we are not getting anything until 2015 anyway...just vote no

    ReplyDelete
  6. Vote No. .delay our deal....and sit around for a month and listen to REAL union leaders argue their cases. PD, and nyfd arent going for this paltry pattern..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't you like to have the PBA leaders negotiating for you?

      I would.

      Delete
  7. if you vote no you might not get nothing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a double negative meaning that they would get something. I went to school back when teachers taught stuff like that.

      Delete
    2. I bet this teacher is new and teachers English.

      DOUBLE NEGATIVE!! TEACHER!!

      Delete
  8. Can someone explain how this is "full retro" when there were no increases in 2011 & 21012. By the way, if someone offers you a bonus to sign something, who has the upper hand????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't really consider $1000 a bonus in any case. More like chump change.

      Delete
  9. What would happen if somebody retires or resigns from DOE? Will the retro money be lost for those people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No - retirees who leave before June 2015 get the retro all at once. Retirees who leave after get it on the same timetable as the rest of us (2015-2020). Anyone who resigned, however, gets nothing, I believe.

      Delete
  10. Yes if they resign, and no if they retire

    ReplyDelete
  11. But the 8% "retro" rate increases don't increase your payrate in 2013, 2014, only a 2% increase in 2015. In other words, the Unity/DOE is scamming us - we didn't get "full retro" if we're not getting the full 8.16% added to our baserate in our paychecks until 2018. Under the proposed plan each teacher will lose the equivalent of roughly 1/3rd a year's salary because of the 8.16% "retro rate increase" actually being scheduled into the distant future. According to my calculation I will lose $27,000 compared to what I would have made if the 8.16% increase was actually full retro, as the Unity/DOE team (seems to me) fraudulently claims - http://files.uft.org/misc/proposed-new-teachers-contract-pay-chart.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like future increases to me, not "full retro." Better than nothing, but certainly not what the UFT leadership are claiming.

      Truth is, they could have done much better than this. However another uncomfortable truth is, they could have done much worse (and have in the past.)

      I'll say again - I wish I had the PBA leadership negotiating for us.

      Delete
  12. I worked for those days, I should be paid for those days. The value of my 2009 dollar that I earned will be decreased by the time I get it all in 2020. I wish we had time, resources and enough members to realize how horrible this is before it is ratified. I know I will not be voting for Mulgrew in the future. Hopefully this is the last negotiation he will do for me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lots of anger out there. Wouldn't be surprised to see this vote as close or closer than 2005. Probably not enough to kill it, but if you're around the Internet the last few days, and talking to people at school, you can hear how people are not happy.

      Delete
  13. This is not a raise. It's a cost of living increase! It comes down to 2% a year. The WSJ today wrote about the health benefits that the Municipal union is negotiating- teachers making more than $60,000 could be asked to contribute 2% of their salary to pay for health benefits! We are being scammed! VOTE NO.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This contract is ridiculous. How can we possibly vote yes to this?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am most concerned about concessions to health benefits. What are the concessions?!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Vote "NO" or regret being the lowest paid city employees for the next 10+ years. If teachers really "teach" then they can see the wisdom in voting "NO".

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous

    I need to resign this year after summer school due to a downward shift in my compensation. Due to a building transfer that I did not want, I have lost my retention rights to an after school program that I had been involved with for 3 years. My compensation this year is way beneath that of previous years. If I stay longer there will be a tremendously lower amount of pension compensation I will receive when I am able to retire in 2018. I will be knocking out my highest compensation years. These miniscule raises will not affect me for the better if I stay. I was told that I will not receive any retroactive pay, the 2 1% raises, nor the measly bonus if I leave. Whether I vote yes or no I will still receive nothing. How could the union do this to us? I have worked 5 years without a raise. This is unconsionable! Any thoughts on this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Retire do not resign. IF you retire you get your retro. If you resign you lose it.

      Delete
  18. If this horrible agreement is the best Mulgrew could do for us he should have been honest and called it what it is- a surrender. It is not a victory and to represent it as such demeans and belittles those of us who show up everyday and do the best job we can. I WILL VOTE NO!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I will vote NO!

    ReplyDelete
  20. My UFT rep presented the contract as a done deal. I didn't even realize I get a vote. I agree that the contract is less than favorable but if there isn't any money in the budget, I don't see how this could be avoided.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Throw Leader Ship Academy Principals from the schools.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm not a teacher, but worked in the system for 41 years. This is a horrible deals, that if passed will eventually be looked at as a very bad contract in the long run. Vote NO way!

    ReplyDelete
  23. I am an ATR, but also eligible to retire. Should I wait until July to retire? If so will I still get the ATR buyout money and then get the retro money like the active teachers? Are there any forms I need to fill out for the ATR buyout money? Also, I have over 200 sick days, will I still be paid for my sick days, when I retire? Please advise. I am afraid to stay in teaching if the contract passes.

    ReplyDelete