Buffalo School District Offers Worst Contract Deal Ever

From the Buffalo News:

An update on contract negotiations with the Buffalo Teachers Federation took center stage at Wednesday’s meeting of the School Board.

Major points in the school district’s most recent proposal include a 10 percent increase in teacher salaries effective upon ratification of the contract. Teachers who work at least 160 days during the 2015-16 school year would be eligible for one-time payments ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 depending on their pay-step level.

In addition, active employees would pay 10 percent of the cost of premiums for their health insurance, and if the agreement is ratified, new hires would contribute 20 percent of premium costs.

Future retirees would contribute the same as active employees, effective July 1. Physician copays would increase to $15, from $5. And the district proposes eliminating the expensive policy rider that covers cosmetic surgery.

In addition, the school day would be lengthened from 6 hours and 50 minutes to 7 hours and 30 minutes and the school year would run for September 1 to June 30.

Also, new teachers (7-12) would have to teach six periods a day and all new teachers would have to fulfill 4 days of extra professional development.

Teachers would be required to use tracking technologies like "Parent Portal," seniority preference for transfers would be eliminated, there would be no early retirement incentives and personal days would be reduced.

OK, so let me get this straight.

Teachers have been without a raise for eleven years.

Buffalo is offering them 10% for those eleven years, and in return teachers have to pay 10% into their health care, new teachers have to pay 20% into their health care, the work day is increased by 40 minutes and the year is increased to 188 work days.

In addition, new teachers have to do more PD, some have to teach a sixth class, sick days would be reduced and seniority preferences for transfers would be eliminated.

Uh, no thanks:

In a statement, BTF President Philip Rumore said Buffalo teachers are already $20,000 behind their counterparts in other districts, which is a loss of $600,000 in lifetime earnings and $10,000 a year less in retirement because their retirement is based upon their final salary.

“The Board’s salary offer of a 10 percent raise, effective upon ratification of a new contract, over the 11 years teachers went without a salary increase, amounts to a less than one percent increase,” Rumore wrote.

As the unions are weakened even more post-Friedrichs, you can see this kind of contract becoming the standard thing around the state - especially if the Triborough Agreement goes away (as some think it may.)

Take a shit sandwich and if you don't like it, well, too bad - there's nothing you can do.

With a lack of vision, foresight and planning, the UFT, NYSUT, the AFT and the NEA have brought us to a place where we are about to be effectively neutered and your union dues will be useless for anything except shitty car insurance offers and discounts to Great Adventure.

Given the weakness of the unions these days, given the impending Friedrichs decision and the consequences thereafter, and given that Cuomo and Elia have handed Buffalo school officials a lot of power to impose what they will, it's hard to see how there's a good outcome here for Buffalo teachers.

With the kind of contract being offered there, why would ANYONE want to start teaching in Buffalo schools?

Here's what one commenter at the Buffalo News wrote:

So, the district proposes increasing starting teacher pay to 35K a year, but expects them to pay 4K a year toward their family's healthcare. When you add up the numbers it sounds an awful lot like the same deal employees of fast-food chain restaurants throughout the state will get when the min. wage is raised to $15 an hour over the next few years. And fast food workers don't have to invest 100K of their own money in their training. The district obviously has no interest in a new contract or the quality of its future workforce...

Indeed.

Friedrichs Teacher Thinks Teacher Salaries Are Too High

In today's Wall Street Journal, one of the 10 teachers in the Friedrichs suit explains why he is fighting against unions:

Over time I’ve learned that the union’s collective bargaining is every bit as political. The union is bargaining for things I’d never support. For example, in my community, the union spends resources pushing for ever-higher teacher salaries. I’m in favor of a decent salary for teachers, but I think we are already well paid compared with everyone else in the Central Valley.

That's right - this Friedrichs teacher is fighting to ensure that unions don't negotiate for salaries because he thinks teachers are paid too much relative to others in his community.

All I can say is, wait'll he's successful at killing the union and becomes an at-will employee and he'll see how well he's paid.

Andy Pallotta Has The Sads Over A Blog Post

Yesterday somebody told me that NYSUT leadership is upset about this post from Sullio that succinctly and devastatingly explains how the NYSUT leadership runs things at the union.

The gist of the post is that leadership doesn't care what rights and protections teachers have lost, doesn't care how the rank and file feel about these lost rights and protections, and doesn't care to do anything to rectify these lost rights and protections because membership dues are required by law so why should they care?

Apparently NYSUT Executive Vice President Andy Pallotta, who was never once mentioned in Sullio's post, is upset because he says the post compares him to a gangster - this despite the fact that the mob is never mentioned in the post either.

The only reference to the mob is a brief clip from the film Goodfellas that explains how, when you're paying protection money to the mob, it doesn't matter what happens during the week that might make those payments inconvenient - you've got to come up with the protection money no matter what.

You know, kinda like how teachers have to pony up their union dues every month no matter how many rights and protections disappear because the NYSUT leadership is either complicit with the education reform movement that seeks to destroy the teaching profession or is totally incompetent to stop them (take your pick on which but I lean toward Choice #1.)

Pallotta wants the state attorney general to look into the blog post and filed a discrimination complaint  because, you know, what better things can NYSUT spend time, money and energy on then attacking a blogger who accurately depicts how NYSUT runs its operations.

NYC Educator took on NYSUT leaders over this here.

Sean Crowley did the same here.

Here's my take:

With the Friedrichs case to be heard this year by the Supreme Court and the likelihood coming that the U.S. will be made into a "right-to-work" nation where union dues cannot be compelled from government workers after that case is decided, you'd think NYSUT leadership would be busy re-thinking their "Top-down/Fuck the rank and file cuz' I got mine" way of running things, but given Andy Pallotta's concern over a blog post, that's apparently not the case.

I dunno, perhaps Pallotta has the sads because NYSUT leadership is about to lose a few cars off their union gravy train post-Friedrichs, perhaps he's not a fan of Goodfellas and prefers Casino instead (though I dunno why, since Casino seems so derivative of Goodfellas.)

Either way, Pallotta ought to grow up and worry less about blog posts and more about what's going to happen to NYSUT once the Supreme Court says members no longer are compelled to pay dues.

If I were him, I might be thinking, "Hey, maybe we have to start serving our members and actually protecting their interests," but given the nonsense we've seen from NYSUT so far this year, it doesn't appear that's where the leadership's heading.

Instead they appear to be going down the road of "We'll try and exert even tighter control and destroy any opposition and/or criticism" even as their political House of Cards comes tumbling down around them.

I'm no professional political strategist like Andy Pallotta, but something tells me that strategy will be about as effective as NYSUT's strategy against Andy Cuomo's toxic education reform agenda.

AFT Leaders Say, You Don't Like The Hillary Clinton Endorsement, Too Bad (UPDATED)

UPDATED - 8:50 AM: Megan Moskop, the teacher with whom Leo was engaging, writes to say that Leo was talking about the caucus structure within the union, not the union itself. 

If so, he wasn't doing a very good job of it because it reads as if he was talking about the union as a whole, not the caucuses within.

No matter what Leo was talking about (and given Leo's convolutions, it's often hard to know), the dismissive attitude, the scorn for member concerns and the refusal to hear anybody else's critiques remains, as does the looming issue of what happens if the Supreme Court rules against unions in Friedrichs next year.

If the AFT/UFT/NYSUT leadership does not make a course correction in how it deals with members concerns and criticism, they will find fewer and fewer members as time goes in.

That would be an awful thing to have happen, but it doesn't seem the AFT leadership is too worried because they continue to treat the rank and file like serfs to be ruled from above.

Original Post:

AFT Leaders Say, You Don't Like The Hillary Endorsement, You're Free To Leave The Union 

A functionary of the American Federation of Teachers explains how AFT members have no right to public dissent of  AFT leadership decisions and if they don't like what the AFT leadership did by endorsing Hillary Clinton for president 16 months out, they're free to leave the union:

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion decision making becuz everyone goes & does what they want regardless. In democracy you respect the

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion democratic decision and abide by it. If you can't abide by it, then you always have right to leave

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion and join a different organization or not be part of any organization.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

That's Leo Casey, Randi Weingarten's long-time propaganda guy, telling AFT member Megan Moskop why she has no right to complain about the "democratic decision" reached by the autocratic leadership of the American Federation of Teachers, with its "executive board" controlled by AFT President Randi Weingarten voting "democratically" for the endorsement of Hillary Clinton after the union used Hillary Clinton's pollsters to poll a little over a thousand AFT members and use this as justification for the endorsement 16 months out from the election.

It's interesting that Leo Casey would suggest AFT members who don't like the AFT leadership's decision on the Clinton endorsement leave the union, because that's exactly the thing that might happen next year if the Supreme Court rules in the Friedrichs case that teachers cannot be compelled to pay union dues and have those dues used for lobbying or other business they do not agree with.

If you go back through Perdido Street School blog here, you'll see various commenters talk about wanting to leave the union, decertify the union, start their own union and/or otherwise hope for RICO charges for the current union leadership because they feel disenfranchised by the AFT/UFT/NYSUT leadership.

The big complaint for many AFT/UFT/NYSUT members is that union leaders do not listen to concerns of the rank and file, that they make top-down decisions and attack anybody who disagrees with them.

The Hillary Clinton endorsement is just the latest "Hey, you don't like what we do? Too @#$%ing bad!" response from the AFT leadership, with the cranky Leo Casey dishing out the smack down.

You would think given the enormity of the Friedrichs case, the union leadership would be more amenable to member concerns, that they would be thinking, "Hey, we could lose the right to compel members dues, so maybe, you know, we should start to work with members instead of work on them...maybe we should be more member-responsive instead of member-dismissive when the rank and file raise concerns."

You would think they might react that way, given Friedrichs, but you'd be wrong - instead it's just the usual defensive response, part condescension/part insult, that if you don't like what the AFT does, leave it, if you don't abide by the top-down imposed "democratic" decision from the AFT leadership, you're an anarchist.

The next insult - usually the last one the AFT leadership and/or their functionaries level in fights with members - is that you're anti-union if you don't support the leadership's decisions, and you can bet that's coming next from Leo and Company (I know because I've had that leveled at me on Twitter when I've criticized AFT/UFT/NYSUT strategy or decisions in the past.)

Casey may just get his wish next year after the Supreme Court ruling on Friedrichs if teachers are given the choice to pay union dues or not, and while I think it would be a mistake for teachers to stop paying dues to the AFT because the union leaders run the union for themselves only and are completely unresponsive to members' concerns or criticisms, you can see why some might do it.

Who wants to pay the salary, perks and second pensions of autocrats like Weingarten and Casey as they make top-down decisions that members consider harmful to their interests, then dismiss member concerns with insults and "Hey, you don't like it, leave!" retorts?

I was hoping that the AFT leadership would start to become more responsive to members with the Freidrichs case looming next year, that they would feel the need to engage with members over concerns and criticism rather than just do the usual insult/dismissal game, but it seems, given the Casey pushback to the Clinton endorsement decision, this will not be the case.

Instead we are being told if AFT members don't like the decision, they can leave the union and go elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see how many take Leo up on his invitation if the Supreme Court rules against unions in the Freidrichs case.

I'm betting many will.

And then AFT leaders will call these people names, claim they are anti-union or whatever, instead of thinking, "You know, maybe we can't run the union the way we always have anymore, maybe we actually, you know, have to listen to members instead of just dismiss them and do what we want..."

It is a real shame that the AFT leadership does not seem to see the disaster that is coming down the pike if they continue to run the union for their own benefit, ambition and aggrandizement.

As I wrote earlier, I won't stop paying dues nor take Leo up on his invitation to leave the AFT but given the disenfrachisement many rank and filers feel toward the union, I would bet many others do.

The AFT leadership believes itself untouchable, what with the rigged election processes wherein loyalty oaths and dished out perks and privileges are used to keep the union functionaries in lie and continue to support the leadership.

But see how well that works if and when the rank and file are given a choice to pay dues or not.