We need change in the UFT, and we need it now! #VoteMORE2019 for a member driven union when the UFT election ballots go out in the mail on March 25th.
United, we can achieve our vision!
Archives For UFT
We need change in the UFT, and we need it now! #VoteMORE2019 for a member driven union when the UFT election ballots go out in the mail on March 25th.
I’m a special education teacher at a Brooklyn high school, so I spend lots of time in meetings: meetings with co-teachers, meetings with parents, IEP meetings, meetings with paraprofessionals and speech therapists, department meetings, meetings with guidance counselors and social workers. I spend my lunch periods meeting with 12th graders to help them with their research papers and I spend my preps meeting with 9th graders to help them with…all the things 9th graders need help with. Running for union office means even more meetings, and if I’m elected to the UFT Executive Board, there will be meetings, meetings, meetings. Oh, and I forgot to mention: I kind of hate meetings. So, why am I running?
Our union’s leadership, the Unity Caucus, says that New York City teachers are doing well. In some ways, they’re right. We get paid pretty well. Our benefits are very solid. Our union contract is incredibly valuable and every teacher, paraprofessional, service provider, and other school employee needs to make sure that (especially after the Supreme Court’s terrible Janus decision), we keep our membership up to date and we work together to keep the union strong.
But if things are so good, why do so many veteran teachers say that things in our schools are worse than they’ve ever seen? They’re not talking abut pay and benefits. They’re talking about the fact that teachers are under attack and our UFT contract is not enough. It doesn’t protect us from the absurd, arbitrary humiliations that we’re subjected to daily under the Danielson rubric. Actually, Unity Caucus loves Danielson. UFT President Michael Mulgrew has called the Kafkaesque experience of having our teaching subjected to Danielson “a model” that should be used “statewide.”
Teacher evaluation isn’t the only problem. Our students with disabilities are woefully under-supported and the union’s mechanisms for enforcing compliance are a joke. Teachers who fight for our special ed students are routinely harassed and intimidated by administrators who threaten our livelihoods because we fight for our students. I know. It happened to me back at my first Brooklyn high school.
Teacher pay and benefits might be okay, but they’re not enough. The UFT doesn’t just represent teachers. Our union sisters and brothers who work as occupational and physical therapists are paid tens of thousands of dollars less than other school workers with comparable workloads and responsibilities, and they recently voted down the contract that Unity tried to force on them. And they’re not just frustrated about their low salaries: their working conditions are often abysmal. Many of them don’t even have designated workspaces. They deserve MORE.
We all deserve MORE. We work in a city that just gave Amazon — one of the richest corporations in the world — a $3 billion tax break, while our schools run out of paper and other basic supplies. Unity keeps telling us how great we’re doing, they keep telling us we’re winning, but every teacher I know is overworked, overtired, and overstressed. Veteran teachers keep saying things are the worst they’ve ever seen.
The Mayor’s not going to fix our schools. Unity won’t fix them either; they seem to think that all we care about is the size of our paychecks, but teachers care about MORE. Our union leaders should fight for more; vote for MORE-UFT and that’s what we’ll do! We’ll fight for smaller classes, for time to plan lessons, for clean buildings with adequate workspace, for an end to Danielson and abusive supervision, for a commitment to equity at every level. We may not win every fight right away, but we’ll never tell hard-working teachers that we should be grateful that we can (barely) cover the rent.
I don’t want more meetings, but I’m running for union office for MORE-UFT because I believe our schools should be better. And I believe the only thing that can fix our schools is teachers, OTs, PTs, and paraprofessionals coming together to demand what we deserve: We deserve MORE.
by: Will Johnson
Special Education/English Teacher
UFT Elections Frequently Asked Questions
Why does the UFT have elections?
Federal labor law requires union elections- LMRDA Title IV: “Every local labor organization shall elect its officers not less often than once every three years.” UFT is required to adhere to federal labor law.
Why should I vote?
The UFT needs an active membership participation to advocate effectively for the educators, students, and families of New York City! Now more than ever we need to show that we’re ready to bring every member’s voice to the table to fight the well-funded attacks targeting public schools and communities. If you are happy with our union’s direction, then vote for Michael Mulgrew and his Unity Caucus. If you believe we need new leadership, vote for the MORE slate. Either way, we urge you to vote in order to keep our union strong.
What is a caucus?
A caucus is a group of people with shared concerns within a larger organization, similar to a political party. There have been many caucuses in UFT’s history, but Unity caucus has been in uninterrupted control of our union since it began over 50 years ago.
Who is MORE?
The Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) was formed in 2012 by a diverse group of active UFT members working in all five boroughs, from kindergarten through 12th grade and adult education. Through their experiences as educators, activists, and advocates for our students, MORE members became frustrated by UFT President Mulgrew and his Unity Caucus allowing our collective strength to deteriorate. Our members come together because we know; “Our working conditions are our student’s learning conditions.” We believe in a educated, engaged, and mobilized membership that will fight for the schools our members and children deserve.
How Do I Vote?
Ballots will be mailed to your home address on March 25th from the American Arbitration Association. You will need to fill out the ballot, place it in the included prepaid, pre-addressed return envelope, and place it in a mailbox.
Will the UFT, my Chapter Leader, Principal or anyone else know how I voted?
No, not unless you tell them.
What if I don’t get a ballot in the mail?
If you do not receive a ballot by mail or if your ballot is damaged or tampered with, immediately contact the American Arbitration Association at (800) 778-7879 or email UlerioS@adr.org. If you have moved you can notify UFT by going here: https://secure.www.uft.org/health-benefits/update
Do I have to vote for an entire slate, or can I pick and choose from each slate?
A slate is a group of candidates that were nominated by a caucus to run for positions on the ballot. MORE is running one slate. Michael Mulgrew and the current UFT leadership run as Unity. You can vote a “straight ticket/slate” by marking one of the boxes at the top of the ballot next to a slate name. You can also “split your ticket,” by marking boxes next to candidates of any slate. Most members vote for an entire slate by marking an X for one slate. Please keep in mind that if you try to vote for a slate and one or more individual candidates, your ballot will be invalidated.
Can UFT members place campaign materials in staff mailboxes in your school and other public schools?
Yes, You have the right to place union literature in the mailboxes within your school or within any other school, as long as you don’t do it while you are on duty. You can do it before or after school, or during your lunch period. Show the secretary, or any administrator who asks, the Department of Education memorandum which spells out your right to place election literature in the mailboxes. Do not agree to leave the stack with the secretary, the UFT chapter leader, or anyone else. You have a right to put them directly in the mailboxes. Difficulties? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Are these elections divisive and weakening our union?
No! elections bring many different perspectives to the table. There have been caucuses in the UFT since our founding. Each caucus has different ideas for how to lead our union and each caucus deserves to have its voice heard. UFT elections are the chance for you to choose your leaders, which is the foundation of any good organization or government. We do not want to live in a country without elections, nor do we want a union leadership that is not democratically elected. UFT elections are healthy, because they allow for you to have a voice and a choice in who leads our union.
How can I help MORE?
- Vote and let others in your chapter know that they need to vote too! Host a ballot breakfast, lunch, or after-school party in your school. Email email@example.com for more info.
- Distribute our election literature in your chapter and share with your UFT friends.
- Join us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram @morecaucusnyc.
- Join MORE– for a small donation you can help keep our election campaign strong. We have to design and print fliers, rent space for meetings, and hold election related events- all of which cost money. Go to http://tiny.cc/joinMORE to get involved!
- Sign up for our weekly email list here and text updates.
- Get involved, come to an event- check our listings at facebook.com/morecaucusnyc or email us to set up a happy hour or after-school meeting near you!
- Share this FAQ with your friends
Get a printer-friendly version of this FAQ here
The UFT/DOE Bronx Plan is a step in the right direction, but it is not the whole story. Genuine collaboration between chapter leaders and administrators, not just the appearance of it, will be key to creating schools New York’s students, parents, and teachers deserve.Continue Reading...
Why does the UFT leadership negotiate contracts that don’t respond to our or our students’ needs?
The explanation most often given by the opposition in the UFT has been: the UFT leadership is out of touch, they’ve been out of the classroom too long, so they make the wrong demands, and are willing to accept givebacks. This is a good start for an explanation, but there are important parts missing in this.
For one thing, this explanation implies DOE would give us what we need if our leaders would only ask for it, and if our leaders merely said, “No,” would withdraw demands for givebacks. Clearly, that’s not true.
The DOE and the City Administration will resist any demands that spend more revenue on needs of working families and poor families, whether its own employees or most of city’s students: raises, benefits, class size, workloads, supplies and so on. For complex political reasons, as well as fiscal concerns, it will resist giving employees more control over work.
So, the union needs a strategy to overcome this resistance to win enough to keep the union and its current leadership viable.
The strategy the UFT has adopted for over forty years has been to cultivate relationships with “friendly politicians,” mayor, state legislators, governor, city council, and so forth. Mainly these relationships are with Democrats, but sometimes also Republicans.
UFT leaders make “friends” with politicians most obviously by giving them support in election campaigns support: the UFT’s default policy is to support incumbents. This is especially true of legislators. UFT leaders also lobby on behalf of political leaders, supporting legislation the latter want, such as funding for projects they want, or mayoral control.
But there is another “service” the UFT leadership offer in exchange for sufficient contract gains to remain viable, that is less obvious but equally, if not more, important. It manages the membership to limit its demands on the DOE and the state. It does this by lowering members’ expectations, by instilling fear of fighting or striking, or of even rejecting a contract, and channeling membership anger and demands into limited safe, and harmless, activities, such as fighting to save their own school instead of fighting against the policy of school closings. It sells “reforms” politicians want, like ratings based on student performance, to the membership. So, bad contracts are “baked into” this strategy: it can’t be used to get better contracts
The most important politician for the contract is the mayor. UFT has tried to develop this relationship with every Mayor from Dinkins in 1990. The UFT and Democratic mayors have publicly portrayed each other as “friends”. UFT has “helped out” these mayors at members’ expense: In 1991, the UFT managed a delay of raises negotiated the previous year when there was a shortfall in the city’s budget. The 2014 contract helped De Blasio by setting a low pattern for other city contracts, and giving up any real retro pay, postponing both receiving the supposed “retro” raises and the back pay to future times in the contract. The UFT and Republican Mayors have publicly treated each other as “foes.” But the UFT still managed the membership, seeking in return just enough to make that management successful by forestalling rank and file revolt.
This did not protect the members from a two year pay freeze under Giuliani, the worst giveback contract ever in 2005 and then a 5 year pay freeze from 2009 to 2014 under Bloomberg. So, members pay a price when the mayor is “friendly,” and do even worse when mayor is hostile.
To get better contracts, we need more than leaders recently in classroom, who are “in touch.” We need a different strategy.
It isn’t difficult to imagine a strategy that would be more successful than the one the UFT is currently pursuing. For the past half dozen years teachers around the United States have engaged in protests, job actions, and strikes. They have won victories in Chicago, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and in several school districts in the Pacific Northwest.
Unity/UFT leaders contend that our union members are unwilling to engage in that kind of activism. But that claim is hollow. UFT leaders have made no real effort to activate the membership or convince them that a confrontational strategy could work. They have no way of judging how far our members are willing to go.
The UFT can prepare our members for higher levels of activism. One or two years before the expiration of the new contract the union can launch a member-driven campaign to set contract goals and decide on a course of action to win those goals. The campaign could begin with multi-school membership meetings in which members can share experiences and determine what goals they have in common. The union could encourage joint actions such as color days, and “honor pickets” in which members rehearse for a strike by picketing outside school until a few minutes before start time and then entering the building together. Borough and city-wide protests can develop a sense of union solidarity and collective purpose. Finally, as a union we can appeal to various community organizations through joint actions which link our contract campaign to a collective effort to fund our schools and make our city livable again.
Even the Unity/UFT leadership has led activities like this in the past. For example, prior to the 2005 contract the union encouraged chapters to organize pickets to demand a fair contract. There were UFT rallies at borough offices, honor pickets, color days, all of which culminated in a 20,000-strong gathering at Madison Square Garden in June 2005. Members demonstrated that they could be responsive to a leadership that wanted to organize them. Unfortunately, the following fall the UFT dropped the mobilization campaign and instead settled for a contract loaded with givebacks. Since then the union has negotiated three contracts: one beginning in 2007, one in 2009, and one in 2019. But it did not prepare an active contract campaign for any of them, which is probably why we have not won back anything that we gave up in 2005.
Following the victories of teacher activism and teacher strikes in so many parts of the country it should be easier for a teacher union to point to successful strikes as examples to follow. So why won’t the Unity/UFT leadership do this? Why do they continue with a business-as-usual approach? Unfortunately, the answer is that the UFT, like most unions in the United States, is run by people whose principal interest is to maintain the stability of the union as an organization. Since its founding in 1962 the UFT has evolved into a massive institution which collects more than ten million dollars per month in dues. This revenue stream sustains a vast bureaucracy of hundreds of office staff, district and special representatives, and union officers. For the most part they are paid more than we rank and file members are and have better working conditions. They make and carry out policies whose purpose is to maintain the stability of the UFT as an organization because that is the best guarantor of their higher salaries, better working conditions and their jobs themselves. They have little interest in mobilizing for the best contract we can achieve. Strike preparation is risky activity. It raises members’ expectations, which makes us less likely to vote to approve contracts with givebacks and inadequate raises. It creates rank and file leaders, who could potentially effectively challenge incumbent UFT tops for office.
Strikes themselves are even riskier. In New York public sector unions can face financial penalties along with the loss of collaborative relationships with elected officials. Union leaders avoid those risks because they threaten the bureaucracy’s ability to maintain itself at present levels. Although as rank and file members we also face risks in a strike, it is also the only effective way for us to make significant gains. The union bureaucracy can raise dues and improve their conditions in safer and comfortable ways. And as long as the rank and file keep re-electing the bureaucracy’s candidates and approving their contracts by wide margins, they have no incentive to move outside their comfort zone.
The Unity caucus is the political arm of that bureaucracy. Caucus membership is a necessary qualification for anyone interested full-time or even part-time employment with the union. And caucus membership requires unconditional support for the union’s leaders, its policies, and whatever contract it negotiates.
The Supreme Court’s Janus decision, which struck down state laws requiring all public employees to contribute at least agency fees to their union, could have been a wake-up call. In fact, in 2017 it appeared that the union intended to prepare for the eventual court ruling by activating its membership. It sent “door-knockers” to the homes of tens of thousands of UFT members with talking points that urged members both to stay union and to get more involved in their chapters. These doorway conversations often lasted fifteen minutes or more. However, by late spring the UFT changed the focus. The conversations were moved into the schools, and were cut to 30-60 seconds. Members were now only asked to commit to continue paying union dues. The UFT leadership showed that it is more committed to maintaining its income stream than in developing a more inspiring and activist vision of unionism.
Unity/UFT leaders believe they can sustain the union by maintaining close and collaborative relations with politicians. However, the 2019 contract shows the limits of that strategy. We just ratified a deal in which our wages will fail to keep pace with inflation and new teachers will receive an inferior health care plan. This deal was negotiated at a time in which New York had a Democratic governor and the most liberal Democratic mayor we have seen in decades. The 2019 contract, therefore, likely represents the upper limit of what our current union leadership can achieve.
Frighteningly, in the post-Janus world, a public sector union that cannot inspire members, risks losing them. In September 2018 UFT President Michael Mulgrew reported that no more than five active members had dropped out of the union so far. However, only 2600 out of 4000 new hires had joined the union. A union that mobilizes and energizes them can convince them that dues are worth paying. A union that cuts their health care benefits will have a tougher sell.
We can turn things around. Teachers around the United States are showing that another model of unionism is realistic and effective. We, the rank and file, must insist that, and pressure, our union to prepare for the next contract battle by engaging members to more actively protest around issues such as over-sized classes, abusive administrators, or unsafe and unsanitary building conditions. Concrete victories can demonstrate that union activism is worthwhile and prepare our members for bigger battles in the future.
-Kit Wainer, Chapter Leader Goldstein H.S., and Marian Swerdlow, former CL FDR H.S., retired
Throughout the entire rushed process of ratifying this contract deal, the UFT leadership has insisted that there are no givebacks and that the process is transparent and open.
However, the contract MOA clearly states that the raises are contingent on the union’s acceptance of an agreement between the city and the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC), an umbrella group of public employee unions, on $1.1 billion dollars of health care savings. Where is this money coming from? It’s completely unclear, whether from the city Office of Labor Relations, the UFT information, or the letter of agreement between the MLC and city.
However, we have obtained a detailed list of the proposed savings areas and the cost of each, which for the first time is publicly detailed below. Take a look and ask yourself if this is really a giveback free contract.
Some highlights for a memo summarizing the June 18th meeting of the MLC Steering Committee:
Year 1: $200 Million
1) $131 million in residual savings from the 2014 City and MLC health savings agreement
2) $40 million in savings from changes to the Empire health plan that include three basic components:
- Site of Service Redirection – Empire will implement a program to shift outpatient services from hospital based sites (which charge higher rates) to office based sites (which charge less); the program will not be obligatory, but will encourage members to use lower cost office based services when they are available and appropriate;
- Engaging the “WinFertility” care management company to reduce the costs associated with multiple premature births that require high cost neonatal ICU stays. WinFertility provides intensive genetic screenings and counseling to reduce the incidence of these outcomes for parents who are receiving fertility treatments;
- Tighter control of length-of-stay standards for hospital providers, including aggressive review and claw-backs of unnecessary or excessive expenses charged by hospital providers;
- None of these programs to generate services would entail any added costs to members in the form of increased co-pays or out-of-pocket costs, though more details about the Site of Service Redirection are needed.
3) $25 million in savings from changes to the Emblem Rx Formulary list and emphasis on “Smart 90” program to expand the mail order of medications in 90 day batches; the formulary changes are mostly related to shifting to more generics, but more details need to be provided.
4) $10 million in savings by implementing various Emblem Health Plan HMO updates to generate cost reductions of a technical nature with no impact on members;
Year 2: $300 Million
1) $40 million in recurring savings from the 2014 health care agreement;
2) $50 million in savings from the various Empire Plan changes discussed above, including site of service, WinFertility and length of stay claw backs from provider hospitals. In the first year, these savings were prorated at $40 million because they would not be in place for a full year;
3) $40 million in savings on the basic GHI CPB plan, stemming from implementation of a Centers of Excellence Plan under which the plan will contract with high quality and low cost providers for certain specified services; this will begin with oncology and orthopedic hospital centers and expand to other services over time;
4) $31 million in Emblem Rx formulary savings; this is the full year cost savings discussed above;
5) $213 million in Emblem HMO savings; this savings is being generated entirely by a written commitment by Emblem HMO to limit its increased charges to the City to 3.5% in FY2020; Emblem was budgeted for a 6.5% increase in FY2020; Emblem is thus passing 3% in savings to the City and assuming the costs out of its pocket by guaranteeing the savings to the city regardless of actual costs that it incurs;
6) Emblem health expects to generate the savings it has guaranteed to the city from the implementation of a Wellness Program which will provide incentives (not mandatory) for employees to sign up and participate in care management programs involving screenings to diagnose nascent health issues and assignment of nurses to engage members in care management; Sites of Service plans; Centers of Excellence for orthopedic and oncology, expanding to cardiology and other areas; Rx savings (formulary and Smart90).
7) In addition, in exchange for the commitment to cap its increase in premium costs to the city at 3.5%, Emblem is asking for an agreement that all new hires will have to enroll in the HMO plan for the first year of employment; this requirement would be only for the first year, after which employees will be free to switch to any plan they wish; this requirement would not apply to existing employees or employees who transfer from one agency to another or who receive promotions to a higher title.
Year 3: $600 million
1) $40 million in recurring savings from the last healthcare agreement;
2) $50 million in ongoing savings from the Empire plan (discussed above);
3) $45 million in ongoing GHI CPB savings (discussed above);
4) $31 million in ongoing Rx savings (discussed above);
5) $435 million in Emblem HMO savings with Emblem agreeing to cap the increase in its premium charges to the city at 3% (versus the budgeted increase in premiums for FY2021 of 6%); again, Emblem will guarantee these savings out of its own pocket and if the target is not met, it will eat the loss;
6) To help offset its lost revenue, Emblem health is again asking that the agreement require new hires to enroll in the HMO plan for the first year of their employment for the second year.
“What happens if we vote it down?”
“What will happen if we don’t approve the contract?”
People ask and want to know the answer. Whatever happens, experience says it won’t be the “doom and gloom” scenario that UFT leaders threaten it will be.
In fall, 1995, UFT leaders unveiled a tentative agreement with no raises in the first two years, and givebacks in pay, benefits and working conditions. As the membership ratification vote proceeded, it was obviously in danger of rejection. Then-president Feldman wrote in a letter to the membership dated November 12, 1995:
“What would happen if the members reject this agreement and send us back to the bargaining table? I believe we would be faced with chaos and crisis. Job security would be gone and massive layoffs could begin as early as February. By next year, between the city, state and federal cuts, the layoffs of teachers and paraprofessionals could reach into the thousands.
“In addition, if we reject this settlement, we probably would lose some of the very positive gains we won in the agreement such as longevity on eligibility date and electronic deposit. And all those givebacks we successfully fought off such as loss of prep times, sabbaticals and the mid-winter recess – would go back on the bargaining table. Nor is there much of chance that a rejection of this contract would result in a better agreement . . .”
These scare tactics failed, and the contract was voted down. How did the results compare with Feldman’s fearmongering?
- There was no chaos. There was no crisis.
- Not a single UFT member was laid off.
- A new proposed pact was negotiated before the end of the same school year.
- It retained all of the modest gains in the rejected pact.
- It didn’t have any new givebacks. Prep times, sabbaticals and the February recess stayed.
- It was a better agreement, if only slightly. The worst givebacks were axed: a provision to hold back 5% of the salary of new teachers was removed. Instead of 25 years to top pay, it was reduced to 22 years. A few small sweeteners were added.
The takeaway is that union leaders will use threats to get a contract approved, but in the one case where a contract was rejected, all those threats proved baseless.
But the second proposal, which the membership accepted, still had no raises in the first two years. Although the union went back to the negotiating table, it did not organize the members to fight and pressure the city for a better deal. So, it takes more than just voting “no” to get a significant improvement in a contract. It takes a struggle by the rank and file and allies.
Retired Chapter Leader, FDR High School, Brooklyn