Tentative Agreement – Some Thoughts

• The UFT has a tentative contract agreement. It went through negotiating committee, executive committee, delegate assembly on Tuesday. It’ll get voted on in most chapters – this week. Probably.
• I’m retired. This (mostly) does not affect me personally. I do not vote on it. In past years I’ve been on all three of those committees – the distance is a little strange.
• I have supported previous contracts. I have opposed previous contracts. None of them, as far as I was concerned, were good contracts. But some were genuinely harmful, and some were ok.
• Of the five contracts that came up while I was in service, I voted for three and against two. One that I voted for I probably should have voted against (Unity hid crucial information)
• I opposed 2005 when the caucus I was joining, New Action, was officially neutral. I supported 2018 (probably a mistake) when much of New Action and all of MORE (who we had run with in 2016) were opposed. I make up my own mind. I don’t evaluate contracts primarily on what’s best for me personally (I do pay attention), but based on what’s best for the members and the union as a whole.
• The biggest plus on this contract is no major givebacks, that we can see. It sounds like a low bar. It is a low bar. But not every contract has met that bar.
• I’m neither impressed nor disheartened by the calendar and schedule stuff. It was strange how this allegedly almost blew everything up last week, but a few days later was done in fine detail. I’m hearing some folks say it was all a big show. Make believe. Play fighting. Maybe. But no matter – this is really still just dicing and slicing the time from the time-for-money-swap two decades ago. Some mistakes, Randi Weingarten and Unity, stay with you a long, long time.

What I don’t do:

• I don’t automatically do what the union leadership recommends
• I don’t reflexively oppose everything that Unity does
• I don’t vote based on money alone (and now I don’t vote)
• I don’t vote based on my personal interest alone (again, no longer voting)
• I don’t oppose based on not get back everything we gave up (2005 is a generation ago)

What I do:

• I evaluate each contract on its merits, in the context of what is happening in the City, the DoE, and in our union

Here’s my biggest reservations this time:

• The money. Inflation during the pandemic, and after, have been bad. Our effective pay has dropped, because prices have gone up. These raises do not keep up with FUTURE inflation. In no way do they make up for the inflation (salary cuts) that we have experienced in the last three years.
• The money. Lowest paid titles fall further behind in this agreement. Beginning teachers should not be falling further behind experienced teachers. And please, please, paraprofessionals need to START at a living wage. We are a union – we should be supporting our most vulnerable.
• The money. Signing bonuses are inducements to vote yes – which are worth LESS than if the money were rolled into future raises. To be sure, our side, Mulgrew, Unity leadership, chose bonuses instead of salary increases. Cynical move. They don’t trust members. These are payday loans.
• The money. Retention payments are non-pensionable. The fact that they are flat amounts rather than percents is good (helps the lowest-paid among us the most – helps beginning teachers and counselors, helps titles such as para and secretary even more). But this makes non-pensionable a larger share of a para’s salary than of a teacher’s salary – in other words – hurts most the people who need the biggest boost. And regular non-pensionable payments open a door we should not be opening.

At this point, I would be on the fence. Not a great contract. Very disappointing money. A few bad details. But no obvious givebacks. I have supported similar deals in the past, voted for them, urged others to.

But then there’s healthcare

• There is no explicit health care cut or giveback in this tentative agreement
• In the 2018 contract there was no explicit health care cut or giveback. After the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly had already voted to recommend the contract, James Eterno got his hands on and published “Appendix B” that Unity had hidden from the members.
• Unity agreed to Appendix B separately, earlier in the year, but needed to include this extraordinary health care cut, by reference, in the contract.

But what does this mean for 2023? This is a five year old agreement.

• Members need to know if there is any implicit agreement on health care (Unity was NOT forthcoming last time)
• Members need to know if they are ratifying the continuation of Appendix B (in other words, agreeing to more cuts down the road)
• Members need to know what cuts Appendix B mandates, and how deep those cuts will go.

I recommend voting no

Meh contract. Bad money. I might have voted no, might have voted yes if that was all. Other provisions that are unlikely to add up to much. But those question marks on healthcare tip the scales. If I were still in service, I would be voting no. I urge you to do so.

I’ll try to write more about the contract vote in the coming days. Why is it so rushed? Why does the money look the way it does? How likely is it that the contract is sent back to be renegotiated? (short answer, not very likely) And why it is worth voting no, even if the contract is likely to pass.