What’s the Pattern?
The Pattern. Is it the thing that holds our raises down? Yup. What precisely is it?
Activists and advocates know it is a problem. That’s good. They are right. But when they try to explain what it is… honest mistake… or otherwise (see below)… I think they get it wrong.
During the last UFT election, ARISE campaigned to break the Pattern:
MORE, which opposes the Pattern, calls it the percent raise that the City offers. “The annual 3% raise “pattern” on the table is simply not acceptable” (from an article discussing the last contract negotiations)
The UFT published an attack on Pattern bargaining this week (and the attack is in the name of the union, but it clearly reflects the point of view of the controlling caucus, Unity):
“Pattern bargaining – it’s the NYC contract negotiation practice of giving the same percentage salary increases to all titles.”
It is easy to follow what Olivia says. And it is easy to believe the UFT post. Why do they seem to make sense? The City financial offer gets reported out as annual percentage increases. Some examples:
- 3%, 3%, 3%, 3.25%, 3.5%
- Or $1000 ratification bonus, 2%, 3%.
- Or 0%, 0%, 3%, 3%, 4.75%
What is the contract worth?
City documents talk about the total cost of the contract offer. That’s how much more money the City will be paying out, above what they are already paying. And expressed as a percent, that’s the pattern. And expressed as a dollar amount, that’s the “package.”
Let’s look at Mayor Adams’ announcement of the last UFT contract:
The tentative agreement is retroactive, beginning on September 14, 2022, and expires on November 28, 2027. It conforms to the economic pattern established by the agreement with District Council (DC) 37 earlier this year, and includes wage increases of three percent for each of the first three years of the contract, 3.25 percent in the fourth year, and 3.50 percent in the fifth year. The agreement also includes a $3,000 lump sum ratification bonus for all UFT members and a first-of-its-kind annual retention payment to be paid in May of each year, beginning with $400 in 2024, $700 in 2025, and $1,000 in 2026 and every year thereafter. These payments will help the city retain its valuable educators, especially those earning lower annual salaries.
The total cost of the tentative UFT agreement through Fiscal Year 2027 will be $6.4 billion, which is funded in the labor reserve in the proposed Fiscal Year 2024 Executive Budget.
The article is longer – click to read all of it if you like. But operative here: “It conforms to the economic pattern…” and “The total cost … will be $6.4 billion” – notice that the City’s bottom line is the pattern, and the pattern is the $6.4 billion.
Big Points – which will need further discussion:
- The City dictates the total value of the contract
- The City does not dictate the percent increases for each title (come back to this – give examples of unions, including the UFT, moving package money to other parts of the salary schedule, to other titles, or out of the salary schedule altogether, to other work rule changes)
- Exception: The City has been willing to let the union give something up to get something (pay for our own raises). For example, in the infamous 2002 UFT contract with the City, we traded a longer work day for more cash.
- Wages are a mandatory subject of bargaining (under the Taylor Law). If our union leaders are accepting “the package” – if they are not negotiating over the size of the package, they may not be fulfilling their most basic responsibility to our membership.
Where is this going?
- Looking for clarification and precision. I THINK I have this 100% right, but would be grateful for refinements that improve this.
- Paras. The Unity post blames the City for low para pay. I think we have something to talk about. (And paras MUST have higher wages)
- The Taylor Law bit. How can a union call itself a union if it does not negotiate wages? (only how the wages the employer is offerare distributed?) This is not only the UFT, but it is the UFT. It is a problem that all the NYC municipal unions seem derelict in their duty to their memberships.
But for the moment –
- I think activists, including ARISE, including Olivia, we know instinctively that the Pattern is a problem, and we should oppose it.
- I think Unity blaming The Pattern (which they’ve accepted for a long time – glad they are now questioning it) for low para wages is disingenuous – need to come back to that.
- I think the pattern is the percent increase represented by the overall package – by the $6,400,000,000 last time – and that the percentage that each person gets is the result of how the city and the union agree to distribute the package.
- I am very concerned that the union does not negotiate over the size of the package – seems both bizarre, and accepted practice in NYC. Can someone verify that?
JD2718 