The ignoble deny Nobile

Philip Nobile recently reported in these pages about his Step 1 grievance hearing, in which he attempted to prevent the DOE from sending him from his home in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn to the far reaches of Staten Island for one-week no-expenses-paid ATR assignments.  Like most Step 1 grievances, Nobile's was denied.  Here is his account of the proceedings. 

Bloomberg’s DOE is a take-no-prisoners operation with a wish list including testing around the clock, no tenure, swift terminations, an eight-page contract, public humiliation in the New York Post, closing and opening thirty-three restart and transformation schools pitting teacher against teacher in a struggle to keep their jobs, and the greatest wish of all, cleansing the city of half the teaching population. 

The Good Samaritan by Aimé Morot(1880) shows the
 Good Samaritan taking the injured man to the inn (wikipedia).

Nevertheless, the DOE had a chance to play Good Samaritan at my recent grievance regarding travel hardship, specifically sending me, an ATR, deep into Staten Island in conflict with Article 18B of the contract forbidding one-way commutes over 90 minutes by public transportation. Although ATRs are not mentioned in the contract and hardship travel was not grandfathered into the LIFO agreement that spawned our revolving weekly assignments, the DOE had no choice. 

On simple humanitarian grounds, the grievance would be granted. No teacher should be compelled to commute longer than the DOE and the UFT mutually considered too onerous. To condemn innocent ATRs to a subclass of teachers, forced some weeks to travel six or more hours, is surely beyond the hardest hearing officer’s heart. 

Then there is Lawrence Becker, CEO of the Division of Human Resources. A cold, fine-print rather than a big-picture guy, Mr. Becker reasoned in his February 10 decision that uninhibited travel was not a burden but a helping hand: 

Presumably if there was some qualifying language related to Article 18B for the weekly assignment of any ATRs, it would have been included in the ATR agreement. Alleging that the ATR agreement constitutes a hardship because the DOE is following it runs counter to the ATR agreement itself, whose intent is to try to place ATRs in positions and lower the numbers of ATRs in the system. In fact, this has been done to a degree never before reached with the number of ATRs dropping from as much as 2600 in July to below 1000 at the present time. 

This grievance is hereby denied. 

But not so fast. There is always Step 2, if the UFT goes along. The Brooklyn Grievance Committee would have to approve at its Monday meeting. Switching the gears of irony, I nudged them in an email that morning: 

To the Grievance Committee: 

The DOE's kneejerk denial of our Step 1 grievance on hardship travel for ATRs is no surprise. That's what happens in a dysfunctional school system where management and labor make war on each other. 

But it will be a surprise if your committee rejects a Step 2 appeal. The UFT has virtually abandoned us ATRs, not only brushing off our demand for full representation via chapters, but also refusing to have a second meeting in the boroughs to address our rising concerns (e.g., evaluations by field supervisors). 

I cannot even get Howie [Schoor, Brooklyn Borough Rep], who promised a follow-up meeting at the October gathering, to respond to my emails on the topic. He won't say yes, he won't say no, breaking another promise to respond quickly to ATR queries. 

This is your chance to show minimum solidarity for the least of the union brethren. Don't betray us again.

Thanks for your consideration. 

Philip 

Not long after sunset, my District Representative, Tom Bennett, emailed the Committee’s decision: “The grievance committee has agreed to take your travel hardship grievance to step two. We’ll let you know what we get a hearing date.” 

Without giving away the UFT’s Step 2 strategy, it looks very promising. Becker’s reliance on the language of the ATR agreement will boomerang in next Monday’s hearing. Stay tuned.

Why does the UFT ignore the ATR?

Why doesn't the UFT pay much attention to the hundreds of teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve? Why did the UFT promise to meet with them and fail to do so? Why did the UFT promise to print an article about the ATR but printed little more than a footnote?  Why has the UFT failed to do anything about the ATR teachers' lack of representation in the UFT Delegate Assembly?

Philip Nobile has an answer that most ATRs will find to be a good fit.

Why won’t the UFT meet with ATRs? It’s a no-brainer. Rubber- room teachers under suspicion had de-facto chapters with elected liaisons who had monthly rendezvous with top dogs like Michael Mendel and LeRoy Barr at 52 Broadway. They got respect. But not us, all in good standing. We are the union’s homeless, abandoned on the battlefield, disenfranchised by Mulgrew et al. 

A homeless family

Back in September, we had to twist arms to arrange borough meetings. Amy Arundel and Barr made the rounds in October, preening solidarity while denying our right to a chapter. Brooklyn Borough Rep Howie Schoor, not a bad fellow out of the foxhole, pledged a repeat meeting and guaranteed timely responses to our inquiries. 

Would that it were so. There has never been a second meeting and nobody at the UFT will say why. I reached out to the leadership four times this month without luck. On February 1, curious about the emergence of field supervisors, I wrote: 

The DOE's cockamamie plan to observe ATRs cannot be ignored. The UFT saw this coming, but as far as known, since ATRs are not in the loop, you guys have done nothing to protect us. The least you can do now is agree to ATR meeting in the boroughs--just like last October. Howie promised more meetings then. Can you give us a date?

On February 2, Amy Arundel, Our Lady of ATRs, responded in a terse email: “no teacher has been u-rated.” 

My same day reply: 

Good to hear from you. Yes, we know nobody has been U-rated...yet. But why wait and face a fait accompli? If I may say so, it's your job to get ahead of, not behind, the curve. 

The question on the table now is: What is the UFT doing about this development, if anything? You know that the DOE is up to no good with field supervisors. But you are keeping us ATRs out of the loop.  

The obvious next step is another ATR meeting in the boroughs during which you can consult us, your constituents, about our rising concerns. So tell us--will you arrange a meeting asap? 

Arundel went silent. 

On February 3, I emailed my Brooklyn District rep Tom Bennett, et al., about his nonchalant, party-line comments re field supes, and  I recast the idea for a meeting: 

The DOE did not consult the UFT on this arrangement. But that is no excuse for the union’s passivity. For example, Amy’s Antoinette-ish throwaway: “No one has been u rated.” 

Marie Antoinette offers a plate of cake.

You owe us solidarity. You can start with borough meetings, and fast. To the leadership: will you or won’t you call a second ATR meeting as Howie Schoor promised at the first one in Brooklyn? We deserve an answer. 

The leadership must disagree.  As for the courtesy of a reply, forget it.  Ever willing to extend a golden bridge of retreat, I gave Schoor another shot on February 8th:

Now your'e breaking two promises--not only your pledge to have another ATR meeting, but also to quickly answer ATR queries. 

I don't get it.  Why won't you say yes or no to a meeting?

What’s not to get? Mulgrew et al. regard ATRs as an inconvenient marker of their impotence. They surrendered on grievances, seniority transfers, linking evaluations to test scores, and first year incompetence appeals except for 13 percent. ATRs could be next. It’s easier to sell us out when they don’t look us in the face.

Photo credits:


     http://i.huffpost.com/gen/230633/thumbs/r-HOMELESS-FAMILIES-large570.jpg


     https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5fQBRw3OWQEtZmvPj0JfkjzBFQAeYCabPOvkrbQ3PJLm8FBRo

Philip Nobile rolls the rock

Poor Philip Nobile, NYCATR's gadfly correspondent.  Just as Sisyphus spent an eternity pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to see it roll back down, so Nobile has spent most of this school year begging the DOE and the UFT to relieve him of hardship commutes from his home in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn to ATR assignments in Staten Island. NYCATR has published some of his previous rock-rolling correspondence with the UFT gods and goddesses; below is the latest installment. 

Message #1 

Date: January 12, 2012

From: Philip Nobile

To: Thomas Bennet (UFT BASIS High School representative), Howard Schoor (UFT Brooklyn Borough Representative), Amy Arundell (UFT Special Representative)

Dear colleagues:

According to hopstop, Tottenville is 18.6 miles from my house, entailing a 1:57 commute by public transportaion. This assigment exceeds the roundtrip time limit by almost an hour! How can the union allow this abuse? 

My New Dorp assignment was changed to Automotive after I complained to Tom last month. I would like the same consideration for Tottenville.

Whatever was done before can be done again, presumably.

Please let me know what you can do, not just for me, but for all ATRS. 

Thanks for your consideration.

Philip

       

Message #2 

Date: January 12, 2012

From: Howard Schoor

To: Philip Nobile

cc: Debra Poulos (UFT Special Representative)

We will try to get your assignment changed. You can also file a grievance if you choose to do so.

          

Message #3 

Date: January 12, 2012

From: Philip Nobile

To: Howard Schoor

Howie, 

Any luck? What was the method? Whom did you call? What did they say? How did it happen the last time? If DOE said no, how do I grieve? Would this be a first? Thanks. 

 Philip

Image credit:  http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/zooms/sisyphus.gif

       

NYCATR gadfly stings horses and lipsticked pigs

Philip Nobile, our resident gadfly, has been corresponding with UFT officials again. NYCATR is proud to present Nobile's stinging messages to the UFT, and not so proud to present some of the UFT's responses.

MESSAGE #1:

December 2, 2011

From: Philip Nobile

To:  Thomas Bennett, Basis HS representative; Amy Arundell, Special Representative; Howard Schoor, Brookly Borough Representative; Cc: Michael Mulgrew, President; Michael Mendel, Secretary

Dear colleagues :

You have not responded to my email query of November 12 quoted below:

"According to Tom [Bennett], the UFT is talking to DOE about insane ATR commutes. I urge all deliberate speed. I just got my 3rd S.I. order in four weeks [Nobile lives in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn]. Please update. When did the UFT last speak to DOE on this matter and what was the conclusion?"

As you know, ATRs are discontented with their plight, especially considering that we are barred from the committee reviewing the agreement. This is typical of how Unity leadership operates. The top tells the bottom (ATRs) that they are unworthy of chapter representation or access to DA or chapter leader meetings. And topping off our disenfranchisement, you deprive us of basic information like the above.

Please answer my question. Thanks for your consideration.

Philip

MESSAGE #2:

From: Thomas Bennet

To: Philip Nobile

Dear Philip:

I said we are talking to them. By that I mean we had hoped that the DOE would see that a more sensible approach to the Tottenville-Bed-Stuy shuttle would be in everyone’s interest. I haven’t heard much from ATRs in the last few weeks, so I’m wondering if DOE has started keeping people closer to home? 

Your assertion that all ATRs are disconcerted with their plight, and their lack of equanimity arises from their ignorance of “secret” bargaining sessions, access to DA, and separate chapter representation is not borne out by my experience, and I speak with a lot of ATRs. 

Naturally, if I hear anything about a change of policy, I’ll let you know. And please keep me informed about any changes you experience in the field.

I’m still looking for you at Staten Island Tech. Perhaps we can team-teach my Global class one of these weeks.

T.B.

MESSAGE #3:

From: Philip Nobile

To: Thomas Bennett

Tom,

Apparently, we talk to different ATRs. I've never met a contented one.

Mulgrew's lipstick has worn off this pig. The ATR situation is akin to the rubber room fiasco, and the UFT's hands are all over it. How would you like to sub in a different school every week? Silly question.

Anyhow, why won't somebody tell me:

 (1) who from the UFT has talked to DOE about ATRs and when;

       (2) what was on the agenda and what was the DOE's reaction
       to commuter complaints, and the UFT's counter-reaction; and

       (3) why are no ATRs on the the UFT review committee?

These are basic questions. We need to know if you're fighting for us. In the name of transparency the UFT owes ATRs an explanation.

On the other hand, only co-teaching with you could carry me back to S.I. 

Philip

P.S. Howie promised future ATR meetings at the October fest. Do you have a date in mind?

Image credits:


     https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSahLVwPtYHgF-ELDgOL68q9D3iZQsUnHrD1dwDywEVAhuoSz13UA

     http://strategichighperformance.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/lipstick-on-a-pig.jpg

UFT to ATRs: Information, Yes; Organization, No Way in Hell

Report from the Brooklyn ATR Meeting (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)

By Philip Nobile 

A crowd of over one hundred, mostly over 40 years of age, listened to a 45-minute presentation by Special Rep Amy Arundell and Co-Staff Director LeRoy Barr and then asked lots and lots of questions about our absurd predicament for almost two hours. The presenters were incisive and sympathetic in the information department. Apparently, they had cooled off from their hot meeting in The Bronx on Monday. 

“We know the DOE will screw things up and we’ll stay on top of this,” promised Barr who repeated the party line that ATRs should be happy rather than angry with their new deal. “It was not an ATR agreement, it was a no-layoff agreement,” he emphasized. “The DOE said you didn’t work. They wanted to lay you off. We will not allow them to lay you off.” 

Nevertheless, Barr’s solidarity soon evaporated when he squelched the unanimous clamor for establishing borough chapters to represent our interests. “We’re not here to talk about that,” he said, adding with typical top-down arrogance, “that’s not what you want.” 

The Information 

Arundell, a former middle-school Social Science teacher from the Bronx, is the UFT’s personnel person and now its designated ATR authority and apologist. She began with the mechanics of next week’s rotation and later addressed specific inquiries. Some highlights: 

►Brooklyn high school teachers will be assigned to District 73 or District 76 (including, horrors, Staten Island). K-8 teachers will remain in the districts from which they were excessed. This is a contractual right. 

►Principals cannot keep you in your current school unless they hire you to fill a vacancy, budget you on Galaxy, and inform the DOE.  No exceptions. 

►Your file stays in the school from which you were excessed and it’s unclear where files go if your school is closed. 

►You can be observed anytime, even if you’re teaching out of license.  

►Ratings are up in the air. No agreement yet with the DOE, but the UFT is opposed to evaluating teachers who spend only one week, or even one month, in a school. 

►If you’re absent, see the payroll secretary. For long term absence, contact Special Representative Debbie Poulos. For personal days, call your District Representative. 

►If you don’t get a new assignment in your DOE email by Friday, October 7, continue to report to your current school next Tuesday, October 11.

No Way In Hell Organization 

Several attendees, including this correspondent, protested the UFT’s pretense of representation via strange and ever-changing Chapter Leaders and soon-to-be overwhelmed District reps as back-ups. Without chapters of our own, we are out of the normal union loop, unable to attend chapter meetings and forbidden access to Delegate Assemblies. Even our allegedly lesser brethren in rubber rooms of yore had elected liaisons and monthly meetings at 52 Broadway. Denying such basic union rights to ATRs is unconscionable. 

Arundell pre-emptively defended the UFT’s third class representation of ATRs: “I will respectfully disagree that Chapter Leaders are not capable of representing you,” she said, raising her voice. “YOU ARE REPRESENTED. YOU ARE NOT A DISTINCT CLASS.” 

Nobody in the audience bought this poppycock. Cheers and clapping greeted the following dissents. 

►Herb Michael, former Chapter Leader, said: “I’m not convinced I’m really represented. We’re in a special situation. That’s why there’s a special agreement including a committee to review compliance. I’d feel more comfortable if some ATRs looked at it. We need to meet on a regular basis. Why can’t we have a motion on the floor to elect a chapter leader?” 

This is when Barr claimed that he knew better and that we didn’t want chapters to represent us. Adopting Randi Weingarten's line against rubber room chapters, he said, “You don’t want to be in a permanent class.” Such strained reasoning--as if chapter status would mean anything more than standard representation for us outcasts. At the least, Randi appeased reassigned teachers with monthly meetings in Manhattan. But ATRs in good standing are deprived of that small kindness. 

►John Lawhead said: “I’m amazed at the innocence of your assumptions. I’m in a school with no Chapter Leader. And now you’re telling us that District Leaders are going to make up the difference? What kind of union do you want to be, merely a service organization? You’ve got to use us in some way. We could be reps in schools.” 

By this time, Barr was gone and Brooklyn Borough Rep Howie Schoor stood in at the podium. He was whispering in Arundell’s ear while Lawhead spoke and may have missed his larger point about the UFT’s soul. But puffing up, he said that he would make certain that District Reps did their jobs. 

►Your correspondent, former Chapter Leader and three-year graduate of Brooklyn’s Chapel St. rubber room, spoke up: “I wanted to thank LeRoy for telling us what we want. But I know what we want; (turning to the audience): How many of you want a chapter for ATRs? (the room erupted unanimously in favor and I turned back to Schoor). Will you explain why we can’t have a chapter and will you give us your sign-up list so that we can better organize? 

Schoor and I have a complicated history. He is a nice fellow and has been generous with his time and assistance over the years. But just as often he has failed in nerve apropos my quarrels with the UFT and DOE. For example, I sent him three emails prior to the meeting asking for permission to briefly organize ATRs on site before the start of his informational session. No response. So I renewed my request on arrival. The answer was no. “It’s our meeting,” he said. I reminded him that his Special Rep Liz Perez, speaking for Barr, originally rejected my suggestion for an ATR gathering and that today’s meeting was just as much ours as the UFT’s. That got me nowhere, of course. Thereupon I entered the packed conference room and while people finished up their noshes, I defied Schoor by introducing myself and urging my colleagues to press our agenda as outlined in a Grassroots Education Movement broadsheet handed out by Norm Scott of ednotesonline. Schoor tried to shut me down almost immediately, but let me finish without interruption. 

As for our demand for a chapter, ever Schoor, the tone-deaf bureaucrat, declared that Union policy was made by the Executive Committee and Delegate Assemblies blah, blah, blah. And no, he would not share the sign-up list. In retort, I jabbed, “Such is the democracy we work in!” 

As the meeting wound down, two older female ATRs summed up our frustration with cris de coeur eliciting loud cheers. Said one: “Mulgrew doesn’t seem to care. Notice he’s not here and I bet he won’t be at the other meetings either.” 

And the other: “It's all about age and money. School aides are teaching classes in my school. Principals will not hire us. Where is the union in this? I want my dues back.”

Photo credit: 
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvJMVRz32Ds33koGKwBmBvrKnWMP3hhs9YfOTIDSHNbQf08Zye1Q

This job fair was a mockery!

Barbra Nahoum, an ATR teacher in Brooklyn's District 21, attended the mandatory job fair that was held at the Brooklyn Museum on September 20th.  She enjoyed herself so much that she ran home and dashed off the following letter to Michael Mulgrew, the president of the UFT.

Dear Mr. Mulgrew:

The parking lot of the Brooklyn Museum
features a replica of the Statue of
Liberty.  Whose liberty, we''re not sure.

Today was a humiliating day for teachers who were mandated to attend the Teacher Recruitment Fair. When I arrived with my ATR friends at the Brooklyn Museum, we received a ticket at the gate and then drove around looking for a parking spot. The parking lot was packed with cars and many teachers had to turn around and look for a spot on the street. When I entered the museum there was a check-in counter to sign in. The room was packed wall to wall with people. Most of the people in the room, I have seen at other Job Fairs in previous years. I also met a lot of new ATR's from my district, and I was very sad to see that they are now going to be joining me as a nomad in a school district. It is very apparent to me that this new teaching position "ATR" is here to stay and the club is growing by leaps and bounds.

The room was set up with long tables all around this huge room and half of the tables were empty, due to no-shows of principals, I assume. After I walked the room and it was close to 3:00 p.m., I was given a letter confirming that I attended this job fair. We then left the building and proceeded to walk to my friend's car. We then had to wait on a long line to pass the front gate. As we were waiting, I saw teachers handing the attendant money. I thought to myself, "Why are they paying when the DOE was sponsoring this fair?" When we reached the gate the attendant said, "You pay $7.00 because your ticket is not stamped." We then asked, "where do we get it stamped?" The attendant said, "I don't know." Why wasn't there a sign notifying ATR's that at the end of the fair you must get your ticket stamped? When we received a letter verifying our attendance at the end of the job fair, the Division of Human Resources staff should have asked for our ticket and stamped it. They did not mention anything about getting a ticket stamped. Many teachers were in a rush to leave because they have families and other obligations after school. The majority of teachers paid the $7.00 because none of them were aware that they were supposed to get their ticket stamped at the Teacher Recruitment Fair. There were no signs or any indication that they had to get their ticket stamped in order to be exempt from paying the parking lot fee. It was very obvious that they didn't want teachers to get their ticket stamped.

This event has turned out to be a money making event for people who own this parking lot. It is bad enough that we had to attend this event that was nonproductive. It is so disturbing that middle aged, experienced teachers are subbing and will probably never be regular teachers again in the DOE.  These teachers have many years of public service serving the children in the City of New York and this is the thanks they get. We serve the most important people in the community (our children) and our farewell gift is to be treated with no respect and we are looked upon by our coworkers as if we are rejects in this system.

This job fair was a mockery!

  

Barbra Nahoum

cc: Judy Gerowitz [UFT District 21 Representative]

Howard Schoor [UFT Brooklyn Borough Leader]

Michael Mendel [UFT Secretary]

Photo credit:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRT9vLM8LmVM6iSxL3gYp5C4CZXSytjXK_uxO-WSHdkVeFAV4uPS4ABzYObUQ