Mulgrew to ATRs: You are second-class UFT members

Marjorie Stamberg reports:

At the Wednesday, May 16 meeting of the UFT's Delegate Assembly , I raised the issue of the union's cynical "solution" to the UFT's disenfranchisment of ATRs in the union elections. Many ATRs had no place to vote in the union elections as they trudge from school to school on a weekly basis, where they are treated as non-people until they move on the next week. This week-to-week trek was agreed upon by the union and the DOE last spring, as part of the deal that there be no teacher layoffs. Last fall, I and others put forward motions that the ATRs be accorded their full voting rights with their own chapter. We have been fighting for this for several years, and it has always been brushed off with the excuse that their situation is only "temporary."  

Last week, the UFT leadership announced a "solution"--with chapter elections upon us, they decided that ATRs would vote at the school where they are for the week the elections are held. This is outrageous--how can ATR teachers effectively advocate for their needs when they are "here today, gone tomorrow," and the chapter representatives are not accountable to them? 

UFT President, Michael Mulgrew

Yesterday, when I raised this issue in the question period at the delegate assembly, Mulgrew refused to let me get a sentence out, interrupting me, harassing and yelling, "What's your question," "Make it a question," "That's not a question!" Following his lead, a passel of Unity delegates obediently picked up the jeer. Over the din, I was finally able to get out, "My question is, how do you justify this outrageous cynical disenfranchisement of the ATRs' right to vote?" and saying "the ATRs need their own chapter."

The Artful Dodger

Mulgrew answered with a time-honored evasion: The union is in arbitration, he said, because the DOE has not kept to its commitment to place ATRs in open positions and long-term vacancies. Until this arbitration is settled, the union is doing the "best it can" to give ATRs voting rights. He was silent on the fact that the weekly trek of ATRs is happening with the consent of the UFT leadership, which agreed to it as part of the deal on layoffs last spring.

Don't worry, I will keep on raising this issue. With more schools closing than ever, there will be a huge swelling of the ATR pool next fall. As we all know, "If you're not ATR, you could be soon." The fight for rights of ATR teachers is everyone's fight.

Mulgrew admits that ATRs suffer from Taxation without Representation

I've waited for someone to come out and say it: the UFT's refusal to allow ATR teachers to form their own chapter amounts to taxation without representation. I need not wait any longer.  Marjory Stamberg, a veteran NYCATR correspondent, has reported that the issue was raised at the UFT Delegate Assembly meeting that took place on October 19, 2011.  And guess who more or less agreed that it is unfair for the UFT to collect dues from members who cannot elect representatives?  None other than the President, Michael Mulgrew. 

Here is Stamberg's report:

President Mulgrew reported that since October 7, the number of ATRs has gone down to a little over 1,100.  If the principal gives an ATR a provisional placement, they can stay in the school.  ATRs that are not picked up will now be moved from school to school on a weekly basis. Mulgrew said the chapter leaders will make themselves available at schools to welcome the ATRs and help them with their problems at a new school. They should be treated with respect, as with any other staff member. A resolution was passed on dignity for ATRs.

Dave Pecoraro, Chapter Leader at Beach Channel High School put up a motion for an ATR chapter, which would elect a chapter leader and delegates.  I seconded the motion. His argumentation was that in May there will be elections for all chapter leaders and delegates.  ATRs are dues paying members and have a right to vote, and will not be able to vote if they don’t have a chapter.

The motion was defeated, but there was a good deal of support for it. The motion was opposed by the leadership which argued that this would make the ATR situation a permanent fixture, and they want that status to disappear. Mulgrew did acknowledge that the voting-franchise issue was a problem and they would work on it.

My own view is that as long as the DOE keeps recklessly closing schools down and throwing teachers out of their classrooms, the ATR situation will not disappear. No amount of incentives given to the principals will work.  There need to be systemic changes in the system. The problem arose out of the 2005 contract sellout when seniority transfer was eliminated and will not be resolved until those transfer rights are restored.

Several motions on ATRs were circulated but not allowed on the floor at this meeting.

Cartoon credit:

http://myloc.gov/_assets/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/BillofRights/BillofRightsLegacy/Assets/acd2a06257_standard.jpg

Letter from the Bronx UFT meeting

Marjory Stamberg, a longtime UFT activist, filed this report from the UFT's meeting for members of the ATR in the Bronx. The meeting was held on Monday, October 3, 2011, at 2500 Halsey Street.   

I attended the UFT ATR meeting for the Bronx borough yesterday (October 3). This is by no means a full report but a brief summary of the contentious issues and burning questions that were raised.

The UFT leadership people presiding were Amy Arundel (Special Representative), backed up by LeRoy Barr (Staff Director), who stepped in to try to cool things out when tempers started to rise, as they did frequently.  Arundel attempted to justify the June agreement on ATRs, which grew out of the deal on no layoffs of teachers. In exchange for that, it appears the ATR situation was used a bargaining chip. To save the DOE money, they agreed to use the ATRs in place of day-to-day subs. Those who are not given permanent assignments will be moved from school to school on a weekly basis (!) UNLESS a principal takes the affirmative action of alerting DOE central that he or she wishes to keep the ATR for more than a month. 

Time after time, the ATR teachers at the meeting spoke out and said that in this way things were made worse for them than before. Before now, many had the possibility of being in one school for a length of time, even if denied the rights of an assigned teacher. Now they must move every week to a new place and begin the wrenching process of adjusting to a new school--everything from locating keys to the bathroom, lockers, copiers, as well as relations with a new set of teachers and supervisors.

Arundel explained that no teachers will be forced to accept an assignment out of their district; she said that teachers should call the union if they receive such an assignment. Arundel also said that no teacher can be forced to do hall duty or cafeteria duty all day; ATRs must be treated as every other teacher on staff.

The important issue of evaluations was raised: how is an ATR teacher to be evaluated if the teacher is in a school for only one week? Arundel said that this is being negotiated with the DOE and the UFT position is that the teacher cannot be evaluated by any principal who has worked with that teacher for only one week.

Arundel and Barr kept coming back to the UFT default positions, which were two:  

*Regarding the weekly trek from school to school, Arundel said the UFT wanted this because the principals have been gaming the system, using an ATR like a full-time staffer without any rights and without paying for them. This, they hope, will force the principal to pay up and assign the teacher if they want that person around. (This, by the way did not work in District 79 last year, where the ATR teachers from Rikers worked all year and all but a very few were NOT assigned after the year of work in our school).

*If you don’t like any of this, the UFT bottom line is you still have a job and a paycheck. You could be in Chicago or Los Angeles and have a cap of a year or 18 months to get an assignment or you’re out.  

There are several points that needed to be raised and answers to questions that were not heard from the UFT officials:

1) Data: Arundel stressed that the union is amassing data, but the fundamental data questions were not addressed. How many ATRs have been given assignments this term, and how many ATRs are in the pool?

2) Since everyone in the room was demonstrably over 30 years old (many far over), there is clear evidence of age discrimination. Why is this not being fought directly?

3) If ATRs are to be treated as every other teacher, why are the ATRs not given a UFT chapter, with voting rights, delegates and chapter leaders?

The meeting was handled in a very bureaucratic way. Teachers were asked to speak only to the specific point at hand, without discussing the broader picture: the desperate situation of ATRs who are in this situation due to the UFT’s capitulation and give-away of seniority transfer rights and creation of the open market in 2005, and the union-busting attempts and school-closing patterns that are creating new ATRs every year.  If a teacher did speak to the specific point at hand, they were told that their questions were too detailed to raise in a group setting and to see the representatives individually after the meeting.

I was only allowed in the meeting after a prolonged interchange with a union representative, even though I explained that I was a UFT delegate and had spent a large number of hours advocating for ATRs in the past.  I mentioned that my District, D79, was probably the poster child for the mass excessing that took place following the “reckless reconstruction” of D79 in 2007, when hundreds of teachers were thrown out of their classrooms and hundreds of students lost in the process. Even then I was only allowed to observe, not speak.

Photo credit: http://www.uft.org/files/photo/bronx_boro_office_1.jpg