Tuesday, May 27, 2014

UFT Contract: Discrimination Against Women on Child Care Leave

Woman (and some men) on maternity leave -  unfairness and bias against mothers taking care of their children in this contract. No "signing bonus" and will not get retro, not only on leave, but will only get it in payments after return.... Comment from a MOREista with a young child
Yes, some men, but mostly women. From the early days of ed deform I was pointing to how the entire concept of making teachers work 12 hour days was anti-women with families. Their ideal teachers were childless without having to take days off to care for a sick child or race home for childcare.

The same charges came up in the 1995 contract rejection when the Unity Caucus leadership, in Randi's first contract negotiation screw-up, pushed maximum salary from 20 to 25 years - pretty outrageous. Women who took time off for childcare were a major factor in the rejection. When Randi (who was not president at that time) came back with 22 years 6 months later, people (even those in the opposition) took that as a win when in actuality it was a loss --- 2 more years to reach max than before. But so is the way of the Unity -- give ice water in winter and claim it's hot tea.

I have written before on this issue: UFT Contract: An Attack on Women.


The contract proposal is an attack on feminism. 75% of UFT members are woman. The leadership expects the contract to pass because they anticipate that woman are willing and deserve to accept much lower pay in creases than they deserve.... Comment on Ed Notes
 
After the UFT Brooklyn borough contract meeting, a pregnant teacher came up to ask [Borough Rep] Howie Schoor if anything was added to the contract to help pregnant members and members needing to stay home to take care of their newborns.  Howie had nothing to say...besides trying to make it sound as if the current contract was good enough... report from a teacher present
Is Unity saying "screw you?"
I am not up on how a woman taking time off to take care of her baby will be affected but feel free to enlighten me. 

In the 1995 contract rejection, the raising of maximum salary from 20 to 25 years caused a firestorm, especially from women who had lost years staying home to take care of children. When the contract was rejected, the new number was down to 22 years. Funny, but many looked at that as a gain - down from 25, but in reality it was a loss - up from 20 in the  old contract.

And so it goes with the Unity Caucus shysters running the UFT for the past 64 years -- for those of you who think somehow WeinGrew have led the union astray, believe me it was no different in 1970 when I first became active in the union.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome. Irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted, as will all commercial links. Comment moderation is on, so if your comment does not appear it is because I have not been at my computer (I do not do cell phone moderating).