tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33431390.post5394865593091714507..comments2024-03-26T11:07:03.496-04:00Comments on Ed Notes Online: Report of the Invisible (to UFT Until Today) Discontinued Meeting at UFTed notes onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15018047869059226777noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33431390.post-66183044165866490542014-11-11T09:35:29.522-05:002014-11-11T09:35:29.522-05:00Sounds like every dealing I've had with the UF...Sounds like every dealing I've had with the UFT regarding my discontinuance. The people at D10 basically passed it off as a joke, saying "oh, you're a shortage area, just go out and get a job in another district". Meanwhile I've had two instances of a principal wanting to offer, but then mysteriously backing out after talking to HR. Eventually I gave up and moved on.<br /><br />I think the real issue at hand here is collusion between the UFT and the DOE. I know in my building (x80) 9/40 teachers were terminated in the first year, to a first year principal who has a laundry list of complaints against him for finding creative ways to ignore our contract. The union essentially sat by and did nothing about it. Most of the teachers weren't even replaced by people in the same license area, but by special education ATRs. I have nothing against those people getting new positions, but if you are removing someone from the building and not replacing them, shouldn't they at least be excessed? Seems to me that most of us were getting fired so that the principal could clear his name for having two special education teachers serve 300+ students... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com