From Teachers for a Just ContractATRs have been receiving a lot of negative publicity. ATRs are teachers who, through no fault of their own, do not have a program. Their school may have closed, or there may be fewer students in their school or taking their subject. Before Weingarten and her Unity Caucus messed everything up, teachers in this situation got placed in the closest vacancy. (And, no, they did not "bump out" any appointed teachers.) But three years ago, in the 2005 contract, Weingarten and Unity gave up this right. They claimed they were protecting jobs. But TJC urged everyone to reject the contract, writing at the time:
"Under the new contract, an excessed teacher, regardless of how many years of seniority, LOSES THE GUARANTEED RIGHT TO A TEACHING PROGRAM. The principal of a school must consent to let the excessed teacher into his or her school. The excessed teacher continues to be paid, but he or she may remain as an ATR (Absent Teacher Reserve), a kind of permanent sub. It is not clear what happens to this teacher if his or her school is being closed." ("Truth vs. Spin," TJC, October 2005)
Only a year later, the 2006 contract contained a new danger for ATRs: a potential buy out. We wrote at the time:
Buy Out for ATRs - Anyone who has been an ATR (excessed teachers with no program) for a year can be offered a buyout. This paves the way for ATRs being threatened, pressured and harassed into accepting this "voluntary" layoff. Anyone of us could become an ATR at any time, regardless of our seniority, if our school closes or our department is downsized. What's worse, no amount for the buyout is set in the contract. It must be settled by negotiation or arbitration: and we will have no vote on it.
Excessed teachers once had bumping rights by seniority.The union gave that up in 2005. We also had a no layoff clause. We were told the provisions for ATRs were the equivalent of a no layoff clause. It's a slippery slope: this new change makes ATRs an endangered species, and further erodes our seniority rights and job security." ("Vote No! We Can Do Better" TJC, November 2006)
Now the danger is a step closer to reality. The media and the ‘think tanks" are hot on the trail of the ATRs, claiming they are a waste of taxpayer money. (As opposed, let's say, to bailing out Bear Stearns) Randi, whose fingerprints are all over the knife sticking out of the back of the ATRs, is jumping up and down in seeming indignation. But it could be that, before long, she'll be crowing about the generous buyout she's gotten the ATRs, and pointing out that in Chicago, they would simply be laid off, implying "Take the money and run," while there's money to take. She'd like everyone to forget that it's her fault ATRs exist in the first place.
THE MOST POWERLESS VICTIMSWe support whole heartedly the ATRs and our colleagues who've been removed to reassignment centers in their struggles for justice. But the plight of untenured teachers is just as bad and often worse. Untenured teachers don't have even the right to a 3020a hearing. All it takes is one administrator or supervisor who is irrational, bigoted, eager to hire a favorite, or some combination thereof, and their teaching career is D.O.A. There is no second chance. The higher-ups who come in to observe invariably rubber stamp the school administrators. The so-called appeal procedure is a waste of time and a cruel joke. The union, though it collects the same amount of dues from these untenured people, provides far less protection for them. This is a tragic waste of teaching talent.
One of these many individuals has written a moving and indicting description of his experience. It reads, in part: "the principal . . . has decided that I am not qualified to teach math. Interestingly enough [he] is a medical doctor by profession, and has made this ‘diagnosis' at the end of the school year without a single [classroom observation]. What's even more interesting is that this "diagnosis," which was supposed to be backed by six [observations] - was accepted by . . . the DOE. My letter to the regional superintendent . . . was left without an answer. In another case, asking a . . . deputy chancellor about which non-existing document she is referring to when making her decision [upholding the U-rating], I received no response. . . . Theoretically, it is possible for a fired teacher to take his grievance to court. This is possible only in theory . . . due to financial reasons. Additionally, on the DOE's side . . . [the] regional superintendent . . .makes sure that the last step [of the appeal] at the DOE takes place only after the expiration date of any possible legal recourse . . . Only after this is the teacher within his rights to ask for any recording of the hearings held - - but even these recordings may be blank . . . as . . . in my case."
Kafka-esque, nightmarish: even these terms don't begin to describe it.
READY FOR SOME GOOD NEWS?Persecuted by their principal, and with their Chapter Leader in league with him, a group of veteran teachers at Graphic Communication High School gave up on the union and hauled the miscreant into court. After much time, energy, and money have been expended, their rightful cause has met with success. On Sept. 19, after a two-week trial, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a jury found the New York City Dept. of Education and Jerod Resnick, principal of Graphic Communication Arts High School, guilty of intentional and willful discrimination on the basis of age against teachers Diana Friedline and Midge Maroni, and retired teacher Anthony Ferrero, and awarded the teachers monetary damages.
TJC congratulates these courageous UFT members on their well-deserved victory. It is an indictment of the UFT leadership that they needed to resort to an expensive, time consuming battle in court to get justice. We must carry on our efforts to reform our union from the grassroots to the top, to make it into a democratic organization that will serve our interests.
You can reach Teachers for a Just Contract.
Our mailing address is TJC, POB 1346, Bronx NY 10471