I usually don't go up to the 19th Floor to listen to Mulgrew's reports but since I've decided to temporarily suspend handing out materials at the DA I headed up after schmoozing with people downstairs. I wasn't going to go to the DA but I went to help a parent activist hand out leaflets about a bad principal at Port Richmond HS. (See video: Oneatha Swinton Follow-Up: Video and Links
You might want to read this article I posted a few minutes ago:An Odd Twist: Might a Response to Janus Make Adjunct Organizing Easier in New York State? - New Labor Forum
Mulgrew said that there are 20 cases still to be released and they can keep them coming until the end of June. (Some of us have speculated that they are holding this case until school is out as a way to mute teacher union response.)
He talked about the law passed in the state legislature to have our backs -- the one pushed by Cuomo that allows unions escape from having to provide lawyers to those who leave the union.
Two NYSUT members, undoubtedly backed by anti-union forces, have already filed a law suit against the law. Mulgrew said they tried to make the law fool-proof against such suits. We'll see.
The law gives more access to unions to workers.
Mulgrew said the city hires 4000 every year -- the state law gives the union access. The first batch of 800 met and the UFT had access and signed up every one - in fact he said they ran out of cards. Here are some pertinent points in the law:
Within 30 days of employment or “reemployment” (or transfer into a new bargaining unit), the employer must provide the representing union with the name, address, job title, employing agency, department or other operating unit, and work location of the employee.[viii] Within an additional thirty days, the employer, “shall allow a duly appointed representative of the employee organization that represents that bargaining unit to meet with such employee for a reasonable amount of timeFrom Arthur Notes at the DA: http://nyceducator.com/2018/06/uft-delegate-assembly-june-20-2018-we.html
We have had two NYSUT teachers who’ve sued against anti-Janus law in NY State. We knew this was coming. We kept it quiet so it wasn’t scuttled while negotiating it. Similar suits in NJ, PA and others. We expect to win lawsuit but opponents have unlimited funds.
This is why it’s so important to have a union in the first place. People were frustrated because we didn’t have it. Grassroots pushed this up. If there’s momentum we can do it. That’s collective action. If we had to wait, it would be part of our next negotiation, and we would get worse deal.
On Charters: Remember when charters said only certain ones could certify their own teachers? They lost. We sued them, and they lost.
1: "No loss of raises." Obviously, the benefit to the City of extending the contract is to delay raises, effectively reducing our pay during the next fiscal year.
Turns out that 73 is exactly .2% of 365.
Let's assume an average DOE salary of 80,000. (Is there a more accurate figure? I can't find average DOE salary online.)
For a 1% raise, that's a .2% reduction. On average, that's $160 per member.
For a 2% raise, that's a .4% reduction. On average, that's $320 per member.
And a 3% raise, that's a .6% reduction. On average, that's $480 per member.
2: The more confusing part, he says, "We're not getting fleeced, we are paying exactly what the benefit costs." Without contract negotiations still ongoing, we can't possibly know what kind of raises we are delaying, and so we can't know the cost of this agreement. As you can see above, the difference between a 1% and a 3% raise is triple! The only thing that makes sense to me is that the DOE and the UFT secretly agreed that no matter what raises are negotiated over the course of the contract, the very first raise in the contract will be an agreed upon amount.