But The Crack Team needs to rest up and we here at SBSB figure it's time to let those most affected by the wheels of the UFT Unity bus have their turn. In fact, they have had their turn, we are just reprinting what they said elsewhere © (Just can't say where.)
So for those followers, especially on the UFT Facebook page who think that this contract is just darn tootin' dandy.
Read the words of colleagues going through the anxiety and uncertainty of what will and can happen to them. It's called empathy, something many need to learn.
Any names, etc... have been altered to protect privacy.
On May 6, 2014 9:41 AM, "'Commander Sisko' via ATR Chapter Committee"
wrote:As one who frequents the open market webpage there's slim pickings. At least for me so far.
And yes the principals hide their vacancies. As for the mandatory interviews, they are a sham I have gone to two where I spend hours preparing an integrated cross content lesson, spruced up my resume, suited up demoed the lesson to hear not a word one way or the other after I send my thank yous. Another email was an invitation to interview and they were so inconsiderate of my time and my obligations as an ATR to the school I was assigned to as they were using me frequently in the classroom.As for what to expect from the DOE, the UFT? We have to rely on each other and help one another!
-----Original Message----- From: Janice Rand <YeomanRand@Enterprise.com> Subject: Re: I am against this contract and this tweet is why what's to guarantee that principals won't hide their openings and still hire newbies as they have done before????? We need a precise definition of "misconduct" and what qualifies as "documented" proof?
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
Dear Mr. Mulgrew,
It appears the due process rights of ATRs have been diminished by the language and stipulations in the proposed contract:
1) The term "problematic behavior" can be more widely construed than the term "misconduct", which allows principals and the DOE latitude to go after ATRs. The definition given for "problematic " as "behavior that is inconsistent with the expectation established for professionals working in schools", is very vague. Why should ATRs be held to a different standard than other teachers?
2) The UFT has allowed the DOE to taint the professionalism of those in the ATR pool. Why is there a stipulation that those who go through the 3020a process can be prevented from going on interviews or placed in provisional positions? Does this apply to 3020 a hearings that took place in past years also? Often, teachers who went through the 3020a process were retaliated against by their principal. They should not be further penalized and stigmatized through this discrimination but allowed the opportunity to be back in the classroom.
3) The idea of having language in the contract that an ATR who misses two interviews or shows up to an assignment more than two days late is considered to have "voluntarily resigned", reflects the disdain that the DOE has for ATRs. The UFT should have objected to this unprofessional and biased language. which is offensive.
4) The expedited process for removing ATRs for "problematic behavior" is open to abuse by the DOE.
5) There is no remediation concerning the roving supervisors who violate the contract and rights of ATRs through their teaching observations in settings that are arbitrary and disconnected from our daily duties of covering classes. Will the roving supervisors continue to observe ATRs teaching students they have never met in arbitrary settings?
The UFT has benignly neglected the ATR pool. We have not been hired in permanent positions since 2011 because of salary issues, yet the UFT has allowed the myth to perpetuate that we are unwanted, poor teachers. In addition, to say that a high percentage of ATRs are in provisional positions is misleading because most will be sent back to the ATR pool by principals next month, who will then hire new teachers.
I was supporting this new contract but after reading the fine print, I have reservations.
On 05/05/14, Colonel Hogan
wrote:Let's say that you are instructed by an AP to provide an alternate path for "earning" credits late in the year for those students who didn't think working throughout the year was important and your path proves too challenging for the student who wishes to do nothing and be rewarded for it. Can an AP claim you are insubordinate? Of course. And is that considered misconduct? Of course. Even if Farina and di Blasio have the best intentions and execute the terms of the contract fairly, remember this contract will be in effect for the next mayor and will be so until another is approved. If that mayor is Christine Quinn or Bill Gates or Campbell Brown or Lhota or Scott Brown, can they use the provisions to attack and decimate union membership? Of course. Don't talk just to ATR's; shout it from the rooftops that this deal is to be avoided. This contract is all givebacks for a mere pittance and there are still too many people in Tweed and the networks there to take advantage of the loopholes. Even if you trust who is in office now, would you sign that same contract with Bloomberg?
On May 5, 2014 9:11 PM, "Howard"
wrote:To Fonzie's point, the issues of defining precisely misconduct was something that Mulgrew dodged at the Exec Bd tonight.
There you have it. Real people, real ATR's, really concerned about there future. It sickens The Crack Team to read how others are voting for this contract because they only care about the money.
All ATR's demand our outright loyalty, our outright attention, and they have every expectation to know that the rank and file has their backs.