Sunday, January 24, 2016

What is the UFT Saying If It Extends the Current ATR Provisions Without ATR Input?

    There have been reports on some of the blogs that the UFT has extended the current provisions (random rotations, expedited dismissal, forced placements, termination with two missed mandated interviews, etc.) six months before the current provisions end, with no official announcement and no discussion of the implications. There are several factors that make this premature decision, if true, especially odious. First and foremost is that veteran teachers should not be turned into substitutes, because we have earned our right to be in the classroom via tenure, education  and experience. We have been replaced with inexpensive, unlicensed and inexperienced individuals. (These individuals, who are also UFT members, have more rights.) This was facilitated via the 2005 contract and with Major Bloomberg.

   We now have a new major, who promotes himself as  progressive, fair and ethical. Many of us waited patiently for him to change this scheme. We are still waiting.

  ATRs joined together and went to the UFT to request a chapter, in order to facilitate protection of our rights and direct input. We were denied. Mulgrew's view was that an ATR chapter would solidify a temporarily displaced group. Keep in mind that I personally know ATRs that have been rotating for 10 years! Also be aware that there are more ATRs joining the pool every year because of school closings. If we are temporarily displaced, why would the union solidify that displacement instead of ending it? How would Mulgrew decide this? How would this respect our rights as members and people?

    The Fredrichs case is on the horizon. Does the UFT expect ATRs to remain loyal? Has the UFT been loyal to us? It has absolutely and resolutely betrayed us. The UFT has intentionally portrayed us as subpar teachers to rationalize its betrayal. If the UFT could have sacrificed us for any meager gain, it would have. That would have taken legislative action, that would impact LIFO for all NYS unions. Compare Patrick Lynch to Michael Mulgrew and you'll get a picture of how well that would have gone. Lynch fights for cops. Can you imagine cops and firemen being treated the way we are? Close a precinct or firehouse and have all the experienced cops and firemen become APTs or AFTs? I don't think so.

   So what is the UFT saying if it extends (or already has) the current ATR provisions without ATR input? It is saying "We don't need or want your input. You will stay an ATR until you disappear."

No comments:

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Stories herein containing unnamed or invented characters are works of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.