Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Repost (10/09/16) : Atlas ponders, 'What ATR Scenario Would Mulgrew Deny the City?'
Two weeks ago we learned that there were renewed ATR negotiations via Mr. Mulgrew's announcement that they didn't go well. What does the city want that Mulgrew would have denied!?Atlas asked some friends their opinions:
Tony: Probably weekly or daily rotations in different boroughs.
Atlas: No, Bloomy tried that. The UFT won the court case.
George: I think they want the ATRs to drink the water in each school to test for lead.
Atlas: No, ATRs don't drink any liquid during the day. This is to minimize their need to urinate based on the frequent absence of a restroom key. Mulgrew would have readily agreed to this.
Harry: Place all ATRs as the sole staff in receivership schools and allow the staff to be fired when the school doesn't improve.
Atlas: Two thoughts about that - one a deformer group has FOILed the DOE to get the info on ATRs sent into these schools. If the info is released, then it proves ATRs are superior, not inferior - and also that ATRs are being sent to these schools. If the UFT agreed to this scenario then this would come out and the UFT could not be seen agreeing to termination of these ATRs.
Harry: So you think this is the case?
Atlas: Perhaps. Anymore ideas?
Pat: I think they wanted a time limit. Get a permanent position or be terminated.
Atlas: No, the system is set up to insure ATRs don't get permanent positions. State law, LIFO, states last in first out. The UFT and DOE would lose that battle in court and in the court of public opinion.
Jean: I think the DOE wants to give up and put all ATRs back in the classroom permanently.
Atlas: Very interesting. If the UFT agreed to this they would lose the dues for 2,000 new UFT members that wouldn't be hired. This may be what the Mulgrew referenced when he said a new agreement couldn't be reached and there was no new agreement.