The current UFT Contract ends 11/28/27; however, the terms and conditions of the current contract remain in full force and effect until the successor contract is ratified. In NYS public employee labor agreements, aka, contracts, don’t expire, they just designate a date to negotiate the next agrement.
Prior to the Taylor Law contracts did expire and without a contract management was free to reduce benefits and unions free to strike. A court decision, the Triborough Doctrine, embedded in law, prevents management from changing any terms and conditions in the expiring contract. In Bloomberg’s last term he decided he was going to eliminate senior-based layoff rules, eliminate tenure as a beginning. Mulgrew simply said “we’ll wait for the next mayor,” to negotiate a new contract. You may remember Bloomberg spent $100M of his own money running for the democratic candidate for the presidency and his polling never exceeded 3% – he blames the UFT.
While the current contract doesn’t end for a year and half we have a new mayor and perhaps a shaky NYC economic outlook.
Negotiations take place all the time as matters emerge.
Article 20 of the Contract, “Matters Not Covered” allows for “impact bargaining,” to bargain for items that arise not specified in the Contract.
With respect to matters not covered by this Agreement which are proper subjects for collective bargaining, the Board agrees that it will make no changes without appropriate prior consultation and negotiation with the Union. … All existing determinations, authorizations, by-laws, regulations, rules, rulings, resolutions, certifications, orders, directives, and other actions, made, issued or entered into by the Board of Education governing or affecting salary and working conditions of the employees in the bargaining unit shall continue in force during the term of this Agreement, except insofar as change is commanded by law.
With a yawning deficit the city was scrambling to avert cuts in services and possible layoffs. The Mayor and the Union negotiated a mutually acceptable arrangement: a win – win.
The agreement,
- Gives New York City an additional two years to reach full compliance on the Class Size Reduction Law
- Sets a new timeline to reach full compliance: 70% of classrooms for 2026-27; 80% for 2027-28; 90% for 2028-29; 100% for 2029-30.
- Creates a clear timeline for NYC to build new classroom seats where needed.
- Creates an accountability incentive for New York City to treat space and hard-to-staff exemptions as temporary tools to reach full compliance, not permanent workarounds to avoid implementing the law.
- The accountability incentive requires New York City to pay educators a differential when working at schools given space and or hard-to-staff exemptions to reach the citywide compliance rates, and class sizes are still larger than the law allows.
Michael Mulgrew, the president of the UFT, “We did not want an extension – we want compliance. But the reality is that New York City, up until now, had not done all that was needed to make this law a reality in every classroom. If giving this new administration two more years gets us a partner committed to building the necessary seats, then it is the fastest way to turn the law into reality,”
“Our goal is compliance. We hope a differential will be an incentive to do the recruitment, hiring, and construction needed to fulfill the law. Smaller classes are the future of our school system. No one thought it was possible, but now more than 60% of classes are smaller as a result of this law. We have to keep pushing to bring this change to all children and all schools,” Mulgrew said.
Will the upcoming negotiations continue the willingness to negotiate without rancor?
Perhaps to redesign core elements in the system?
Back in an era long, long ago when I served on the negotiating team the Board of Education reply to most of the UFT demands was “no, a “management prerogative,” negotiations are still contentious; however, with both parties seeking mutually beneficial solutions.
The UFT bargaining demands must reflect the entire membership.
How does the union engage over 100,000 members in the negotiations process?
Perhaps a stratified random sample survey of the membership, and focus groups by divisions, functional chapter, etc., and, in collaboration with chapter leaders and surveys develop bargaining demands.
Develop teams of members to meet with management to discuss bargaining demands.
How does state law impact negotiations?
The Public Employee Relations Act, commonly called the Taylor Law governs the negotiations process. NYS, as most other states, prohibits strikes by public employees and, if requested by labor and management, a process: mediation, fact-finding and non-binding arbitration.
The law also sets forth principles to guide the process: ability to pay and pattern bargaining.
Three years ago I scribed two subtasks in the midst of contract negotiations with Adams, worth a read here and here
When the UFT actually sits down at the bargaining table, ability to pay could be a major issue, the NY Times has a concerning article re: the lack of job growth.
The Citizens Budget Commission, in the past, has been sharply critical of settlements and will probably oppose many of the union demands.
… the budget falls far short of meaningfully confronting the City’s long-term fiscal challenges. The City closes the budget gap largely with one-time resources, short-term savings, and costs shifted to future New Yorkers; recurring savings are limited. Projected budget gaps grow from $7.1 billion in fiscal year 2028 to $9.8 billion in fiscal year 2030, even before employee raises and programmatic initiatives that could add billions of dollars in annual spending. Without a major effort to shrink spending growth, the City risks a self-inflicted crisis requiring significant service cuts or uncompetitive tax increases.
- A pension gimmick—stretching out contributions—costs more in the long run and unfairly requires New Yorkers in the 2030s to pay services delivered over the next six years;
- Delaying the Class Size Reduction mandate saves money for now, but leaves the City to ultimately spend $1.4 billion annually, including additional spending on high performing, popular schools
The Union and the mayor are still getting to know each other, the mayor’s first action was to change his position on mayoral control. angering teachers and parents, his anti-mayoral control campaign stance attracted many parent and teacher votes, his recent actions, school budgets will not reflect lower registrations, his support of Tier 6 reform and apparent support of the para pay bump are positive signs and the union has responded. not preventing pushing pension funding forward, a bookkeeping device, and agreeing to the stretching out of the Class Size Reduction Act, both issues save the city billions and averts cuts in education dollars to schools.
Instead of applauding the change in Tier 6, moving the retirement age from 63 to 58, an opposition candidate for the TRS Board of Trustees criticized the change, while the union pledged to continue the fight to improve Tier 6. The UFT fought off opposition from school districts across the state, who will have to fund the change, and a governor who required substantial nudging. Mulgrew and his team deserve accolades not nastiness.
An opposition caucus opposed the last contract and urged a no vote, I asked what strategy they would have used, the reply, “prepare to strike.” I pointed out out that “preparing to strike” was suicidal, I was accused of fear mongering. The current Trump-like criticism of UFT leadership may be in the opposition playbook, it did elect Trump.
As a union rep I had to deal with the superintendent, and I had to remember I represented all the members, including the malcontents. I learned to “agree to disagree,” to work together when we could, to try and find common ground, to fight when I had to.
David Kirkland, the former Director of the NYU Metro Center and currently the leader of EDForward, writes,
. The problem isn’t that we are not the same; it’s that we need to learn to live together within our differences. This isn’t about unity but how to agree and disagree more constructively.
Our failure to engage in constructive disagreement undermines our strength. True progress requires us to move beyond superficial agreements and confront the complexities of our varied perspectives. How do we shift our focus from striving to be heard to fostering a culture where respectful, robust disagreement is seen as a pathway to deeper understanding and genuine collaboration? How do we quiet our passions long enough to listen to our hearts and move more thoughtfully with our heads?
I have learned that effective disagreement is not about striving to be heard or erasing differences but about quieting our passions so that we might engage our differences more deeply and respectfully. It is about creating environments where conflicting views can coexist and where dialogue can lead to growth and change.
As bell hooks writes, “Engaged pedagogy begins with the assumption that we learn best when there is an interactive relationship between teacher and students.” This principle extends beyond the classroom to all areas of life, emphasizing how engagement and mutual respect are foundational to productive conflict resolution.
Paulo Freire … states, “Dialogue cannot exist without humility,” highlighting the need for participants in any conflict to approach each other with openness and a willingness to learn. In practice, this means creating spaces where all participants feel safe to express their views and where there is a genuine effort to understand and integrate different perspectives.
As the union prepares for the upcoming negotiations the union is creating a process to allow all voices to be heard, and the process is a learning experience for our membership.
Ed in the Apple: Blogging on the Intersection of Education and Politics Title 