WHO NEEDS A LIVING WAGE WHEN I GOT YOU A HANDBOOK?!— Unity UFT Para Chapter Leader Speaks Out Against UFT Devising a Collective Bargaining PLAN to Fix Para Pay with a LIVING WAGE

At last night’s March DA, Unity Para CL touts gains of a para handbook, more PDs and more CTLE credit opportunities. While hides fact that wages were not discussed in their para contract talks.

WHO NEEDS A LIVING WAGE WHEN I GOT YOU A HANDBOOK?!— Unity UFT Para Chapter Leader Speaks Out Against UFT coming up with a Collective Bargaining PLAN to Fix Para Pay with a LIVING WAGE — instead says her board worked for a para handbook, PDs and CTLE credits.

Last night at the March UFT delegate assembly, Unity leadership and its Unity para chapter leader allowed their caucus loyalty oaths to get in the way of voting for an original meaningful resolution written by two full-time classroom paras and myself, a special education teacher, that called for a collective bargaining plan and strategy to fight for a living wage for paras.

The original resolution not only aggressively called for lobbying for legislation that provides federal grant monies toward improving the pay and conditions of paras, but also an original resolve that they had previously gutted, that was again proposed as an amendment at last night’s DA, asking the UFT to come up with a comprehensive collective bargaining plan to fight to ensure paras receive a living wage.

Quite frankly, I couldn’t believe my ears at last night’s DA. It was surreal to be in a union hall filled with patronage union staffers, along with loyalty oath bound Unity delegates, rejecting to exercise our collective power and authority to come up with a PLAN to fight for a living wage for paras.

Their biggest pushback was that this should come from the para chapter in their contract negotiations committee, but there is one problem with this rationale: Paras who served on this contract committee were explicitly told at last spring’s contract talks that wages were not in the purview of their committee but rather that compensation and wages was happening in another committee.

I know this to be true because I was part of the greater contract negotiation committee. We all knew that the big ticket items like compensation were being handled by Unity’s chief negotiators in their clandestine “governance committee”.

What’s even crazier to me about their pushback from last night is that the proposed amendment doesn’t preclude THAT a collective bargaining PLAN not be borne out of the para chapter. That is to say, the amendment didn’t dictate what UFT spaces this plan be forged. This is why their muddying of the waters really doesn’t even hold water.

In addition, last night, Unity claimed to speak on behalf of full time paras. Yet, not one of their speakers against coming up with a collective bargaining plan is an active full time para, but rather staffers making triple digit salaries with double pensions.

So what is this about? What happened at the DA?

Nick Bacon, co-chair of New Action caucus and a high school UFT executive board member gives us some context and background from his minutes and analysis:

The headline from tonight comes from the very end of the meeting – Unity’s bizarre handling of the paraprofessional resolution.

Readers may remember that I motivated Migda Rodriguez, Marie Wausnok, and Daniel Alicea’s resolution at executive board on Monday, only to see it gutted of its most important resolved – the one that would have committed the UFT to fighting for a living wage.

Tonight, Priscilla Castro, who ran with Unity and won the chief para gig over at 52 Broadway, made a motion to move the gutted version of the reso up to the number three slot (it was at eleven beforehand). This felt coordinated, not just because it gave the incumbent a way to be seen with a pro-para resolution right in the middle of election season, but because there was no reason for the resolution to not already be at the top of the agenda. Unity routinely puts executive board motions at the top of the agenda, burying previous resolutions motivated at the ‘lesser’ space of the DA, a practice I disagree with, but one they customarily employ. In other words, this was a contrived opportunity to give Castro a speaking role that implied ownership of said resolution and at the expense of valuable motivating time.

After I motivated, Daniel Alicea put forward an amendment that would have restored some language similar to that of the original resolution about fighting for a living wage, albeit with some concessions about the possibility of closed bargaining (one of Unity’s grievances with the former version).

In the period that followed, Unity seemed to muddy the waters and confuse delegates into thinking the amendment somehow usurped bargaining authority of paraprofessionals, a mischaracterization both of the amendment (to fight for a living wage) and of the actual bargaining power given to functional groups at the negotiating table. Remember pattern bargaining, folks? Or how, when OT/PTs tried to vote down a contract to beat pattern bargaining, Unity orchestrated a revote?

I digress. I think the reason we lost the amendment was that folks were just plain confused by the end with Unity having made it appear that the amendment was something it wasn’t. But in the process of winning the battle, Unity also showed itself – giving absurd takes on the para situation, such as that their wages aren’t that bad in the context of non-NYC paras (NYC cost of living anyone?) and offering the implicit possibility that their current para representation might opt not to fight for a living wage.

Might that be what paras want? Handbooks over wages? I doubt it, but, we can’t know for sure. The only full-time rank and file paras who were heard tonight were the original drafters of the resolution, which I read in their stead while they work second jobs. Unity, despite trying to discredit me, Alex, Peter, and Daniel for speaking on behalf of paras despite being teachers, didn’t put forward any full-time paras of their own. Instead, they put forward a former full-time para who is now primarily a UFT staffer. We don’t make the choices of who Mulgrew calls on; Mulgrew and the phone operators do.

The amendment at the DA

Since Unity essentially gutted our original resolution at Monday’s executive (execution?) board meeting by taking out its teeth regarding collective bargaining, we decided that we would come back to the DA and try to restore it to its original intent.

Now, in this proposed amendment, we were willing to even make a concession. Essentially, that even if it meant that this collective bargaining plan took into account Unity’s incessant need for closed bargaining, we’d make space for that possibility because paras can no longer live under these work conditions and low compensation while many of our school children with IEPs are not receiving their services because there are hundreds of para vacancies.

Here is the amendment we brought to the floor:

“The UFT must develop a robust, comprehensive bargaining strategy that outlines specific, achievable goals for securing a living wage for paraprofessionals. This includes strategies for equitable longevity raises, parity in injury paid leave, and ensuring chapter 683 and ESY pay parity, all aimed at recognizing and fairly compensating paraprofessionals for their vital role in education. This commitment should be pursued with discretion to avoid public bargaining, ensuring the union can negotiate effectively and with the best interests of paraprofessionals in mind.”

Pretty straightforward for any union comprised of unionists and led by unionists. But, not for the 60 year establishment that controls ours.

I motivated the amendment on behalf of Migda and Marie, full time paras, and the hundreds of paras who signed on to the petition calling for the original resolution. Both of the aforementioned paras/superheroes work multiple jobs and getting to 52 Broadway in downtown Manhattan at 4:15 PM on a school day is an impossibility when there are bills to pay and living in this city is so damn expensive.

Here is a summary of my remarks at last night’s DA:

It’s time that we fix para pay. Our paras are not being paid a living wage. A single person needs to make 33 dollars an hours to live in NYC according to MIT’s living wage calculator. They are now making no more than 18.50 an hour while many have to now work multiple jobs. When it comes to longevity raises, after working 22 years, their raises come out to 3,000 dollars in longevity, while teachers get 32,000 dollars over their careers. Lobbying for legislation is good since there is grant money in the bill but we must also use our collective bargaining power. Unfortunately in last contract, we did not make sure that our paras got a living wage. DC37 made sure that there was an equity fund that paid their workers in hard to staff positions. We failed to do this.

No reason that these educators should not be treated as they deserve. We’re asking for a living wage. I’m willing to put aside open bargaining, which I believe in, if it means fighting for a living wage.

At the contract negotiations para committee, paras were told they could just talk about para issues but not wages. Wages handled elsewhere. About 1200 people just signed a petition around the original resolution. 60% of these are paras. Time we fight for a living wage. Injury to one is an injury to all!

The para chapter leader’s rebuttal pivoted from Unity’s consistent failure to deliver living wages to our paras to other projects they have worked on.

Here is a summary of the para CL’s rebuttal from Nick’s DA minutes:

Negotiation is through the para chapter, not teachers, not ots/pts. Sure you didn’t want a para contract.

We surveyed our membership. 70 paraprofessionals negotiated and each one spoke their truth and in terms of what they’re dealing with.

As a chapter, we surveyed the entire membership so we could hear. Paraprofessional handbook. Created a guide. Doing the best that we can to support our paras.

In terms of bill, passed by Massachusetts. they don’t have better benefits or increased access to training. Paras are aligned with other locals. They don’t have training in other states, minimum wage. Not in favor of the amendment, but the resolution as it stands.

The Unity para chapter leader, perhaps under duress while being prepped for this moment on the DA floor, pivoted from living wages to misinformation and items that had nothing to do with the heart of the matter: A LIVING WAGE.

She came off sounding like paras wanted a handbook and NOT A LIVING WAGE. She went on to seemingly assert that paras wanted more PD and CTLE credit opportunities rather than a LIVING WAGE.

Look, no doubt 70 paras originally signed up for the para contract negotiation committee, but, insiders, who attended these meetings said that the number actually present at the sessions did not remotely represent that number thrown about by Unity. Moreover, once again, wages were not discussed at their bargaining table sessions.

The para chapter leader also spoke about surveying members at contract time but we never get to see our contract survey results under Unity’s bizarre and extreme cone of bargaining silence.

Also, the federal bill in the resolution hasn’t passed as the para CL misreported. And there are many examples of educator unions and states fighting harder for living wages for paras without needing to go through the hurdles to obtain credits paras face here to get a few more dollars.

So what do we have left?…

Ourselves. The rank and file backbone of this union.

We fight to take our union back. Organize. Mobilize. Educate.

We must organize even harder than ever to change the direction of this union or we will continue to see sub-inflation raises, our healthcare and benefits depleted and establishment staffer bureaucrats who think that being a unionist is wearing certain colors on Instagram posts rather than fight for pay parity, better pay and conditions, and equity for our union brothers and sisters.

A handbook doesn’t pay the bills or rent. Paras working multiple jobs don’t have time or energy to play the credits gamification that their pay structure has become. Entry level have to pay for these CTLE courses… on barely minimum pay.

Only 3k total dollars in longevity raises over their career while teachers make 32k in longevity raises?

The solution is simple.

Vote them out, if they REFUSED to vote for coming up with plan to fight for a living wages for paras. It’s time!

In the coming weeks and months, UFT paras, along with other members, will work together to organize in solidarity around a living wage, fair contract, improved benefits and working conditions, and stronger protections for all paras.

Para chapter elections happen this spring.

Join our member-driven movement — UFT Paras For A Fair Contract

Start by signing the petition for a living wage for paras here:

---

Daniel Alicea is a special education teacher and UFT delegate who knows he wouldn’t be able to teach effectively without working side by side with his para-educators. They are our school communities’ essential superheroes.

---