Is the Package the Package?
UFT contract negotiations with the City of New York. Odd wording. Real question.
Does the City begin negotiations by (generally) explaining the total monetary value of the “package”? And then the rest of negotiations are about work rules (that don’t carry dollar amounts) and about how to allocate “the package”? Most to wages, some to initiatives, special projects, etc.?
Or the size of “the package” - the total dollar amount - do we negotiate that?
I don’t think the UFT leadership negotiate the overall size of the package. I think they accept the number the City or OLR or OMB or the DoE bring in. But I am not certain. And I want to know
I know an exception, or do I?
In the 2005 contract, Randi got the size of the package increased. But she did it by trading something - we worked more minutes in the day, more days in the year, in return for more money. Time for Money. We did not bargain for more money. Our leadership traded our time for more money.
Do you know the answer? Have an opinion?
So what do you know? Or what do you think? Do the UFT and the City argue over the full size of the settlement? Or is NYC bargaining this weird game where everyone knows the grand total before they sit down - but they spend months allocating what goes where?
In most cases, isn’t the size of the package determined by the union that sets the pattern?
I think we set it in the 2014 round with DiBlasio, but that was a healthcare for money (back pay) swap, and we all know the consequences there!
Otherwise, historically it’s been DC37, right? And that seems to be the case as DC37 ramps up its campaign - my eyes are on the rank and file insurgents in DC37 who are pushing their union leadership to expand the size of the package… and the first question UFTers should ask themselves is how are we helping to build solidarity with them?