THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT!
(Guess it's not just the UTP.)
From the NY POST, 5/4/06:
TEACHER UNIONS VS. . . . TEACHERS
By RYAN SAGER
May 4, 2006 -- IT'S old news that teachers unions put their members' desires - short hours in the classroom, zero accountability for test scores - above the needs of children. What gets more clear every day, however, is that union leadership puts its own interests above those of rank-and-file members.
Case in point: The Los Angeles Times reported last week that New York State United Teachers, the state's largest teachers union, takes $3 million a year from Dutch insurance giant ING Group to steer its 525,000 members into questionable retirement plans. The returns on the plans can be well below par, thanks to sometimes-hefty fees.
The $3 million gift doesn't go directly into union officials' pockets, but it does help subsidize the state teachers union's extraordinary spending on salaries, overhead, conferences, entertainment and the like. (Supposedly the money goes only for administering members' benefits, but that just frees up cash for other UFT expenses.)
Earlier this year, the Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability (a conservative education-reform group) compiled a report on NYSUT's lavish lifestyle. Among the highlights of NYSUT spending:
* More than $206,000 a month ($2.5 million a year) in occupancy costs for its 218,000 square foot headquarters (the size of five Wal-Marts) outside of Albany.
* Even though the NYSUT headquarters has a conference center, the union spent some $4.5 million in 2004-'05 for meetings and conferences ($501,307 at the four-diamond-rated Otesaga Resort Hotel in Cooperstown, $334,608 at the Gurney's Resort & Spa in Montauk and $1 million for its annual conference at the New York Hilton in Manhattan).
* $45,000 to the Group Sales Box Office in New York City for "entertainment."
* $42.3 million on salaries for employees of the union (including a $197,995 salary for union President Richard Iannuzzi, plus $25,839 in expenses).
* A fleet of vehicles values at $2 million.
New York City's local union, the United Federation of Teachers (an NYSUT branch), also racks up the expenses, including a salary of more than $250,000 for union chief Randi Weingarten - plus expenses.
Same story with the National Education Association: The The Wall Street Journal reports that the national union has a payroll of $58 million for just 600 employees - more than half make six-figures.
In other words, the real money in education is in union administration, not in working with the kids.
Then there's the unions' political giving. Last year, the NEA gave millions to political-advocacy groups. Some were education related, like $500,000 to Protect Our Public Schools, a group trying to block charter schools in Washington state. (Of course, since charter schools are public schools, the cash just went to protect the union-friendly-but-kids-failing public-school status quo.)
But other gifts included Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition ($5,000), the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation ($39,940), the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute ($35,000) and the Human Rights Campaign ($15,000).
Any of these groups might be peachy on its own merits, but if union honchos want to give away money to liberal causes, shouldn't they dig into their own (hefty) salaries? And shouldn't rank-and-file members have a right not to have their dues parceled out to all takers?
The unions can spend their members' dues however they want, within the law. If high pay is what it takes to attract talented managers, good for them. If a fleet of cars and expensive conferences for union officials make union members' lives better, so be it. If union members want millions of their dollars diverted to liberal causes with little connection to education, that's their prerogative.
But the rank and file might want to start paying a little more attention to the fat cats upstairs. And parents might start wondering: If these guys aren't even looking out for their own members, where exactly does my kid sit on the food chain?
From the NY POST, 5/4/06:
TEACHER UNIONS VS. . . . TEACHERS
By RYAN SAGER
May 4, 2006 -- IT'S old news that teachers unions put their members' desires - short hours in the classroom, zero accountability for test scores - above the needs of children. What gets more clear every day, however, is that union leadership puts its own interests above those of rank-and-file members.
Case in point: The Los Angeles Times reported last week that New York State United Teachers, the state's largest teachers union, takes $3 million a year from Dutch insurance giant ING Group to steer its 525,000 members into questionable retirement plans. The returns on the plans can be well below par, thanks to sometimes-hefty fees.
The $3 million gift doesn't go directly into union officials' pockets, but it does help subsidize the state teachers union's extraordinary spending on salaries, overhead, conferences, entertainment and the like. (Supposedly the money goes only for administering members' benefits, but that just frees up cash for other UFT expenses.)
Earlier this year, the Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability (a conservative education-reform group) compiled a report on NYSUT's lavish lifestyle. Among the highlights of NYSUT spending:
* More than $206,000 a month ($2.5 million a year) in occupancy costs for its 218,000 square foot headquarters (the size of five Wal-Marts) outside of Albany.
* Even though the NYSUT headquarters has a conference center, the union spent some $4.5 million in 2004-'05 for meetings and conferences ($501,307 at the four-diamond-rated Otesaga Resort Hotel in Cooperstown, $334,608 at the Gurney's Resort & Spa in Montauk and $1 million for its annual conference at the New York Hilton in Manhattan).
* $45,000 to the Group Sales Box Office in New York City for "entertainment."
* $42.3 million on salaries for employees of the union (including a $197,995 salary for union President Richard Iannuzzi, plus $25,839 in expenses).
* A fleet of vehicles values at $2 million.
New York City's local union, the United Federation of Teachers (an NYSUT branch), also racks up the expenses, including a salary of more than $250,000 for union chief Randi Weingarten - plus expenses.
Same story with the National Education Association: The The Wall Street Journal reports that the national union has a payroll of $58 million for just 600 employees - more than half make six-figures.
In other words, the real money in education is in union administration, not in working with the kids.
Then there's the unions' political giving. Last year, the NEA gave millions to political-advocacy groups. Some were education related, like $500,000 to Protect Our Public Schools, a group trying to block charter schools in Washington state. (Of course, since charter schools are public schools, the cash just went to protect the union-friendly-but-kids-failing public-school status quo.)
But other gifts included Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition ($5,000), the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation ($39,940), the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute ($35,000) and the Human Rights Campaign ($15,000).
Any of these groups might be peachy on its own merits, but if union honchos want to give away money to liberal causes, shouldn't they dig into their own (hefty) salaries? And shouldn't rank-and-file members have a right not to have their dues parceled out to all takers?
The unions can spend their members' dues however they want, within the law. If high pay is what it takes to attract talented managers, good for them. If a fleet of cars and expensive conferences for union officials make union members' lives better, so be it. If union members want millions of their dollars diverted to liberal causes with little connection to education, that's their prerogative.
But the rank and file might want to start paying a little more attention to the fat cats upstairs. And parents might start wondering: If these guys aren't even looking out for their own members, where exactly does my kid sit on the food chain?
posted by A Strong, Proud UTP Member at 5/04/2006 04:56:00 PM
46 Comments:
I kind of hate that first paragraph vilifying teachers.
Actually, I kind of hate the Post altogether. I don't think they'd have any sympathy for the cause of teacher empowerment.
Agreed: the Post is the Post. The first paragraph is preposterous, for sure.
But Sager's take on the abuse of power in union leadership is dead on.
You may hate the messenger, but it's tough to deny what he says.
The truth is the truth no matter who tells it. The post IS dead on in this case.
You think we would be better off in a Ryan Sager type contract? I don't think so even though a great deal of what he says in this piece is true. Watch out for people who are trying to rile us up for the wrong reasons. We need a stronger union and not a broken union.
Contract? Where are working conditions mentioned?
He's talking about union leadership that fails to have the best interest of its dues paying members at heart. He's talking about abuse of power. He's talking about Unity.
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) _ State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer canceled his speech to the state's largest teachers' union that endorsed his campaign for governor because he is investigating its leadership, according to a published report.
Spitzer wouldn't accept the endorsement of New York State United Teachers union in Rochester on Friday, although the union issued a press release Friday endorsing Spitzer's Democratic run for governor.
NYSUT representatives could not be reached for comment Sunday.
Spitzer is investigating the union's practice of accepting cash from an investment company that is then allowed to try to sell retirement plans to union members. The New York Post on Saturday was the first to report Spitzer's refusal to speak to the union.
A Spitzer spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment.
NYSUT gets $3 million a year from ING, a Dutch investment company, for recommending its members enroll in retirement plans with high fees that often eat into returns.
The deal between NYSUT and ING is among several such arrangements nationwide between unions and investment companies, according to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times. NYSUT has 525,000 members.
The Times quoted Middletown, N.Y., teacher Art Dawe as saying that NYSUT's endorsement was the most important thing he considered when he opted in. The account has returned just 1.6 percent a year since 1990, compared to an overall growth rate of 8.4 percent for all U.S. mutual funds.
"I could have fared better with Atlantic City slots," Dawe told the newspaper.
Spitzer spokesman Darren Dopp told The Post that it "wouldn't have been appropriate for the attorney general and the union to meet at this time because of an ongoing matter" but refused to provide additional details.
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
Read Sager's earlier columns on how he wants to decimate what's left of our contract. The UFT badly needs reform to be stronger, not weaker. Yes, we do need a new leadership but with people like Ryan Sager, be careful.
The fact that the Post is a Union-bashing rag doesn't change the facts. The messenger may leave much to be desired but the message regarding waste at the top is right on.
After all: a stopped clock is right twice a day, so I suppose even the Post can come up with something useful once in a while.
Weren't you the same guys that complained when the NY Post endorsed our last contract? I guess the message and/or messenger is different than this one. ??? When they supported the contract you used against the leadership noting the source. I suppose the source is okay now.
How convenient it is for you to take the "classy" Post to heart when it criticizes your union regardless if it is true or false. Much like you guys do about so many topics, regardless if it is true or not. Who is the hypocrite now?
Read NYSUT's response to the NY Post:
http://edwize.org/the-new-york-post-a-day-late-and-a-dollar-short
From the NY Post:
HELPING TEACHERS
May 5, 2006 -- On behalf of the hundreds of ING employees dedicated to helping teachers prepare for retirement, I am writing to express outrage at the editorial "Where's Eliot?" (May 3).
Its factual errors are a disservice to our teachers, and it most egregiously questioned the integrity of an industry leader in suggesting that ING's endorsement by NYSUT involves improper payments.
ING's arrangement is with NYSUT Member Benefits, a separate not-for-profit trust within NYSUT that receives no NYSUT dues dollars to pay for its operating expenses. Fees are used to cover costs associated with the administration and record-keeping of retirement plans and other member-benefits endorsed programs.
ING fully discloses the nature and amount of these payments by providing numerous materials directly to participants. To suggest that participants are not made aware of this arrangement is simply false.
The ING Opportunity Plus program with NYSUT is competitively priced and has an excellent array of options and services.
Investment management fees range from .1 to 1.5 percent for specialized investment options, with the vast majority being 1 percent or lower and below the industry-average product level charges.
In The Post's haste to be critical, it wrongly disparages the credibility of a company that is devoted to supporting teachers with outstanding retirement products and services and a dynamic, philanthropic program centered on teachers.
Kathleen Murphy
President of Retirement Services
ING U.S.
Financial Services
Hartford, Conn.
I can imagine how grateful they must be for that whopping 1.6% dividend.
Brilliant, NYC Educator!
Is it really necessary for the UFT President to make such a salary, when compared to starting teacher salary, or even maximum salary? And, what about all the UFT leadership that make over $100,000 and receive two pensions upon retirement?
Although last the last anonymous is off topic, I wonder what you would expect the UFT president to make? Teacher's at the top rate now make almost $100,000.
After how many years?
The UFT Pres should make top teacher salary. No more.
Personally, I have no problem with the UFT President's salary. Had she been performing successfully for us, it would have been a very smart investment.
However, the Unity hacks who make six figures and two pensions ought to make no more than we do.
NYC Educator - those "six figure" people you talk anbout can be you if your are at top salary and a few per session hours.
By the way, no comment about the NY Post hypocrisy? Give it a shot NYC Educator.
Never mind the union leadership. What about the millions paid to hundreds of administrators in the DOE and in the 10 regions? Their entire job is to harass and demean our teachers.
Yes, we will continue to mind the union leadership salary scale: we pay the dues. Our leadership is paid extremely well, and the job they do is not commensurate with the salary.
See DOE and UFT pay scales on Movie, p.3, on UTP site.
NY Post hypocrisy?
Hypocrisy?
The problem is... we pay our union leadership! Who cares what administrators get paid. Look into the bureaucracy of our union, how wisely are our union dues spent??
Any reason why you guys are avoiding the "NY Post hypocrisy"?
I could have sworn Joe would have something to say.
There are certainly full-time UFT workers make around 107K from the UFT alone. There's a link to the salaries on the ICE website. I've no doubt that there are full-time teachers who manage to make that much through the Unity patronage mill as well.
I would not find the full-time salaries so outrageous if they were doing a better job. Keeping their salaries tied to ours might give them more incentive to do something for us.
Also, while they took raises equal to ours, they aren't out patrolling bathrooms, hallways, and cafeterias.
As for the NY Post, I think I've made my feelings about it quite clear. It's an utterly unreliable piece of crap.
That's why it enthusiastically supported the most recent UFT contract, along with our 6-figure Unity employees.
And that is why this blog and it's author's tout it as gospel.
Hypocrisy abound. If you support these guys NYC Educator you are just as bad.
NYC Educator our members can make over $107,000 with DOE per session not the "the Unity patronage mill ".
My DR works plenty of "overtime". If yours doesn't do what they are suppose to tell the Borough Rep. Besides I understand many staff members do work summers and holidays. How else could the union offices be open?
I don't condemn the writers of this blog for their misguided use of the NY Post. Everyone's entitled to a mistake.
It's quite different to view with disdain our leaders who foisted a contract upon us that was an enormous step backward, and effectively, awarded us more work for less pay. Among Edwize contract arguments was "What will the Post say if we don't accept?"
Well, we did, and the Post treats us precisely the way it would if we hadn't.
And this contract has far more impact upon our profession than any column written by the UTP.
I respect the UTP for standing up against the Unity patronage mill. And your DR notwithstanding, there are indeed full-time Unity employees pulling in 6 figures.
However, since the anonymous posters who boldly toss around ad-hominem arguments clearly subscribe to a different standard, I'm sure they'll condemn the Unity hacks who trumpeted that the Post endorsed the contract.
Feel free to do so at any time.
I sent around a list of DOE salaries (which someone got through Freedom of Information) to everyone in the press. They did nothing with it. But neither did the UFT.
So when anon. says: "Never mind the union leadership. What about the millions paid to hundreds of administrators in the DOE and in the 10 regions? Their entire job is to harass and demean our teachers."
You are missing an important point here. Why won't the UFT expose the outrageous salaries of the DOE? Because they are just as vulnerable to attack. And I think it goes further than that.
Notice how many DOE people the UFT hires. There's true symbiosis. In many ways they are a team. Teamed up against people in the schools. How is it possible for an untenured teacher to get a "U" for the year and then find the principal has made a note that they are not to work in the NYC school system again. I brought this up to the UFT Exec Bd weeks ago and they look at me like cows in the pasture. (MOO!) But no exposure. No demand from the state legislature that this not be allowed so that if a school wanted to hire a teacher in this situation it could.
Here's what the UFT leadership really feels as printed in the May Ed Notes:
Have Union, Will Grovel
“Yes, this is a union president who is going to talk about removing teachers who should not be teaching. And I do that without hesitation, because this a union that is not about just keeping people. We are about keeping qualified people....I want you all to know that I fully briefed Joel Klein last night on this speech because I want to do in every way possible what I can to extend my hand in partnership, and my members’ hands in partnership.”
----Randi Weingarten, speech to business leaders a few years ago.
On the NY Post:
Warning to all Unity and leadership supporters:
The recent alliance between Hilary and Rupert just might include her friend Randi so start reading between the lines of Post coverage.
I have personally found Dave Andreatta, the chief ed reporter for the Post, the most responsive to issues we have raised and many of his stories are fairer to us than the Times. He's teh one who broke the story on Jeff Kaufman being sent to the rubber room though he didn't get it all completely right.
I heard someone very involved in education in this city in direct opposition to the Post's positions call him the best ed reporter in the city. He always maintains editorial is separate from news at the Post and I find that hard to believe. But his reporting is amongst the most balanced and accurate considering it's The Post.
Norm, you're my saviour!
There may indeed be excellent reporters working at the Post. However, there is a distinct slant to its stories and choice of material and placement.
Todays' edition had on the front page a gay sex scandal story about NJ's ex-governor, a democrat. The next page had a comparison of GW and Hilary's musical tastes. GW had a dignified head shot, while Hilary had a full-page Photoshop treatemtn that made her look like a hippie, Granny glasses and all.
The next page contained a typical anti-labor story about negative email received about the TWU during the strike.
I may not agree with much published in the Post but I think its right on target when it comes to our union.
I don't understand NYC Educator.
Consider remedial reading instruction. I hear "Hooked on Phonics" is very popular.
Meanwhile, right-wing dirtbag Sager, who professes to care about teachers when it's convenient, has just written an article trashing the interests of teachers.
Apparently, they're evil for opposing no-union charter schools. In the world the P{ost inhabits, only corporations are supposed to have clout and working people can go to hell.
The level of collaboration between the DOE and our union's leadership is deeply disturbing. Can we forget the left wing, right wing issues, and the debate over the NY Post and focus on how devious, manipulative, and two faced our union leadership is. I appreciate the exchange but there is a bigger issue staring us in the face here.
Snakehead,
The level of collaboration between the UFT leadership and the DOE truly is alarming. If they lived in France in WWII they would be walking around with shaved heads.
Isn't the NY post exactly ewhat this post is about Sankehead?
I still don't understand why a UTP peson doesn't answer for the glorification of the NY Post's reporting. So why doesn'y Joe or someone else speak about it? NYC Educator are you a UTP person?
I'm a "UTP person" and I stand by the position that the truth is the truth. That is not to say that everything written about teachers or the UFT in the press (including NYTeacher) is accurate but in this case I believe it is.
As stated above by "snakehead" politics do play a roll in the Post agenda but the facts remain the facts
This piece is about the content of the article and not the post as an entity.
Thanks squeaky.
The UTP reserves the right to publish anything that sheds light on UFT practices we oppose. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, such publication does not constitute an endorsement of the media source.
The purpose of our web site and blog is to inform teachers about the issues we believe concern their profession and livelihoods, and to stimulate discussion in an open forum. Keep the posts coming!
NYSUT Member Benefits Trust agrees to change practices
Jun 14, 2006 3:21 PM
In a settlement announced June 14 between Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and NYSUT, the UFT’s statewide affiliate, NYSUT’s Member Benefits Trust has agreed to reform the way it markets and manages 403(b) voluntary investment programs.
UFT President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement:
“It’s gratifying that the attorney general clearly notes in his investigative report and settlement that neither the UFT nor its members were involved in the NYSUT Member Benefit Trust’s transactions with ING. At the same time, it’s important that the NYSUT Trust has admitted mistakes and is taking the necessary steps to correct the situation.”
Here is NYSUT’s statement about the agreement:
In a settlement announced today [June 14] between the New York State United Teachers Member Benefits Trust and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the Trust has agreed to reform the way it markets and manages 403(b) voluntary investment programs.
The settlement centers on the Trust's endorsement process and disclosure of fees by the Trust for its endorsement of Opportunity Plus, a 403(b) tax-deferred annuity marketed by ING Life Insurance and Annuity Co.
NYSUT President Richard C. Iannuzzi welcomed the attorney general's recommendations, noting they are compatible with changes he had asked the Trust to make prior to the attorney general's review.
"It's clear now that the Trust, despite its best intentions, historically could have - and should have - provided greater disclosure of the fees paid to the Trust by ING. Mistakes were made. They will not be made again," said Iannuzzi, who was elected NYSUT president in April 2005, three days before Spitzer began his investigation.
"The Trust has informed me it has agreed to every recommendation," said Iannuzzi. "This is a positive step forward. The attorney general has given the Trust a road map to reform, and the Trust will follow it."
At Iannuzzi's request, the NYSUT Member Benefits Trust will make changes beyond the attorney general's recommendations, including the appointment of an outside, independent panel to ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement and to review all Trust procedures and policies. Panel members will be named shortly. The Trust is exploring every option to provide the best possible benefits to participants.
The NYSUT Member Benefits Trust is a not-for-profit trust established as a separate legal entity to provide voluntary benefit programs to members. No NYSUT member dues are used to support the Trust, and NYSUT does not profit from the operations of the Trust. The NYSUT Member Benefits Trust has been cooperating with the attorney general's office since the inception of the investigation.
While the investigation focused on the marketing and disclosure practices associated with the 403(b) program, there was no suggestion that any individual in the Trust or in NYSUT personally profited from this or any program.
The Trust has agreed to immediately implement the attorney general's recommendations for reforms in its marketing and endorsement process for the 403(b) program. Those reforms include:
Retaining an independent consultant to oversee changes in the 403(b) program and the process of identifying additional investment options for participants;
Establishing a program to provide union members with free, unbiased professional investment advice at least once every year for so long as the Trust endorses any retirement products;
Enabling ING Opportunity 403(b) program participants to transfer at no cost their Opportunity 403(b) accounts to any new plan the Trust might recommend for consideration by participants;
Disclosing fully any fees the Trust receives for endorsing products or for administrative expenses, a process the Trust put in place before the investigation of the Trust began;
Implementing changes to ensure that any future fees received by the Trust from 403(b) providers are used solely for reimbursement of expenses, not to promote a particular plan;
Training all Trust employees and trustees on issues of product endorsement and potential conflicts of interest; and
Communicating fully these and all future changes to all members and plan participants.
The Trust will also reimburse the attorney general's office the $100,000 cost of the investigation.
"We will bring complete openness and transparency to the Trust's processes," Iannuzzi said. "High standards must be upheld. I am committed to ensuring the NYSUT Member Benefits Trust meets those standards. That is in the best interests of our members."
Approximately 53,000 individuals participate in the ING 403(b) offerings through the Member Benefits Trust. The United Federation of Teachers, United University Professions and Professional Staff Congress do not participate in the Trust-endorsed 403(b) programs; their employers offer different options.
The NYSUT Member Benefits Trust has extended its phone hours from 9 a.m. through 8 p.m. Monday through Friday to respond to questions from Opportunity Plus participants at 1-800-626-8101. A link to the complete agreement between the attorney general's office and NYSUT Member Benefits Trust will be available online at www.nysut.org.
NYSUT, the largest union in New York state, represents more than 535,000 classroom teachers and other school employees; academic and professional faculty at the state's community colleges, State University of New York and City University of New York; and other education and health professionals. NYSUT is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.
buy valium many 10mg valium get high - valium drug usage
Post a Comment
<< Home