Letter: Teachers contract hurts unionism
I'm a retired New York City teacher who gains with this new contract, but I will vote no ["NYC union leaders back teachers pact," News, May 3].
Extra money is not good when the cost of getting it is too high. This contract is bad for working teachers because 200 schools will not have to follow union rules.
This sets a precedent to end unionism all together. The provision for merit bonuses is also bad. They will never be distributed justly and fairly.
I know of one administrator who rated all her new teachers "highly developed" and most of her senior teachers "developing" or just "developed." The same administrator took half of her department out for an excursion, the half who jump when she tells them to. If few rewards are being given now, imagine what will happen when money is involved.
This administrator is inexperienced and has been teaching a very short time, yet this person makes monetary and career decisions for others.
The terms of sexual misconduct will be changed, and appear to state that even those proven innocent will not have a chance to return to their jobs.
Finally, there is no incentive for the absent teacher reserve to be returned to classrooms. I feel it is already decided they will be gone. Many are great teachers and are on reserve through no fault of their own.
No contract is better than a bad one.
Linda Silverman, Bellerose Manor
Editor's note: The writer taught math at Francis Lewis High School in Queens.