Why does Stew Leonard's have a higher regard for its customers than the UFT has for its rank and file? Why can McDonald's treat its customers better than the UFT does for its rank and file?

Back in the 90's I was in Orlando and booked a room at one of the Radisson's. The hotel was overbooked, and they sent me to another, yet swankier Radisson. My room and meals were comped. If it was an official
UFT hotel they would make me sleep in my car. However the management would claim they were attentive because the brought me a blanket, pillow, and a milk jug to piss in.

Members of the UFT should be thought of as customers. What does the sign say at each and every Stew Leonard's? 

"Rule 1: The customer is always right. Rule 2: If the customer is ever wrong, reread Rule 1."

It's pretty simple. The UFT has taken some steps, more like baby steps, in the last few years. But they still don't get it. They don't understand at the very least the perception and at the worst the reality of a union that does a little as it possibly can. Which will only fight back when confronted. For years, I have said if one seeks the help of the UFT without having knowledge and without standing firmly you are shit out of luck.

Yesterday, I got my first letter to file since 2013. All over the inane ambiguity over synchronous and asynchronous teaching that I shared last week. Oh joy. Thank you UFT  for really putting that true effort in.

But last this morning as I was making breakfast I had a revelation. I sent an email to my chapter chair on March 16 asking for clarification on synchronous and asynchronous.

I sent it due to the request of the CL for topics to bring up in the upcoming consultation meeting of March 19. 

 XXXX-  

I think clarification and discussion should be brought up with administration concerning asynchronous time. Some believe that we should be in front of our computers during this time without students just waiting for them to appear or with students whilst they do their work silently and we are doing nothing. XXXXXXX clarified it all. Asynchronous means we are available if needed. We are to be notified through text, email or dojo.  Thanks!

Even if the information is wrong or not exactly right, this was something that needed clarification!

In the chapter leader's email, we were asked to have our requests in by 1 PM, March 17. My email was sent at 8:44 PM. This was plenty of time to add it to the agenda. 

Guess what? It was not part of the agenda. 

Worse, I never heard back from the CL before the consultation with any questions, comments, concerns in regards to my email. And guess what else? I never heard back from the CL after the consultation meeting. Yet, before and after the request for clarification, the CL shared the party line with me several times. That asynchronous time means sitting live in front of the computer awaiting students who might or might now show up.

I got a letter in the file due to either incompetence or negligence. Since February I have been asking for clarification and no two responses are the same. How difficult is it to get clarification? 

But I am just a lowly ATR. An outsider, an interloper to the "family" which the CL explicitly claimed as well as implied in an ad hominem attack upon myself. All because I am running for chapter leader.

I am really bothered and hurt but not surprised. Why have expectations of the UFT when one can only be disappointed? But there is plenty more to this story that I am holding back on. 

For $120 a month we should get more than concierge service and unwieldy town halls in which only buddies and pals get chosen to speak. I asked for clarification during the last DA and Rashard didn't pick me. 

I pay my dues, I am a teacher. I am a teacher in my school. I am not some second class citizen. Nor is any ATR. No teacher, nor any UFT member should not be treated like this. And it wouldn't happen if upper echelon of the UFT took the rank and file more seriously.

Boy, do I feel like a schmuck. I tried to thread a needle. It didn't work. The UFT, the union to whom I give $120 of my hard earned money to dropped the ball. And I am about to get screwed for it. 

Now to clear things up, this isn't a blog post against anyone at 52 Broadway or a chapter leader. Let's just say it has more of a local flavor. 

This synchronous vs asynchronous learning is awash in ambiguity. No one really knows it seems what the guidelines are or aren't. We should expect the administrators to be clueless but not the UFT.

Our story begins on February 22 right after this incident (And boy do I have something more to say!!). A teacher was to be out a week, and I was to cover her 4th grade class. OK, no problem. Up to that time I was teaching with two other teachers. We had 27 students or so and we split them up and we went straight from 8:50-Noon. The students had lunch, and we were asynchronous for the rest of the day. Work would be put up on Google Classroom, and we would be available through Dojo, text, email, GC, etc... In fact at a meeting, the principal had no problem with the schedule. 

So on the Feb 22 when my first day with this class I adhered what I knew. I did 179 minutes. I assumed the rest of my day was asynchronous. No, I was told. In the afternoon I was told that I must be sitting in front of the computer with Meets on and to wait for students to come by if they needed help. After 30 minutes of staring at my face and with my thumb up my ass, I decided to give up and plan for the next day.

NO! I was told, and I met with said person to hash out a schedule. I was told that my asynchronous time was to be concurrent whilst on screen whilst the students are doing their independent work on screen. Not only that, after teaching synchronously for 190 minutes that I must meet afterwards in small groups with students. But, I thought, there are only 9 students in the class. Isn't that already a small group?

At this point I decided to contact the local higher up the food chain UFT. I was told that yes, admins can make you do small groups during your asynchronous time. "Wait!" I said. I have already taught 190 minutes. For 4th grade in February it is recommended that synchronous time should be between 150-210 minutes. Aren't I already doing that I ask? No, I am told by the local higher up the food chain UFT. That is recommended only for students. But if it is only recommended for students would not a teachers screen time be equal to the same screen time as the students? Here is the document I get  referred to all the freaking time. Said document appears contradictory to what I was being told. 

While we are at it, I had been under the assumption that remote teachers can set their schedule in consultation with admins. I was told I was incorrect (Someone care to clarify?). But, about 15 minutes ago I came across this.

Working remotely necessitates using time differently from a traditional period by period school day. 

In consultation with school administration, school staff must use professional discretion to determine how to work remotely.

My scheduler foisted my schedule upon me. My schedule gave me periods. One, two, three, and so on. What gives?

So off I go to my local upper echelon UFT. Yes, I am told, asynchronous means working live with small groups. I go to my CL. Nothing against CL, but the CL was getting bad information.

I go way up the food chain. I'm told something completely different. In fact the opposite. That asynchronous means you don't have to be on screen that you just be available. Oh, and that the UFT has been successful in complaints regarding this. 

A light bulb moment!! I go back to the local upper echelon UFT. "Let's file an operational complaint!" I was told to go back to my CL. But the tone I got was less than enthusiastic. I put it off.

But in the meantime, the teacher I was covering came back. She had a routine and I guess a schedule and I followed her lead. She did the reading and the math and I covered the writing. But, we had different schedules. I assumed, because my scheduler never said the schedule was for the remainder of the year that the original was null and void. I must work with my co-teachers schedule.

It made sense. The scheduler had me working in small groups from Noon-1:30, however the students had lunch at Noon. That wouldn't work.

So back to the UFT.

I even went as far as having an exec board member ask Mulgrew to clarify synchronous and asynchronous at the March 22 exec board meeting. No dice. Got a twelve word answer.

Finally Saturday night I got the answer I was looking for. But it was too late. Had a meeting with the scheduler and my CL today (I will get into more details about this another time). If the UFT wish to be proactive this could have been taken care of in February or early March.

Or it could have been taken care of if I was one of the callers picked by Rashard during a DA or town hall. I don't have that kind of juice.

I always say I would rather have a dysfunctional union than no union, and I still stand by that. I still stand by paying dues. But the UFT is still acts in a reactive manor instead of grabbing the bull by the balls and not letting go. I am sure I am not the only teacher looking for clarification about synch and asynch. 

The  UFT works for the rank and file not the other way around. We are the customer. Treat as if we are important. It's amazingly simple.