Search This Blog

Showing posts with label retaliation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retaliation. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Amazon Workers Allege Retaliation For Advocating For Better Pay and Working Conditions

People in New York City protest in support of Amazon workers in Alabama
on March 4.
Emaz / VIEW press / Corbis via Getty Images

The actions of Amazon management show clearly the pattern and practice of retaliation against employees that is so pervasive throughout corporate America and public entities such as Departments of Education and charitable organizations.

What happens next in the Amazon saga will pave the way for everyone else.

City Has Lost Contact With 2,600 Students Since MarBetsy Combier

Jonathan Bailey filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board accusing Amazon
of retaliating against him for protected activities.
Victor J. Blue / for NBC News

Fired,interrogated, disciplined: Amazon warehouse organizers allege year of retaliation

The number of charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board accusing Amazon of interfering with workers’ right to organize more than tripled during the pandemic.

 NBC News, March 30, 2021, 4:30 AM EDT

The day after Jonathan Bailey organized a walkout over Covid-19 concerns at an Amazon warehouse in Queens, New York, he was, he said, “detained” during his lunch break by a manager in a black camouflage vest who introduced himself as ex-FBI.

Bailey, who co-founded Amazonians United, a network of Amazon workers fighting for better pay and working conditions, was ushered to a side office and interrogated for 90 minutes, according to testimony filed to the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB.

The manager asked exactly what Bailey had said or done to get his fellow workers to join the walkout. When Bailey declined to explain, the manager shifted his tone. He told Bailey that some people “felt hurt” by what he did and that it “might be seen as harassment,” Bailey said.

“It was already a pretty intense conversation. But it became very clear they were trying to intimidate me,” Bailey said. “Being accused of harassment is a very dangerous thing.”

A week later, Bailey received a formal write-up for harassment, although his managers would not tell him whom he had allegedly harassed, nor what he had allegedly said or done, according to his NLRB testimony.

Bailey, who still works for Amazon, believes that was part of a corporate strategy to silence organizers, and in May 2020 he filed a charge against Amazon to the NLRB alleging that the company had violated labor law by retaliating against him for protected, concerted activities. The board found merit to the allegations and filed a federal complaint against Amazon.

This month, a year after Bailey staged the walkout, Amazon settled. Under the terms of the settlement, Amazon was required to post a notice to employees, on physical bulletin boards and via email, reminding them of their right to organize.

"Amazon will work to destroy your character and try to keep you from talking about what’s actually going on,” Bailey said. “And it’s all so that Jeff Bezos can make more dollars.”

Bailey’s complaint is one of at least 37 charges filed to the NLRB against Amazon, America’s second-largest employer, across 20 cities since February 2020, when news of the pandemic began to spread, according to an analysis of NLRB filings by NBC News. These complaints accuse the company of interfering with workers’ rights to organize or form a union. That’s more than triple the number of cases of this kind filed to the agency about Amazon in 2019 and six times the number filed in 2018.

For comparison, Walmart, America’s largest employer, has had eight such charges since February 2020. The meat-processing giant JBS, whose workers have been fighting for better working conditions throughout the pandemic, including staging protests, had nine.

The number of similar charges filed against Amazon over the last year has become significant enough that the NLRB is considering whether the “meritorious allegations warrant a consolidated effort between the regions,” NLRB spokesman Nelson Carrasco said. Typically NLRB charges are investigated by one of 26 regional offices. But in rare instances the board combines cases into a consolidated complaint, as it has done with Walmart and McDonald’s, if it believes there is a pattern emerging at a company.

Amazon declined to comment on the increase in NLRB charges.

Labor experts said that the surge in such charges reflects a dramatic increase in organizing among a small but vocal portion of Amazon’s 500,000 warehouse workers across North America during a coronavirus-led boom in online retail, leading to record sales and an almost 200 percent increase in profits for Amazon.

Workers have been coming together to demand better working conditions — including through solidarity campaigns, strikes, protests and walkouts — at warehouses across the United States, including in Chicago; New York; Minneapolis; Iowa City, Iowa; Sacramento and the Inland Empire of California; Salem, Oregon; and King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

As worker activism gains momentum, so, too, has Amazon’s effort to counter it with anti-union propaganda, firing key organizers, surveilling employees and hiring Pinkertons to gather intelligence on warehouse workers.

NBC News interviewed more than two dozen Amazon warehouse workers, nine of whom said they had been fired, disciplined or retaliated against for protected activity and three of whom filed NLRB complaints since the pandemic began. They allege that Amazon has in some cases selectively enforced its policies on issues such as social distancing, vulgar language and insubordination to target those speaking up for worker rights. A handful of workers, including Bailey, said that allegations made against them by Amazon seemingly play into racist stereotypes of Black men being angry or aggressive.

“We have zero tolerance for racism or retaliation of any kind, and in many cases these complaints come from individuals who acted inappropriately toward co-workers and were terminated as a result,” said an Amazon spokeswoman, Leah Seay. “We work hard to make sure our teams feel supported, and will always stand by our decision to take action if someone makes their colleagues feel threatened or excluded.”

But labor historians note just how significant this fight is for the future of employees at one of the world’s fastest-growing companies.

“There is a David versus Goliath aspect to this. Workers getting paid $15 per hour are going up against one of the world’s most powerful corporations owned by the world’s richest man,” said John Logan, director of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University. “Having a union would be a disaster for Amazon, so it’s pulling out all the stops to prevent workers from organizing.”




A demonstrator wears a mask that reads "Power To The Workers" during a Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store Union protest outside the Amazon BHM1 Fulfillment Center
in Bessemer, Ala., on Feb. 7.Elijah Nouvelage / Bloomberg via Getty Images

Selective enforcement

The highest-profile organizing campaign is in Bessemer, Alabama, where 5,800 workers are in the midst of a precedent-setting vote to form a union. There, Amazon is waging what labor experts like Logan describe as a classic and well-funded union-busting campaign. Workers described how Amazon required them to attend mandatory meetings to hear why the union was not, in Amazon’s view, beneficial for workers. The warehouse is filled with banners and signs encouraging workers to vote against the union and the company set up a website and hashtag, #DoItWithoutDues, to warn them about union fees.

“They are doing everything they can to try to convince the people to ‘Vote no,’" said Darryl Richardson, an Amazon employee in Bessemer who is organizing with the union drive. "There are signs right over the men's stall, so when you use the bathroom it’s right there face to face.”

Seay, the Amazon spokeswoman, said that it was important for employees to understand the facts of joining a union.

Amazon’s anti-union campaign states that union members would have to pay $500 a year in dues with no guarantee of better pay. Economic research indicates that collective bargaining unions generally raise pay for both union and nonunion members. “Amazon fears the union because of the leverage it can have to organize strikes that could cripple the business,” said Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, a Los Angeles-based investment firm, noting that Amazon’s efficient customer service is critical to the company’s success.

If unions negotiate better pay and benefits, it would increase Amazon’s operating expenses and reduce profit, Pachter added.

Seay said Amazon hosts "regular information sessions for all employees, which include an opportunity for employees to ask questions."

"If the union vote passes," she added, "it will impact everyone at the site, and it’s important all associates understand what that means for them and their day-to-day life working at Amazon.”

The company offers a $15-an-hour starting wage, benefits and a clean working environment for its employees, a spokesperson said.

Elsewhere, the company’s crackdown on organizing has been more insidious, say workers and labor experts.

“They made up stupid reasons to get rid of each of us,” said Courtney Bowden, who was fired from her warehouse job in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, last March after advocating for sick pay for part-time workers. According to her complaint filed to the NLRB, management at her warehouse targeted her by “selectively and disparately” enforcing rules around how workers should wear their hair and later fired her for an altercation with a co-worker.

In November, the NLRB determined that, following an investigation, it found merit to the allegations that Amazon had illegally retaliated against Bowden, according to public records first obtained by BuzzFeed. A hearing before an NLRB judge is scheduled for later this year.

“If what they set out to do is shut down organizing, I think they are doing a good job right now,” Bowden said. “But when you take out some people there will always be someone else later down the line.”

John Hopkins, an organizer who worked at a warehouse in San Leandro, California, agreed. Amazon suspended Hopkins for three months starting in early May 2020 for violating a relatively new social-distancing rule forbidding workers to stay on site for longer than 15 minutes after their shift ended. In the months before his suspension, Hopkins had been distributing pamphlets about union organizing to co-workers after becoming concerned about the company’s handling of the pandemic. Hopkins, 34, was worried about the risk of exposure to the virus at work, particularly since he lives with his stepfather and brother and both are cancer survivors.

The pamphlets he had been leaving kept disappearing from the break room and notice boards, and nobody in human resources would explain why, Hopkins said. On May 1, he filed a complaint with the NLRB against Amazon, noting that other flyers, such as job postings for third-party delivery companies, were allowed. That night, he clocked out in solidarity with a sick-out protest held by essential workers in the United States, but stayed in the break room to talk to co-workers about organizing. Management asked him to leave, which he did after arguing that it was protected activity. He was suspended the next day.

“It seemed like a very disproportionate punishment,” Hopkins said. “I felt like they isolated me so I couldn’t get other workers rallied on my side. But they pretended they didn’t see the connection between my union organizing and my suspension.”

While the NLRB initially dismissed Hopkins’ case, it is revisiting it as part of the agency’s larger investigation into Amazon’s alleged retaliation.

Increasing surveillance

Labor experts say that Amazon warehouses are also designed to detect and squash organizing through surveillance technology, including the scanners workers use to track the rate at which they sort and pack items, mandatory daily worker surveys, and AI-powered camera systems to detect social-distancing violations.

“Amazon controls workers’ bodies and movement in such minute ways, ostensibly to track productivity, that people cannot have any purpose in the workplace except for to produce,” said Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, whose research focuses on law, technology and gig work. “It’s inherently union busting.”



Thursday, January 1, 2015

David L. Kirp on the National Opposition To Common Core


David Kirp
Rage Against the Common Core


LINK



STARTING in the mid-1990s, education advocates began making a simple argument: National education standards will level the playing field, assuring that all high school graduates are prepared for first-year college classes or rigorous career training.

While there are reasons to doubt that claim — it’s hard to see how Utah, which spends less than one-third as much per student as New York, can offer a comparable education — the movement took off in 2008, when the nation’s governors and education commissioners drove a huge effort to devise “world-class standards,” now known as the Common Core.

Although the Obama administration didn’t craft the standards, it weighed in heavily, using some of the $4.35 billion from the Race to the Top program to encourage states to adopt not only the Common Core (in itself, a good thing) but also frequent, high-stakes testing (which is deeply unpopular). The mishandled rollout turned a conversation about pedagogy into an ideological and partisan debate over high-stakes testing. The misconception that standards and testing are identical has become widespread.

At least four states that adopted the Common Core have opted out. Republican governors who initially backed the standards condemn them as “shameless government overreach.”

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a Republican and a onetime supporter of the Common Core, sued his own state and the United States Department of Education to block the standards from taking effect. When Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, recently announced his decision to “actively explore” a 2016 run for the White House, he ran into a buzz saw of opposition because of his embrace of the Common Core.

Rebellions have also sprouted in Democratic-leaning states. Last spring, between 55,000 and 65,000 New York State students opted out of taking tests linked to the Common Core. Criticizing these tests as “unproven,” the Chicago schools chief, Barbara Byrd-Bennett, declared that she didn’t want her students to take them.

In a Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll conducted last spring, 57 percent of public school parents opposed “having teachers in your community use the Common Core State Standards to guide what they teach,” nearly double the proportion of those who supported the goals. With the standards, the sheer volume of high-stakes standardized testing has ballooned. “The numbers and consequences of these tests have driven public opinion over the edge,” notes Robert A. Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, known as FairTest.

Students are terrified by these tests because the results can jeopardize their prospects for advancement and graduation. In New York, the number of students who scored “proficient” plummeted by about 30 percentage points in 2013, the first year of testing. Some 70 percent scored below the cutoff level in math and English; the 2014 results in math were modestly better, but the English language scores didn’t budge.

Many teachers like the standards, because they invite creativity in the classroom — instead of memorization, the Common Core emphasizes critical thinking and problem-solving. But they complain that test prep and test-taking eat away weeks of class time that would be better focused on learning.

A Gallup poll found that while 76 percent of teachers favored nationwide academic standards for reading, writing and math, only 27 percent supported using tests to gauge students’ performance, and 9 percent favored making test scores a basis for evaluating teachers. Such antagonism is well founded — researchers have shown that measurements of the “value” teachers add, as determined by comparing test scores at the beginning and end of the year, are unreliable and biased against those who teach both low- and high-achieving students.

The Obama administration has only itself to blame. Most Democrats expected that equity would be the top education priority, with more money going to the poorest states, better teacher recruitment, more useful training and closer attention to the needs of the surging population of immigrant kids. Instead, the administration has emphasized high-stakes “accountability” and market-driven reforms. The Education Department has invested more than $370 million to develop the new standards and exams in math, reading and writing.

Questioning those priorities can bring reprisals. During the search earlier this year for a New York City schools chancellor, Education Secretary Arne Duncan lobbied against Joshua P. Starr, the superintendent of schools in Montgomery County, Md., in part because he had proposed a three-year hiatus on high-stakes standardized testing.
Last year, Mr. Duncan said that opposition to the Common Core standards had come from “white suburban moms who realize — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were, and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were.”

He has only recently changed his cavalier tune, acknowledging, “Too much testing can rob school buildings of joy and cause unnecessary stress.”

It’s no simple task to figure out what schools ought to teach and how best to teach it — how to link talented teachers with engaged students and a challenging curriculum. Turning around the great gray battleship of American public education is even harder. It requires creating new course materials, devising and field-testing new exams and, because these tests are designed to be taken online, closing the digital divide. It means retraining teachers, reorienting classrooms and explaining to anxious parents why these changes are worthwhile.

Had the public schools been given breathing room, with a moratorium on high-stakes testing that prominent educators urged, resistance to the Common Core would most likely have been less fierce. But in states where the opposition is passionate and powerful, it will take a herculean effort to get the standards back on track.


David L. Kirp is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author, most recently, of “Improbable Scholars: The Rebirth of a Great American School System and a Strategy for America’s Schools.”

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Betsy Combier: New York City Department of Education: Retaliation Is the Name of The Game

Why the Case of Francesco Portelos is Important to NYC Teachers

re-posted from NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Betsy Combier

Below is a post from Francesco on how his principal, Linda Hill, violated the Chancellor's Regulations on the writing and submission of the PS 49Comprehensive Education Plan.
The details and the retaliation against Francesco Portelos is exactly what happened to me and countless other parents, teachers, and members of School Leadership Teams throughout New York City over the past 12 years.
I, too, detailed my story about exposing the theft at Booker T. Washington MS 54 at 108th and Columbus Avenue in Manhattan (the post is dated 2004). I was PTA President and on the SLT in 2000-2001, 2001-2002 school years. Larry Lynch was principal. I had just entered the public school system in 1996 with my oldest daughter when I was asked to run for PTA President and won the position in May, 1998. I understood that I would be on the new entity called "School Leadership Team", and like most parents elected to a position of leadership, I studied the law, rules, and regulations under which we, the SLT were to perform our duties. One of the most important was to write the CEP, which was a detailed account of the money spent at the school. Almost immediately I realized that the principal of MS 54 at the time, Larry Lynch,would not give us any facts about the special needs kids.

I nicely brought this up at meetings, and told everyone that I would discuss with Larry about this and about how we must have this data before we handed in our CEP to the District 3 office, under the supervision of Superintendent Patricia Romandetto and her lackey and enabler, DJ Sheppard. A parent involved at the school for a long time told me, "You better not say anything, you will be retaliated against". I did not believe her.

When it came time to submit the CEP and we still had no data for the special needs kids, and several other items, in 2001, Larry told us that we should just hand it in without signing the signature page. I told him that this was not ok, as we did not have the data. I wouldn't sign as PTA President. Then, about a week later at the beginning of March 2001, I got a call from a source within the District 3 office, and this person told me that Larry had submitted the CEP. I went over to the District 3 office and was handed a copy of the CEP he had handed in. He had filled in missing data with numbers that I and the rest of the SLT had never seen, and which I knew not to be true, like the number of students in special education, the number of providers in the building on what days, etc. Also, he stapled to the front the signature page of everyone copied from the previous year, with the date whited out.

The next year Pat Romandetto, DJ Sheppard, and their allies at MS 54 (white parents) voted to remove me as PTA President, and I started my websiteParentadvocates.org. My oldest daughter, at Stuyvesant with an IEP, had her IEP ripped up, the AP Jay Biegelson put his name on the attendance sheet as her father so that I would never know what happened, and my daughter was told that her mom could not be found. I was the Editor of the PA Bulletin at Stuyvesant, and in the school every day. All four of my daughters were attacked by the DOE and parent/district personnel/administrators who the DOE "convinces" they must be allies in order to attack whistleblowers. Secrecy is the number 1 priority.


You are here: Home > Friday the 13th – Exactly Two Years Since I First Raised Issues at SLT

Friday the 13th – Exactly Two Years Since I First Raised Issues at SLT
by Francesco Portelos on December 13, 2013 in Uncategorized

Francesco Portelos


It was December 13, 2011. A group of adults had pushed several student’s desks together and sat around them in room 129 of Berta Dreyfus Intermediate School 49. The group was comprised of teachers and parents and they were there for only two reasons – 1) To set the goals of the school by writing the Comprehensive Education Plan (CEP) 2) To align the goals with the school’s budget. According to Chancellor’s Regs A-655, that was it. They were paid to meet after school, on a monthly basis, and do that job.
The problem was…they weren’t. It was December and since September, there were no discussions or review of the CEP or $7.7 million budget. So at one point, after SLT Chairperson Susanne Abramowitz finished her agenda items, I interject and raise my right hand, like a student, while my left was still on the iPad where I was typing the minutes below. “Hey, are we going to go over the CEP or the budget at all?” I asked. What happened next was a bit unexpected to me, the newcomer on the team. The parents, UFT Chapter Leader Richard Candia and parent coordinator, all people who have been on the team for awhile, started voicing their opinions as well. It was almost as if there was a balloon that was inflating and inflating for some time, and I just popped it. “Yeah, why aren’t we looking at that? Shouldn’t it be out on the table at every meeting?” A parent to my left asked. A teacher on the team started discussing the budget and saying I think it’s online. I searched and found it and placed it in the meeting minutes below.
—————-
Excerpt of Dece. 13, 2011 SLT Minutes
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING
December 13, 2011
4:00PM
AGENDA

I. Welcome and Sign in
II. Reading November minutes
III. Old Business -
Meeting dates for 2012
January 10
February 7
March 13
April 3
May 8
June – time and place TBA
Senior Rings
Senior Pictures and 6th & 7th grade pictures
Quality Review- December 13-14
Toy drive – continues through 12/16
IV. New Business
CEP – SLT members feel that we speak about calendar events more than we do about the CEP. Our sole goal is to discuss the CEP as per chancellor regulations. http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8625F40E-5269-417D-AAAC-BB753AA8581B/82007/A655FINAL1.pdf
Members feel that we not only need to but have to take a more active role in the budget as well.
—————
You can kind of see where I was hearing about Toy Drives, Senior Pictures, Senior Rings and then had enough and raised this concern. It’s basically stated right there in the minutes in order.
There was one person that was a unusually quiet. That was SLT Chairperson Susanne Abramowitz. She was hearing what was going on and knew this was on her. She is the chairperson after all and has the job of writing the agenda and running the meetings. “Well, we can ask Ms. Hill about it.” she throws in to the discussion.
Principal Hill was across the hall in her office. She was with the State Quality Review person that just evaluated the school earlier that day. Almost on Que, Principal Hill walks in a few minutes later. It was our holiday meeting and some of us had gotten up to grab some empanadas a parent brought in.
I remember I was by the window eating and facing the tables. Principal Hill was looking down at her food, eating, when Susanne Abramowitz nervously stated “We were discussing the CEP and budget and–” “CEP?” Principal Hill interjected, still chewing, and not looking up. She waves one hand and says “That was due December 1st. I already submitted it.”
Well at that point you could cut the tension with a knife in there. I remember scanning the room and seeing the popped balloon, now deflated. I remember parent Jensen rolling her eyes. PTA President Peterkin also gave a look of disappointment. There was a general feeling of “We were close. We were close in doing the right thing.” The final kick came from SLT Chairperson Abramowitz who quickly, and with a sigh of relief, said “Oh ok…we’ll just work on next year’s now.”
I don’t think so. I had a 6 month old son, zoned for IS 49, living 1.5 miles away. I didn’t join the SLT and recently become UFT Delegate just for the title. I set out to make my community better for the students and my own son. I too shook my head and went to sit down and continued typing minutes. However, I open up the iPad’s browser and started searching for SLT and CEP. I came across James Calantjis’ website sltsupport.blogspot.com.
So I don’t repeat two years worth of unbelievable saga and retaliation, you can read what happened next here: http://protectportelos.org/the-story/
However, you should be interested to hear this that I have not share yet. As I continued to question the issue of the CEP and the violation to not only the chancellor’s regs, but NYS Ed Law 2590-h as well, the principal, SLT chairperson, and even former Superintendent Erminia Claudio stated “Oh …that CEP submitted on December 1st was just a draft. The SLT continued to work on it for the next few months. They signed and submitted it in April 2012.” That was the story they tried to play out to cover themselves. They continue with that false narrative to this very day.
It’s partially true. We did continue to work on it. If you read January, February and March’s SLT meeting minutes, there is discussion about editing and adding goals. However, that was just a waste of the parent’s time and to appease any one who questioned it. Susanne Abramowitz and Principal Hill literally had us sit for hours discussing items that were never, ever, going to be added. The reason they weren’t going to be added? The final copy, written by Principal Hill and the Children First Network was submitted on December 1, 2011.
Don’t take my word for it. See here:
1. Go to the official NYC DOE website for IS 49. http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/31/R049/Default.htm
2. Click on Statistics and Budget on the left side bar
3. Scroll down to Comprehensive Educational Plan 2011-2012
4. Download it by clicking it and clicking save or just right clicking and clicking save.
5. Open it. Search for the key terms we allegedly wanted added during the February 7, 2012 meetingCEP Review- We will add to the CEP the new programs at Dreyfus. They include:49 Strong, Kids Connect, Love the Skin U R In (St. John’s students), TransitionalCoaches, Children’s Aid Society, and the Jewish Board (a bilingual program).
I’ll save you some time. Those programs are not in there. Why? Maybe because the final version was submitted on…December 1, 2011.
Wait… there is more!
Since you have the file open. Click File and then Properties. Look at the date this official document was created and last modified. I’ll save you some time…


Official 2011-2012 CEP
Pretty interesting, right? For months we were given the impression that we were working on something and it was nothing, but a waste of time and cover up. Dirty and corrupt cover up.
Perhaps that is the reason they kept trying to shut me up when I wanted to add a fourth goal to the CEP. Can’t add anything. It’s already been submitted. They didn’t say that though. Instead Principal Hill barked at me “WHAT’S YOUR POINT MR. PORTELOS?”

Wait…there is more!
It actually gets worse…if you can believe that. Each CEP has a signature page and every member from the SLT has to sign to show they were involved. State Law. Sometime in late December 2011 or early January of 2012, I was on line to sign out and leave school at dismissal. I was next to another teacher and SLT member. Principal Hill stops us and asks “Can you two please sign this?” It looked like the signature page (page 2 of CEP). “What is it?” I asked skeptically. I noticed UFT Chapter Leader Richard Candia and Susanne Abramowitz already signed it. ”It’s just a form to say we discussed something about a computer program.” she responded. Back then I trusted the two and we both signed as well and that was that.
But where is the official signature page? I never signed one. I even FOILed it and simply requested just that page that is supposed to be readily available at the principal’s office. The response from the principal’s attorney, Marisol Vazquez esq., was “A diligent search has been conducted for the records you seek. I have been informed that no records have been located. As such, our response to your FOIL request is concluded.”
I appealed that FOIL response to DOE’s General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase and her response was basically “We can’t provide what can’t be found.”
“But Mr. Portelos, did you reach out to the CEC, FACE or NYS to get assistance?” Yes. It’s exactly two years later. Nothing from CEC President Sam Pirozollo. Nothing from our SLT liason Mike Riley. Nothing from FACE Director Jesse Mojica. Nothing from FACE’s Cluster 2 liaison Pedro Rivera. Who I would like to add sent this email out after I asked for help again.
——
From: Rivera Pedro
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 04:56 PM
To: Mckeon Jean CFN 211
Subject: PS 49 SLT
Heads up!
The SLT members of PS 49 (the UFT) will be expecting to see the SLT view of their budget at tomorrow’s meeting.
Can you please remind the school to use this at tomorrow’s meeting. FYI Portelos has been talking again.
Pedro A. Rivera
Division of Family & Community Engagement
Family Engagement Initiatives Director, Cluster 2
Parents & Families
212-374-6854 /718 281-3255
BB 917-603-0865
49-51 Chambers Street, Suite 503
Manhattan, NY 10007
“Schools would have to spend $1,000 more per pupil
to reap the same gains that an involved parent brings”

——-
Is this issue duplicated countless times across the DOE’s 1,800 schools? Yes. Just ask any SLT member. I’ll leave you with that to think about.
I actually have to get ready for my termination hearing now. Today, Friday the 13th is my 13th day of hearings before an arbitrator. She will decide my fate, to an extent, in the upcoming months. My first three witnesses are set to come in today, with several more in the upcoming weeks. It’s open and public. Stop by if you can to see this saga unfold. My hearings alone have cost the taxpayer over $30,000 and that is just since September.
“Mr. Portelos, knowing what you know now, would you still ask that same question if you could go back in time?”
Yes.