How I Won Friedrichs and Jia Lee Didn't

Hey it's me again, "Punchy" Mike Mulgrew, here to give you an important update on the thing that's been keeping some people up nights, the Friedrichs case. OK, it hasn't been keeping me up nights, because I have very smart people to worry about this stuff so I don't have to. They calculate and strategize, and measure each and every bit of data. They have slide rules and everything. Now I can't explain their thinking, because it's secret, and I don't understand it anyway, but the point is they think about this stuff and figure it out, so that should be good enough for anybody.

What's indisputable is this---under our leadership, Justice Antonin Scalia has died, and unless he comes back as a zombie or something, it looks like that pretty much rules out his vote on Friedrichs. We figure, even if Obama doesn't get to appoint a new justice, it doesn't matter because it's gonna be 4-4. That means the lower court ruling holds and Friedrichs loses. Everyone has to pay, members and non-members, and we won't have to bother with all that organizing and stuff it looked like we might have to do. Sheesh, that's a relief. I really didn't feel like doing that, not that I was gonna do it anyway. Of course I have people for that.

So here's the thing. I keep hearing about this Jia Lee character who seems to want to run against me. Can you imagine? I have to control my base instincts so as not to use bad language right now, but who the hell does this character think she is? I'm even hearing that newspapers write about her. Can they even do that?  I'm the President, dammit. They run my picture and quote her. What's up with that? This is just one more case of the NY Post running some radical point of view without coming to me, the reasonable center, who could have one of my people make up some quote or something.

So let me ask you this. Do you think, under the leadership of someone like Jia Lee, that Scalia would have died and we'd have won Friedrichs? Of course you can't say that. What you can say, with 100% certainty, is that under my leadership, with the input of all the smart people who write my op-eds and tell me what to say, that we dealt with this. All those of you who made jokes about our contingency plans can go screw yourselves. There are reasons we can't tell you what our plans are. And it doesn't matter what you say because the fact is that we won this one, and we win them all.

Now sure you can vote for Jia Lee and all the disloyal bastards she represents. But the next time we're in a crisis, can you be sure the Supreme Court Justice will die before the case gets heard? Of course not. That's why I'm telling you not to change horses in midstream, and to elect me again. We now have a history of Supreme Court Justices dying before they could enter judgments that would harm us. Can MORE say that? Of course not. And just remember if there's some odd confluence of events and Friedrichs comes up again, it isn't my fault. Who could predict things like that, or Bloomberg winning, or his third term?

I'd just like to say one more thing. I'm sick and tired of hearing about the blogs, the ones I don't read, saying that our Unity members sign a loyalty oath. Let me make this very clear, once and for all. It is not a loyalty oath. It's simply an agreement that they will all do whatever we say they're gonna do.  We make our top secret decisions via a very fair process, with our elite, handpicked members. I can't tell you what that process is because then I'd have to have you killed, and there's a whole lot of paperwork in rubbing people out and attributing the expenses to caterers of gala luncheons. But I have very smart people arrange all this stuff, so it's OK.

Anyway, I want you to get on social media, on Twitter and MySpace, or whatever the hell it is you kids do nowadays, and tell everyone what a great job I'm doing, and not to vote for that Jia Lee character. I hear she hangs around with, you know, bloggers and other lowlife characters. I don't approve of blogs, and that's why I killed Edwize. Sure no one read it, but that's not the point. The point is I don't want you reading any blogs at all. The only info you need is in NY Teacher.

So, in retrospect, don't vote for that weirdo Jia Lee, and remember, under our leadership not only have we won Friedrichs, but we also haven't had a catastrophic natural disaster in over three years. Can Jia Lee and her gang of MORE/ New Action bastards say that?

Of course not. The choice is clear folks. See you at the next DA. I have a lot of hilarious in jokes that none of you will understand, and I can't wait to share them with you.

What if the Unity Gravy Train Is Derailed?

SCOTUS appears poised to deal us a loss in Friedrichs. But what will a loss look like? Will they simply decide that there are no more agency fees? That could be inconvenient for 52 Broadway, which has a machine to maintain. Will they be able to continue to send 750 rubber stamps to AFT conventions? Will they have to stay at Motel 6 instead of the Marriott? Will they have to buy in six packs instead of drinking the $14 beers at the Hilton?

Actually, things could get even more inconvenient. Will union members have to opt in, or opt out? It would certainly be easier if the default position were in. Of course, even in an organization where fewer than 18% vote in elections, some people will manage to get their grubby little paws on a card that saves them $1300 a year. Even if UFT leadership can't deal with people opting out of developmentally inappropriate tests, it's gonna have to face the possibility of people opting out of dues.

Now if the default meant people had to opt in, that would be even tougher. People would have to actually lay their hands on a piece of paper, fill it out, and say yes I want to send Michael Mulgrew $1300 this year. I want to make sure he can bring all of his minions to some convention where they cheer for Bill Gates the week before he attacks teacher pensions. I want to make sure he gets a gold plated seat at the table where he negotiates laws that ensure teachers are rated via junk science. Not sure everyone would jump up and down at that possibility.

Or they could insist on another model, where union ratification votes took place annually. That would mean that Mulgrew, who has never even been on social media, would have to be in perpetual sales mode. That would be a big change for a guy accustomed to interacting only with those who've signed loyalty oaths, a guy generally surrounded by a comfortable entourage with whom he exchanges in jokes, even when in public.

Mulgrew said at the January DA that if we lost Friedrichs, we'd have to spend a lot more time organizing. This left me scratching my head why leadership hadn't spent the last few decades doing precisely that. One answer is they like a system in which members are so cynical and disenfranchised they can't even be bothered to vote, a system in which the actual vote is dominated by retirees who have absolutely no skin in who negotiates contracts for working members. I mean, if people will keep electing leaders who negotiate substandard contracts rife with givebacks, why bother even trying to do better?

Will a loss in Friedrichs wake up the aloof, elite Unity Caucus leadership? That's doubtful. With typical and predictable arrogance, the last Unity handout at the DA declared that Unity is UFT. Who cares if most members don't even know they exist, let alone the fact that they are shut out of virtually all union decision making? We are the UFT, and the overwhelming numbers of rank and file, uninvited and unaware, are not.

What is Unity gonna do when the gravy train can no longer be taken for granted? Do you imagine the folks who sit in Albany steakhouses and send back the quail they bought with our COPE funds are gonna degrade themselves by actually mixing with lowly teachers? We got a glimpse at Unity's idea of organizing at last week's DA. They handed out buttons that said, "Union loud and proud," right before Mulgrew announced we were technically not allowed to wear them at school. I guess I'll wear it to the supermarket, so the woman beside me squeezing oranges can know exactly how I feel.

On the brighter side, those who don't pay dues won't get to vote in union elections, not that they ever did anyway. If we lose 25% of working members, the turnout could be just as pitiful, but will appear inflated since the percentage will come strictly from duespayers.

It's gonna be a new world. One thing's for sure--Unity leadership's love of reforminess and concessions helped embolden our enemies and usher in this nonsense. So much for the smart and visionary leadership Mulgrew's always boasting about.

On Marking and Marginalizing

I'm getting field reports from my friends in exile. They're off grading Regents exams in schools that are Far, Far Away. They keep asking me how things are on the home planet. I've been proctoring and sitting in the reserve room. I even got to go out to lunch, once, but I can't count on lightning striking twice in the same place.

Of course they're away because here in Fun City, teachers are assumed to be worthless layabouts who sit in classrooms reading the New York Times all year. Toward the end of the semester, they try to make it look like they're actually doing something, so what they do is falsify results on Regents exams, instruments so precise they are the only valid measurements of how kids perform. For example, as a teacher of beginning ELLs, it's assumed I'd give each and every incoherent scribble an excellent grade because the students draw breath.

That's not an offensive assumption, is it?

In most of the state, they deal with the perfidy of teachers by swapping exams, i.e., you grade my class and I'll grade yours. But in New York City, we're scrupulous about ethics. That's why we insist on perfect leadership and you never, ever read about administrators being arrested for drug possession or having sex on official DOE property. It's those filthy, cheating, unscrupulous teachers to blame for it all.

So we don't swap exams. We're so scrupulous that we don't let teachers even grade tests from their home schools. We either send them packing to other buildings or pay them hourly to grade tests. After all, why shouldn't we pay people extra to do what they've always done as a matter of course? That's a worthwhile expenditure, isn't it?

In fact, we've taken it one step further. My colleague reports that she and another teacher at our school are not permitted to grade together. This, of course, is because they would surely conspire to pass everyone. Or fail everyone. Maybe they'd conspire to pass some and fail others. It's tough to say. The only thing of which we can be certain is that each and every element of this plot is diabolical. Thank goodness the great minds of our city have come together to prevent such an outrage.

The takeaway, though, is that teachers are cunning and ruthless, utterly self-serving, and must not be permitted to get together and hatch their evil plans. No doubt that's why the powers that be are so intent on crushing our unions over at SCOTUS.

Surely that will teach us a valuable lesson.

Punchy Mike's Plan

Hi it's me, your old pal "Punchy" Mike Mulgrew! I'm here to let you all know about my new plans to help out the UFT after we lose Friedrichs! Actually I can't tell you what the plans are because they're secret, but trust me, we are very smart, and very strategic. We have calculated what we have to do, crossed every t, dotted every i, and as soon as we're good and ready we'll let you know.

But there are some things I can tell you right now. At a time like this, we have to stick together. Now sure I said that when Bloomberg was mayor. And sure I said that when Cuomo came out with all those bad plans. But now I really mean it. Now don't go listening to those subversive bastards who say we didn't oppose Cuomo in the primary. That was strategy. Do you know what strategy is? No? Good, because I'm not gonna tell you. It's a secret. And also, don't listen to those dirty bastards who say we didn't oppose him in the other primary, or in the general. Yup, you guessed it. Strategy.

Anyhoo, the whole sticking together thing, let me watch how I say this because my priest just gave me a haircut, and he doesn't like my filthy vulgar disgusting language, so I'm gonna try to be nice here, but let me tell you, James Eterno? A rat bastard. Norm Scott? Another rat bastard. Jia Lee? Don't  even get me started. I actually talked to her, you know, walked around ant talked to her. I even nodded my head and acted like I knew what the hell she was talking about with her blah blah blah about opt-out or whatever. Do you think I do that for just anyone? How's she gonna do me like this? Mike Schirtzer? Another rat bastard. Who the hell does he think he is, coming into my DA and being taller than me? I should've beat the crap right out of him the first moment I laid eyes on him, but, you know, the new me, not using bad language and beating the crap out of everyone (Note to whoever writes the stuff I read out loud--possible campaign slogan there).

And those bloggers, the ones I never read? There's a special place in hell for those scumwads. Let me put it delicately--they traffic in myth. You see how I did that? A few years ago I might have called them filthy stinking lying rat bastards, because that's what they are, but I've been practicing subtlety. You know, diplomacy and stuff. So whatever crap they write, whenever I hear it, I just spit on the ground and think about PUNCHING THEIR FACES AND PUSHING THEM INTO THE DIRT, because that's what we did in my neighborhood when I grew up. I resist the urge and eat a Chunky instead. Because that's the kind of guy I turned out to be.

So anyhoo, here's the thing. While we're facing Friedrichs, which is not at all our fault, you need to remember that all our opponents have to offer is platitudes, and we have solid advice. Stay the course. Don't change horses midstream. Keep going. Persist. Leave no stone unturned. Keep driving. See it through. Hang tough. Leave no stone unturned. A penny saved is a penny earned and a stitch in time saves nine. Nuf said?

In the old days I might have physically threatened you to do what I want, but these days I prefer to just give you a gentle nudge, or a free trip, or a patronage job. Not sure how we're gonna pay for them post-Friedrichs, so listen. Vote for Unity and pay dues. Don't listen to those naysayers when they talk about loyalty oaths. What the hell have they done for you lately anyway? Don't we vote their asses down every time they bring anything up at the DA?

So you vote for us. You can rely on us to keep doing whatever the hell we've been doing for the last decade. Ask yourself, are you better off now? If you are, vote for us. If you aren't, don't vote at all. What the hell, your vote makes no difference anyway and a whole lot of you are too young to ever have used a mailbox. Why bother? The retirees are gonna drown you out anyway. (Note to self--host breakfast in Florida office.)

So remember, vote for us, not the rat bastards, God bless America, God bless the United Federation of Teachers, and a Thousand Points of Light.

Let's Not Start Partying Just Yet

There's been a lot of interest in this article, suggesting a silver lining to the Friedrichs case. It now appears SCOTUS is poised to deliver a tough pill to public unions, saying that automatic dues collection is a violation of free speech. Friedrichs and her pals feel all workers have the absolute right to do more work for less pay and have had it with those nasty unions demanding otherwise.

The silver lining, according to the article, may be that our free speech includes the right to strike, long gone in NY with that Taylor Law, which takes two days pay for every day we stay out. This has proven a pretty effective deterrent, though the transit workers went out anyway a few years back. For this, they lost their dues checkoff for a year, which resulted in only 75% of them actually paying union dues.

Consider that this scenario occurred under a newly elected activist leadership. For us in UFT, we have the entrenched and clueless Unity patronage mill, which hasn't bothered to organized seriously in decades. 75% would be fantastic for them. But that's not the only issue, even if they could organize, strike, or whatever (which I doubt).

Add to this scenario the disappearance of the Triborough Amendment, something GOP gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino wanted. Imagine if someone like Bloomberg didn't have to uphold the terms of an expired contract, and could do whatever he wished once the thing was over with. Would we be looking at no contract at all? Would we be looking at a unilaterally imposed thin contract, eviscerating job protections, like the one Bloomberg had wet dreams about years ago?

There are possibilities in this. We could, perhaps, energize the membership and be reborn as an actual labor union. But Friedrichs would only be a first step. Michael Mulgrew championed a contract with two-tier due process. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what a union is. And we, under the Mulgrew's appeals to fear (moving back 150 places in line, retro not a God-given right), approved this contract, showing we too have no understanding.

We are many steps away from being an active workforce. Michael Mulgrew is not qualified to lead such a union, and needs to be replaced.  Our loyalty-oath signing patronage mill has to go too--we need leaders, not self-serving sycophants. That's not a quick fix. A friend of mine used to say the UFT has two problems--the leadership and the membership. We're gonna have to fix both before we see the sunny side of Friedrichs.

We Finance the Mulgrew Campaign

Several of my blogger colleagues have reviewed the new UFT commercial, and deemed it lacking. I agree. I find it misleading and unpersuasive, far too generous to Andrew Cuomo, and far too rosy in its outlook.  I also agree that its overly optimistic tone is calculated to instill faith in bumbling, rudderless Michael Mulgrew.

But this year leadership has another ace up its sleeve. It's sent this video out to chapter leaders and asked them to show it at meetings. It shows Mulgrew with people I recognize as Unity insiders tossing softballs. The UFT President is mostly off camera, in what's supposed to be candid and spontaneous discourse. I've watched Michael Mulgrew many times, and his off the cuff speaking is absolutely nothing like what's reflected in this video.

Now it's interesting to hear Mulgrew tell the story about how well-heeled union-busters set up Friedrichs and her cohorts to kill union. He's right, of course, and you've read it even in mainstream media if you're following the case. To see his outrage, you'd think he wasn't part of the brain trust that brought Bill Gates to be keynote at the AFT convention. You'd think it wasn't Mulgrew himself who helped write the law that first brought New York teachers junk science. You'd think he didn't champion the contract that made senior teachers into permanent ATRs. You'd think we hadn't given them charter schools, mayoral control, and EZ school closings. You'd think Mike Mulgrew himself wasn't the guy who thanked the Heavy Hearts Assembly for the draconian new evaluation system.

Since so few UFT members actually have dealings with the President, they may believe that guy on the camera is the real Mike Mulgrew. They might believe that the well-organized thoughts coming from the mouth of the off-camera Mulgrew are spontaneous utterances, or that this is simply a random group of teachers having an off the cuff conversation with our open and thoughtful president.

This is a much better video than the one that's airing on TV. It's tightly scripted and paints a whole new Mulgrew, one I've never seen before. There's none of his trademark smirking and private jokes. The tough guy posturing is gone. You'd think you were watching a reflective intellectual or something. And if you were not aware that the Supreme Court is already pretty much in the bag for Friedrichs, you might think that Mulgrew and his crew were actually accomplishing something.

UFT leadership depends on an uninformed and passive membership to stay in power. This is, and has been, our prime weakness. One thing Mulgrew says really strikes me. He says if we lose Friedrichs that the union will have to spend an inordinate amount of time organizing. He holds that out as though it's a terrible thing. In fact, it's likely the thing that Mulgrew and his loyalty oath signing minions have most neglected over the last decade or two. It's what union is largely about, and it's the sort of thing that might have precluded Mulgrew, who's never met a giveback he didn't like, from negotiating two-tier due process and yet another substandard contract.

Now it would be great if Mulgrew were sincere about organizing, but I don't think he has it in him. He's no Karen Lewis, he's largely unavailable to rank and file, and he certainly doesn't speak off the top of his head as he did in that video. What Mulgrew refers to as organizing would likely amount to no more than intensive dues collection. An activated membership would be a dire threat to the Unity machine, one it cannot risk or afford. There's a reason why UFT Unity builds barriers against genuine activists, and it's certainly not because they want a well-informed rank and file. Otherwise they'd be telling us the whole story, rather than painting only half of it and hoping we don't already know the rest.

Every Unity chapter leader will dutifully show this video to staff, and people who don't know any better may buy this week's Mulgrew as real. It's more important than ever for opposition to get the truth out. In light of Friedrichs, it's supremely ironic that our dues are, in fact, financing Mulgrew's campaign for re-election.

UFT Delegate Assembly January 6th, 2015

Announcements

Mulgrew wishes us a happy new year, points out we are back to work.

President’s Report

Says he will be at Friedrichs hearing with retirees.

Discusses Regents decision, says it’s temporary but will be made permanent in February. Says we will now have to renegotiate evaluation. Says there are many myths out there.  Says SED has action plan that requires NYS to change or adopt NY standards. Says there must be separate standards for special ed. and ESL students. Says we should have large voice in that since most of them are in our district. Says he wants to form a task force to address this.

Mulgrew says UFT advocates for complete overhaul of standards

Family leave—announced by mayor for non-unionized employees. Says every UFT President has looked at issue but this is first admin that may entertain it. Says other admins suggested women have babies in summer. UFT is negotiating with city. Says any decision will be brought back to “you guys” in Delegate Assembly. Says we will not overpay dramatically, but at negotiating table there is a price for everything. Says leadership is very creative in how they do work.

ICT survey—says chancellor was shocked at survey response, had thought every school had done this appropriately and all teachers had common planning time. Says it’s unacceptable to pull teachers from ICT classes to sub or not to cover ICT teachers when absent. Suggest money is wasted on APs in smaller schools.

Metal detectors—UFT doesn’t believe in zero tolerance. Says other extreme is that no one can be suspended, or that insubordination is not suspendible offense. Suggests good school culture is obvious. Says he’s seen some great schools in most challenging areas. Says UFT stresses respectful environment between staff and students. Says some schools fail to report acts and make suspensions look ridiculous. Clearly some students impeded the educational process of other students. We need to establish process to deal with said impeders. Mulgrew does safety and discipline survey, has CLs fill out on spot.

Does school have safety committee?

Does school have a de-escalation plan? Has DOE provided training and info on plan?

Does school have sufficient staff for intervention services for students who act out?

Does your school have a functioning ladder of referral that teachers know how to use?

Is there a location within your school where disruptive students can be safely isolated from others?

Have students in your school lost valuable learning time as a result of other disruptive students?

State

Priority is we all have more to do on education, particularly funding and CFE. Says union forewent raises to get class size within contract and that city should now fund it. Says no one in state is adhering to class size reduction plan. Says that this session we will push heavily on anti-creaming language for charter schools. Brings up Moskowitz, says she uses safety as argument for tossing low-performing kids. Says non-level playing field is outrageous.

Mulgrew speaks fondly of last year’s plan, says approval rating went down and that governor is now professing love for teachers. Says we’re in a much better place, is more to do, but we have a plan at all times. Says he doesn’t tell everyone what he’s doing in Albany, has a strategy, says this session is expected to be much better.

Says it’s election time at UFT and to let shenanigans begin. Mentions late Passover and that Easter will be Good Friday only. Says we can only afford one snow day this year. Mentions this Friday spending deadline for Teacher’s Choice, and following deadline for form submission.

Mentions Friedrichs case starts next Monday. Understands it’s a problem. Says they are claiming not to hate unions but only want to protect freedom of speech. Points out it’s not being paid for by teachers. Adam Ross, UFT counsel comes up to discuss.

Ross—Most of 19th and 20th century law was anti-union. During height of Depression FDR passes national labor relations act, allowing workers to collectively bargain, but does not apply to public employees. It allows unions and employees to say everyone has to be member of union. Unions became very powerful, had strikes, passed Taft-Hartley Act. It outlaws rule that employer and union can mandate membership. Created agency shop—non union members have to pay for expense of collective bargaining but not political activity.

Taft Hartley says they must be enforced unless state says otherwise, so-called right to work. Calls it bizarre and unusual provision, but there are now 25 RTW states. Public employees not covered. In 1967 NY State law, Taylor Law, guaranteed public employees right to bargain but outlawed string. Modeled after TH, and required pay for collective bargaining but not political activity.

Abood called it unconstitutional, Heard by US Supreme Court which said since you were only supporting collective bargaining, said these arrangements were constitutional, 9-0 decision. All over state contracts are negotiated based on this precedent. Courts resolve conflicts over what is and is not political.

Harris v. Quinn, Judge Alito had multi-page rant on how bad Abood decision was and invited someone to bring case to overturn it. People paid attention and very quickly right wing found people in CA to try to overturn it. Went in, asked for adverse ruling so they could go to Supreme Court. Took it to higher courts in CA, did the same. Gave Alito what he asked for, and at least 4 of 9 judges voted for it. Unusual for court to invite challenge to existing SCOTUS precedent.

Plaintiffs claim it is violation of their 1st Amendment right to have union leaders speak to politicians. Unions claim they don’t pay for that, but rather for collective bargaining. Plaintiffs claim every single thing unions say to employer is political speech. Say they may oppose things unions negotiate.

Ross calls it wrong, cites previous SCOTUS rejection. Says since we have to represent everybody, everyone gets benefits and must pay fair share. From legal perspective, there’s a state’s rights aspect. This circumvents NY State law, says states make decisions, e.g.. strikes, unions, collective bargaining.

Says Justice Scalia may be swing vote.

Says court has no info on what to do with agency fees. Says SCOTUS has no business deciding what’s constitutional until they know what we actually do with money.

Says we are required by law to negotiate, that they are abridging this, and that this is clearly about weakening labor movement.

Mulgrew—Says we know what they’re up to, what it’s really about, and that we’re the last people standing up to the rich. Says the rich feel they have the right to influence policy and law due to wealth, and that we ought not to have voice. Says it might be good thing because this is not “a God-given right.” Says no one has ever given us anything. We fight, we advocate, and then we usually pay on top of that for these things.

Says it’s about union standing up to make things better.

Mulgrew gives results of poll, most schools have not cooperated.

Question period

CL—Some schools have inter-visitations during prep, and are paid. Can staff be forced to do this, and can colleagues be forced to accept visitors? Mulgrew—wouldn’t be appropriate to pay anyone unless it was duty-free period. If someone is being paid, they cannot be forced. Should entail consultation. Says some teachers can be paid for allowing visitors.

Delegate—How are arts teachers expected to be fit into Danielson, which is detrimental to our rating? Mulgrew—we will discuss what eval looks like this year and next year. Says this will come up. UFT could argue observers must understand subject area. Says Danielson cannot be used if observer doesn’t understand subject area.

CL—What is our pushback when principal abuses budget? Mulgrew—put budget in front of SLT and tell them how principal is using it. Says he did that. Says CL can go to superintendent.

Delegate—In transfer HS, Regents results only counted for June students, wants January efforts recorded. Mulgrew—will make sure January results included also. Says we can do so in February. Repeatedly suggests remark is cryptic, and I don’t get it at all.

Q—How do you handle principal who constantly says he’ll go to legal, but always comes back with answer of no?  Mulgrew says no principal should say he has to talk to legal, and DOE agrees. Says to refer matters to DR, who will then report to superintendent.

CL—Paras are asked to do lunch duty. What is our stance? Mulgrew—paras get duty free lunch, but may be assigned one on one. Still get duty free lunch, not eating with student.

CL—Stories about school segregation—how are we handling this? Mulgrew—We support diversity. Happy that it was teachers from PROSE schools who made plans to integrate schools via admissions process.

Q—Chancellor’s receivership—what is it? Mulgrew—renewal plan set by mayor, UFT working on it. Says state, not chancellor will set benchmarks. Says closure does not fix struggling schools.

Motion

Dave Pecoraro—Moves that UFT support PSC in trying to get new contract. Next month. Passes.

Resolutions

Tom Brown Asst treasurer—supports res. against terrorist atrocities. Asks we support victims. Seconded.

Delegate—makes amendment—to add many of our students are terror victims here and abroad,  that we should recognize hate crimes as terror, and also to strike language such acts are “more commonplace every day.” Says it is dubious and weakens amendment. 

Dave P. speaks against amendment. 

Point of information—Asks for additional amendment—Mulgrew says it’s point of order. Asks to cut several whereas statements. Says domestic terror more of a danger here than foreign.

Leroy Barr speaks against second amendment. Says resolution does not identify only foreign terror. Points to World Trade Center. Also speaks against first amendment.

All questions called. Seconded.

Amendments defeated. Motion passed.

Mel Aronson—Resolution on out of control drug prices—says there is a prescription of $1800 per bottle of motrin and pepcid, OTC medicines. Welfare fund had to stop paying for that. Says some meds cost over 100K per annum. Says we need to allow Medicare to negotiate.

Speaker supports, speaks of dire necessity of people to afford medicine. Dave P. calls question. Resolution passes.

An Untimely Death

As awful as our union leadership is, they're our fault because the overwhelming majority of us can't be bothered to mark an X, lick an envelope, and drop it in a mailbox. And with all the bad things I say about them, they are at least better than nothing. Nothing is likely what we will have if Friedrichs becomes law.

I spend a good part of every year trying to collect for our local's Sunshine Fund. We collect 15 bucks a head. With that, we buy gifts for retirees, do lunches, and sometimes buy shirts for members. Some people won't pay. They tell me they have phone bills, electric bills, and all sorts of inconvenient things that, of course, pretty much everyone has. I will continue to pay the union, if we have one, but I dread the possibility of having to go around and ask people to contribute a thousand bucks a year.

And honestly, I don't know whether I would ask. Even if I pay myself, should I bust my ass trying to raise money for Michael Mulgrew to sit at 52 Broadway and have someone write emails he signs telling us how wonderful things are? Should I actively enable all the loyalty oath signers who we pay because they've shown an unshakable faith in all the nonsense our union has supported?  Don't they include charter schools, colocations, mayoral control, two-tier due process, among their Great Victories?

Unfortunately, Friedrichs transcends leadership. I will pay 15 bucks for pretty much any half-decent cause in my building, and so will a lot of others, but when the ante rises to a thousand bucks it's gonna be a much harder sell. That would be the case no matter who was running the union, and that would be the case even if Unity had not stacked the deck to ensure their monopoly.

Even if Unity were to cut down on patronage and fire some of the blitheringly incompetent ass-kissers that pervade union employees, it's hard to imagine that the union would be able to provide the same level of service with significantly less cash. The political clout of union will diminish as its funding does, and the demagogues who hate us and everything we stand for will be in full party mode. If they can get this through the courts, they can get pretty much anything through the courts. After all, they'll have pretty much neutered much of the opposition by effectively defunding public unions. They've already got citizenhood for corporations. Why not further degrade the whole one person, one vote thing by crushing organized labor, the voice of working people?

Of course they can make exceptions for police, like Scott Walker did, because someone will have to guard their mansions when and if the bootless and unhorsed rise up with torches and pitchforks. But that hasn't happened to Walker yet, and considering the distance leadership has created between rank and file and themselves, I don't see UFT members rising up to follow Mulgrew anytime soon.

Make no mistake, we educators represent the last bastion of vibrant unionism in these United States. Our enemies want this to be the last nail in our coffin. Mulgrew says we will appeal at the state level if it passes, but my faith in his word is sorely limited. The middle class is rapidly disappearing, and the folks bankrolling Friedrichs couldn't be happier.

I can't believe we're left hanging, likely at the whim of one of the lunatic GOP Supreme Court Justices.

But what can you expect in the  face of an incipient oligarchy? Am I overly naive in calling it incipient? Time will tell, if it hasn't already.

Teaching in a Right to Work State

Add caption

From time to time in this space, you may note a disparaging word or two about UFT leadership. There are several reasons for this. One is that leadership has supported a host of counter-intutitive measures that hurt working teachers in its perpetual bid for a "seat at the table." Mayoral control is a biggie. We supported it when it came out, and then, after it was proven an unmitigated disaster, we demanded a few changes. When we failed to get them, we supported it anyway.

There is our support for APPR, which forces teachers to be judged on test scores largely beyond their control. There is our support for charter schools, which operate on a completely different playing field and yet are used by politicians and journalists to undermine those of us who teach all of NYC's children. There is our support for and participation in charter colocation, which reminds me of nothing more than a cancer to public schools. There's our abject failure to support opt-out, and our misguided trust in the Heavy Heart Assembly, Cuomo, Gates, John King, Mary Ellen Elia and the like.

And then there is a rigged election that deprives high school teachers the right to choose its own VP, not to mention the UFT choosing district reps who chapter leaders used to elect. Democracy finds it hard to breathe, let alone prosper, under loyalty-oath driven representation, as the UFT ensures those of us who follow the philosophy of Diane Ravitch get no voice whatsoever in NYSUT or AFT.  

But as we face a real threat in Friedrichs. The fact is, if dues retrieval becomes voluntary, the massive apathy engendered over decades by union leadership will cause massive losses in revenue, and will render collection the number one, if not the only priority, of the leadership that's failed to represent the feelings and struggles of working teachers for decades. Will it become the lot of chapter leaders to skulk around begging people for $1200 a year so Michael Mulgrew can negotiate sub-standard contracts, two-tier due process, and punch us in the face if we don't support Common Core? That's gonna be a tough sell.

On the other hand, it's not a whole lot of fun being in a so-called Right to Work State. Take a look at North Carolina, where teachers can't even make ends meet. The environment is not a whole lot different from that here, in that teachers and public schools are routinely blamed for all the ills of humanity. But the funding has been rolled back to the point where public schools can barely function, and the teachers are on long-term exodus from the state. Make no mistake, that's the agenda of the reformies, and Cuomo would do it in a New York minute of the parents and citizenry were less aware.

Union is our bulwark against this, and we must work to make UFT an organization responsive to those of us who see what's coming. Flawed though our union is, we must work to improve it rather than lie down and watch it be destroyed. As bad as things are, they could be much worse. A lot of us are working to make things better, and I expect to give more detail on that in this space in the coming weeks and months.

Friedrichs can hang over our heads like the Sword of Damocles, but we cannot give up. We cannot become North Carolina. If you think it can't happen here, take a look at Michigan and Wisconsin. No one thought it would happen there either. Because even if we win Friedrichs, that's just cutting one head off the monster. Surely another will grow in its place.

We need to be smarter and quicker than the reformies. Our current leadership has not proven up to the task. One way or another, we are going to help them, whether they like it or not.

If Union Dues Are Optional, Shouldn't Taxes Be Optional Too?

I've been giving a lot of thought to the Freidrichs case, which, if we were to lose, would render dues optional for public union members. Basically, if you don't feel like paying your dues, you won't have to. And not only could you keep your precious 1300 bucks, but you could also retain pretty much whatever services the union offers. Why should I pay 1300 bucks for eyeglasses and representation when I could just let some other fool lay out the money?

That, of course, is not the basis of the argument. The argument is that union engages in political activity of which you may not approve. For example, your union might support less work for more pay while you are passionate about more work for less pay. Or maybe they support candidates who don't believe people should work seven days a week. Who knows what awful things the union might support, and how the hell are you supposed to know that your money isn't supporting it? The only fair thing is to let you freeload while everyone else pays.

Well, if that's the rationale, and SCOTUS thinks it's unethical to mix politics with dues, I'm good with it. But they need to be consistent. If, for example, one does not believe in war, one ought not to be compelled to pay for it. I'm not a huge fan of war, and certainly haven't supported the last few I've seen. In fact, there are education programs, like Common Core and Race to the Top, which I oppose fairly vehemently.

One of my biggest issues with the government is taxes. Federal taxes pay for Arne Duncan, and I gotta say, I find him pretty repugnant. For one thing, he's the highest ranking educator in the country, but he isn't even a teacher. For another, though he spends a lot of time imposing policies about public education, he has decided public schools, after years of his stewardship, are no longer good enough for his children.

So, if union dues are optional because I might not believe in what union does, taxes should also be optional.

If I don't have to pay union dues because I don't agree with what the union does, why should I pay taxes when I don't agree with what the government does? It's all about me, isn't it? It's all about persona liberty. If I'm opposed to NCLB, if I'm opposed to Common Core, and if I'm opposed to Arne Duncan representing education, why should I have to support these things?

I'd also like to determine whether or not I support military actions before my tax dollars go to pay for them. As far as I can tell, our last excursion into Iraq was incredibly costly, and not particularly effective in stabilizing the region. Why should I pay for GW's mistakes? In fact, I approved of almost nothing GW did. Can I get a refund?

Because the premise is the same. To tell you the truth, I disagree with a whole lot of things my union leadership does. But I don't see withholding my dues as a solution. This notwithstanding, if the law of the land says I don't have to pay for things I may not support, I don't want to pay federal taxes. And given His Majesty Andrew Cuomo, I don't want to pay state taxes either. I'll continue to pay local taxes because I believe in public education.

Maybe the money I save will make up in some small way for the destruction of my union. Ultimately, though, I doubt it will be enough.