Six Hundred Seventeen Dollars (times 800)=Half a Million to Send 800 New Yorkers to New York

That's how much UFT will pay to send people to the New York Hilton for the NYSUT Representative Assembly on April 7-8. This is an important event, because there will be an election that will determine whether NYS Unity or Stronger Together controls NYSUT. We all have an interest in that because as UFT members we all pay NYSUT dues.

Of course we all know that Unity votes Unity, and approximately exactly100% of them will be doing just that. So given that, why are we spending half a million dollars to send 800 New Yorkers to New York? In fact, I live in Long Island. I could take a train there from work on Friday, take the LIRR on Saturday, and maybe see the whole thing for thirty or forty bucks out of pocket.

I'm hoping to go as press and write about it, which is what Jonathan Halabi, Norm Scott and I did at the AFT Convention in Minneapolis last summer. If my constituents can't have a vote, at least they can know what happens. I've made a few inquiries. Alternatively, I guess I could go as the guest of another union. That would be fun to write about.

So here's the thing--I'm one of seven people elected by 20,000 high school teachers, and as such I'd deem it my business to know what goes on there, Still, I haven't got a vote in NYSUT, and consequently, neither have any of us. Unless the majority of high school teachers want to give a blank check to Unity to vote Any Damn Way They Are Told, this is not what I'd call an ideal form of democracy.

But let's not dwell on petty politics. Let's take a look at what sort of deal this can be if you're a loyalty oath signer. So you get $617 to go to the convention. You take the subway there and back a couple of times. That's what, $11.00? If you live outside of the city, you add a round trip LIRR fare, and you're out around 40 clams. You've got $566 left over. This could come in handy if you decide to buy $14 beer at the Hilton, but really you could eat on the cheap and pocket $500 easily. That's pretty good pay for sitting around a five star hotel and listening to a few speeches.

Alternatively, you could give $150 each, save hundreds of thousands of dollars, and use it on the organizing that hasn't been done in decades, so as to preserve the United Federation of Teachers as an entity when Friedrichs 2 comes down the pike next year. And if you really want to save money, you could send one representative to vote eighty thousand times. Now it may not be sufficiently dramatic watching Mulgrew sit by himself and do that. Also maybe you need someone who can speak, so you send LeRoy Barr. That's a few subway fares, and then you have to cover the Staten Island Ferry for Mulgrew. Let's say you budget $1000 for both of them, and let them eat any damn place they like. Let them take cabs if they want to.

For this particular convention, I'm not sure I covet a vote. I'd probably lean toward Mike Lillis over Andy Pallotta. I'd choose activist Bianca Tanis over just about anyone. I can't think of any earthly reason why anyone would choose Martin "Buy NYSUT Auto Insurance Even Though Allstate Is Half the Price" Messner for any job more challenging than lifeguard at the car wash. But that's just me. Of course I've got no vote, just the great honor of paying dues. Whichever side wins (because theoretically, at least, it is a contest), the 20,000 NYC high school teachers I represent get no representation whatsoever (and thanks a lot to both caucuses for that).

I could see spending a lot of money to go somewhere if they were going to represent membership and deliberate about something important. I could see spending a lot of money if they were going to make decisions. But they aren't. They're gonna sit in some room, someone from leadership is gonna tell them how to vote, and they'll vote that way or no six hundred and seventeen bucks next time around.

A bunch of people go to the Hilton and pretend they're doing work. They go to meetings they're told to go to, vote how they're told to, and the preordained winners win. That's not a lot of bang for the buck, or more accurately for the 500,000 or so bucks. Given our share of paying for the common rooms, gala luncheons, and whatever the hell else goes on it will likely be more.

Perhaps leadership imagines this sort of thing will inspire all the Trump voters to pony up $1300 a year, as they'll be forever grateful we didn't mention his name when bemoaning his awful practices. On the other hand, maybe we could just buy them off and it would be a wash. But there are a whole lot of ways we could save hundreds of thousands of dollars that weekend, and a whole lot of better uses for that money.

Maybe, while we still have dues deducted from our paycheck, leadership should give some thought toward giving us a vote in organizations our dues support. I shall nonetheless sit while waiting for that to happen.

UFT Unity Response-- From Facebook: I'm a life member of nra and uscg retiree besides a social studies teacher. So you boys sound like a bunch of cry barbies .follow the advice of Ted Kennedy. " instead of saying " why say why not " and maybe you goathumpers will win an election and affect change.

Stronger Together Brings a Stop Watch to a Long Game

One of the most exciting incidences in NY unionism was our hookup with what became Stronger Together three years ago. I was heavily involved, as I ran for Executive Vice-President of NYSUT against Andrew Pallotta. I ran all over the state to forums. It was really exciting. Of course it would have been even more exciting if we'd won, but that's how it goes.

Three years later there is a new election. Stronger Together sent out an email canvassing for candidates in October. I missed the email, but discussed it with James Eterno in November. I had in fact recruited another UFT member interested in running by that time. I guess we assumed that ST would reach out to us, and that's on us. Maybe I thought that all the work I did three years ago meant someone would reach out to me personally, and that's on me. In any case, no one ever did. So we screwed up.

Next I heard, Stronger Together was trying to make a deal with NY State Unity. They were hoping a few reps from their org would run with a few from Unity, and that there would thus be no conflict. Now for my money, the most powerful union leader in NY State is Michael Mulgrew, and I don't envision him making that deal. Stronger Together leader Mike Lillis is really, really smart, and on the right side of just about every issue I can think of, except one, and that is my union, the UFT.

Mulgrew let New Action go, and Mulgrew let us have a voice in the Executive Board. While I'm sure that wasn't his intention, I'm glad it worked out that way. If only Mulgrew attended his own Executive Board meetings, he'd be reminded of that twice a month for the next three years. Michael Mulgrew doesn't engage us at all, and I don't anticipate him engaging Lillis either. Even if he were to surprise us, we know exactly what he wants of people in high positions--a loyalty oath.

My best guess right now is that Stronger Together doesn't wish to be mixed up with weirdos like us in MORE, because we are pretty much one of the last bastions of vibrant resistance to top-down unionism. Being mixed up with us would hurt ST's chances of a deal with Mulgrew, who didn't send us Christmas cards this year. in fact, I even hear there was a UFT Christmas party we didn't get invited to, being the only Executive Board members who didn't sign the oath.

James and Jia Lee and I, along with PJSTA member Brian St. Pierre met with Lillis and another ST rep at a Colombian restaurant near Francis Lewis High School. We talked for a long time, but didn't say much. I had already told both of them that I would not consider supporting any ticket that did not include UFT representation. I am opposition, but I am UFT.  Of course, like every one of almost 20,000 city high school teachers, I have no voice or vote in NYSUT. That's not the fault of ST Caucus, but I won't support any ticket that prolongs that arrangement.

At the meeting, they suggested we run for at large seats. They then told us they thought such seats were not valid and that they would not, therefore, be endorsing any of them. It felt a lot like, "Feel free to step up to the bar and buy yourself a drink." That's not my vision of hospitality, particularly when Jia Lee picks up the entire restaurant bill. (Thank you, Jia!) 

So maybe Lillis and ST are right. They don't need us. They won't gain a single vote from our participation. But if they are indeed a movement, they no longer have the support of anyone from the largest local in the state, or in fact the country. If they were to win, they would be as illegitimate as Donald Trump. Here's the thing with that, though--they are not going to win. Not this time. Me, I'm okay with losing now and building a movement long term. I can't explain what their long-term goal is.

My long term goal is to return control of the union to the union members. My long term goal is to establish a democratic union that's responsive to member needs rather than leadership caprices. I don't regret a single moment I spent running against Pallotta, or doing anything I've done to accentuate the voices of my brothers and sisters, and I'd do it again at the drop of a hat. On the other hand, I also don't regret not having to run statewide again this year. I'm pretty busy already.

Stronger Together has some really good people. They sorely miss Beth Dimino, who gave them an overarching vision that they now lack. But they don't understand what UFT/ NYSUT leadership is all about. They don't understand that this is a long game. And they don't understand that ignoring the largest teacher local in the country is not a good idea.

They will either learn in short order or rapidly disappear altogether.

Quote of the Week

"You must have some incredibly bad Principals, if a 50% random evaluation is a good thing." ~Michael Lillis, President, Lakeland Federation of Teachers

I'm gonna agree that's the case, although it doesn't really buttress UFT Unity's disingenuous and idiotic argument that MORE wants principals to have 100% control over evaluation. In fact, even under the junk science system, a vindictive principal can sink the rating of any teacher. Here's an exchange in which a Unity member agrees with me:

It is preposterous to assert that a principal cannot sink a rating in current system. Preposterous. @michaelfsill

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) March 25, 2016

Not asserting that. Clearly. Just asking, could a principal sink a rating under S/U? Did it happen more often? https://t.co/r119SedYjd

— Michael Sill (@michaelfsill) March 25, 2016

Now of course Michael is correct that a principal could sink a rating under the S/U system. And it may indeed have happened more often. The tremendous distinction, which neither he nor any of his Unity pals was able to address in a reasonable fashion, is that under the current system teachers bear the burden of proof. It used to be that principals had to prove teachers were incompetent. Under UFT Unity's beloved junk science system, teachers need to prove they are not incompetent.

In case it's not clear what that implies, think back on all the times you read in the tabloids about how tough it was to fire teachers. Personally, and I'm confident I speak for MORE/ New Action on this point, I think removing the livelihood of a working teacher ought to be difficult. If it was tough to fire teachers under the old system, it will be tough to defend teachers under the new system. Therefore, if I am to follow the logic of UFT Unity, they're good with the burden of proof being on teachers. And if you follow the logic of history, it will be very tough for teachers to win at 3020a.

So I decided to give Unity a taste of their own medicine:

.@UFTUnity thinks the burden of proof at 3020a should be on teachers. @MOREcaucusNYC thinks it should be on management. We support union.

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) March 27, 2016

Now I've made this point before, but Mike Lillis has made me think a step further. If, in fact, we have a preponderance of vindictive and small-minded administrators, who enabled that? I'm gonna have to say it was UFT Unity. After all, they've been in power for over a half a century, and have rigged the game so dissenting voices are totally shut out in NYSUT and AFT.

Why the hell hasn't UFT Unity done anything to stop the flow of insane administrators? Why did they, despite lip service against Bloomberg, enable his mayoral control not once, but twice? Diane Ravitch wrote that mayoral control was a tool of the Billionaire Boy's Club to shut out community control. Why the hell did our union leadership enable that at all? Even worse, after demanding a few changes before its renewal and failing to get them, why did they endorse it a second time?

In 50 years, there's been plenty of time to demand and/ or enact changes for the better. Why hasn't UFT leadership been in the forefront of demanding administrators who aren't insane? Aren't administrators supposed to support us, rather than target, vilify and fire us? Isn't 50 years enough time to have made at least a little progress?

Of course not. UFT Unity is all about "solutions-based unionism," which basically means getting in bed with the reformies a little bit at a time. And what has our process of appeasement bought us?

We're now facing lawsuits to not only take away our tenure, but also to make the USA a right to work country for public employees. Reformies are not dissuaded or satisfied by concessions. They just smell our weakness and are even more emboldened to go in for the kill.

That's why we have targets on our backs, and that's why the UFT now has to run a campaign to educate teachers on the most basic concepts of unionism.