Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Responding to New Action

Do they ever mention how many of the NA leadership are on the UFT payroll?

The New Action leaflet distributed at the January DA claimed we reported on their demise. Au contraire. We used the term “irrelevant.” They will never die as long as Unity Caucus is willing to breathe life into them. How often is it that you can buy your own home-grown phony opposition caucus and use it to as a tool to try to create confusion in the minds of the members? New Action MUST continue to exist so they can appear on the ballot in future elections even if Unity must perform a heart transplant. And probably a few other missing anatomical parts, but we won’t go there.

The leaflet went on to talk about how much they have been doing for the members, with their 8 seats handed to them by Unity as opposed to what ICE/TJC accomplished. Do you think getting Unity support to pass some resolutions, part of the life-giving “breath of Unity” has something to do with it? Think that ICE/TJC never got anything passed at Exec. BD meetings because they were actually an opposition and critical of the leadership? Has NA been critical of even one action on the part of the leadership from merit pay on?

They claim to have been against the 2005 contract, but their co-leader Michael Shulman voted for the contract as part of the negotiating committee, allowing Weingarten to claim the vote was unanimous.

So how well has their deal with Unity worked out? Very well for the leadership of New Action who are on the UFT payroll. As for the members: In the 2001 elections the last time NA ran as an real opposition to Unity they received 10,000 votes (21%).

The active membership expressed their opinion of New Action’s deal with Unity in the 2007 elections: combined totals from Elem + MS + HS: Unity: 9,934 68% ICE/TJC: 3,305 22.6% New Action: 1,356 9.3%. Help me with my math. It looks like a drop rivalling the stock market crash of ‘29. But NA doesn’t need the support of working teachers. They only have to keep their constituency of one – Randi Weingarten – happy. And so they have.

1 comment:

  1. They claim to have opposed the 05 contract, but evidence suggests otherwise. They had no presence on the net, no leaflets, and made no viable effort to oppose it, as far as I could tell. I don't remember hearing a peep from them until they ran supporting Weingarten, whose contract they claimed to oppose.

    They cannot be opposition, as their jobs are dependent upon supporting the status quo. They need to give the appearance of opposition, and that's it. A real opposition party does not accept patronage from the party in power, and the party in power wouldn't dream of distributing it.

    They are self-serving hypocritical bottom-feeders, selling their souls for a bag of shells and a second pension. Their entire premise is preposterous. It's as though the Democratic party took a principled stand against the Iraq War and nominated GW Bush as their presidential nominee.

    How would they sleep at night?

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome. Irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted, as will all commercial links. Comment moderation is on, so if your comment does not appear it is because I have not been at my computer (I do not do cell phone moderating).