Written and edited by Norm Scott:
EDUCATE! ORGANIZE!! MOBILIZE!!!
Three pillars of The Resistance – providing information on current ed issues, organizing activities around fighting for public education in NYC and beyond and exposing the motives behind the education deformers. We link up with bands of resisters. Nothing will change unless WE ALL GET INVOLVED IN THE STRUGGLE!
Concerned that divisions between Retiree Advocate and Fix Retiree Benefits would widen to the point of no return, a group of retirees I've termed "One-Slaters" are begging everyone to come together in a united slate to keep Unity from winning back the RTC chapter.
There is a sense of desperation and panic that if the chapter is handed back to Unity, they will use their control to find new and creative ways to reduce our healthcare or raise our fees, but this time, having learned some lessons from losing so badly in 2024, will do so in a much smarter and slicker manner and make sure Unity will never lose control again.
One of Unity's first lessons from that loss was to degrade and disparage and make Marianne Pizzitola of NYCOPSR, who had so much to do with getting retirees to vote against Unity, toxic. (Analogy to Corp Dem obsession with Hassan Piker). Unfortunately, some of the very people she helped put in control of the RTC seem to buy the same anti-Marianne Unity line.
They had a different tune as per this June 16, 2024 NY Post report on the RTC election:
UFT insurgents credited Marianne Pizzitola, a retired FDNY emergency medical specialist and current president of the Organization of Public Service Retirees, Inc., with rallying citywide worker opposition to the Medicare Advantage shift.
Boy, how things have changed since June, 2024 when members of Retiree Advocate (me included at the time) celebrated the massive win with Marianne Pizzitola the day we won. Once in power, RA began to back away from giving her credit and began to brag about how it was THEIR organizing that won the election with just a little bit of help from Marianne, fake news.
By the way, the role played by Arthur Goldstein in that campaign is also undervalued. Arthur now has almost 7,000 supporters on his substack. Some of his recent posts, critical of RA, have perturbed the one-slaters and I have links to them below.
The One-Slaters argue for a united slate by any means necessary, even to the extent of downplaying participation of Marianne and urging suppressing criticism of RA and RTC leaders. Another concern is a willingness to accept the same leadership personnel and structure, which many of them admit is a problem but they are willing to bite the bullet in the name of a united front.
The One-Slaters are unhappy when RA or RTC is criticized, feeling that would make RA less likely to want to work with critics. But is was clear to many that RA never had the intention of sharing power with FRB or anyone else not on their inside game. Yet, we have tried to stay in the one-slate lane despite the repeated "no interest" messaging from RA.
Election conversations have been accelerating, recently at the Sept. 29th RTC Ex Bd meeting and the RTC Health Committee NY Health Act meeting on Oct. 1.
This was the first time many of the key players on all sides in the RTC were meeting in person. There were no food fights but there were intense discussions over the one slate idea and the issues dividing us. What I found interesting was many of the one-slaters agree with FRB criticism but don''t want to talk about the issues, only wanting a united slate by any means necessary. They want a papering over of differences -- win first, fight later.
They are pushing to have an open meeting of all parties, including non-aligned.
I can see their point and remain open to further discussions, especially with independents and RA dissident dues-payers.
Dues-paying members of RA, unhappy with the leadership, are keeping hope alive that they can pressure the RA Org into some agreement. I will publish some of their comments next time, but with every passing day, the train is speeding up.
====
Arthur and I are quoted in the NY Post article of June 16, 2024
“This is a tale of a massive shift in voting sentiment amongst retirees,” UFT activist Norm Scott said of the election results. “Can the same shift occur in the general election next year?”
Arthur Goldstein, vice-chair-elect of the retiree chapter, said, “We have taken our United Federation of Teachers from the clutches of those who thought Eric Adams’ budget and/or Aetna’s profits were more important than our health.
“We have broken the bonds placed upon us by ostensible leaders, union bosses to whom our health was not even an afterthought.”
Here are a few more blasts from the past:
This June 24, 2024 from The City Reporter is self-explanatory
“The courts have spoken. My members have spoken,” said UFT President Michael Mulgrew. Left unsaid is how else unions might find $600 million in annual cost savings.
This March 21, 2023 City Reporter article delves into the petition a bunch of us outside the normal caucus structure organized - this was shortly before James Eterno's stroke and he was actively involved in planning this. We ended up with 12k signatures and in some ways we dropped the ball. Ironically, when we won the election some of us proposed bringing the issue of a membership vote up at the first RTC meeting but the RTC Ex Bd changed it from a membership vote to a DA vote and of course the UFT leadership quashed it. I would say that was an early rift.
Nine for them, three for us. Echoes of UFT/Unity election committee meetings where they always get three for one. But then again, Retiree Advocate channeling Unity behavior has been striking.
Here is the response to a meeting from Fix Retiree Benefits that I and two others were invited to that we will not be attending. It's self-explainable. I'm scheduling this post for 6 PM, the precise time the meeting they called without consulting us is due to begin.
The three invited Fix Retiree Benefits members will not attend.
In June 2024, UFT retirees overturned 40 years of control of the UFT Retired Teachers Chapter (RTC) by Unity Caucus, and won elections for 10 RTC Officers, 15 Executive Board members and 300 representatives to the UFT Delegate Assembly. Retirees revolted over the old Unity RTC leadership’s support for the attempt to move us out of traditional Medicare and into a for-profit Medicare Advantage plan. Receiving 63% and over 17,000 retiree votes, the Retiree Advocate (RA) slate prevailed in the 2024 election, with the strong support of the New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees (NYCOPSR) led by Marianne Pizzitola, who spoke to a standing ovation at the very first RTC Meeting not under Unity control in October, 2024.
As a result of that massive victory, UFT leader Michael Mulgrew backed off the Medicare Advantage demand, but has refused to support retirees on City Council Bill 1008 — which would grant retirees permanent protection under the law; nor has the UFT Unity leadership supported the elimination of co-pays for UFT retirees.
Over the past two years, differences have arisen within the RTC chapter between Retiree Advocate and a newly formed group, Fix Retiree Benefits— which has focused on protecting and expanding healthcare benefits and continuing the strong alliance with Marianne Pizzitola and NYCOPSR as major factors in the attempt to keep Unity from re-taking control of the RTC.
Representatives of Fix Retiree Benefits had two meetings with RA in April and May 2026, with a proposal for the two groups to work together in the RTC elections. Fix Retiree Benefits proposed a 50-50 split of the 25 RTC Officers and Executive Board, as well as the 300 Delegate Assembly representatives. A proposed June follow-up meeting was cancelled by RA with no further response.
On Sunday, Sept. 27, three core members of Fix Retiree Benefits were informed via email by RTC Chapter Leader and RA Organizer Bennett Fischer that they had been placed on a 13-member RTC election committee, without being consulted in advance. This 13-member RTC election committee was formed unilaterally by RA. The committee also included six RA Organizing Committee members and three others with known affiliations to the RA Organizers, with no input from Fix Retiree Benefits or independents organizing for the RTC election. In the email sent to the three individuals affiliated with Fix Retiree Benefits, the election committee meeting was called for Monday, September 28 at 6 P.M.
An email to one of the three members from Fix Retiree Benefits was sent to the wrong email address. You can read his response here:
This formation of a 13-member “election committee” is in essence the response by RA to our original proposal from April and May, which was for an even split of Officers, Executive Board, and Delegate Assembly Representatives, and to for a united slate in the next RTC election.
Aside from the fact that Fix Retiree Benefits was not even given the courtesy of being asked what representatives we would choose, plus the fact that Fix Retiree Benefits, a group with a strong presence of women (two of whom had already met with RA during negotiations in April and May), did not have any of them considered for the committee by RA; the very nature of a proposal to set up a “pre-election” committee in which RA members would more than double the representation of Fix Retiree Benefits is objectionable. Presumably, this 13-member committee would then determine the candidates running on the slate.
This proposal by RA is clearly one-sided and is not acceptable to those who have been critical of the manner in which the RA leadership has been running the RTC, and would amount to a continuance of the same policies that have caused a large number of retirees to reconsider voting for RA again.
Only a slate decided on and reflective of the RTC membership will have a chance to defeat Unity once again. A serious proposal would respond directly to the issue of how each group (as well as independents) would be represented on a unified slate.
While representation among the Officers, Executive Board and Delegates is important and must be resolved, there are other concerns that must be addressed. For one, what should be contained in the platform of a united slate? What issues should be emphasized? Another issue is how do we organize to get Inro 1008 passed, and how do we work with other groups to lobby for its passage?
Given these conditions, none of the three Fix Retiree Benefits members intend to attend RA’s election committee meeting. However, we remain open to working not only with RA but with the vast number of non-affiliated RTC members who wish to actively participate in the RTC election.
The joint-slate proposal presented by Fix Retiree Benefits to Retiree Advocate in April and May is below:
1. Protect our promised retiree healthcare. We must unite with other municipal union retirees, and work in solidarity with the New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees and its leader Marianne Pizzitola in the fight to pass City Council Intro 1008.
2. Fight to eliminate the onerous and coercive copays. Improve retiree UFT Welfare Fund benefits. Provide drug coverage for retirees and their dependents, as in all other municipal unions, and improve dental coverage.
3. Protect our pension benefits. Do not let the city balance its budget on the backs of retirees. Fight in the State to increase COLAs. Enable retirees to vote for TRS teacher trustees.
4. Oppose Unity Caucus leadership, when they pit active members against retirees or engage in undemocratic or other actions that cause harm to the membership.
We wish to run a democratic RTC, accountable to all its constituents, Medicare and pre-Medicare, inclusive of paraprofessionals and all other titles.
Fix Retiree Benefits proposed the following governing structure for the joint slate:
Each group (RA and FRB) would each nominate 150 of the chapter’s 300 delegates.
Each group (RA and FRB) would equally share the 10 officer positions (5 each).
Each group (RA and FRB) would share the 15 Executive Board positions, with the group nominating the chapter leader candidate choosing 7 of the 15 members of the Exec Board, and the other group choosing 8 members.
Thanks for reading FIX RETIREE BENEFITS - UFT! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
It is deeply disappointing but not at all surprising to see RA leadership behaving in this way. It seems their only takeaway from the 2025 officers election, in which they lost the retiree vote by a 3-to-1 margin, was to become even more embittered and entrenched.
Despite TRIPLING the retiree vote received by RA in the 2025 election, the union activists involved in Fix Retiree Benefits have offered to split the RTC slate evenly (50/50) and to work together with RA to develop a platform. That offer from Fix Retiree Benefits was presented in good faith and in the spirit of union solidarity, and it still stands. RA should take the offer, and we should all get to work in defeating Unity, whose nearly 70-year obsessive control of the UFT has resulted in 20+ years of diminishing returns for all UFT members.
That’s
what he [Mulgrew] told us as we tried to pass 1096. No doubt he’ll trot this out
again as we support the newly named 1008. The problem, he claims, with a
bill that would make our health care city policy and eliminate his
beloved co-pays is it violates collective bargaining.
There were howls of laughter in UFT-land when the unpopular union leader Michael Mulgrew declared war on the super popular Mayor Mamdani over the para bonus issue.
Did Mamdani invite Mulgrew to break the much-maligned pattern bargaining that sets a standard of pay raise for all unions based on the first union to settle? It would make sense for a DSA pro-labor mayor to give special attention to the lowest paid workers and paras certainly fit that mold, as do EMS workers. But that would break the pattern and might lead to squawking from higher salaried who might get less %wise even if the actual money they get would be more - much more.
Due to pattern-bargaining, the same % goes to the highest and lowest paid. Thus a 100k at 3% worker gets a 3k raise a year and a para at 35K gets a $350 raise in the same contract. The only way for paras to get a permanent, pensionable salary is to selectively break the pattern.
Yes, Mulgrew is using the same collective bargaining argument as Mamdani when it comes to protecting retiree healthcare, except Mamdani is closer to the truth than Mulgrew. But using "truth" and "Mulgrew" in the same sentence is a sham.
Oh, the irony of the mainstream NYC press (Times, News, Post) engaging in a rare Mamdani praise-fest for standing up to the UFT, when in actuality he is taking a potential long-range pro-para pro-union position. But then again so much of what Mulgrew has done is actually anti-union, and the para bonus gambit may just fit that mold.
I say potential because the crucial test will be in the next contract negotiations where if Mamdani doesn't deliver for paras his cred on the left on the affordability issue with some of the lowest paid city workers would be laid to waste.
There are many facets to the para pay issue. When my wife, who pays little attention to some of this stuff, asked me why Mamdani opposes the para bonus, I realized the issue had gone mainstream. I told her the key to understanding the entire issue was the Fix Para Pay election win over Unity in the 2024 chapter election. Her eyes glazed over at the inside baseball. Go and explain this to the mainstream press which is framing the issue in lopsided ways.
Daniel Alicea addresses the Unity election loss issue:
The
Daily News says UFT President Michael Mulgrew “failed”
paraprofessionals at the bargaining table and “basically left the paras
behind.”
That’s the sentence worth remembering.
Because
before there was a RESPECT Check, before Mayor Zohran Mamdani sued to
stop it, and before politicians started holding press conferences about
paraprofessional poverty, paras themselves had already revolted.
Only
after that political earthquake inside his own union did Mulgrew become
the public face of a $10,000 legislative campaign. A lobbying campaign
and series of bills in which Mulgrew never once consulted with the UFT
paraprofessional chapter over its design or messaging.
The mainstream mostly anti-Mamdani and anti-union press has been having a field day, gleeful at seeing a split and mocking a DSA member mayor, and so happy that a pro-labor socialist will stand up to the union.
Here are a few points to explore:
Mulgrew's para gambit was a response to the Para chapter election loss in 2024. Check.
If we delve deeper, we can see that Mamdani is actually more pro-labor than Mulgrew and his corrupt UFT leadership by defending the collective bargaining agreement as the way to enact permanent economic health for paras as opposed to a one-time non-pensionable gimmick.
Mulgrew and City Council chair Menin tag team Mamdani as she preps a 2029 campaign against him, a campaign the UFT will back (maybe the kiss of death for her?). The para issue is the first of others to come where Menin looks for opportunities to differentiate herself. (Keep an eye on the 9/11 ceremonies).
The mainstream press has superficially been siding with Mamdani for standing up to the union and attacking Menin, but that is temporary. The second he gives paras a raise in the contract, the dogs will be out.
The left, especially the loyal opposition in the UFT, which is reluctant to criticize Mamdani and seems confused, just stays silent - see if you can find a Jacobin article delving into the issue. So the only place with a left-leaning perspective where you will get some analysis is by reading Arthur, Daniel, ABC, Fix Retiree Benefits, FIx Para Pay and Ed Notes. Let me know when you see MORE, RA or NAC put something up.
Here are excerpts from the NYT authored by 3 reporters who always have their chops out to slam Mamdani. The Times has followed the scurvy NY Post lead on anti-Mamdani articles.
A
lawsuit filed by the Mamdani administration to block $10,000 bonuses
for teachers’ aides has put the mayor at odds with their union.
When Mayor Zohran Mamdani sued the City Council
over its end-run move to give $10,000 bonuses to teachers’ aides
outside the normal collective bargaining process, the mayor placed
himself at the short end of a two-on-one battle.
Not
only would the mayor square off against the City Council, a frequent
sparring partner, but he would also embark on his first major fight with
a public sector union, in this case the United Federation of Teachers.
In
doing so, a mayor eager to burnish his pro-worker bona fides has
scrambled conventional wisdom and left himself in the strange position
of being praised by some of his most committed critics.
“Mamdani
does right,” read a recent headline from The New York Post’s
conservative editorial
Because Speaker Julie Menin knows better, her unabashed abuse of power in orchestrating a unanimous City Council vote for a $10,000 bonus payment for NYC’s deeply deserving school paraprofessionals would make Donald Trump proud.
Her usurping the mayor’s exclusive authority under the state Taylor Law
to negotiate contracts was a naked giveaway to the powerful teachers
union and United Federation of Teachers President Mike Mulgrew and sets a
dangerous precedent at City Hall.
The Missing Link in all reporting on the para issue is the 10k is the Unity Loss to Fix Para Pay in the 2024 Para Chapter Election, along with the loss in the Retiree election.
The losses were by big margins: 63% in the RTC and 75% in the para election. In the RTC, Unity dropped from their usual 17-19K to 10K.
With 26k paras and 70K retirees and his re-election coming up a year later, losing big in those chapters could very well have turned into a loss for Unity - and both results spurred Amy Arundell and other unhappy Unity people to join with some standard opposition folk to form a potent ABC and become a threat. Mulgrew pivoted by declaring he no longer backed MedAdvantage and for the paras came up with the one-time non-pensionable 10k bonus.
And it seemed to work in time for the 2025 election . One of the reasons ABC actually thought it had a chance to win even in a 3 slate race was the hope that the para and retiree vote would be substantial. While the retiree vote dropped from 2024 it was still enough to continue to worry Unity with Unity regaining some ground but fundamentally in a 50-50 split with the ABC/ARISE combo retiree vote. (I will delve deeply into the upcoming RTC election.)
The para vote was not substantial, as the Unity blitz before the election gave paras the impression Mulgrew was really fighting for them. It will be interesting to see how things play out in the upcoming para chapter election if FPP runs a slate. Will there be some blowback if they still haven't gotten the check by the spring?
While supporting the 10k as an emergency bonus, ABC pointed out the one-time only gimmicky aspect and called for paras to get a permanent pensionable raise in contract negotiations, while also pointing out that Mulgrew had his chance to get them a big raise in the last contract and didn't even try. For taking that position, Unity attacked ABC as being against the 10K and that also cut down the vote. But 140 paras ran with ABC -- and none with ARISE.
Now that Mamdani is taking the collective bargaining position in opposing the 10k bonus and in essence challenging Mulgrew to bargain effectively (two contradictory words for UFT negotiators) he also puts to shame the Mulgrew position that supporting City Council bills to protect retiree healthcare violates collective bargaining and the Taylor Law. Taking one side for an issue and taking the contradictory side for another issue is not out of bounds in the UFT.
I left a text linking the para election issue at the Brian Lehrer show regarding the election after a segment on the para issue last week.
Daniel points out that if going around contract negotiations and using politics to bargain is good for the goose, it is also good for the gander as other unions will play the same game.
While
UFT leadership, City Council Speaker Menin and Mayor Mamdani are cast
as heroes and villains, we continue to forget paraprofessionals need a
permanent living wage, now — not later.
Where
I part company with the board is over what happens next — and who gets
to play hero now that everybody has discovered that a school worker
making barely $33,000 can’t afford New York City.
The iron law of institutions
states that people who run an organization care more about keeping
their own power than helping the organization succeed....political analysts use this concept to explain why progressive or
liberal groups, labor unions, and activist spaces sometimes prioritize
internal control, ideological conformity, or leadership survival over
winning broader elections or achieving their stated social goals.
The institutional Dem Natl Comm are so threatened by a statewide win by a progressive in Michigan, they spend more time attacking him than his Republican opponent --- thus you see the name Hassan Piker being raised
in every media, both Republican and Democrat circles. Dem Doyone Neera Tanden who heads the misnamed Center for American Progress (I prefer Regress) had 15 tweets about Piker over two days. She'd rather see a Republican win in
Michigan and lose the Senate because a win by Abdul will negate her influence and power. Tell her to GFH with a donation to him.
Keep these points in mind while I switch gears.
The first EdNotesOnline post on Aug. 27, 2006:
An attentive class size of three
Sadly, all 3 cats are gone, the last one in 2011 - but we did have two more after that, but they are gone too -- so, we are catless for the first time in 55 years.
Monday, August 31, 2026 - Celebrating 20 years of blogging.
Education Notes has been around in print and online for almost 30 years. I began publishing the print editions in 1998 but they are not online yet.
An item I published 20 years ago (see below) turns out to have some relevance to the sturm und drang taking place in the world of UFT retirees over the differences between the Retiree Advocate/New Action tandem and Fix Retiree Benefits. The discussion broke out in the RTC Ex Bd and beyond on some listserves when a group of independents unaffiliated with either group, seeing a Unity retake of the RTC as an existential threat to retiree healthcare, began demanding there be a united slate in the spring 2027 RTC election.
RA/New Action group dominates the 25 member RTC officers and Ex Bd with 9 out of 10 officers (Arthur Goldstein of FRB is the only non RA member) and also occupy 6 of the 15 EB. Given the level of outreach to a broader level of retirees, with the help of Marianne Pizzitola's NYCOPSR, FRB is asking for a 50-50 split of the 25 seats with the odd position going to the group that doesn't choose the chapter leader. The response has not been encouraging, indicating that the current RTC leadership is happy with the status quo and wants to maintain control.
(See above, The iron law of institutions).
One concern with the RTC leadership over the past two years has been a lack of pushback against the UFT/Unity leadership - the subservience to Mulgrew
and Unity Caucus retirees who are scheming to take back the chapter and
are getting little resistance.
Recently
RA put out a proposed platform with no mention of Unity Caucus, who they
are supposedly running against. There's a history at play here - the long-time dozen year relationship between NAC/RA and Unity.
I helped form the Independent Community of Educators in late 2003 to run in the 2004 election because of the NAC deal with Unity - details another time - but search this blog for New Action if you want to know more. Let's go back 20 years to August 31, 2006 when I included an item on the upcoming UFT elections in the spring of 2007 https://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2006/08/ednotes-online-august-31-2006.html, with this snippet.
With
New Action not revealing their intentions at this time other than to
give strong indications they will not run with the ICE-TJC slate despite
an offer that was made to have them join the slate, there is an opening
for them to play a spoiler for Unity by dividing the opposition vote
and allowing Unity to regain control of 100% of the Executive Board. Of
course, New Action could choose not to run at all but without some
statement from New Action affirming that position, ICE-TJC must now go
on the assumption New Action might agree to be a stalking horse for
Unity. ICE-TJC welcomes individuals in New Action who wish to run with
them.
What is old is new again.
The co-chairs of New Action 20 years ago were Michael Shulman and Jonathan Halabi, both leaders of the current Retiree Advocate (Shulman is still co-chair of NAC) and are among the 10 officers of the RTC and viewed as the major resistors to running a united slate in the RTC election to prevent Unity from regaining control of the chapter.
(See The iron law of institutions).
New Action spawned Retiree Advocate over 30 years ago and reps from both ran in UFT elections in cooperation with Unity by endorsing Randi for president in 2004 and 2007 and Mulgrew in 2010 and 2013 and ran on the Unity slate in 2007, 2010 and 2013, getting their reps elected to the Exec Bd with Unity votes, including both Shulman and Halabi.
While I criticized RA and NAC during those years, we made peace in 2016 when they left the Unity fold and I and others connected to ICE and MORE joined RA and worked hard in the election 2 years ago. We also worked together in the 2022 UFT elections. I make these points to those who claim we are driven apart by personal pique and egos. If we worked together over almost 10 years despite differences, we are still willing to see Unity as the common enemy.
And therein lies the rub. NAC and RA people often chastise critics for pointing to Unity as an enemy. "They are just fellow union members," they say. "Sure," I reply. "Fellow union members who advocated for taking us out of Medicare." If they had succeeded, with my current medical condition I'm not sure I'd still be alive. Sorry, people who are willing to risk our lives are enemies.
Like
I said, some issues never go away.
=====
Both Halabi and Shulman are prominently mentioned in a recent post by Arthur Goldstein, the only one of the 10 RTC officers not in the Retiree Advocate steering committee.
One of their leaders opposes 1096/1008. Another criticizes aligning with Marianne Pizzitola.
There’s been a flurry of mail directed to RTC Executive Board
members, urging we build a united front to fight Unity in the next
retiree election. That’s a good idea, though not a new one. I started
contacting people the day after the last election to try and organize.
My friends at Fix Retiree Benefits
(FRB), an offshoot of ABC, agreed. We decided we’d have a better chance
of beating Unity if we ran cooperatively with Retiree Advocate (RA).
Newly formed ABC got 9,000 retiree votes last year, while RA went from
17,000 to 3,000. Unity edged us all out with 13,000. This told me that
we needed to put aside our differences.
I thought of a
way we could run together—a way that, to my mind, was generous. Rather
than demand we get the three to one representation election results
indicated, we’d split it right down the middle, 50-50. My FRB friends agreed.
After
a year of no response, RA met with us twice. Both times, they said they
had no authority to make agreements, and no proposals of their own.
They canceled our third meeting, scheduled for June. Now RA’s Jonathan
Halabi, who openly opposes 1096/1008, has emailed a proposal for
something his caucus calls an “Open Election Slate.”
It’s
open to the degree that any RTC member may apply. However, RA continues
their policy of keeping total control in the hands of their now
15-member steering committee, in that “All nominees will be vetted by the Committee.”(Correction—They say they are forming a committee to do that, and it will not necessarily be the steering committee.) That’s a far cry from running cooperatively.
And
Marianne Pizzitola who has lead the NYC Retirees over the past 5 years
to many court victories to stop the plan to put retirees in Medicare
Advantage and also to fight co-pays, takes on NAC co-chair Nick Bacon (who replaced Halabi, and spends most of his writing time attacking Marianne, ABC and FRB while making excuses for Unity.)
If Retiree Healthcare is the main issue, why I am the focus of Nick Bacon?
Nick
Bacon’s piece deserves a response, not because NYC Organization of
Public Service Retirees needs to defend its independence, but because
his argument appears to conflate two entirely different questions:
Should the UFT formally affiliate with NYCOPSR?
and
Should
UFT members or opposition caucuses be free to work with an independent
retiree organization on issues where they share common goals?
Those are not the same question.
Nick spends considerable time explaining why the UFT shouldn’t
formally partner with NYCOPSR. But who is actually proposing that? If
the current question is whether different UFT opposition groups should
work together, why is NYCOPSR being presented as the obstacle? If Daniel
Alicea, Arthur Goldstein, or others want to work with NYCOPSR on
retiree healthcare, that does not mean NYCOPSR controls their slate. It
doesn’t mean they surrender their
independence. It doesn’t mean they agree with us on every issue. We do
not. It means they recognize that on one important issue, protecting
retiree healthcare, they share common ground. That is called coalition
politics. We align on what we agree with, and not where we don’t.
And
if someone believes that working with NYCOPSR should disqualify an
opposition group from participating in a broader UFT coalition, then
they should simply say that directly. Don’t disguise a political
decision as a legal necessity
Despite TRIPLING the retiree vote received by RA in the 2025 election, the union activists involved in Fix Retiree Benefits have offered to split the RTC slate evenly (50/50) and to work together with RA to develop a platform. That offer from Fix Retiree Benefits was presented in good faith and in the spirit of union solidarity, and it still stands. RA should take the offer, and we should all get to work in defeating Unity, whose nearly 70-year obsessive control of the UFT has resulted in 20+ years of diminishing returns for all UFT members.