With Thompson still unable to move into second place, and DiBlasio in striking distance of avoiding a runoff entirely, this UFT leadership has reached a new desperate low... Peter LamphereWill Thompson offer teachers a chicken in every pot just as Herbert Hoover did in the 1928 election? (How did that work out?)
Word last night was that a desperate Leo Casey was engaged in a twitter attack over the mayoral election with MORE being a target. Maybe if Leo supported a democratically run union people in the UFT would actually give a shit. More on that later.
Does anyone smell a level of desperation coming from the UFT/AFT leadership over their Thompson endorsement in the face of the de Blasio surge? Was de Blasio being a little too rough on charter schools for the UFT to endorse him when he wants them to pay the damn rent (including the UFT charter?
What if Bloomberg's prediction that a UFT endorsement is the kiss of death? My rough guess is that they may well pull Thompson into a runoff with de Blasio and then we will have a few weeks of fun and games as the UFT and 1199 battle it out. Here is an email from the MORE Listserve showing that the UFT leadership will just make stuff up.
Peter Lamphere posted this on the MORE Listserve:
I was a little shocked to see at advertisement in my mailbox when I got home today, which claims that Thompson is in favor of retroactive pay for expired city worker contracts.
This is not true. None of the main democratic candidates has come out in favor of the full retro we are owed. Only Liu and Albanese have said that they will definitely negotiate some retro (although not as much as is owed), the others all say that they will not take any public position on future city contracts. Thompson has said that city workers "deserve a raise," but has not taken any position on retro pay.
In Tuesday's debate, Thompson even explicitly made clear that he has made no promises to the union on this question (debate segment on retro starts at 08:45, Thompson's response at 14:10).
The level of desperation in the ad (paid for by the UFT's PAC, United for the Future) is belied both by the misspelling of retroactive (indicating to me it was inserted at the last minute) and the big red message on the back - "We need to win."
With Thompson still unable to move into second place, and DiBlasio in striking distance of avoiding a runoff entirely, this UFT leadership has reached a new desperate low.
AFTERBURN FROM REALITY-BASED EDUCATOR