...you don't see a problem with the fact that the NYSUT/AFT delegate, who couldn't even garner the support of her own building, likely won from votes of people who never even met her or likely even heard of her name before? Is that real democracy to you Unity folk?... BrianMust read: The Unity comment below to my post: A Day With Stronger Together.
One of the points made was how a relatively few people can set up a structure that can control the policies of 1.5 million teachers in the AFT.
Some responses.
James Eterno compares them to King George:
 |
| Mike Mulgrew in drag |
Unity is the best. They are making the virtual representation argument. That is the same argument the British used in 1775 to deny the North American colonists representation in the British Parliament.Some more comments:
Virtual representation stated that the members of Parliament, including the Lords and the Crown-in-Parliament, reserved the right to speak for the interests of all British subjects, rather than for the interests of only the district that elected them or for the regions in which they held peerages and spiritual sway.[1] Virtual Representation was the British response to the First Continental Congress in the American colonies. The Congress asked for representation in Parliament in the Suffolk Resolves, also known as the first olive branch petition. Parliament claimed that their members had the well being of the colonists in mind. The Colonies rejected this premise.
- Could not disagree more (no pun) with that Chapter Leader you mentioned. That AFT/NYSUT delegate represents EVERY Member in the Union. That is what she ran for and that is what she will do. True, she ran with a caucus, and that caucus as a set of principles and goals. A set of principle and goals that continue to be supported by the members at large as they have been for close to 60 years.
I am Glad Michael is no longer in the classroom. He represents the largest local union in the country. Larger than many national unions. Do you really think he has time to teach.
Beth's local is smaller than our smallest district. We have Chapters that are larger than her local. Of course she should teach and continue teaching. 
By "supported by the members at large" you mean "supported by the retirees and a very small portion of our active membership" I presume?
Out of curiosity, you don't see a problem with the fact that the NYSUT/AFT delegate, who couldn't even garner the support of her own building, likely won from votes of people who never even met her or likely even heard of her name before? Is that real democracy to you Unity folk?
The criticism isn't just of Mulgrew. There is a whole platoon of union muckity-mucks and do-nothing's at 52 Broadway who do not teach. They serve as a firewall between Mulgrew and the concerns of members. He looks to them when he asks, "how'm I doin'?" And what do you think they say? "You're doin' great boss! Keep it up." They don't answer to us, they answer to him.
And the bloat at 52 Broadway effects the level of solidarity in the schools. Some people see the sinecure jobs at 52 as something to aspire to. So, they go along hoping to get in on the gravy wagon.
A good union serves its members, not the other way around. Maybe a case could be made that Mulgrew doesn't have to teach. But, the rest of those goofs and lap dogs down there had better do so. Chicago has by-laws which stipulate that officers in the union must be active teachers. Their local represents. Ours does not.
Let me put this out there - are we defending the union in its ideal form or the actual corrupt structure it's become with it dictatorial caucus groups that only help members who follow their edicts blindly while Union leaders continue to line their pockets with municipal bribes as they throw rank and file under the bus-if if is the latter I say burn unions burn!
ReplyDelete