Randi is a committed corporate liberal who has faith in the good intentions of corporate power brokers and profiteers and her ability to get them to do the right thing if only they give her a seat at the table. Here, I'm thinking back to the union's brief flirtation with Bill Gates or Randi's flights to Chicago to support Rahm's Infrastructure Trust or to London to sit in on Pearson board meetings ... If some WaPo ink is all Randi was after, all well and good. But if she's providing some union cover for DeVos in exchange for some credibility with the Trump administration, she's playing a fool's game. .....Mike Klonsky, Mike Klonsky: What Was Gained by Randi’s Visit with Betsy?Diane Ravitch won't openly criticize Randi but she does offer her platform for others to do so by posting Mike Klonsky's comments.
Mike Klonsky: What Was Gained by Randi’s Visit with Betsy?I think Mike is too nice to Randi, who is providing cover for DeVos. But I never see Randi as playing a fool's game. She plays everyone else for fools. Her game is all about positioning -- "you see how reasonable and willing we are to deal - read - sell out my members -- What does Randi have to gain? Some feel a piece of the choice action - if you can't beat them join them. Maybe make a few bucks to cover the loss of union members to right to work.
You cannot turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.Mike Klonsky says: Nothing.
The union's $62M loan for 50 Broadway helps them morph into real estate. Become an agent of teacher training. They failed at the charter school approach but maybe there are other options out there.
A comment on Diane's blog from a Norwegian Filmmaker
gets us closer to the root.
And the ruling class are counting on “right to work” as a way to capitalize upon union members’ legitimate discontent with their union leadership and its willingness to compromise for almost 2 decades.
Beware, because this is a perfect storm. These are American unions, not European ones. I fear that is might be better to have union power and prominence – albeit horribly corrupt as Weingarten – than to have mere patches of unionism throughout the workforce.
Which brings me to my own contemplation: Would right to work status help create newer, better unions though sheer demand and market reactive forces (ones that would hang Weingarten in public and derive democratically structured unions) or is it just better to have a closed shop?
Teacher turnover means nothing to Weingarten, as she gets her union dues paid no matter who fills the position. Yet union dues keep unions more than afloat to do what they are supposed to do: fight for educators, children, and families.
The United States is such an amazing country . . . it shines SO more brightly than Norway in many aspects. Yet, Weingarten et al are an example of how deplorable the culture here really can get to be. She’s not a real union leader, nor is her governance militant, forceful, or effective. It’s just there to keep her $500,000+/year salary in tact. She is a master triangulator . . . Either that, or Amerians are not paying attention to her governence.
Something tells me that this is not my European lens talking here, but that more than 75% of Americans would agree about the corruption behind the AFT, NEA, and UFT. I could be wrong.
