View from the Right: EIA on Chicago TU, Strike and Karen Lewis as AFT President

Mike Antonucci comments on Chicago story:

The stars aligned when CTU members elected Karen Lewis and her CORE slate to power. Lewis stood for genuine union militancy at a time when previous regimes were considered to be sellouts.

I wrote back then that "Lewis's election may have large implications for the Chicago Public Schools. Her politics are significantly to the left of the machine Democrats who run the city and the school system. 'What drives school reform is a single focus on profit. Profit. Not teaching, not learning, profit,' she said in her post-election press conference."

I believed that Lewis would join a long list of union outsiders who quickly became insiders. I was wrong about that. Oh, she almost did, but she learned that her muscular activism filled a niche left empty by Illinois and national teacher union leaders. She may be AFT's most well-known local president. [OVERSHADOWING MULGREW]

We all forgot - including me - that Karen Lewis and her slate were elected in 2010 by less than 60 percent of CTU members in a run-off, after she managed to unify all the opposition against incumbent president Marilyn Stewart. By all accounts, the members and various union factions have all been united behind Lewis during the strike, but some fissures appeared over ending the strike. An NBC-TV affiliate reported some infighting, but even if the story is overblown, the House of Delegates did not meekly acquiesce to Lewis' wishes, and that opposition had to be organized by someone.

 ----Mike Antonucci, Education Intelligence Agency.

I look forward to Mike Antonucci's take at EIA on things even though I often disagree. But  the insights deserve a debate. Mike did a number of posts regarding the Chicago strike, some with a little snarkyness.

He also covered the victory of CORE and distinguished them from the Randi Weingarten crew right away. And he gets that Unity Caucus controls the AFT -- I can't tell you how many local and national ed reporters have asked me to explain.

He gets a lot right and when he is wrong he says so. Mike assumes there were some organized forces behind the resistance to agreeing to a settlement at the Sunday House of Delegates meeting. Interesting point. CORE is selling that as allowing democracy to flourish. Maybe CORE is so democratic it allows for internal debate, something that seems outside the pale for people used to reporting about the control exhibited by strong arming union leaderships. (I was hanging with one national ed reporter at an AFT convention who couldn't quite get how CORE could have its people running both with and against Randi's caucus.)

I do want to remind everyone that of the last 4 Chicago elections since 2001 only one incumbent was elected (Marilyn Stewart in 2007). Remember there were 5 caucuses in 2010. With former reformist president Debbie Lynch retired where does that leave her caucus? What about the Unity-like UPC that CORE defeated? And the offshoots of that caucus? Debbie Lynch lost her 2004 re-election partly due to a much-criticized contract in 2003 by the very people in the UPC who had been signing sweetheart contracts. Would you be surprised to see the UPC remnants that had cooperated with the deformers swing into attack on CORE for not getting enough in the contract?

And I will make this point again and again: every ed deformer and maybe even AFT people want CORE out. Would you be surprised to see a Student First/DFER supported group pop up with loads of money to undermine CORE?

I've had these EIA reports saved for a few weeks but thought it worth sharing, especially since anti-Randi people have been pushing the idea of Karen challenging Randi for AFT president (no way). So let's tackle this one first with this post from Mike's Intercepts.

Karen Lewis for AFT President? Numbers Don’t Add Up

Antonucci - the 13th Russian Spy?

I often call out Mike Antonucci on his selective research and reporting - always designed to show teacher unions at their worst - with the words, "I know, Mike, I know, showing the other side of the coin is not your beat." It is his beat to show a union stealing a dime while ignoring when people running schools steal millions.

I like this comment by Leonie Haimson on his latest work for EdNext:

I wonder if Antonucci and/or Ed Next will next analyze how much the Billionaire's boys club, plus DFER, ERN, EEP and all their associated networks of hedge fund networks spent on lobbying and campaigns. Don't hold your breath!
.....I'm sure these conservative groups far outspend the teacher unions in the category of "research" as well.

This story reminds me of the NY Post making a big deal over UFT campaign contributions to Bill Perkins while ignoring the massive charter school contributions to politicians who support charter schools. (Have the attacks on Perkins by charter school proponents and the fact that they are funding his opponent in the primary caused him to disappear from the charter school wars?)

Mike is a funny guy and here he tops himself.
From the press release (Norms Notes):

Antonucci follows the money and the impact it has on policy.

Which money is Antonucci following? He must be a slow reader as he apparently hasn't gotten to Diane Ravitch's chapter on The Billionaire Boys Club. Now there are a few bucks he should be following that have real influence on policy. Ahhh, not his beat. Just make the union nickels and dimes look like boogeymen.

He gets into Jon Stewart hilarity territory with this one:

"The Long Reach of Teachers Unions: Using money to win friends and influence policy,” featured in the Fall 2010 edition of the Education Next journal, Antonucci also reveals that teachers unions have become a force in matters beyond education policy, including weighing in on domestic policy issues such as taxation, healthcare, gay marriage and redistricting.

“The unions’ influence over education policy is well known, but their influence over government is not. Teachers unions are by the largest political contributors,” said Antonucci.

Gee, he left out the real influence we have - whether to use Charmin or Scott toilet paper. Oh, sorry, I forgot. We don't even have a say in that.

Yeah, this Race To The Top stuff and non-unionized charter school takeovers shows just how much teacher unions influence policy. I must be living in an alternate universe.


Leonie continues:

See new EdNext analysis by Mike Antonucci of how much teacher unions spent on political campaigns in 2007-8. Full study here:

http://educationnext.org/the-long-reach-of-teachers-unions/ You can also comment on the page if you register first.

Press release (Norms Notes)

Interestingly, despite all the fear-mongering from the NY tabloids, in NY State, the NY teachers unions spent less than $5 per teacher on politics, compared to more than $100 per teacher in states like Oregon($356.60), Colorado ($173.98), Montana ($141.74), Utah ($140.60) and South Dakota ($132.15). California spent $41.21 per teacher, and even Texas outspent NY ($2.24 compared to $2.18).

NY was outspent in most of the 22 "right-to-work" states like Texas; (for a list see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law) in which cannot compel teachers to pay union dues. The only states that spent less per teacher were DC, Florida, Georgia and Vermont.

The article also points out that the NEA supports EPIC and Great lakes research institutes, which have issued critiques of some of the unreliable studies that were financed by the Gates, Broad and Walton foundations.

Or for that matter, the Hoover Institute, the conservative "think tank" that publishes Education Next, ( full disclosure: Ed Next published a radically edited letter from me without my consent a few years back.)

I'm sure these conservative groups far outspend the teacher unions in the category of "research" as well.

Leonie Haimson

Antonucci's EIA on CHI: Teamsters in the House

There are few out there with more knowledge and a better understanding of the underlying forces in teacher union politics (more so about the NEA than the AFT) than the Educational Intelligence Agency's Mike Antonucci - once you get past his spin. Mike loves to dish dirt on the unions - he will ignore the most extreme malfeasance from the people running schools while reporting on a union leader who sneezes into his sleeve.

I get criticism from my leftie friends - and my UFT enemies like Leo Casey (I'm too busy to find Leo's links) - for even mentioning Mike, one of the early bashers of teacher unions. I've been on his list since being connected through Sol Stern (I think) many years ago. Now there are some strange bedfellows - but I have had some of the best discussions with both of them over the years. You learn a lot more from trying to defend your policies when not preaching to the choir.

For a while I though Mike had forgotten where Chicago was and was going to send him a map. Finally, his long-awaited comments appeared yesterday. There is some cogent analysis and truths buried within, though from his distance he is missing some essential differences between CORE and Debbie Lynch's PACT reform slate that need to be examined.

One of his key points is that the Chicago teacher union staff - the equivalent of the UFT's district and field reps - are unionized - unlike in the UFT (I have more info on why and will deal with that in a separate post.) When he refers to the "reform crowd" he means the ed deform crowd. CORE represents the real reform crowd. Call it Real Ed Reform - RER.

First, here is Mike's post, followed by my comments and an after burn follow-up.

The Education Intelligence Agency

COMMUNIQUÉ – June 14, 2010

On the Web at http://www.eiaonline.com

Is Chicago the Flip Side of DC? Once again, EIA finds itself in the role of wet blanket, smothering the fiery claims of those who want the events in a single district to be replicated everywhere else. Last week I tried to douse the enthusiasm of the reform crowd who saw the DC teachers' contract as a harbinger of the future for other troubled urban districts.

This week, it's the turn of the old guard unionists who think the results of the Chicago Teachers Union leadership vote is a portent of a new wave of militancy from teachers, in reaction to the recent beatings public employees' unions are taking in press and public opinion.

The Caucus of Rank and File Educators (CORE) united other opposition groups and achieved victory for presidential candidate Karen Lewis and her slate. Lewis defeated incumbent president Marilyn Stewart by a 3 to 2 margin.

First, let's not deny the obvious. CORE did campaign on taking a harder line against the district administration, and that's how it won. In fact, that's the only way an opposition slate ever wins a union election, particularly in the AFT.

Few remember now that Stewart won election to the CTU presidency in 2004 by criticizing incumbent Deborah Lynch for being insufficiently protective of teachers' interests. "This is a labor union, not a university," Stewart famously said. Stewart promised to focus the union on contract enforcement and filing grievances.

Stewart was criticized for jumping on the protest bandwagon too late - only rallying against layoffs and budget cuts when it became clear her own reelection was in doubt. In 2004, that criticism was also leveled against Lynch (see item #5, here) who faced Stewart in a runoff after layoff notices were sent to 2,180 teachers and 1,300 support personnel. Lynch appeared at a media event to protest the layoffs during the runoff campaign.

Lewis's election may have large implications for the Chicago Public Schools. Her politics are significantly to the left of the machine Democrats who run the city and the school system. "What drives school reform is a single focus on profit. Profit. Not teaching, not learning, profit," she said in her post-election press conference.

Nevertheless, she may find her platform difficult to implement. It includes repealing mayoral control, stopping school closings and reconstitutions, and bargaining class size. But those will be easy compared to her plan to "cap CTU officer and staff salaries to the average teacher salary prorated over 12 months."

She may get her way with the officers, but the staffers are represented by the Teamsters, and their contractually guaranteed minimum base salary for next year is $101,517.80. So good luck with that.

Lewis could reverse the trend of outsiders becoming insiders, but history isn't on her side. The last "next big thing" was A.J. Duffy in Los Angeles. He survived his reelection challenge, but was also criticized for too much compromising. A lot of same kinds of internal reforms Lewis proposes were instituted in Miami after the Tornillo scandal. It's hard to argue that any of this led to a mass movement for teachers' unions - in either direction.

One of the aspects of the 2001 Chicago election was that the UPC (Unity, Chicago version though thoroughly inept) that lost the election kept control of many staff positions through the Teamster contracts Mike talks about. The old guard UPC used these political operatives to undermine Lynch with the members, though she did lose support on her own. I assume, they will try to do the same with CORE (and don't forget, they will have the help of Randi and the AFT who I bet are already plotting strategy on how to undermine and divide CORE and bring the UPC back into power.) Addressing this issue will be quite a task for CORE.

I saw some comments on the Substance site urging CORE to not sign these contracts. Hmmm. Could be interesting with the Teamsters involved. {I have more info on the difference between the UFT staffers who have no union and will follow up later.]

CORE does not come across as "old guard unionists." From the people I hung with in LA this past summer many of the leaders are fairly young, progressive teachers with a social justice outlook. They say they have been building connections to the parents and communities and to students. Real connections at the school levels, not the kinds of leadership to leadership connections we see from the UFT.

The CORE platform (make sure to read Karen Lewis' speech):

Repealing mayoral control, stopping school closings and reconstitutions, and bargaining class size.

It may be difficult but nowhere as difficult in NYC where the union doesn't even have these items in its platform. At least with CORE there's a chance for a fight.

Norm
---------------
After Burn
I got to hang with Mike in the press section of the AFT convention in 2004 and we had some excellent discussion. It was Mike who picked up the ball immediately when the FMPR from Puerto Rico appeared at that convention with their disaffiliation from the AFT and reported on the rift extensively (though I was too dense to see it at the time.) There has been some glee at seeing the autocratic, blood-sucking AFT take a hit. (Since then through Angel Gonzalez' friendship with Rafael Feliciano, the president of the FMPR, GEMers have developed close contacts.) If you search the ednotes blog or Mike's EIA site (http://www.eiaonline.com) you can find the links to his reports over many years.

Mike incidentally reported yesterday that he uses the Network Solutions and faced similar problems that Substance (as reported here yesterday) has, speculating that there was no cyber attack on either of them. I mean, who would want to attack EIA other than Leo Casey. Hmmm. Leo also doesn't like George Schmidt very much. Hope Leo has an alibi.

Mike was born and bred in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn and I in East NY a mile or two away, so we grew up not far apart (though he is much younger.) East Brooklyn - Feistyville.
-------
Double After-burn
Speaking of Chicago, my wife has gotten me to start reading "The Devil in the White City" a book about the Chicago world's fair in 1892.

The NY Times Should Just Stop Trying to Cover Education

I'll admit it. I actually get hot when someone takes down the NY Times on the way it covers education. Today, Leonie did the deed over at the NYC Parents blog.

Today’s New York Times article on the Bloomberg/Klein record on test scores is incomplete, biased, and in some cases inaccurate.

The Times biased? Shocking. They're still looking for those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq they reported on in such depth.

Leonie has 5 examples,which you can read with a little click:
NY Times falls in line with the Bloomberg PR spin control

Related:
Mike Antonnucci* reports in EIA on the NEA branch using Randi Redux arguments to sell merit pay to the members: What Happens in Tulsa, Stays in Tulsa. and has some comments on the Greg Toppo USAToday article on charters which caused Rotherham to freak: Tempest in a Toppo.

* Never forget that Mike has a dog in the race and looks to make unions the bad guys. But he also covers things none of the press does, particularly you know who.

Antonucci's Favorite Quotes

Mike Antonucci has his favorite quotes of the year at EIA.

Surprise, surprise. They are mostly anti-union. Some of my "favorites"

5) "Until we really do bust the teachers unions, the next generation of kids in public schools is at risk." - Andrew Sullivan. (November 13 Daily Dish)

6) "You'd think it would be a no-brainer that people who don't perform get the axe and those who do get raises. Isn't that the way it works in most nonunionized professions? But the teachers union apparently exists in some alternate universe where everyone is rewarded equally regardless of the quality of their work." - Leonard Pitts Jr. (November 16 Miami Herald)

My response-
The same alternative universe with the million dollar bonus babies who ran the financial system into the ground and are still running things. Along with the politicians. How many axed at AIG, GM, Chrysler? See many Bushies lose their jobs?

Mike - with all that's going on this act is getting stale. Exactly who is inhabiting the alternate universe?

Questions on NEA/AFT Merger Prospects

While many in NYC speculated Randi's support of Hillary was aimed at procuring a cabinet position, I never bought into it. Randi's real ambition I believe is to lead the labor movement. A precursor of that would be a merger of the 1.4 million member AFT with the 3.4 million member NEA.

But is there any way Randi could end up leading a merged organization when the AFT is so much smaller?

We know there are significant differences - the NEA has term limits while the AFT has had only 4 presidents in 35 years.

The AFT is tightly controlled and has little democracy, with the UFT's Unity Caucus in NYC exerting control over the entire AFT through the Progressive Caucus, the national version of Unity. The NEA/AFT merger in NY State (NYSUT) has created a 600,000 bloc in the AFT and potentially the NEA.

Though I often disagree with Educational Intelligence Agency's Mike Antonucci, I respect his knowledge and opinions. (We spent a couple of days chatting in the press section at the AFT convention in Washington in 2004 - Mike though based in California, is originally a Bushwick guy from Brooklyn.)

With the ascension of Randi Weingarten as AFT president due to take place next week, I was wondering how strategies towards an NEA/AFT merger will emerge, so I sent him these questions:

Mike
I'm looking forward to your coverage of the NEA. Are you doing the AFT too? I cannot make it (I'm going to a Zombies concert in NYC and would rather see those zombies than the Unity drones in Chicago.)
.
One of the issues of interest is how a merger will play out with Randi leading the AFT and I hope you might touch on some of these issues.

Can she emerge as the head of a merged union? Will she be at the NEA convention and play a prominent role?

We know that the AFT/UFT model has resistance in the NEA but can a Unity Caucus-like machine be implemented state by state?

What role does the 600,000 member NYSUT play? Is this a strategy to take the NEA from underneath? What about other merged states?

What role will the UTLA play - will their more militant/left political orientation emerge as a counter to Weingarten's collaborative model that has so set back the teacher union movement in NYC?

There are groups meeting in Chicago working on the peace and justice caucus and some people from ICE will be there.


Hi Norm:

I won't be in Chicago for a number of reasons, but I've noted your stories about George Schmidt and his struggles to get a credential. My getting one was never a slam dunk either, and would have been particularly difficult this time.

You ask a lot of good questions, but I can only definitively answer a few. First, yes, Randi could emerge as the head of a merged union, but only under term limits. Any merger would probably lead to a tacit agreement to alternate presidents - first Van Roekel, then Randi. But timing is everything. A merger attempt would have to get started almost immediately, because I guarantee Randi wouldn't stand a chance against Lily Eskelsen, who is much like Randi, only vastly more popular.

Also, I find it highly unlikely that a caucus system would ever catch on in NEA. Some states might try it and like it, but it would take ages for it to spread.

As for NYSUT and the merged states, the thing to watch for there is any attempt at NEA to change its representation rules for the merged affiliates. As you probably know, though NEA claims all the NYSUT members as NEA members, NYSUT only pays NEA dues and has voting representation rights for the former NEANY members. It's the same in Minnesota, Montana and Florida. But Minnesota, for example, has been merged for almost 10 years now. Eventually there could be a move for full representation. If that happens, the merged states would provide a huge voting bloc for national merger and could conceivably squeak it through.

We can all speculate, but that would be the trigger. Because I don't think NEA has any more votes for national merger today than it did in 1998.

Unless something amazing happens, there is only one thing to watch for at this NEA convention, and that's Van Roekel's acceptance speech on the last day. No one has any idea what he'll do as president, and he may not do anything. But if he has an agenda, we'll get the first hint of it then.

It's too bad you're not going to Chicago. I wanted you to say hi to Leo for me. : )

Regards,

Mike

Catch Mike's coverage of the NEA Convention starting today.

It's Never the Money, Honey

When Randi Weingarten tells us how much she could have made as a lawyer, it reminds me of how Joel Klein says the same thing about the high salaries of his corporate minions making ed policy and ruining the schools in NYC. Actually, I never believe RW does things for money, but still....

This item appeared in Mike Antonucci's EIA Communique. People like Unity's Leo Casey and ICE's Sean Ahern get all frothy at the mouth whenever I cite Mike - we all know his mission - to report when a union leader takes $10 while ignoring corporate heads when they take 100 billion.
But other than a willingness to turn the other cheek at massive giveaways and theft of entire school systems, he is sometimes right on.

By the way, Stroock, et.al has done very well with the business Randi has thrown their way over the years.


Randi Weingarten Makes Her AFT Accession Official. Spilling what was arguably one of the worst-kept secrets in American labor history, United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten officially announced her candidacy for the presidency of the American Federation of Teachers.

She also made official her intention to continue as UFT president while holding national office. When the New York Daily News remarked that holding both positions would nearly double her annual salary to reach almost $600,000, Weingarten referred to her previous career as a Wall Street attorney and replied, "I took a huge cut in any kind of pay that I was ever going to make in my life to do this job. And so money has never been an issue with me other than to try to champion those causes for my members."

Weingarten spent three years as an associate for Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. While there is no way to know what career path she might have taken had she not been hired by UFT in 1986, it's pretty clear how much she would have made had she stayed at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan as an associate. She even mentioned it in a 2004 speech:

"If I were starting out today as a young new attorney in my old firm – Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, I would be starting at $125,000. After eight years as a teacher here in New York, I'd be making $60,700. After eight years in my old law firm, I'd be making a base salary of $215,000."

A more recent look at the firm's salary schedule shows a $280,000 level after eight years. Certainly we can generate scenarios in which Weingarten would have made more than $600,000 as an attorney, but in reality she made more money in her first eight years as UFT president than she would have had she spent those eight years as a Wall Street attorney.

The Education Intelligence Agency

COMMUNIQUÉ – April 14, 2008

On the Web at http://www.eiaonline.com