UFT Election 25 Dissection: ABC Broke New Ground, Just Not Enough to Win, While ARISE Dived

With indications that ABC will continue to function, I'm writing this analysis as a warning sign for the future of oppo in the UFT as I can foresee the divisions not going away and a similar two slate situation emerging again. I am making the case that only an ABC-like strategy and organization - or dis-organization of individuals can beat Unity. (On Thursday, June 19th, ICEUFT will meet in person to take a deep dive into the issues raised here.) 

That doesn't mean legacy caucuses go away and continue to do the work they do on social justice and other issues, but release their people to run with an ABC-like group while supporting the effort. Knowing the caucus-first mentality, don't expect this to happen on an organizational level, but I appeal to the individuals in the caucuses to think this through. 

 

ARISE spent thousands of dollars on campaign and a glossy flier (almost a work of art) and raced to hundreds of schools to stuff mail boxes, while ABC spend a minimal amount and focused on its people getting out the vote in their schools. 

 

If you are looking for the difference in outcomes, look at these numbers: 

 

ABC ran 560 candidates, 520 of them in the schools (about 40 retirees) while ARISE, despite bragging of the largest number of candidates in decades, had only 490 or so, with 140 retirees, a difference of about 150 in school people. Back in the fall when people were calling for both slates to unite, at least one ARISE steering committee member mocked ABC as being only 7 people and claiming ABC could not get a slate together and would have to come begging. That led to a mentality within ARISE that ABC would fail. 

Monday June 16, 2025 

 

I received a post-election call from a long-time major oppo left-leaning activist from years ago, who did not run in the election, praising ABC on the outcome of the election  - a group of individuals came together - people who had never worked with each other in the past - to win almost 18k and 32% of the votes - the largest oppo vote total in history despite another slate running. He was impressed. 

 

Another left-leaning non-candidate activist also was surprised at the 32% outcome. We had argued throughout the campaign over my contention ABC had a chance to win -- my odds were 10%. His were 1%. My position that ABC could win even with two slates, which was much mocked, while not proven, showed that it was possible. What I never considered was how poorly the legacy caucuses would do - and I even include Unity, given their 54%.

 

Losing by 22 points to Unity still put ABC closer to beating Unity than any oppo I can remember. During the campaign, Unity focused its attacks on ABC and some ARISE leaders from NAC and RA spent more time attacking ABC than Unity, and receiving much praise from Unity people for doing so. This is not to taint all of ARISE, most of whom, especially those in MORE, mostly refrained from attacks. I detected a sense of growing respect, despite differences, between some ABC and MORE people. From the beginning last summer, ABC was open to individuals from MORE running with ABC and some did and played an important role.

 

I've seen some comments from ARISE people talking about the two oppo groups lost to Unity, as if both outcomes were equivalent, thus burying the lead. ABC finished 22% points behind Unity while the ARISE legacy caucuses, despite decades of so-called organizing, finished 40% points behind Unity. 

 

A flip of 11% points between ABC and Unity would have put ABC in a tie with Unity. As people are already looking to 2028, keep this in mind. But don't expect the legacy caucuses to learn a lesson and some in NAC and RA, not willing to face the truth, attribute the difference to dirty tactics or social media or shady practices.

 

Back in December when everyone was going nuts over two slates running against Unity I put forth reasons I thought ABC had a chance of winning: UFT Elections: The Two Slate Solution - Keep Calm. Here were a few key takeaways then (in red) and my current response:

• I've maintained the only way to win this election with the prospects of building dynamic change into the UFT is by enlisting large numbers of working UFTers. Do not rely on retirees to win and dominate a fossilized union (yes I am one of these fossils.) The current configuration of the legacy caucuses unfortunately leads us in this direction.

There was an increase in turnout of 15% up to 28%. ABC needed closer to 33% turnout. For an upstart non-caucus based group, we did not get deep enough but showed a path to victory even with two oppos -- and even if we had run common candidates we would have lost in every area other than the 7 high school seats.

• The 63% retiree vote that the legacy caucuses are relying to deliver will not hold up for this election. In the 2022 UFT general election retirees won 29% -the same number they did in the 2021 RTC election. In the latter election word was out about the medicare situation - my biggest disappointment in that election was not seeing the retiree vote expand. That we didn't increase the retiree vote from the year before when few knew about the health plan changes. That led to me being pessimistic for the past June election. I was wrong. We ran a great campaign but the difference maker: Marianne. Where will she land in this election and if she doesn't get her people involved the retiree vote will drop significantly. Unity still won over 10k in the 2024 chapter loss. Expect that to hold and grow as Unity supporters may have turned on Tom Murphy as RTC leader but may not be willing to turn over the entire union to what will clearly be labeled a left-wing opposition run by legacy caucuses that they have fought for years. RA did not have a bad rep a year ago.

This prediction came through - Unity clawed back 3k votes to get 13K this time but ABC got 9K and ARISE 3k -- not enough to win the retiree vote but close. Clearly RA failed drastically in dropping from 17K a year ago but ABC getting 3x their total proved the influence of Marianne, something my pals in RA had been downgrading, thinking it was their organizing a year ago.  

• ABC is the non-ideological, non-sectarian option with people from every caucus, including Unity, so Unity retirees who know the score may go ABC, but not with a slate dominated with MORE candidates.  

Give me a check on this one. MORE has over 500 members. RA counted on its 300 delegates, who had no say in the choice to run with ARISE to come through. NAC has shown little presence in the schools and did not have faith in the possibilities of ABC and felt an alliance with MORE would make a difference. I argued the opposite to them, to no avail. 

•  The numbers from the UFC full frontal coalition vote in 2022 were not much different from the smaller MORE/NAC coalition in 2016. Why would this election be any different from the in-service vote (Mah Nishtanah), especially since what was UFC is diminished? Given the 2022 vote and reduced caucus coalitions, I maintain Unity would win the election if we were limited to a coalition run similar to UFC, which the legacy caucuses not even reaching the same levels of organizing that UFC, had reached. 

I wrote:

UFC's main success was the increased % for UFC but that was due to Unity drops which did not go to UFC. That dropped Unity vote just might shift into the ABC column due to the Unity presence in ABC.  UFC did not bump up the in-service vote or even the retiree vote in that election.  I contend that with a weakened UFC, these numbers will remain constant for the caucus coalition, with the only wild cards retirees. The only way to win is to go after the 80% who don't usually vote, not an easy task but that looks like the major initiative of ABC and to siphon off Unity votes.

Constant? I was wrong. I actually thought ARISE might get 20-25% and ABC over 30%. And I was wrong about Unity continued drops -- they really brought out their base and increased in every area other than High schools.

I used the 2022 outcome to base a lot of my theories and the numbers for ARISE were worse than they were for UFC, which I also predicted - that ARISE was a diminished UFC which had 7 or 8 components. Nick bragged that the trimmed down to 3 ARISE was so easy to work with. That's very nice and comfortable - for them. The "less is more" theory didn't work in this case. 

• Oh, but what about the retiree and para votes from last spring? They are not automatic and must be worked for. Fix Para Pay is aligned at this point with ABC. So Don't forget the 27k para potential vote. The in-service para vote, with 27k paras, long ignored by the opposition,  may prove more crucial than the retiree vote if we get turnout. Note: A key organizing strategy is taking direct aim at this vote with a plan to fight for para pay instead of the Unity policy of telling them to be happy they have a job.

So this point sort of worked out with 120 paras running with ABC but we had hoped to do much better despite tripling ARISE and getting 1500 more functional votes than UFC did in 2022. That was due mostly to paras but the Unity push for 10k para bonuses (a smart election ploy, still unrealized) worked and the hoped-for tap into the 27k para vote was only partially successful. ABC also aimed to tap into other functional areas like OT/PT and nurses and probably did. But the Unity campaign worked - compare 2025 to 2022.

 

• ABC with a drastic new approach to not just running in the election but open to taking the election-building process out from behind closed doors and get more rank and file involved - and it has been working. Sample: 100 showed for a zoom for paras and district 75 on Tuesday, and over 50 for a High School zoom Wednesday, including chapter leaders from large high schools, including some key people from Unity.That followed a general meeting with 260 people. Think each in-service having some kind of network outreach in their schools. ABC is building the broadest coalition and still invites all legacy caucus members and supporters to run on the ABC independent slate with no labels. Already some have signed up to run. Is it enough yet? No. But there's a long way to go before ballots go out in May and petitioning starting Feb. 12. And ABC has the petition king: ME.

Well, I was pleasantly surprised at how relatively easy the petitioning was compared to 2022, with loads of ABC retiree and active people coming out to assist. Even I underestimated the vigor of ABCers. The one snag, if you call it that, was how aggressive ABC people were in recruiting candidates in the final week which forced us to spend the final weekend processing them - every candidate needed wet signature which made things difficult. A delightful snag. If we had another week we would have run a full slate of 750.

• Almost 40% of Trump supporters in NYS are in a union and many of them in the UFT and also anti-Mulgrew. Many have been non-voters in the past. With an ABC option that is focused on bread and butter and without a leftist ideology reputation, they may vote. Some will say how dare you hope Trump supporters vote for you? How dare I run to win.   

ABC WAS WILLING TO TALK TO ALL UFT MEMBERS AND AVOIDS PURGES AND SHUNNING -  HORRORS!

 

ABC has been vilified for trying to keep communication open to a wide variety of UFT members and focused on what members felt were important in their schools. Some in ARISE bragged about how moral and progressive they were and branded ABC as right wing troglodytes despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of key activists had a long record of progressive politics. 

When you run to win, you have to be willing to listen to everyone and not set up ideological walls -- you know, not call fellow UFT members you disagree with "deplorable."   

 

In recent discussions during the vote count when I asked some of the ARISE people why run if you know you will lose, the response was to "get our ideas and visions out". The thinking is that long-term they can win enough progressives over. I respond that you will have little influence unless you can win and then have the full resources of the UFT to try to win people over in a democratic and transparent process. But running in elections is embedded in the DNA of caucuses and don't be surprised to see it happen again in 2028.

 

Unity bummed at how poorly ARISE did 

The biggest disappointment to Unity was how bad ARISE did as ABC emerged as the big oppo dog. For ABC, it should try to convince the independent minds in ARISE to work with ABC in the next election while also continuing to work with their caucuses which could still use the election process and save their resources to promote their positions. They could still put out a leaflet and flood the mail boxes while not running --- a position I advocated for MORE in my final days there in late 2018 before the 2019 election. That helped get me kicked out of MORE. 

Split in MORE - Results strengthen the "don't run wing"

Back in August/September when MORE was debating whether to run at all, run alone or run in coalition, a strong group of 35 out of 160 who voted (what happened to the 500 MORE members?) were against running in coalition "with people who do not share their values." That says a lot about MORE and the lack of GOTV. In the vote to accept the coalition only 70 MOREs voted. 

 

The pro-coalition group knew full well that NAC had little pull in the schools but did have a large group of retirees who would do the work. NAC believed MORE had the horses in the schools to pull out votes. RA was viewed by both as the big retiree dog and the failure on that end is clear. 

 

I will say that inside ABC, while not wanting to run in an election with a group having the MORE label, the feelings about individuals in MORE have not been negative while there is a lot more people pissed off at NAC and RA. A lot of the ABC crowd are thankful to the people in MORE for informing them of the urinal attack on Amy. I think on the person to person level we may see some cooperation on common issues. 

 

 

NEXT: I will breakdown the elem, ms and hs results. 

 

Future of the Dem Party 

Is Randi moving left? Randi Quits DNC -- 

 

And these articles:

https://post.substack.com/p/whos-going-to-run-new-york?

https://rosselliotbarkan.com/p/the-collapse-of-the-professional?

https://rosselliotbarkan.com/p/the-three-factions-of-the-american?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/22/the-making-of-the-new-left

 

 

UFT Election Results: Unity’s Grip Weakens—A Better Contract Rises as Only Growing Force- By Mike Schirtzer

 June 8, 2025

First let me state that neither Mike nor I speak for ABC but our words will be used as representative of ABC. ABC clearly arose - or arised - or arrived. ABC is criticized for being too aggressive - exactly the opposite of how UFT leadership behaves passively when dealing with the DOE and politicians -- but they sure are aggressive in attacking ABC. Frankly, I want more ABC in your face when dealing with the DOE and Mayor.

I don't agree with everything that Mike Schirtzer, the eternal optimist, says here. As a pessimist I can't even guarantee ABC is still around in 3 years. Or next month. (Cheers arise from ARISE - and Unity.) But getting about 18k votes, the highest of any opposition in history, is nothing to sneeze at and was not due to social media but to having people in the schools. Do they know you, do they trust you, as James Eterno used to say, is operative. 

Mike will come under attack for this post. How dare Mike celebrate the UFT election as a "win" for ABC? I'd say some people in ABC are not celebrating because they thought they would win, unlike ARISE which knew they would lose. They would be celebrating if they ran roughly even with ABC. But instead of analyzing their 18 point loss to ABC and their 40 point loss to Unity, they are blaming ABC's campaign. Talk about tone-deaf. My prediction is that ARISE will re-arise in 3 years and play the same losing game by making it impossible to have one slate - the Einstein definition of insanity. 

This is not to say that many ABCs would work with almost everyone in ARISE in the future (except for one or two) but not with the caucuses themselves. And in fact ABC took that position since November and will continue to take that position.

[Check out what I wrote 5 years apart: April 28, 2019: UFT Election Overall and Retiree Data... and June 25, 2024 - Can Unity Be Beaten in 2025 UFT Election?]

The major obstacles to defeating Unity after these results are the weakness of the caucuses after decades of getting the same results and their insistence that only they should be allowed to run UFT elections. (My next post will do a breakdown of the numbers). 

The attacks on ABC from both Unity and ARISE are similar (Leo Casey and Nick Bacon separated at birth) - and we saw in the campaign an informal alliance of sorts between Unity and ARISE -- like the ARISE candidate who ran against Mulgrew is doing workshops next weekend at the UFT (and Mulgrew called on her twice at the DA). And the enormous praise for a co-chair of one of the ARISE caucuses who is also on the ARISE steering committee for relentless attacks on ABC going back months -- a clear sign that elements of ARISE are already thinking that the goal is not uniting with ABC but exterminating ABC and leaving the field to the same old caucuses that failed so badly in this election. And Unity has the same goal. Build up ARISE as the legitimate and loyal opposition and try to bury ABC.... Oh, and Mike, who has been on the UFT Exec Board for 9 years, elected on the MORE and then the Unity slates, will now be off the board ------ Norm

UFT Election Results: Unity’s Grip Weakens—A Better Contract Rises as Only Growing Force- 

 By Mike Schirtzer

 

Unity didn’t win. They survived. And their time is running out.

The numbers are in—and while President Mulgrew and his Unity Caucus claims another win, the truth is undeniable: their mandate is collapsing.

Out of over 200,000 UFT members, 57,905 ballots were counted (an increase of 15% from the last election but still only 28% of eligible voters). Of those, Unity received just 30,219 votes. That means fewer than 1 in 10 members actively support this leadership. Most didn’t vote at all—because they either didn’t know there was an election, or they’ve lost faith that anyone is listening.

Proposal from MORE to ABC Coalition (Oct. 2024) - Why This Agreement Favors MORE Caucus and Hurts Broader Union Democracy

This is not coalition-building; it’s institutional dominance under the guise of “consensus.” -- response to MORE plan

If ARISE were to win, which of the 3 caucuses would have the major influence in running the UFT?

 

Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 

 

Today is the last day to vote in person. There are lots of complaints from people who did not receive ballots and it it discriminatory to offer in person voting when there are so many out of town retirees or some who can't travel. But it sure gives an advantage to Unity Caucus members who work in or near borough offices. The other day only 21 people voted in the Bronx office. I could support in-person voting if there was an electronic voting alternative, which Unity views as not to its advantage. But apparently they do view in- person to their advantage. It will take a month after the election to find out how many late ballots came in, a number that may be in the thousands.

It is UFT election history time here at Ed Notes and with the end of the election and people looking ahead to what has become a somewhat toxic relationship between ABC and ARISE. In order to move forward we cannot bury the past. So I will post a series based on my view of the history since I've been there from day 1. I'm sure people will disagree and they are welcome to do so - no comments will be suppressed. 

Both sides have been accused of not coming together due to egos, past slights, and personalities. I push back on that. There were real differences on ideology, organizing principles, and the kind of audience a campaign was aiming to reach - irreconcilable differences at the time - and possibly going forward. Of course the election outcomes will determine the future. As I began pointing out almost a year ago, a key to defeating Unity would be, not retirees, but rousing enough of a segment of former non-voting in-service to go beyond 25%.

 

Assume all 3 components of ARISE will continue on their individual paths no matter the election outcome, though RA is under the major influence of NAC and not totally independent. For ABC, since it is not a caucus, the votes will determine its future. The attacks on ABC from both Unity and ARISE are aimed at diminishing the ABC votes to a point where ABC will just go away.

To set the groundwork, here is a  response to a proposal from MORE when ABC was one group to modify an original proposal from NAC to divide a future steering committee into four parts -- NAC, MORE, RA and everyone else (which became ABC). Behind the scenes the NAC group that designed their proposal to include MORE but limit their ability to take control of the UFT, which was a real concern, if we were to win the election. 

 

We began to meet in March 2024 - with independents and people from almost all caucuses and continued in August through early November. We were at first held up in moving ahead by MORE's internal system of deciding whether to join the coalition which lasted from August through mid-September. At all meetings until the vote was complete, MORE announced they were there only as observers, which led some to question whether they should be in the room given there was a chance they might not join and even run their own campaign. But most people, including many of the ex-Unity future leaders of ABC seemed to be catering to MORE. 

MORE had an internal split, with 35 out of about 170 voters who were opposed to joining the coalition - a position I can respect as fitting to MORE ideologists who claimed they shouldn't run with groups that didn't share their values, especially when it came to Palestine. (MORE's largest demo at a UFT DA had been a pro-Palestinian event where their CL and Delegates walked out to join). This group was very vocal with a lot of influence and there were internal concerns about them leaving the caucus unless some of their demands were met -- which created complications.

 

So there was push back from everyone when MORE came back with modifications of the NAC proposal and asked for more representation based on claims they were bigger, did more work and were harmed in the past in coalitions and wanted redress for these harms, even hinting that past criticisms on blogs like Ed Notes should be removed or censored. (They had made similar demands back in the 2022 UFC election with James Eterno being the fiercest opponent).

 

A vote was taken - 16-3 against MORE, with the 3 MORE reps voting yes and all the NAC, Unity defectors and independents voting NO. That led to all 9 MORE reps withdrawing from the coalition. 

 

Then NAC got cold feet over not being able to rely on MORE to do the bulk of the in-service election vote and secretly met with them and reversed themselves, agreeing to accept many of the MORE demands but not informing the others in ABC. At that point NAC members stopped attending the ABC meetings. A week later, what was left of ABC had clearly given up on working with the caucuses and declared they were going to run a slate in the UFT elections, inviting any individual, in a caucus or not, to run.

 

Before the final break occurred, there was an attempt to hold all the non-MORE elements together in ABC and approach them with a united front. One sidelight were hints from some leading MOREs behind the scenes that there were people in MORE willing to run as individuals with the ABC slate. This broke down with the NAC reversal and also the inordinate influence they had with Retiree Advocate. The secret meeting they held on Nov. 5 with MORE to renegotiate their demands was a final straw. Really, if you are looking for root caucus, check the actions of NAC then and through some of the insane attacks on ABC. NAC has the most to lose if ARISE does poorly since they were selling their decades of organizing experience. Assuming ARISE doesn't win - a good bet to make - can that coalition continue to function post-election? Another good bet to make.  As for ABC -- a collection of individuals, expect some relationships forged in the election to continue. Of course if ABC wins, that is another story.

 

But let me say --- things in the past will not always be that way in the future, but relationships between people on both sides will continue to be forged and out of that some sense of working together can come. 

Here is an analysis of the flaws in the MORE demands from October, 2024, followed by the MORE document.

Why This Agreement Favors MORE Caucus and Hurts Broader Union Democracy:  While framed as a compromise, this agreement disproportionately benefits MORE and imposes structural disadvantages on the rest of the coalition and membership:

⸻

1. “Chapter Leaders First” Locks In MORE’s Influence
    •    MORE has more active chapter leaders than many smaller caucuses.
    •    Prioritizing current chapter leaders ensures MORE dominates e-board seats before any proportional division, undermining equal representation.
    •    This rewards current power structures instead of reflecting membership-wide support or building broader coalition capacity.

2. Platform Pre-Vetting by MORE Imposes an Ideological Gate
    •    MORE demands the coalition agree to MORE’s platform priorities upfront, including controversial or highly specific planks (like strike-readiness and New York Health Act).
    •    This creates an ideological litmus test that other groups must pass before decisions are even shared—undermining a true consensus approach.

3. Maintains MORE’s Autonomy but Limits Others’ Influence
    •    MORE retains the right to speak independently on any issue—even contentious ones like Palestine—but other groups must accept that without reciprocal control or shared standards.
    •    This opens the door to confusion, factionalism, and public messaging conflicts, which can harm the coalition’s credibility and unity during the campaign.

4. MORE Locks In Officer Representation
    •    By demanding 3 of the top 12 officer spots, including a top position, MORE secures disproportionate visibility and power relative to other caucuses, even if the electoral base is not equally strong.

5. Imposes MORE’s Governance Style on the Whole Coalition
    •    Requiring the use of MORE’s meeting norms and a community care-based accountability model forces other caucuses to adopt their internal culture.
    •    This is not coalition-building; it’s institutional dominance under the guise of “consensus.”

6. Undermines Long-Term Coalition Stability
    •    The proposal makes the temporary leadership body explicitly short-term, requiring a total renegotiation after the election—this benefits the strongest player now (MORE) and leaves others insecure in the long run.

⸻

Conclusion:

This proposal allows MORE to:
    •    Consolidate more seats through chapter leader preference.
    •    Dictate platform content.
    •    Retain full ideological independence.
    •    Secure a top leadership position.
    •    Control internal processes.

Other caucuses get equal officer seats only after concessions, limited say on platform, and no autonomy protections of their own. Rather than a power-sharing agreement, this is a strategic entrenchment of MORE’s influence at the expense of true democratic coalition-building—and by extension, a less representative, less inclusive vision for the broader UFT membership.

 

And here is the MORE proposal coming in mid-late October - 4 pages - after months of meeting and itching to get a campaign started. While I don't know for sure, I'm betting NAC caved to many if not all the demands. Note only 72 out of 500 members voted. I and most of ABC can actually agree with many of the platform ideas and in fact has a similar platform other than a few points.

 

MORE/Coalition Proposal: Goal and Summary
The goal here is to present what MORE wants out of this coalition all at once in order to avoid endless back-and-forth horse-trading. To this end, MORE undertook a weeklong survey of its dues-paying members over the course of a week. 

 

72 members responded. 

 

Based on those responses MORE has crafted the following proposal. We believe this is a significant compromise from MORE and should be broadly acceptable to all our potential coalition partners and we hope this can end the back-and-forth negotiation and allow us to
begin campaigning in earnest.
 

As a topline summary: 

 

MORE is willing to trade away proportional representation among the officer seats and the election coalition leadership body in favor of a “Chapter Leaders First” system for allocating the e-board seats. We believe this will improve the coalition’s chance of winning (because Chapter Leaders have natural and proven constituencies within schools) and prioritize expertise and experience as workplace organizers and union activists. Once every chapter leader represented by all of the groups has an opportunity to say yes to being a part of an e-board slate, the remaining spots will go to the four groups/constituencies as proposed by NAC according to equal representation and the groups can choose members to fill the remaining spots allocated to them as they see fit.
 

MORE would also like to see a small number of things added to the platform before seating the coalition leadership body to avoid any individual or caucus vetoing some of MORE’s priorities. We believe these additions are in keeping with the general spirit of the coalition and are not major asks, though we recognize some of these are areas where there may be disagreement among coalition members. We hope that other groups will accept these proposals in the spirit of compromise. 

 

Those are detailed below.

In exchange, MORE will agree to equal representation on the coalition leadership body and only 3 seats among the officer slate, including one of the top spots. We feel that this is a significant concession given our caucus’s size and the resources we will be bringing to the coalition. The coalition leadership body will run by consensus and will not make decisions likely to be deeply controversial without first going back to the caucuses that make up the coalition. The groups will decide by consensus for the top 12 officer spots.

Structure proposals:

The coalition will adopt a 12-person steering committee that will be run by consensus involving 3 Unity breakers/independents, 3 members of RA, 3 members of NAC, and 3 members of MORE. The primary task of the group will be to prepare and propose an officer slate and facilitate subcommittees of the coalition. MORE agrees not to seek more than 3 seats (including one top spot) on the officer slate. All parties agree that there
needs to be a consensus on the 12 officer spots. This body is intended as temporary and will cease to exist after the election and any further collaboration between the parties will need to be renegotiated (this is not to say that MORE wouldn’t want to continue collaborating after the elections but we are wary about signing onto a decision-making body under a time crunch that winds up becoming permanent).

The coalition will adopt a "chapter leader first" policy for the remaining 90 e-board seats. This will increase our chances of winning since chapter leaders have proven constituencies. It will also prioritize giving leadership of the union to rank-and-file organizers. We will open up a period of time where each group solicits chapter leaders from their groups to run on the e-board slate. After that period closes and all current CLs are seated
the remaining seats will go 25-25-25-25 as proposed in Nick Bacon's proposal.

The coalition agrees to use MORE's meeting norms, including a cedar to assess and intervene when those norms aren't followed. The coalition also agrees to create an accountability committee to address past harms between people involved in the coalition and any harms that may come up in the campaign. Individuals with a community care background will assist in developing this accountability committee so it can be as effective as possible in resolving harm between the parties involved.

The coalition will agree that MORE and all other groups will be able to continue their work around areas that are not covered in the coalition platform, including Palestinian liberation, as long as our messaging around non-covered issues does not imply coalition support for those issues. No censorship will be applied to MORE’s social media accounts, literature shared with other union members, or events that MORE holds such as rallies, town halls, etc.

Platform proposals:

The coalition will agree to leave geopolitical issues off of the table in exchange for including language about defending members' right to free speech and protecting teachers who are targeted by media attacks and right-wing harassment campaigns.

The coalition will include on their platform to redirect UFT resources towards organizing at the chapter and district levels. Provide all chapter leaders, delegates, and chapter activists with organizer training, not just instruction on contractual minutia. Organize and empower strong chapters to take action at the school level and to educate and activate members to build up to being strike-ready by the next contract negotiations so we don't preemptively take our strongest weapon off the table during negotiations with the city.

The coalition will include on their platform to advocate for legislation like the New York Health Act, already approved by the UFT delegate assembly, that will permanently solve our union's healthcare crisis and allow contract negotiations to focus on wages and working conditions. Ensure that all members, including members who move out of state after retirement, have guaranteed access to high-quality healthcare and not a cut-rate Medicare Advantage plan.

The coalition will advocate for an end to the mayoral control system that has led to chaos and uncertainty at the individual school level. We will work with community and parent allies to establish a replacement system that will not resemble Unity’s short-sighted and incomplete plan to add one additional PEP member. The coalition will promise to defend curricular autonomy that has come under attack during the current mayor and
current chancellor's administration.

The coalition will advocate for a financial investment and commitment from the Department of Education to implement comprehensive restorative justice and conflict resolution programs in all schools. This will address disparities in discipline and the school-to-prison pipeline.

The coalition will advocate for wage increases that represent a real and significant raise over inflation and focus on sharply raising paraprofessional pay to ensure a living wage for all UFT members. The coalition will advocate for across-the-board increases to the FSF formula or other school funding mechanisms to ensure that schools are fully funded and to avoid any excessing associated with wage increases. The coalition will include in their literature and messaging a particular focus on fighting for significant increases for
paraprofessional wages and equivalent benefits such as LODI.

The coalition will commit to significantly reforming UFT leadership structures.
● Replace winner-take-all elections with proportional representation.
● Adopt level-based elections for level-based VPs.
● Adopt election by chapter leaders and delegates for district and borough reps.
● Adopt an open bargaining system for future contract campaigns.
The coalition will commit to adopting permanent reforms to the DA. This will need to be fleshed out but should
include things like:
● Creating a process where any DA proposal that meets a certain threshold of co-sponsors will be agendized in the order it was received.
● Limiting officer's reports to a total of 30 minutes and Q&A to a total of 15 minutes to ensure at least an hour for discussion and voting on all proposals and resolutions.
● Adopt a "consent agenda" for all non-controversial proposals to avoid wasting time.
● Adopting and strictly adhering to an alternating 1-for, 1-against system for all internal debate and restricting calling the question until after at least 4 members have gotten the chance to speak.
● Preventing the e-board or ad-com from unilaterally blocking the consideration of political issues and allowing the delegate assembly to have meaningful debate and take binding votes on controversial political issues.

 

 

ARISE Pro-Unity Positions Proves ARISE never AROSE: Don't Waste A Vote That Helps Unity Win - VOTE ABC

Saturday, April 19, 2025 - ARISE SINKS!

Proof is in the pudding. ARISE is not running against Unity but against ABC. 

Holy Cow - ARISE's Bacon increasingly takes the same line as Unity - this time on the Intro 1096 City Council law that so many retirees want to see passed to protect their Medicare. And engages in an attack on Marianne Pizzitola and her enormously successful organizing of retirees to battle for their medicare. 

Of course the motivation is that Marianne is supporting ABC and only wishes she would back ARISE and if she did you would never see him writing these comments. Even more interesting to me is that 2 of the 3 legs of ARISE - Retiree Advocate, and his own caucus New Action, are loaded with retirees - in fact 25% (140) of their candidates are retirees, many of them elected to the DA in the massive retiree win in last year's retiree chapter election, which they won with what Nick Bacon would call a "myopic" focus on the healthcare issue - and they won due to the massive support Marianne and her troops gave them. That election and the 75% win by Fix Para Pay are amongst the main forces driving the possibility of defeating Mulgrew -- note there are 70k retirees and 27k paras -- about half the total voting UFT membership. 

That FPP is aligned with ABC -- with 120 paras running with ABC - over 20% of the 560 candidates - unprecedented in the history of the UFT - irks ARISE which had reached out to FPP to ask them to run with ARISE, especially since ARISE does not seem to have many - or any - paras on their slate.  

Yet, ARISE continues to join in the Unity attacks on ABC for focusing on the issues of most concern to UFT members and attempting to create a broad-based non-sectatarian inclusive movement. Shame, shame, shame.

How does the position of ARISE on intro 1096 - which many of the 300 elected RTC delegates and Exec Bd members support - play out with them or even with the 140 retiree candidates?

This was posted by Dan Alicea on FB:

Whether fueled by political/personal vendettas, unabated paranoia or Mulgrew’s Unity talking points, Nick Bacon, the caucus boss of New Action, now believes full support for Intro 1096 is short-sighted and could adversely hurt active members. 

 

This despite an overwhelming majority of UFT retirees voting in favor of a reso in full support of Intro 1096 and their calls for our union to lobby and commit its resources to it.

 

This is strange since many of those who support the bill and the RTC resolution are RA, and even New Action (NAC) UFT retirees.

 

https://arthurgoldstein.substack.com/.../uft-retired...

 

Bacon thinks that we need a task force of UFT labor lawyers to decide our futures. Despite, MLC/UFT lawyer, Alan Klinger, on an audio recording not willing to call 1096 illegal but rather that he worries it would impact future options of the MLC to negotiate retiree benefits for active service benefits and wages.

 

UFT retirees, a vote for ARISE is a wasted vote. 

 

ARISE never AROSE. 

 

Nick has shown his MORE-led, caucus-first coalition is willing to ignore the will of UFT retirees. They are willing to bow to Mulgrew for political gain and election season posturing by pitting actives against retirees.

 

If you think it’s time to replace Mulgrew because our healthcare, pensions and benefits are too important to risk, only ABC offers a steady hand of seasoned union leaders and the unwavering commitment to support the issues that matter to retirees. 

 

On May 1st ballots will be mailed to our homes. In May, we take back our union and make MEMBERS FIRST, again! 

 

Vote for A Better Contract (ABC)

Learn more: http://abettercontract.org

 

 

Teacher Mike Schirtzer Celebrates Paraprofessional Day

For Unity, MORE, and New Action, this is an election gimmick...Mike S.

April 2, 2025

Mike, a candidate for HS Ex bd on the ABC slate, didn't mention that over 100 paras are running with A Better Contract through the Fix Para Pay group. This is the first time in UFT general election history that paras have joined groups running against Unity and Mike points out the failures of the past and even some current caucuses in their failures to work with paras - certainly United for Change in the 2022 election, of which I was involved, failed in this regard. I always wonder about all those teachers in the caucuses  and whether they talk to paras at all in their schools. Retiree Advocate has few if any paras associated with it and I'm trying to come up with paras who ran for the 300 delegates to the RTC. Note: This is also a failure on my part and had been for decades so I don't take myself off the blame list.

 

 

There is no bill yet and the 10K bonus is non-pensionable and looks like an election bribe but we still support them getting that money and despite Unity attacks, ABC has supported the 10K and signed the petitions while also being critical of the tactic of using bonuses that are not pensionable.

 

Some schools are holding celebrations:

Holy Paraprofessional Day! by Mike Schirtzer

As an ICT teacher for almost 20 years, I can’t even begin to tell you how incredible it has been to work with so many amazing paras. Every single one I’ve worked with has made my students’ days brighter and better. They’ve helped me become a better teacher. They are the backbone of our schools.

And let’s be clear—the foundation of any union is negotiating strong contracts. That’s why we pay dues. It’s so our union leadership can sit across from the DOE and fight for real raises, benefits, and protections. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

But what are we being told now? That we have to beg City Council for a raise because our union leadership can’t get it done at the bargaining table? That’s an admission of failure. You’re telling me that every other union in this city negotiates raises for its members, but for paraprofessionals, the best we can do is hope and pray politicians throw them some crumbs?

Crumbs in our weekly paycheck—and we’re supposed to be thankful? We’re supposed to rally and wear blue, but whatever you do, don’t bring up the shady backroom political deal. Don’t bring up that it’s not pensionable. Don’t mention that we’re not doing this for school aides and parent coordinators in DC 37. Just smile, say thank you, and keep paying your damn dues.

And even if this raise, bonus, City Council gift, or whatever we’re supposed to call it actually happens—it’s not pensionable. So when paras retire, they’re left high and dry. This is the same scam they pulled on teachers with those garbage bonuses that don’t count toward pensions. Who in God’s name gave Michael Mulgrew the power to hand out non-pensionable “bonuses” like some Wall Street CEO, while refusing to fight for real raises?

And one more thing—because my brothers and sisters in A Better Contract (ABC) have been too kind about this: Let’s talk about New Action and MORE, running under their front group Arise.

New Action has been around for 40 years. MORE for over a dozen years. And now they’re running around pretending to care about para pay? Have they ever made fixing para pay a priority? Hell no. For Unity, MORE, and New Action, this is an election gimmick. For us, it’s about a union doing what it’s supposed to do—fighting for real raises and making our paras’ lives better.

We have worked alongside the leaders of Fix Para Pay—not only including them, but taking our lead from them. Isn’t that how a real union works? A real union listens to its members and fights for their needs. Unlike Unity, MORE, and New Action, who treat para pay as a political prop, we believe in doing the real work to make our paras’ lives better.

This isn’t about political maneuvering—it’s about securing fair, pensionable wages through proper collective bargaining, not backroom deals or non-pensionable bonuses. Our paras deserve respect and real compensation, not empty promises.

Meanwhile, ABC has been fighting to fix para pay from day one. We’re running actual paras for the Executive Board because we believe they should have a real voice in this union.

Unity, MORE, and New Action haven’t cared about para pay—yesterday, today, or tomorrow. Don’t be fooled.

 

Beware of Unity & MORE, UFT! They ALL claim to be 'member-driven'. Part 1 - UFT Proud

An ABC supporter opines on this anonymous blog. (It's not me writing this stuff - too much research work for lazy me to do.)

Tuesday April 1 - and this post is not an April Fool Joke

I am tired of the caucus control of our union. This is our union. We need a better contract.

They ALL claim to be 'member-driven'. But can you truly be member-driven while forcing your own personal politics and personal agendas on union members? - Part 1

Do Mulgrew, Weingarten, and their Unity caucus really think they speak for us all? Who do they represent and speak for? Doesn't member-driven mean we have a say?

 

Beware of Unity & MORE, UFT!

Mar 18, 2025

 

https://uftproud.substack.com/p/they-all-claim-to-be-member-driven 

---

Can Michael Mulgrew, Randi Weingarten and their Unity caucus separate personal politics and personal agendas with leading our union?

Do they even bother to ask us what we think when they act on our behalf?

Umm. No.

Here are just some recent examples that they don’t give a darn about our diverse views, nor do they bother to get our input before they act on our behalf.

---

1. Congestion Pricing - Mulgrew decided he’s against congestion pricing, therefore, the UFT is against it. He never polled us. We never spoke about or debated this issue at a UFT delegate assembly or UFT executive board. Like the dictator he is, he used our dues to file a lawsuit without our consent.

   Maybe he has a point about how it affects working class folks? Maybe he’s ignoring the body of environmental studies that prove him wrong? Maybe some of us agreed with him regarding congestion pricing. Yet, we also know just as many of us didn’t. Either way, he didn’t care to ask because he doesn’t think he has to.

   

2. ---

3. Israel/Gaza - This is an issue that has many strong, passionate, polarizing and personal positions among Americans and our union members, alike. Despite the inherent dissension this issue inevitably brings, Unity decided they would pass several geopolitical resolutions locally and nationally without speaking to members, first. Why bother, right?

   Even when some in Unity pushed back behind closed doors about the need to make sure that any stated position included our union’s diversity of voices, or that perhaps a press statement might be better, they didn’t care to ask or include members in the discussion before writing and forcing through geo-political resolutions with limited debate.

   As some know, Unity doesn’t just control our local union but Randi Weingarten leads Unity’s equivalent in our national union, the American Federation of Teachers.

   Did Randi or Unity poll teachers on a national level if the union should have a “Ceasefire Resolution”, condemn Netanyahu, or that the union must support a “two-state solution”? Nope.

   Ask most on the various sides of the Israel-Gaza issue and sufficed to say that the majority these days may likely not support a “two-state” solution. Some of us are not even sure our unions need to have a union position on geopolitical issues.

   One AFT delegate, Amy Lesser, from Los Angeles, holds a view many others in our union have expressed. She stated in a recent interview:

   “We are not international politicians,” she said. “And there is no foreign government that has any interest in what the teachers union or any labor union has to say about how they should function. . . . So the entire purpose behind these motions and these resolutions is that they generate a hostile teaching environment and learning environment for students.”

   Nonetheless, Unity didn’t bother to ask you or me, once again. They voted as a bloc in Houston, Texas, in the summer of 2024, for a “two-state solution” because of their oath that binds Unity delegates to vote for whatever the caucus leadership decides.

   

   ---

4. Divesting our pensions and union assets from Musk’s Tesla? - We all know that Randi and Unity are tied to the hip of the establishment Democrat machine. They may try to appear to be neutral but those of us who attend delegate assemblies heard when Mulgrew included us as part of the DNC’s operations. He blurred the lines with the DNC when he spoke about ‘WE’ will be door knocking and campaigning for the Harris for President campaign in Pennsylvania.

    
   Who can forget Randi and the UFT making public endorsements of Kamala Harris the minute front page news shared that Biden would no longer be running and Kamala had declared her candidacy before rank and file AFT delegates voted on the matter? They boasted about being the first union to endorse Kamala while unions like the Teamsters deliberated and polled all of their members. Teamsters did the unimaginable in Unity circles these days — they made no endorsement.

   Now that Harris lost the presidential election handily and Trump has included Elon Musk in his administration, Randi is really mad and obsessed about losing to the will of the American people, Trump and Musk. She dedicates a lot of her time and effort these days in a Twitter/X war with Elon and has gone as far as asking that pension and asset managers divest from Musk’s Tesla company.

   It seems that her personal politics and petty partisan online bickering now affect our financial bottom lines, too? Randi, have you reflected about why so much of the working class isn’t voting for your side these days?

   

5. The New York Health Act - Here’s a little secret Unity doesn’t want you to know. Retirees, take heed. Our union’s official position according to our highest-deliberative body is that the UFT SUPPORTS of the New York Health Act.

   
   Did you know that Unity is actually behind writing, motivating and passing the two UFT resolutions that affirm the union’s official support for the New York Health Act? They have a really crazy way of gaslighting us to deflect from their own deeds.

   In 2015, most of the left and even centrist Democrats were staunchly behind Bernie’s Medicare for All. For a season, it was politically cool and fashionable to support single-payer universal healthcare. Following the political headwinds of the day, Unity wrote and passed a resolution in support of NYHA that seeks to a create a single payer healthcare system for all in New York.

   In May of 2015, the former Unity-UFT Secretary, Emil Pietromonaco, can be found here motivating the Unity crafted UFT resolution in support of the New York Health Act. It passed overwhelmingly by the Unity dominated executive board. Shortly after, it passed overwhelmingly in their rubber stamp, Unity dominated delegate assembly.

Another Unity inspired reso in 2017 that affirmed our union stance on the New York Health Act was motivated by current UFT secretary, LeRoy Barr. It too passed overwhelmingly in the Unity-dominated exec board and delegate assembly.

So what changed? Why did Unity waffle on its own stance on the New York Health Act? Did they see the light? Did they finally realize it may affect retiree Medicare? Or did they have a “come to Jesus'“ moment as to how to fund it? No, the Biden-Harris campaign for President in 2020 changed the DNC’s views on single-payer universal healthcare, at least for now.

The 2020 Biden campaign may have still supported a path to universal healthcare but it also believed it could become a reality through privatization — rejecting a single payer option exclusively. We see this in his stated campaign positions.

We also see the AFT and Randi abandon its hardline single payer stance from the Bernie days and fall in line with the Biden-Harris privatized insurance plus public option view.

The Uniry-led AFT passed a resolution during the pandemic changing labor’s long held position regarding univeral healthcare with a single payer option to supporting the possibility of achieving it with “private insurance with a public option.”

Circa 2020, the current union leadership pulled back on its own single-payer healthcare position, despite their own resolutions in support of NYHA, and they began to publish contradictory anti-NYHA messaging on our union web pages. Mulgrew openly attacked the will of the union’s deliberative bodies and blamed union activists, except it strangely was their own Unity caucus machinations.

In this insider, establishment political see-saw game, they didn’t ask you or me. Their flip-flop regarding the New York Health Act wasn’t because they sought input from the membership. It had more to do with the Big Healthcare lobbyists having the ear of the Biden Administration while it fiercely lobbied in states that were considering a single-payer option or a public option.

So maybe they just changed their minds? So why not use the executive board and delegate assembly to change the union stance on NYHA?

These days they have no guarantees in ramming things through the DA because of their shrinking majority and why should they if Mulgrew can do whatever he wants without consent, even if the consent is performative.

Did they realize how it would impact their control of the Welfare Fund? Maybe. We also can’t discount Mulgrew’s dance with the City to achieve health care cost savings in exchange for retro raises and the bill that came due in 2018 . Or that he created a Medicare Advantage plan that sought to force Medicare eligible retirees into it to pay for his givebacks.

To Cuomo or Not to Cuomo?

A test of Unity’s disdain and mistrust of members will be on display during this pivotal upcoming mayoral election. Will Unity actually poll us for our desired endorsement picks as to who should be the next mayor of NYC? Would they bother to share the poll results with us? Already Unity apologists are making a case for disgraced, former Governor Andrew Cuomo who has a marred history steeped in anti public education and anti-union policies, creating Tier 6, and multiple allegations of sexual harassment of 13 women. Mulgrew already has shown his cards and thinks Cuomo is worthy of our consideration.

And still our voices and input don’t matter to Unity in our union’s political decisions. Member-driven? Not in 60 years. Not ever.

Member-divisive. Yes.

---

Up next: If a MORE-dominated ARISE coalition is elected, can it genuinely be MEMBER-DRIVEN?

Can MORE caucus and its political front groups, like Educators for Palestine, separate their own personal politics and personal agendas from leading our union?

---

We need new leadership that’s committed to being member-led, member-centered and MEMBERS FIRST. That’s why I’m voting for the A Better Contract slate. Caucuses like Unity and MORE only pursue their own self-preservation. While ABC believes in genuine member voice and referenda — no more decisions on big issues like political endorsements without bringing it to the membership, first.

---

A Casino in Queens or Time Square? - Most of us still don’t understand why he used the weight of the union or had union officers at public hearings fighting in this casino bidding war among the city’s billionaires as to whose project should be approved by the City. Mulgrew decided that he was firmly with Team Billionaire Steve Cohen and that Queens residents deserve a new casino in their backyard— not in a business district like Time Square. Mulgrew’s close ties to chief lobbyist, Louis Cholden-Brown, for Cohen’s casino empire bidding operation raises a lot of eyebrows. Should our union be involved in this? Were we consulted or briefed? Ha!