UFT 2025 Opposition Election Update: What are the Possibilities? A slate of people, not caucuses

Can a broad coalition be built without caucuses controlling the process? Let's avoid having a narrow group of people make fundamental decisions.

 

Anonymous comment: Can Unity Be Beaten in 2025 UFT Election? What was right and wrong with the UFC Coalition

Sun Tzu famously said that battles are won or lost before they begin. The general UFT election is now one year away and currently there is NO organized group right now ready to take on Unity. That fact alone is bad enough. The other fact is that another coalition effort will probably face the same challenges it did last time. Add to that, MORE has turned off a lot of rank and file UFT members with their radical/world political agenda that has nothing to do with our working conditions. Unity can be beat but a hardcore force must start NOW. Wednesday, June 26, 2024 at 11:38:00 AM ED

Norm health report: I ate a giant cheeseburger last night. 

 

Norm social report: After a doc appt and breakfast with my cousin visiting from Israel (only family, no political talk) I will head down to 52 to visit Bennett Fischer in the new RTC office on the 17th floor.

Wednesday, July 24

This is a follow-up to my June 26 pre-op post (Can Unity Be Beaten in 2025 UFT Election? What was right and wrong with the UFC Coalition) and I know I repeat myself but time is growing short and attention must be paid.

 

I've helped build 3 opposition caucuses in the UFT over the past 54 years (CSW in the 70s, ICE in the oughts and MORE a dozen years ago). And I was involved in the process of building a coalition of caucuses for the 2022 UFT election campaign (United for Change). 

 

I'm not a fan of the latter process, nor giving relatively few people from the caucus steering committees control. I don't think the steering committees of the caucuses should be the controlling force for this crucial upcoming election, especially since there is wide disparity in the different caucuses' approach. 

 

The landscape has changed in two years. James Eterno is gone and ICE is fundamentally me managing a listserve and getting things posted on the ICE blog occasionally and holding meetings every two months.

With Lydia, the heart and soul of Solidarity, out of the DOE, we have heard little from them. I know they do have a council, but other than that, they have not had any imprint on the UFT.

That leaves New Action and MORE as the caucuses with active UFTers and Retiree Advocate as the remaining members. RA with its big win is now very influential and also reps the biggest block of people in the UFT. 

A new game in town is the Fix Para Pay group that won seats overwhelmingly in the recent election. Paras represent a major block of 27k members in the UFT and a slate in next year's election must include them. If retirees and paras go oppo that is major and puts the 19 functional Ex Bd seats into play.

And there are new players emerging, though I'm not sure where that's going yet.

As for EONYC - the Daniel Alicea operation, he has joined New Action. But The Wire has great outreach and will be influential. Daniel is not limited by New Action in independent activities.

 

The MORE Problem

There are reports that there is a hard core group (a minority at this time) in MORE that doesn't think running in elections is worth the effort and oppose making coalition with groups that are not aligned with their politics. In my last days in MORE in the fall of 2018 when they wanted to run alone (a disaster as I predicted) I proposed they don't run and mess it up for the groups that did want to run. They decided to run a small campaign with the aim of not winning anything and fundamentally shit the bed. MORE learned its lesson and worked with the rest of the oppo in 2022. But who knows where they stand now?

For a deep dive on where MORE might go, read Ryan Bruckenthal May 16 (pre-RA and Para elections) and Peter Lamphere June 23 post election analysis at the MORE blog:

• The Movement of Rank and File Educators and the Case for an Inside/Outside Strategy to Build a Progressive Big Tent Within the UFT

• What could a grassroots UFT election campaign look like?

Both are influential in MORE and seem to favor coalition. Ryan even looks at working with Unity on some issues. I have some positive and negative analysis of both pieces but I'm too busy eating cheeseburgers to dig deep.

 

The problem seems to be how the other oppo people feel about the perception seeping into the rank and file that MORE's politics may be too far off the mainstream and working with them would cost votes: A feeling that MORE has taken its eye off the prize of focusing on the needs of UFT members. (See anon comment leading off this article.)

 

There are still questions over whether MORE will decide to work with others (see below for how that's worked out over the past few years), will go it alone or won't run at all. Frankly, with the big RA and Para election victories, which MORE supported but did not play a major role in, I don't see how they can miss the opportunity to win the overall election next year and thus be left out in the cold.

 

I still see some people compare MORE to CORE in Chicago, which won the union election less than 2 years after its founding. It's hard to believe, but as a founder of MORE, we started meetings to found MORE in 2011 -- MORE is over 13 years old and has no glimmer of winning a UFT election on its own. 

New Action has revived

In the 2019 4 caucus election, New Action finished last behind MORE, was packed with retirees and looked dead in the water. But they began to revive in the 2022 election and with powerhouse people like Nick Bacon and Daniel Alicea and others who have left MORE, New Action is back in the game. And key NA retirees are also involved with Retiree Advocate. What NA has is a very energetic outreach program to CL with a big mailing list covering hundreds of schools.

Retiree Advocate has astounded the UFT world with its recent 63% win in the chapter election, so some think RA holds the cards and the key to the 2025 UFT election. As a core member of the RA Organizing committee, I certainly have influence but I have mixed feelings about retirees playing the major role in a UFT election. We always criticized Unity for using retirees to control the election. But facts are facts. The retiree vote is major. Jonathan did an analysis that showed if retirees voted for us by the same margin in the 2022 election, we would have won by a narrow margin.

Still, I think relying on retirees to carry the day in forming an election slate is the wrong approach. But RA members must have a role but active UFT members must lead the way. But where will they come from? I would ask how many CL and Del to NA and MORE have after the recent chapter elections? I have no answers yet but those numbers would be a key to how much outreach an oppo would have in the schools. (Though in 2022 other than high schools I didn't see much growth in the elem and ms despite the CL in the caucuses.)

 

The UFC process in 2022 was too narrow and restrictive and never figured out how to reach into the rank and file to broaden the coalition. The stagnant vote outcomes in 2022 was proof of this failure. It will take going deeper into schools to shake the tree and build to a victory next year. Thus, I think an open call for people to get involved early might spark a reaction beyond the usual suspects. But the usual suspects may be reluctant to yield control to what might be an unknown mass.

 

Meeting secretly and hammering out a slate and springing it on people seems counterproductive but I don't have a simple alternative. Some way must be found of getting more people beyond the usual suspects involved in the process, necessary to win a resounding victory. RA won the RTC election by getting deep into the non-activist wing to gather 17k votes. Getting 300 people to run was one key factor.

We'd need almost 800 to fill a slate next year. That won't happen without a broad appeal. (Some are saying don't worry about the AFT/NYSUT delegates - let Unity have them. I absolutely disagree. That would be like RA only running officers and letting Unity have the DA.

 

The genesis of UFC for the 2022 UFT election

Just about 3 years ago, private calls went out to all the caucuses or semi-caucuses (New Action, Solidarity, MORE, ICE) and other independent sources (EONYC) to start meeting to form a coalition to run against Unity in the spring of 2022.

Meetings with 2 reps from each group ensued to knock out a platform (relatively easy) and come up with a slate of candidates (hard). And the games ensued with a lot of angst, some blowups and lingering resentment. But once the candidates were settled by early January, the UFC coalition (mostly) came together for the petitioning (which I coordinated - so I saw first hand which individuals in which groups were doing the work). As for the campaign, there was some coordination but the campaign was mostly the same old, same old -- run around the city stuffing leaflets in mail boxes. I'd bet if we did no mass stuffing and just focused on the schools where we had live bodies to get out the vote, we'd do better.

The election outcome with the big win of the 7 high school seats and rising percentages in other divisions were cheered by many in UFC, but not by me as the UFC totals in middle school (under 1000 votes) and elementary schools and probably functional fundamentally matched the MORE/New Action numbers from 2016 - except the retiree numbers which hit 30%. Given the amount of groups and people involved in the UFT effort, I viewed the 2022 election as a dud.

Here were quick takeaways from my May 22, 2022 post:

• Unity got slammed, losing votes in all divisions compared to the past.
• I thought newbie UFCers who actually thought we would win would be crushed - instead many were excited and already talking about 2025.
  
• UFC didn't pick up what Unity dropped (except possibly in retirees and a little bit in high schools), just about matching the 2016 oppo numbers. Beware of those calling this a great victory. At this rate of growth I will be 101 when the oppo wins in 2046.
  
• UFC gained from 2019 oppo disaster and restored a sense of an opposition, getting the most votes the oppo has ever gotten, winning the high schools with 55% and almost winning the middle schools with 44% and closing the gap in elementary and winning 33% overall, the closest in a long time.  Despite the gains, UFC did not get out the vote as well as I expected. I began the campaign thinking we could win all three teaching divisions. While we did get 44% of the teacher vote, that is due mostly to Unity's failure to bring out its vote, not due to UFC getting a big turnout - matching 2016 is still status quo - as is winning the 7 HS Ex Bd as we did in 2016. Let's say UFC could win in 2025 or 2028 -- with these numbers? I'm not sure there is enough of a union underneath to deliver.
  
• Is spending enormous time and money flooding teacher mail boxes with lit - for both Unity and oppo - really worth it. Also - we thought social media would bring out votes -- it didn't. Few will agree with me on these points but I will continue to stand by them. The numbers prove it.
• Possibly the biggest achievement of the 2022 election may be the very existence of a United for Change broad coalition. While formed as a temporary vehicle for this election, there are signs UFC will continue in some form while giving each caucus space to develop. The 7 electeds represent all the groups and the candidates have pledged to continue working together. I love that they come from MORE, Solidarity, New Action, ICE - but also they are broad-minded to see outside their own caucus. Preliminary meetings indicate excitement at working together.
  

Well, I was right on everything but the last point about UFC continuing in some form. Turns out the primary aims of some caucuses (guess which?) was their own growth and development and UFC was forgotten the day after the election. Calls for UFC to meet fell on deaf ears in some quarters - but UFC did continue through the high school reps meeting and communicating - for the first year before things began to fall apart this school year, totally fragmenting the UFC high school reps.

Thousands of UFT members voted for UFC, not for any one caucus. I remind you of the 2019 disaster when 3 caucuses ran independently. So the rank and file want a coalition and are not happy with fragmentation. Caucuses should not get the idea it was them. It was the idea of a united opposition that got these vote.

So only some kind of coalition is necessary. But I do not trust the same process as took place in 2022 - behind closed door secret meetings where each group had veto power - an unworkable situation going forward.

 

So can Humpty Dumpty be put back together again? I say no. We need a new paradigm that is inclusive of people from caucuses but does not give any caucus itself major control of an opposition group. A slate of people, not caucuses.

 

Thus I propose moving towards some ad hoc group of individuals that put something together with people from all the caucuses involved but not slaves to caucus veto or controls. This is not easy because caucuses are so proprietary -- though I feel RA is less so than others.

But say we did cobble together a coalition of sorts, and won, here is a warning:

France’s Left Has a New Star, and a Fresh Crisis

Marine Tondelier, leader of the Green Party, helped bring the left together to win France’s parliamentary elections. Now can she help keep it from falling apart?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/18/world/europe/france-green-party-marine-tondelier.html

 

“Our voters are screaming, ‘Do not betray us!’’’ Ms. Tondelier said in an interview last week in the modest headquarters of the Greens in the 10th District of Paris, an area once known principally for its two big train stations but which has, of late, acquired a hip reputation. “We have to be a government of combat, a government of action, of social justice,” she added. “It won’t be simple, easy, evident or comfortable, but we must make the effort.”

 

the parties of the alliance — the Greens, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the far-left France Unbowed of Jean-Luc Mélenchon — squabble. They have deadlocked over nominations for prime minister, taken to reciprocal insults, broken their promise of unity and generally floundered.

France Unbowed, whose pugnacious Mr. Mélenchon sees himself as the figurehead of the entire French left, has accused the Socialist Party of “vetoing any candidacy from the New Popular Front with the sole aim of imposing its own.” Olivier Faure, the Socialist leader, responded that he did not see “why the word of one should be imposed on all the others.”

All this has been too much for Ms. Tondelier, who by Wednesday was in an incandescent mood in an interview with the France 2 television network. “I am angry, disgusted and fed up,” she said. “And I feel desperate at the spectacle we are offering the French people.”

Every minute of the “ridiculous” internecine fights of the left only “won votes for the National Rally,” she said.

The left’s travails and divisions are nothing new. But for the seven million people who voted in the decisive second round of the election for the New Popular Front, the current disarray is dispiriting. Ten days ago, they danced in the streets. Their hopes were as varied as an improved minimum wage and protection for disappearing bird life in the French countryside.

 

 

UFT Elections: Boycott?- Why Run at all if Unity stacks the deck? - The Sunday Special

You know that bogus Einstein quote about the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes.

One thing never tried it a total boycott of UFT elections.

Sunday, Sept. 12 -- I keep asking myself this question every single election cycle. What's the point of running if you are bound to lose? Over 30 years the best the opposition could do was once win 13 Ex Bd seats (1991) and win the 7 high school seats most of the rest of the time. History counts -- the vote totals on all the elections are pretty consistent. 

Why is this year different/ (I know, it's Yom Kippur coming up, not Passover.) 

Well, there is the always eternal hope that there will be a head to head confrontation between a united opposition and Unity -- which we had (sort of) in 2016. Then there is the unpopularity of Mulgrew. Then there is the mishandling of the pandemic by the UFT on so many fronts. Then there is the union's turning off so many retirees, the lifeblood of Unity, by taking away their medicare. Then there was the OT/PT functional chapter revolt where MORE swept the chapter leader and delegate positions, a sigificant event. Then there is word from other functional chapters. Then there were the school chapter elections last year where anti-Unity voices made some headway. Then there is Educators of NYC run by Daniel Alicea who actually voted for Unity in 2019 but has become a strong critical independent voice. I bet there are a bunch of people out there like Daniel.

Then there is  ...... PLEASE STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE MYSELF TO PUT ANY TIME OR EFFORT INTO ANOTHER UFT ELECTION.

There is the history of elections where no matter how I get my hopes up the outcome is pretty much the same.

I was deeply involved in UFT elections in 2004, 07, 10 (ICE), 13, 16 (MORE). I was out of the 2019 elections as I was in the process of being purged from MORE for publicly disagreeing with the faction in control of MORE that engineered the decision not only to not run with other groups but to purposely run in a way to not contend for any winnable positions - A minimalist campaign for what purpose I still can't figure out. Ed Notes covered the contradiction in their position in March, 2019.

My final words to the MOREs was to either run with everyone in a serious manner to maximize the anti-Unity vote with the aim of winning the high schools and taking a serious shot at the middle schools or not run at all but use the election (which occupies a great deal of time) time saved as an organizing tool for the caucus. I told the MOREs that an election is like a high stakes test for a caucus. At the very least it must hold its own in vote totals but most people other than hard core organizers (like I was) get discouraged if these numbers don't grow. I can't tell you how many people I saw pass through the groups I was in over these 50 years.

I have been urging boycotts of UFT elections in every election since 2010 to emphasize the undemocratic nature of the UFT itself where winning an election is almost impossible. Why run of the outcome is pre-decided? John Lawhead from ICE and now Solidarity Caucus came up with the idea of uncaucusing for the elections and focusing on issues of concern to the members without engaging in the cumbersome and often distracting election process. Behind my idea was to leave the membership with no options on the ballot other than Unity as a wake-up call. I know that prospect actually scares the Unity people because it exposes them. If there were no opposition running Unity would make one up.

I was overruled every time and ended up throwing myself deep into the elections. I ran the petitioning campaigns for MORE in 2013, 2016 along with Ellen Fox. The MORE decision in 2019 relieved me of all that work and sitting out the election was a relief.

Now we are upon yet another UFT election cycle for 2022 and we are in the same position  - will the opposition come together this time with a united front challenge to Unity? So far most of the various caucus and uncaucus groups have spoken as Retiree Advocate, ICE, Solidarity, New Action, Educators of NYC - and even this lonely spot - Ed Notes - have endorsed that idea with rumors that MORE was taking a membership vote that ended Friday on a positive note.

The hard part would be to put everyone together in a room and lock the doors. The best thing about this election is that I will be outside that room blocking the exits.

Previous Ed Notes

Everything you wanted to know about UFT Elections ...

UFT Elections (Part 1) - Historical Analysis - Comparing the 2016 success and the 2019 disaster

UFT Slate Ballot 2016                   

    UNITY

    MORE/New Action  

 

UFT Slate Ballot 2019

    UNITY

    Solidarity

    MORE

    New Action

The real losers in all of this Norm is the active teacher base... Comment on Ed Notes 2019 UFT election report, May 23, 2019

As we approach another UFT general election cycle in the spring of 2022, I've been looking back at the various coalitions and where I've stood. 

I've always been ambivalent about the election process, though until the last election in 2019, I had thrown myself deeply into the battle since 2004. A group of independents, unhappy with the then state of the caucuses, formed a new caucus, ICE/UFT, specifically to run in that election, mainly because the predominant caucus, New Action, had made a deal with Randi that enraged the other anti-Unity forces. TJC was already out there but many felt they were a closed box, undemocratic and dominated by a few voices with a narrow agenda. People were upset at both TJC and NA.

The creation of a new caucus went against my normal grain. When I began Education Notes in 1997 I tried to make it a unifying force and in fact soon after the 2001 UFT elections I called a meeting of all interest groups and independents in the UFT to unite for the next elections, but also to begin working together instead of in separate silos inside the UFT, especially at Delegate Assemblies. After an almost fist fight at the second meeting I have up and instead began to drift toward bringing people together around some of the principle issues I was addressing in Ed Notes, which led to the formation of ICE a few years later.

Generally I have always been in favor of caucuses uniting, either permanently as in 1995, when New Action emerge out of the merger of New Directions and Teachers Action Caucus and in 2012 when ICE and Teachers for a Just Contract merged into MORE (along with other groups). 

At the time, MORE looked like it could unite most of the anti-Unity forces and form one umbrella opposition caucus - a big tent. Unfortunately, within a few short years divisions opened up and the alliance of ICE and TJC proved to have weak bonds -- MORE is now controlled by many of the original TJCC people while ICE is out in the cold.

I've taken various positions regarding UFT elections in 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, at times advocating a boycott and using the election as a means to pointing out how it is rigged in Unity's favor. But few agreed with me, their juices running at the very thought of an election, even if the process occupies months of time where organizing actually doesn't take place -- I base this on the outcomes of previous elections where some people not in the opposition literati get active briefly with the expectation we could win and then when the reality of seeing Mulgrew get 80-85% of the vote, fade into the woodwork.

I changed my mind in 2016 when New Action left its alliance with Unity and joined with MORE in an election coalition and we knew we could win the 7 high school seats. And we did win those seats. Barely, but we won. I remember arguing with some of the resisters in MORE who liked to run only if they wouldn't win anything that winning even 7% of the Ex Bd offered hope to the anti-Unity rank and file. And our electeds did yeoman duty - holding open pre-ex bd meetings and bringing a wide range of  people to advocate for their causes at the meetings.

That model of winning even 7% of the Ex Bd - as opposed to the outcome of 2019 where Unity won 100% - is a prime motivating factor in an attempt to bring all groups together to win those seats -- and hopefully some others in the middle and elementary schools. If all three teacher divisions were won, that would be 23% of the Ex Bd.

Outside the internal literati of the UFT, the average UFT member doesn't have much of a clue as to the differences between the various caucuses -- or even give a much of a shit. Fundamentally they often ask, "Why can't you guys get together? You are asking us to vote for you instead of Unity and even small groups like you can't come together?" Don't forget, 70% of UFT members don't vote, even higher in the teacher divisions. A non-vote is in essence a rejection of Unity and the opposition. And I believe that multiple caucuses running against Unity suppresses the vote further.

In 2019, after a successful 2016 campaign by a coalition of MORE and New Action, MORE inexplicably decided to break that alliance and run a lone campaign that was designed to purposely NOT win anything. 

In my last months in MORE I was taking part in these debates and offered two options -- either run as a united front with other caucuses and indepenents so voters face a clearly defined choice between Unity and an opposition, or don't run at all and use the election to focus on issues. Both ideas were rejected and eventually I was forced out of MORE for writing about the debate.

The outcome was a disaster from the point of electoral politics as MORE finished third behind Solidarity which had not even been able to have enough candidates to get rccognized as a slate in 2016. 

A big question on the minds of the usual suspects thinking ahead to the 2022 elections is will MORE make the same mistake, a mistake that the caucus has not been open about -- or even informed its many new members, some of whom have been in touch asking what happened?

In 2016 MORE/New Action had about 10,600 votes and a non-slate candidate for president had 1400. That was 12,000 votes against Unity, a number matching some of the better outcomes for the opposition over history. 

The total vote of three opposition caucuses running independently in 2019 was less than 7,000. How did such a disastrous outcome occur over a 3 year period? See theEd Notes Election report

The only way to challenge Unity is to have one slate go head to head, not a smorgasbord of opposition groups that only confuse the membership.

I've been hearing from people who listened to my discussion with Leo Casey and Daniel Alicea of UFT history in its early decades on the "Talk Out of School" WBAI broadcast last Saturday. 

Some have pointed to our not getting to the issue of opposition groups in the union that were opposed to Unity Caucus since 1962. And there have been quite a few such groups over the decades. I've helped found three or four (depending on how you classify them) since the 70s.

Having a clean choice of Unity vs one opposition is important for the average, non-involved in UFT internal politics voter - or non-voter.

UFT Slate Ballot 2016                   

    UNITY

    MORE/New Action                        

*Solidarity did not have the required 40 to be listed as a slate, but did run as individuals.  

 

Outcome: MORE/NA received almost 11,000 votes and the Solidarity presidential candidate 1400 votes. MORE/NA also won the 7 high school Ex Bd. seats

 

UFT Slate Ballot 2019

    UNITY

    Solidarity

    MORE

    New Action                                                                                              

Outcome: No ex bd seats - total of all opposition groups less than 8000.

The 2019 UFT election with 3 opposition slates on the ballot was an absolute disaster to have slid back so far after the gains of 2016.

So with elections coming up next year, here we are with the same situation,

I have examined my thinking over the years and firmly believe that I and many of my colleagues from back to the early 70s have tried to bring the opposition forces together for UFT elections and in other areas, like the Delegate Assembly.

The caucus system has often interfered with thee goals. Every small pond must have its big cheeses. But let's agree that there will always be one of more opposition caucus in the UFT, as there has been since the 1960s. The most successful outcomes have come when caucuses came together for general elections -- and of course I don't mean actually winning the election since Unity has had control since the inception of the UFT in 1960 - but in vote totals and winning some seats on the Ex Bd.

One of the most successful coming together elections was in 1981 when three competing caucuses - New Directions (ND), Teachers Action Caucus (TAC), Coalition of School Workers (CSW) - plus independents -  joined to form New Action Coalition - taking one word from the name of each caucus. (In 1995 New Directions and TAC merged to form the current New Action.) We signed up a full slate of 800 people to run - see photo below. And we held large petition signing events attended by hundreds who also picked up literature to distribute in their schools. That election coalition lasted though the 90s and won the high school VP position in 1985 and high school and middle school ex bd seats in the 90s - in fact has continuously won the high schools on the whole -- until 2019.

We truly all didn't get along very well but put aside the rancor of the 70s and even if it took years, this coalition began to make some headway, culminating in winning the HS VEEP in 1985 and 13 Ex Bd seats in 1991.

Many of us believe we are in a unique moment in UFT history, with signs there may be some slippage in the retiree vote and Unity fumbling on a host of issues, putting the high school and middle school ex bd seats in play. And some signs of elementary school disaffection. 

With so many teachers not voting in the past, a GOTV campaign using the many retirees who have become activated and working through the Retiree Advocate group, which itself has cross caucus people from New Action, ICE, a few former MOREs and independents might offer a change to make a dent in Unity, even if winning the whole thing may not be in the cards.

Election lit, 1981:

My UFT Election Choices: Duke Breaks Bracket, Ex-MORES In Play on Unity Slate - Yes, My Choices are Personal

An ecclectic group for sure:
5 for Solidarity, 4 for Unity, 3 for MORE
Howrilka, Portelos, Sill, Manning, Brown, De Jesus, Lupkin, Prosen, Hinds, Severenson, Zannoni, Diaz - Below, the reasons for why I voted for whom and why I didn't vote for whom - if you dare to wade through the muck.

People have been emailing asking me and others - Gloria has had numerous requests too - for voting recommendations - not for March Madness but for the UFT election. Today is the big reveal. Warning -  it's a long a tedious read. (I will make my final election voting outcome predictions before April 17.)

Duke, the Unity Caucus of the NCAA loses - a harbinger?

Unitymustgo: Here’s why I say no to MORE

Voting in the 2019 UFT Elections

I'm postponing publishing my list of people I voted for to publish this.

Unitymustgo! -- Here’s why I say no to MORE. Currently there are several posts/ads from MORE on my Facebook stream. Not one of them speaks of fighting for me. They all speak about social justice issues. That’s all well and good, but I believe the primary purpose of a union is to fight to improve the working conditions and benefits of the people who pay them. Period. Do I care about social issues? Sure I do. Are there tons of social issues that affect our students? Yup there are. They affect many of our members to. Do I believe a teacher’s union should speak up about the social issues that affect members and students? Yes, yes I do. But, and here’s the thing, if you think, I think, the real issue(s) I have with our union is that Unity just doesn’t focus enough on social issues, well then you are really woefully out of touch with your fellow members. Perhaps, even more so than Unity. Not to go off on a tangent, but I actually think Unity isn’t so much out of touch with the real daily, grinding, piercing travesties members have to deal with. I think they have made a conscious calculated decision not to do much about any of it. MORE’s messaging makes me think MORE doesn’t get the simple idea, that members who don’t vote aren’t not voting because they are just so frustrated that the UFT just isn’t doing enough about social justice issues. Nor, does MORE seem to get the even bigger and even simpler idea that those members who are out there actually seeking alternative leadership are most definitely not doing so because of social justice issues. HEAR ME Unity. HEAR ME MORE, HEAR me anybody that wants my support. I want my union to focus on me. Period. There is plenty to do to improve the working conditions and benefits of our members. Can someone? Anyone? Just do that. ....comment on "UFT Election Update: I Vote Thrice": 

There's one point about MORE and the reason you don't see the kind of angst from them about the way teachers are treated in schools. Most of them have found "safe" schools and they bring other MOREs in so we have a few clusters of people working in some of the better schools in the city - which allows them the luxury to focus on social justice instead of the fight for daily survival.

Yesterday I published another comment from Unity Must Go, a longtime anti-Unity chapter leader who has supported the opposition for a decade - he seemed somewhat reluctantly to decide to vote for Solidarity:  UFT Elections: Solidarity Picking up Defections from MORE

The problem with Solidarity is that its main boast is a web site, not a presence in the schools. Now if people like Unitymustgo who is a CL with his own constituency goes beyond voting for Solidarity, they might yet become a real caucus with real people doing real things.

Fighting Unity requires being in the schools --  as you can see from the ballot they have 750-800 running -- while many are retirees and staffers for the UFT, many are also chapter leaders and delegates and have constituencies in their schools. The total of 3 caucuses is less than 150.

Is there a life for the opposition after this election? Let's see how many people see things the way Unitymustgo does. I heard a rough straw poll in what has been a strong opposition and pro-MORE school until now where there were a number of people who had voted for MORE now voting for Unity, and not one vote for Solidarity with one vote for New Action.

While UnityMustGo resisted in 2013, he decided to run with MORE in 2016.

When I met with him in his school and we went for lunch during the last election he mentioned that in his district CL meetings everyone seemed to be Unity or Unity supporters. I pointed to a chapter leader in his district who had always been an ICE supporter and ran with ICE - he hadn't realized that. I've always maintained that anti-Unity CLs should use the monthly CL meetings as an organizing tool. But that hasn't happened, even among the so-called militants.

In my mind, he is a prototypical rank and filer any opposition would want to organize as a backbone of challenging Unity in the schools. But - and this is not an accident - MORE doesn't want people like him precisely because of what he said in his comment -- he wants a union to fight for HIM, not social justice. And MORE doesn't want these type of people.

I don't quite agree with him since I feel there needs to be a balance of SJ and teacher rights.

That was the essence of the internal struggle in MORE from day 1 when it was organized -- I felt we - mostly the ICE people - we were SJ people too - and some allies - kept some balance between SJ and bread and butter --  but ultimately we lost the internal battle.

And we lost because an non-elected faction of MORE vigilantes decided to take drastic action against what they viewed as the opposition to their plan to morph more away from a broad tent - the ICE core. I still think there are a number of MORE supporters who have no idea what really occurred. But they seem perfectly happy to not have the rancor internally even at the expense of democracy -- an analogy to what we see generally in politics.

--- but Unity Must GO is right about the MORE messaging. It is purposely designed to not attract him or the mainstream of the UFT but a particular slice of young social justice oriented teachers - it's a dog whistle and the entire election for MORE in not running to win anything in a limited campaign was to have the opportunity to put out those dog whistles in the hope of attracting the left in the UFT. And they have been successful to a limited extent with new people who are fundamentally clueless about the UFT - some still call me for info.

A key event for MORE is the monthly happy hours with teachers from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) before the MORE meetings -- this has become the main organizing tool of MORE.

So for those who think MORE may be going away, don't bet on it -- there will always be a left in the UFT who will go along with the program put out by MORE. Expect them to operate the same way in the 2022 UFT elections. The problem with the MORE plan is that it actually makes Unity stronger and gives them even less influence - but they don't worry about that -- MORE is about recruitment, not influencing real change.

I wouldn't be shocked to see the exact same scenario played out in 2022. Which is why I advocate throwing in the towel in terms of a formal opposition to Unity - just don't run in elections. And why I support Arthur, Mike and Mindy for running with Unity where they are at least free to advocate - in a limited manner --- but given the alternative what else is there to do? My problem with them is voting the straight Unity slate, endorsing a caucus that has made Unity Must Go so disgusted - and a betrayal of loyal supporters of our blogs like him. At best it is insensitive politically.

I may organize a post-election forum which I will call: What is to be done? (ref, intentional).

State of the Union (UFT): Elections and the Opposition Caucuses - A Continuing Saga - Part 1

Introduction

Over the next 4 months I will be doing a series of posts on the state of the union in the UFT, tapping into information about all the caucuses.

I can only hope that the folly of 3 opposition caucuses comes to an end and a strong force to stand up to Unity Caucus emerges to penetrate deeply enough into the schools to reach the 99.9% of the rank and file who don't give a crap about the caucuses.

That is what I will fight for -- bringing people, even with different political tendencies, under one banner to force change in the UFT. I am getting as much of this information on record before I lose all my faculties as a possible lesson for future activists in the UFT. Untangling this mess will take more than one blog.

Having been an active participant in the UFT opposition politics since 1970, I would say this is the weakest state of the opposition for decades, if not ever. With the opening of the UFT election season, it is time to review the disastrous state of the opposition to Unity Caucus as Unity is set to win every single seat on the Executive Board for the first time since the 1993 elections.

The opposition of three caucuses under the NAC label (since the 1981 election) had won 13 Ex Bd seats in 1991 and also won the high school VP in 1985. Now we have regressed to having 3 opposition caucuses running on their own and splitting the usual 10-12,000 opposition votes in the UFT.

So in this, and upcoming posts, let me survey the state of the UFT opposition from an historical and current perspective and why things look so dismal for the growth of the opposition in the future as we live deja vu all over again.

While I remain involved in the periphery of MORE I am non-sectarian in terms of other caucuses. I like the people in New Action and the work they do and I have tried to make peace with the people in Solidarity. I continue to organize ICEUFT meetings once a month and invite people from all caucuses to come. I think we are the one place where all groups can sit down and talk.

For the first time since the 2004 elections, there will be 3 opposition slates to choose from in the UFT elections.

• New Action
• MORE
• Solidarity 
• ICEUFT remains in operation but as a non-participant in elections.

This is the most confusion since 2004 when there were actually 4 opposition caucuses, with ICE being the newest. But At least in 2004 ICE and TJC were on the ballot in separate lines but ran a joint cross-endorsed slate for the high schools against New Action and won them (ICE ran with PAC as ICE-PAC). The last time before 2004 I can remember where there were 3 opposition slates on the ballot was - well, never. So we are in unprecedented territory here.

I've written a few blogs about the current situation with the opposition in the UFT:
UFT Election Season Opens, Does Anybody Care?
UFT Election Update: It's Beat Up MORE Time as it ...
UFT Caucus and Election History: 1962 - Present

Let me point out that none of the caucuses have more than 20-50 real members - actually less -  and in fact each are run by a small coterie of people numbering single digits who make the real decisions. Imagine -- the truly active core of all the opposition groups total 30 at most.

The saddest is MORE, which had so much promise when it was founded in 2012 and now seem proud to have shrunk in the name of unity under a single political line which it thinks will resonate with the membership. (More on MORE isolationism in future posts.)

Election petitions go out at the January 16, 2019 Del Ass and are due in mid-February. Ballots go out in mid March and are due back by April 16, with the count April 17. As a non-participant in the elections for the first time since 2001, the outcome will provide some lessons and will be fascinating to watch.

I'm urging a boycott for the election process - not only a boycott against Unity but also against an opposition that cannot come together, with each group trying to convince people that their position is best.

Why would people choose any of them? How could any of them claim they could run the union when they can't even agree with each other?

The number of non-voters will be a vote and send a message to the opposition to get their houses in order before the 2022 election.

UFT Election Season Opens, Does Anybody Care?

Well, apparently some people care. Just not enough to make much of a difference. Today, the UFT Ex Bd will set up the election timetable. There is an election committee chaired by Amy Arundell. They met last week with one rep from each of three caucuses plus a dozen Unity Caucus members. Why shouldn't Unity get a 12-1 advantage?

Below is the column I submitted to The WAVE for publication Dec 7.

I'm still holding to my boycott the election position.

School Scope: UFT Election Season Opens, Does Anybody Care?
By Norm Scott

The UFT has announced its timetable for the upcoming UFT elections. Petitioning will take place from mid-January to mid-February and ballots will go out late March, to be returned by mid-April. I already know the results not because I can read the future but because I can read the past.

Every three years the 200,000 member United Federation of Teachers, elects its leadership. Actually, it re-elects its leadership, as it has done since the union was founded in 1962. Many UFT members are not aware that there are political parties – caucuses - in the UFT. There are a number of them. Currently they are MORE, New Action and Solidarity. ICE-UFT was an election caucus through 2010, but currently exists to meet in a diner once a month to gossip about the other caucuses and eat rice pudding.

Unity Caucus has won every election and has set up rules to assure its election in perpetuity. Sort of like those Republican controlled states which have gerrymandered their way to victory. At least there is a chance every10 years to make changes. Not so in the UFT, which is fundamentally a monarchy.

The only area of weakness shown by Unity has been in the high schools, where Unity has lost by a small margin in almost every election since the early 90s. There are about 20,000 high school UFT members, of which about 4500 voted in the last election. The opposition, if they can agree to unite for the elections without scratching each others’ eyes out, can win the seven (out of 101) Executive Board seats. In 2013 Unity garnered a paltry 1580 high school votes. The opposition did even worse but smartened up by coming together in 2016 and won with 2350 votes. Not exactly a mandate but it was still 150 more than Unity got. Actually, Unity increased its vote by about 500 from 2013. But still, embarrassing. The Unity Caucus union leadership, with all its advantages, can garner the support of only 2200 out of potential 20,000 votes. Sad.

As for the rest of the UFT, there is fundamentally one big yawn among the 70% of the membership which doesn’t vote.

One would think you’d have to be nuts to get involved in an election you have no chance to win. But lo and behold, in every election cycle, one or more non-Unity caucuses decide to throw their chalk into the ring. I, for instance, have been a very active participant in every election cycle with a variety of caucuses since the 2004 election. That’s five elections where I ended up putting in months of work. For the record, I am nuts.

In the 2016 election my goal was to win the seven high school Executive Board seats and we accomplished that. This time none of the three caucuses could come together, so there will be three opposition groups competing for those 2300 votes. Which means, Unity will win the high schools in addition to every other position. Yes, I’ve been nuts when it comes to UFT elections over the past 15 years. Not this time.

Norm’s nuts at ednotesonline.com

UFT Opposition Update: Not All Peace and Harmony as 2019 Elections Approach

Representatives of MORE and New Action met recently to discuss running in the UFT election and from what we hear the coalition would not include Solidarity Caucus.

With the disagreements between some people in ICEUFT and MORE many ICEers do not want to work with MORE/NA in the election.

And there is a faction of New Action that will ONLY be involved in the election if Solidarity is included. A crucial vote in New Action will take place at the beginning of November. Some members of New Action are threatening to leave the caucus if the anti-Solidarity faction prevails.

MORE doesn't meet until October 27 and there are people in MORE supposedly who do not want to run in the election. And further, Unity has been doing some recruiting among the people they see as disaffected from all the caucuses.

Are you confused? It is time for me to do a series of blog posts (or maybe a book) about the history of the opposition and the current state of opposition politics in the UFT and why I and others have basically given up on the idea that we can affect much of a change in a UFT dominated by the too big to fail Unity Caucus. 

Is it worth the enormous amount of time and energy it takes to even run in a UFT election just to possibly win 7 high school seats on a 100 member Executive Board? Is it worth the time and energy to print up leaflets and go to a Delegate Assembly just to make a point in a sea of Unity? If I saw something bubbling up in the schools, maybe it would be worth it.

I had hopes for MORE -- until a year ago. I'll get into why I no longer have faith that MORE can ever challenge Unity in follow-up blogs over the next few months as I report on UFT internal politics.

I had envisioned MORE as a big tent caucus that everyone in an interest in beating Unity could coalesce in. That is no longer true as MORE has morphed into a group that knows it cannot win but instead wants to use its organizational initiatives to push certain ideological positions on the UFT leadership --- a lobby/pressure group of sorts.

After 6 years of life what I see are still very few schools with real activity based on MORE initiatives. In fact, I think MORE has less schools now than it did 6 years ago. And yes Virginia, size does matter in terms of ability to influence the direction of the union.

James Eterno has an optimistic report on last Friday's ICEUFT meeting attended by people connected to the various grouplings within the UFT that would be termed "the opposition."

ICEUFT Blog ICEUFT MEETING BRINGS TOGETHER MEMBERS OF ALL UFT OPPOSITION GROUPS

James says:

.... the groups seem to have much more in common in wanting a powerful union than what divides us. The leaders of the various opposition groups might not always agree on the general direction for the movement but I learned at the ICEUFT meeting that there is plenty of common ground.

James is hoping there will be opportunities to work together in the upcoming contract ratification vote and in the UFT elections in 2019.

After almost 50 years of being part of opposition politics in the UFT, I'm not as hopeful. Being optimistic is not a bad thing - as long as we have a dose of reality tossed in.

James pointed out that

ICEUFT was joined by members from New Action UFT and Solidarity caucuses. Since some of the people in ICEUFT are still part of MORE (the Movement of Rank and File Educators, all of the opposition groups to Michael Mulgrew and Randi Weingarten's Unity Caucus within the UFT were represented at the ICEUFT meeting..... http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/iceuft-meeting-brings-together-members.html

Why are there so many grouplings and factions in the UFT?
In fact there was only a faction of New Action since there are some splits brewing over the UFT elections and who to run with. And there was only a faction of MORE present. I don't know enough about Solidarity.

When asked why the different caucuses and the non-aligned who oppose Unity Caucus in the UFT don't join together I answer with a question of my own:

Why is there a MORE, New Action, Solidarity, ICEUFT?
Given the relative small size of the number of activists, why is there more than one caucus? And not only that, why are there factions within caucuses? I guess the answer to the 2nd question explains the first. Unless a caucus - or any political group - understands that factions will exist and makes provisions for that, there will inevitably be splits and the formation of other caucuses. And when they are so weak they combine (see below for the 1995 NAC creation and the 2012 MORE creation as a result of mergers of sorts.)

And in the UFT where there is a dominant one party system of control under Unity, not having one opposition caucus under one tent spells ultimate doom for the opposition. That has proven true over the 50 years of opposition politics.

TAC
Since the first opposition caucus formed - Teachers Action Caucus (TAC) after the 1968 strike --- they were people who opposed the strike ---- there has never really been a time where there was just one big tent caucus in opposition to Unity. There were coalitions of caucuses that came together for UFT elections, but went their own way otherwise. In effect they were competing for the same few potential activists at the expense of the other caucuses.

New Directions merges with TAC
ND was a group that split off from the group I was in in the 70s -- Coalition of School Workers (CSW) which basically stopped functioning around 1981 but came back to life as ICE in 2003.

New Action came the closest to being the one opposition caucus in town when TAC merged with New Directions in 1995 after having had electoral success as a coalition of caucuses and independents in the 1991 election when they won 13 Ex Bd seats.

What is funny is that the current issues in NA run along the TAC people vs the ND people -- and ideology plays a role.  That's 23 years later and there are still latent issues.

NAC made their deal with Unity in 2003 in prep for the 2004 UFT election where they did not run a candidate for president against Randi Weingarten after she "guaranteed" them the 6 high school Ex Bd seats.


TJC and ICE
That led to the formation of two caucuses to fight against that deal --- Teachers for a Just Contract (TJC) and Independent Community of Educators (ICE-UFT). TJC had already been around for a decade but not as a caucus. The 2004 election was their first foray. We formed ICE in late 2003 because many independents did not find TJC conducive to being a truly democratic caucus but under the control of a few sectarians with a definitive ideological position that left little room for dissenting opinions.

There was immediate friction between ICE and TJC that never went away even though we won the high school seats in 2004 and ran together in 2007 and 2010.

MORE and GEM
Both caucuses were withering away with no growth - actually they shrank. Some of us in ICE saw that and organized a non-caucus -- GEM in 2009 that was non-sectarian and looked beyond internal UFT politics. GEM attracted enough people who began to think that a non-sectarian open caucus was possible.

Thus was born MORE in 2011-12 where the members of TJC and ICE came together with others. But the political tensions that had existed between ICE and TJC since 2003 never went away. And the recent splits in MORE represent those tensions where the TJC faction over the past 6 months to a year gained ascendancy and has tried to push the ICE people out. Many have abandoned MORE over the ideological differences.

So when James points to MORE people being at the ICE meeting, it is actually the ICE people still involved in MORE but at as an inconsequential level of influence.

Factions in caucuses

Unity Caucus does not seem to have factions. It runs by democratic centralism -- where even if you disagree, you must support the will of the majority or be forced out. Now some people in Unity have been talking behind the scenes that there is a faction in Unity that wants changes as a way to recruit people aligned with the divided opposition. I heard that line from Randi and crew back in the late 90s. It is just blowing smoke.

I believe that recognizing factions and holding debates on where people are divided so as to forge some common agreements is a healthy thing for a caucus and a union.

At the organizing meetings for MORE In 2011, all factions were there and sent 2 reps to each meeting. I brought up numerous times that we should explore what divided ICE and TJC as a way to resolve future issues. I was told we should only focus on what unites us not divides us. I saw this as a way to fluff over and stifle opinions.

At the very first large MORE organizing meeting in February 2012 I warned about the factions among the founders of MORE and said they must be taken into account --- ie.  make sure there is diversity of opinions and have the factions represented. But whenever you have sectarians in an organization, they will move to control the group and shut out or purge dissident voices.

Sadly, MORE has moved in that direction. The direction Unity follows, where those who disagree with policies set by the dominant faction are invited to leave the caucus - there is no longer a steering committee or any clear lines as to who are making decisions in MORE -- top down leadership so eschewed by social justice caucuses ----

As one former MORE member who left in disgust said: If MORE is going to have Unity Caucus like loyalty oaths why not just go to Unity which at least has all the toys?

Is there a way forward for the opposition and more historical context coming in future posts.

History of the UFT Opposition Since Late 80s Plus My Prequel

This Saturday, January 14, is a MORE retreat from 12-4. Kit Wainer has prepared a history for people so they have a basis for going forward. This is one of the most concise histories I've seen -- it would take me 4 hours and 20 pages to cover the same ground.

I only have gotten to know Kit since we began working together in MORE 5 years ago. He came out of Teachers for a Just Contract and I came from ICE. Both groups didn't always mesh very well together and I was somewhat wary of working with Kit in MORE. But happily, it has been an absolute pleasure to work with such a smart, perceptive and most importantly nice guy - despite the fact he introduced me to Mike Schirtzer who I seem to be saddled with for life.

Before reading Kit's history, I wanted to provide a prequel so there is some pre-late 80s context for the various caucus genealogies.

There is no actual beginning and end of the many caucuses in the UFT over decades.

There are links going back to the 1920s.

There is a timeline -  caucuses split, combine, evolve. This is not necessarily 100% accurate as I'm too lazy to go find the relevant info  --

UFT Caucus History/Math Lesson: Long Division - Part I

In a multi part series I will review the history of caucuses in the UFT from my perspective over the past 45 years. I will point to a history of divisions and fragmentation - I certainly played a role - I believe has served to undermine the growth of an effective counter to Unity and how MORE emerged as an alternative so-called "big umbrella" caucus in an effort too merge a variety of groups and interests.

Since my first involvement in UFT internal issues in 1970, my 4th year of teaching, I can remember very few elections - if any - where one opposition caucus went straight up against Unity Caucus. Most of the time there were either 3 caucuses running or caucuses that united for the elections only.

Over most of this time I never felt it particularly crucial to try to unite all opposition voices under one banner because it seemed so difficult to blend a wide variety of voices and politics and it just didn't seem worth the pain and trouble and angst. I had the philosophy of "let each caucus do its thing and organize the people it was capable of organizing."

I felt that way until soon after the 2010 UFT election - with the outcome for the ICT/TJC slate which is what led many of us to MORE which is just such an "umbrella" attempt - with all the ensuing pain and trouble and angst. So how did I get from there to here? Because all other models over the 40 years I was active seemed to end up going nowhere.

I became active in 1970 in a local group of activist teachers in District 14 (Williamsburg/Greenpoint and a slice of northern Bed-Stuy) called Another View. We weren't a caucus - we had no intention of running in a UFT election - we were advocates and provided analysis of a wide range of issues on education and beyond in addition to the local District 14. Our monthly newsletters were aimed at reaching into as many schools in the district as we could get it into -- while facing enormous hostility from a district UFT political machine allied with the people running the district on the local school board - almost all white in a 95% school population of kids of color. Our people often faced threats and harassment for daring to support us.

Then we met a similar group in District 16 and individuals from other districts and high schools around the city and a sort of nascent coalition was born that began to act as a caucus of sorts.

The major caucus that challenged Unity at the time was Teachers Action Caucus - TAC. They had a wide range of people in the schools united by their opposition to the UFT's 1968 strike. Many of them crossed the picket lines and TAC was branded by Unity as the "scabs". In addition, there was a strong influence in TAC of the by then pretty moribund Communist Party - Unity also branded them as such. Many of their leaders were older - the old Left. They were very damaged by the Red Scares and some of their former leaders had been fired in the purges of teachers in the 50s when they were part of the old TU - Teachers Union - which had existed since the 1920s before going defunct in 1964 not long after losing the collective bargaining election to what became Unity Caucus.

At some point - around 1973 - we joined TAC en masse, hoping to move them in more progressive "new left" position, with attention to issues we were concerned with that they did not seem to want to deal with. We met a stone wall and after a year we left en masse to form the Coalition of School Workers - not a caucus in the sense of running in UFT elections but continuing to work at the UFT delegate assembly and other venues of the union - central and local.

Then after the 1975 strike* [see below for elaboration] when we began to gain supporters for our strong stand against what we saw as a Unity sell-out, we began to suffer our own internal problems and a group split off from us to form a new caucus called New Directions  - led by an often effective but also a very controversial leader named Marc Pessin who eventually dominated the caucus, especially after purging the leftists - who formed yet another group called Chalk Dust. (He used tactics such as changing the location of a meeting without telling people who resisted him.)* [See a profile of Marc in Part II].

Oy!

So that was the scene as we hit the latter part of the 70s. Our group - CSW - eventually reached out to TAC to form an alliance for the 1977 UFT elections and even tried to get New Direction to join in -- but their megalomaniac leader would have not of that - wanting to assure he would get to run against Shanker. Our slate and ND pretty much split the opposition vote - about 25-30% of the total.

And thus was born multiple oppositions - a CSW/TAC and a New Directions slate - a bad message to even anti-Unity people who would ask "Why can't you guys all get together in one caucus and if you can't even do that why should we vote to put you in power, no matter how bad Unity is?" While our group still did not find it easy to work with TAC we bit the bullet.

By 1981 - one thing was clear - at the very least, the 3 groups should get together for UFT elections - and thus was born NAC - New Action Coalition -  not a merger of groups but a temporary cooperative for UFT elections  - TAC, ND and CSW - and then they would go their own way.

Of course there was a wrinkle even then - the controversial leader of New Directions declared he had to be the presidential candidate and even though just about everyone outside of New Directions had some disdain, if not outright dislike for that individual, his holding everyone hostage - threatening that he would run ND separately if we did not make him the candidate - people held their noses - knowing we would not win - and formed a united slate - and still won nothing.

It was not until 1985 - by that time my own group - CSW - had morphed into a tight friendship group that was not as much involved - that NAC won anything - the high school Vice Presidency - which Unity promptly challenged and tied up in court for almost half the term of office. The NAC coalition continued to run - in the late 80s New Directions had dumped the controversial leader - and let me say here - one of the truly great organizers I have met - (He had a 2nd act a decade later -which will come in Part II).

With some people from Chalk Dust joining the election coalition in 1991 -  NAC had its biggest success ever - winning 13 seats on the Exec Bd - the high school and junior high schools. But imagine this -- they all came from the different groups -- TAC, ND, Chalk Dust (the CSW didn't partake) and working together was not something they did easily. In fact, some people tell me the very issue of running in the elections created divisions in Chalk Dust and they ceased to exist soon after.

NAC won nothing in the 1993 elections but almost did win the middle school and high school vice presidential positions, which would have given NAC 2 out of 11 positions on the AdCom. Unity, in a state of panic after dodging that bullet immediately moved to change the constitution in 1994 to make this impossible in the future by removing the elem, ms, and hs divisional VP positions from being voted on in the divisions and making them at-large. Thus for the 1995 elections, middle, high and elementary school teachers no longer were the sole voters for their VP - everyone in the union got to vote, including retirees.

In 1995, NAC still existed with 2 main groups - the still somewhat leftish TAC - even though they did not raise many left wing positions - and New Directions - more center with some rightist elements. My memory is fading but I believe NAC may have won the 6 high school Exec Board seats in that election.

By that time it began to make sense for both TAC and ND to end the farce and merge into one group. And so they did in 1995/6 just in time to help lead the massive turn down of the first version of the 1995 contract negotiated by a relative newbie in the UFT named Randi Weingarten.*[see below for elaboration].

For the first time in over a generation, there was one caucus only in the UFT going head to head with Unity -- but that didn't last very long.

End Part I

Part II (1995-2001/2) will include the founding of Education Notes with support of the old CSW people, the rise of a new caucus, Progressive Action Caucus, the role of yet another caucus - Teachers for a Just Contract (founded in 1993 by remnants of Chalk Dust).

Part III 2002-2012): ( the New Action sellout to Randi in 2002/4, the consequent  rise of ICE (Ed Notes, CSW, New Action defectors and others) along with the move of TJC to run in the 2004  elections for the first time, GEM, NYCORE, Teachers Unite, formation of MORE.

Part 1V (2012-present): The trials and tribulations of MORE.

Supplemental
Response to comments on original publication:

Oh thank you for this history.. after part 2, would you do a piece on what happened in the 60s in bed stuy and browmsville amd what role did the uft play?

Replies

ed notes onlineFriday, September 4, 2015 at 11:25:00 PM EDT
I will try - but you can find out by reading Gerald Podair on the 68 strike. In short the UFT closed down the entire school system - along with their hidden partners - the principals and APs who were threatened by community control - for months. It is a long and complicated story - I was teaching at the time and went on strike - and only later when I became active with people who had crossed the lines did I learn a lot more. Still - I maintain that people looking to organize inside the UFT to challenge Unity could not cross the line and should have worked inside the union to try to end the strike. The lesson of TAC was an example - and until memories began to fade after a decade, they had to dodge the scab charge.

nonymousFriday, September 4, 2015 at 1:48:00 AM EDT

This is good stuff. I have been dying to know how all these parts of our local's puzzle came to be. 2 Questions: 1). There was a strike in '75? What was that about? 2). Randi negotiated a contract in '95. When it got turned back, why? And, how come membership had a spine then? Was it turned down at DA, or was it out to membership?

Man, this is important. We need to understand how we did this before. I've been waiting for someone to break it down. Keep it up.
-Nate

Replies

ed notes onlineFriday, September 4, 2015 at 11:30:00 PM EDT
Nate
The 75 strike was the last one and we all were docked 2 for one. They laid off 15,000 people and the rank and file rose up and forced the leadership to strike - Randi used to damper enthusiasm for strikes by saying Shanker told her that going on strike in 75 was the biggest mistake of his life. In fact his biggest mistake was 68.
As for the 95 contract - Randi would leave her school after a few hours and go to negotiate - having no feel for where the membership was at - and with Shanker nearing his end and Sandy Feldman distracted that she would be the new AFT president -- Randi botched it - they didn't bother pushing the contract much and New Action and independents like Bruce Markens who as the only non-Unity District rep led the charge to defeat the contract - and they did. Not being in a caucus I played no role other than in my own school where I debated the District Rep at a UFT meeting where I was the chapter leader.  It was not turned down at the DA - Unity controlled that - this was the membership -which was big - the first time ever and since.
But Unity regrouped - they came in with a slightly better deal and spent months selling it this time - and Randi learned a lesson - she was much smarter about how to control the membership after this debacle. They gave themselves enough time to go to the schools and sell it. The "militant" membership that turned it down 6 months earlier was no longer so militant by the time the union leadership finished beating them up. New Action and contract opponents did not have the resources to put up much of a battle.

Randi learned her lesson - every contract vote since was handled in ways that made turn down almost impossible - with every union official inundating the schools and spreading fear of negative consequences. We had our best chance in 2005 when we did get almost 40% of a NO Vote and the 2014 NO vote was about 25%.

On ICE and Why MORE: History of 40 Years of Failures of Multiple Caucuses in the UFT

Unity wants as many opposition caucuses around as possible to divide people.

Today ICE, the group founded out of Ed Notes in late 2003 is meeting. (Tomorrow I'm meeting with a group of MORE people to plan the summer

retreat.) ICE is comfortable. MORE is not always. But we bite the bullet and keep trying to build a unified opposition caucus.

ICE is an uncaucus - we have withdrawn from taking part in UFT election battles and became a founding member of MORE because we did our own caucus thing  a dozen years ago and saw ultimately how it worked out  - not great - which was why most of us decided to join with people from other groups to form MORE - and that ain't been easy after having our own little group that could function the way it wanted.

I have learned from 45 years in this business that having multiple caucuses, even if they come together every 3 years to run a unified slate but then go their separate ways leads to failure.

Unity wants as many opposition caucuses around as possible to divide people. In the old says we used to assume that if a caucus didn't get the petition signatures to get on the ballot Unity, which runs the election, would put them on anyway. And so they will again.

Randi bought out New Action. Does anyone think she and Mulgrew are unhappy to see yet another caucus out there? They knew that the merger of various groups into MORE in an attempt to forge one identity for the opposition is the real threat to them. Thus they attack only MORE in their leaflets (64 Teachers at PS8X Sign Open Letter to Mulgrew).

Thus Randi would be glad to lend moral support to anyone who wants to start yet another opposition caucus, even taking them out for coffee.

ICE and MORE

MORE is a combo of many different groups and people - a synthesis because many of us have tried it the other way - our own little caucus where we can be the big fish in the small pond - oh how heady at times when you are new to this to have the president of the UFT emailing you at midnight to get your opinion. Almost everyone in ICE has come to see that no matter how difficult it can be working with people you might disagree with at times, the only way is to forge one caucus. Bite the damn bullet.

Many of us have come down a bit from our egos and have a little more humility about things. Or maybe it's the lowering of testosterone with age.

New Action
I have even been tempering my views regarding New Action - Julie and I told them at our meeting in Nov. 2013 that we welcomed them once they publicly announce they will no longer be taking their deal with Unity -- they don't have to end New Action - keep doing what ICE is doing - but move to becoming one caucus. After all, New Action learned its lesson in 1995 when 2 caucuses, TAC (begun in 1968) and New Directions (1976) became one after 20 years of relative futility running in the NAC coalition (though they did win some victories). But they say they were marking time. Then shortly after they merged, along came the old divider, Marc Pessin (who did the same thing with New Directions in 1976) to create yet another caucus (PAC) to divide people. And of course, Marc's ego required that he run for president in the 1999 elections - he did the same thing in the 1977 and 81 elections.

When ICE became a caucus in late 2003 it was with the intention of running in the 2004 election and then disbanding. But we won the HS exec bd seats with TJC and stuck around. But it became clear by 2007 that ICE did not have a long shelf life. By 2010 it was more than obvious. TJC was around for 20 years before disbanding into MORE. ICE kept meeting but in essence did the same. And I must say that after all those years of a tenuous relationship, working with Kit Wainer is a joy - and having Kit and James Eterno, both of whom who ran for UFT president, on the same team is like putting together an all-star rock band.

Yes, multiple caucuses have been tried for ages - there are always calls for them to unite for the elections and then go back to doing their big fish in a small pond. It finally dawned on many of us that ultimately this is helping do Unity's dirty work of divide and conquer - playing one group off against another - even offering people from one group enticements.

Though mostly MORE, we still feel that ICE identity even if we will never divide the opposition - ICE stands for the Independent Community of Educators -- a true social justice group of people who also fought for teacher rights with roots going back to the community struggles of the late 60s and 70s.

Some of the newer MORE members have come to the ICE view of things - we were the only ones to go after mayoral control, ed deform, high stakes testing - all the hot button issues from today - back in 2003 when we began - and Ed Notes was touching on these before then.

How did we see that these issues were important? Through open, non-ideologically driven discussions at loooong meetings. No one at an ICE meeting has been cut off or denied the chance to speak due to time - no one every leaves an ICE meeting feeling they were shut down. Time is not a factor -- the meeting ends when one person is left talking to himself.
I have never left an ICE meeting not feeling good and not having learned something.

Not a formula for efficiency or even building an opposition - but certainly a much needed space for people to talk to each other -- and I would say the single most important thing missing in MORE. I rarely leave a MORE meeting feeling that way. The MORE - Summer Series Workshops is a way to fill this gap.

People have asked me numerous times how come Mulgrew and Unity can get away with what they do for 60 years - how come there is so little effective opposition in the UFT.

The leadership focuses a lot of energy on potential trouble spots - this is where they are truly competent and effective - controlling, defusing, obfuscating, dividing, etc. I posted an example on Ed Notes recently about PS 8x which is a school in revolt against the leadership, led by a former Unity Caucus chapter leader -- see

• 64 Teachers at PS8X Sign Open Letter to Mulgrew Pr...
• Can Mulgrew Put Out the Fire at PS 8x?

The district rep - the key people in how they control the membership - told the CL that Mulgrew is coming to the school to talk to them -- I've been invited to come that day too.

They track every place where there are opposing voices -- making deals with their friendly principals to keep people under control is not off the table either.

But beyond all that, there are the internal divisions in the opposition - I have seen the same issues come up since I first got involved in 1970 - and in the 70s and then again in the 90s we had another version of him doing the same thing - to me this is so deja vu.

Egos, sectarian politics, and who knows what else can lead to so much frustration and angst.

A number of people who were union critics and used to distribute Ed Notes in the 90s and early 2000's ended up joining Unity - they might as well take the free trips and other perks because there was no other place to really go.

They go to Unity because they see a divided opposition. It may not be easy, but one voice, one name is the only answer. That will not happen as long as people refuse to check their egos at the door.