Speculation on Weingarten and Mulgrew futures - Part 1

Norm here - Sept. 30, 2020 

The next UFT election is looming in spring 2022 and Mulgrew is reaching new levels of unpopularity due to the often tepid UFT response on opening
schools. especially with the CSA coming off as more militant than the UFT. The standard opposition voices have been very active. And in addition there is growing skepticism within the UFT rank and file and even in Unity Caucus about Mulgrew's leadership. (My sources tell me that some in Unity wanted to strike). And then there is a history of the three most recent UFT leaders going back to 1974 becoming AFT president. And with massive budget cuts to come once schools reopen - probably by next year - [See Arthur report - UFT Executive Board September 29, 2020--Staffing is a Disaster and the Budget Looks Even Worse] all balls are in the air.

With speculation growing about Randi's future, Mulgrew's future must enter into the picture. In this 3 part series I will speculate about the possibility Mulgrew may very well not be the Unity Caucus UFT presidential candidate in the 2022 election, depending on just how bad the conditions in the schools get and how relatively weak Mulgrew looks.

Recent articles, from the left (Jacobin) and from the right (Mike Antonucci/Intercepts), addressed another upcoming election, for AFL-CIO president if Richard Trumpka retires - or is pushed. How would Randi's leaving the AFT affect the UFT and Mulgrew? I'll address that issue in more detail in Part 2 or 3.

What does Randi really want?

In 2016 there were rumors Randi would be Hillary's Secty of Education and now there are rumors she would be up for the same job in a Biden administration since the Dems said they would appoint a teacher - which in itself is funny since Randi was way more lawyer than teacher (she taught full-time for only 6 months but that's better than an Arne Duncan or Betsy De Vos).

I've disparaged this idea because Sect'y of Ed is so subordinate to the President and other forces it is much less powerful than the AFT President.

For the past two decades the only position I felt Randi would leave for would be to lead the AFL-CIO, which includes the bulk of the US labor movement. She would be the first woman to head that organization.

The other option would be merging the AFT and NEA into a 4 million member national union with her at the head. There would be a lot of push back from the NEA which has term limits and is wary of AFT/Unity Caucus lack of democracy.

AFL-CIO head was the position UFT founder Al Shanker wanted and if he had lived he might have gotten it - he was a fave of the big boss George Meany due to his pro-Vietnam War stance and hard line anti-communism. But not being from an industrialized union in the 80s and 90s was not a good talking point for leadership. But now teacher unions are among the strongest remnants of unionism and a leader is primed for AFL-CIO leader.

(Read the review of his bio I co-wrote - Albert Shanker: Ruthless Neocon - Review by Vera Pavone and Norman Scott in New Politic http://newpol.org/content/albert-shanker-ruthless-neo-con)

Shanker's final position was AFT president when he died in 1997 and I can imagine Randi dreaming of rising to the position Shanker coveted. (She had to wait 10 years to rise to AFT Pres in 2009 after Sandi Feldman died. The deaths of two founders of the UFT in their 60s cleared the way for Randi. Think of the AFT presidency like the Supreme Court - lifetime appointment by Unity Caucus.)

But there are others in Randi's way - competitors like NEA president Lily Eskelsen García who is term-limited while Randi is assure of being AFT president for life. The heir apparent to Trumpka is Liz Shuler: The AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer. 

But the most intriguing candidate is the union leader darling of the left, Sara Nelson, of the Association of Flight Attendants union, setting up a replica of the Biden/Bernie battle in the Dem Party - a delicious thought. I've been a fan of Nelson as has been much of the left. Randi and Eskelson Garcia have the numbers of members compared to Nelson but more on this center vs left aspect in part 2. But first,

Some history of Randi trolling Trumpka:

A report from FOX news, Aug. 2, 2018

 - AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is getting an earful – on Twitter – from teachers union boss Randi Weingarten for reportedly keeping the door open to a possible Trump endorsement in 2020.  Newsmax reported Wednesday that Trumka would not rule out a union endorsement for the president. “Every [candidate] will be looked at,” Trumka said. He added, “we will consider every candidate who’s running.”... FOX- https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumka-blasted-by-teachers-union-boss-for-keeping-door-open-on-trump-2020-endorsement

Then: Weingarten walked her comments back, saying, without any real explanation, that Trumka had clarified his remarks.

Of course, Randi walked back her remarks but she had issued a warning shot across Trumpka's bow. 

Then we have this report from Mike Antonucci in May, 2019:

Is Randi Weingarten Really “Sniffing,” “Swirling” and “Flirting?” --
Mike Antonucci Posted on May 14, 2019

http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2019/05/14/is-randi-weingarten-really-sniffing-swirling-and-flirting/ 

Bloomberg Law runs a column called the Daily Labor Report, and this week the lead item is about who is waiting in the wings to challenge AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka.

The timing of the piece is curious, to say the least. Trumka has more than two years remaining in his current term, and the AFL-CIO doesn’t practice term limits. Trumka has been president for 10 years and, leaving out the short tenure of one interim president, previous presidents have served for 14, 16 and 24 years.

But, okay, let’s roll with it:

Trumka still has more than two years left in his third term at the helm, but that’s not stopping some of his possible successors from sniffing out potential support for a run if and when the seat opens. Three names are swirling as likely candidates to eventually replace Trumka, and at least two of them are making calls behind the scenes to try to build a backing, according to sources.

…Randi Weingarten: The American Federation of Teachers president flirted with challenging Trumka in the last AFL-CIO election and has since been a prominent voice in highly publicized school house strikes. Weingarten is taking a page from the Paul Ryan for Speaker of the House playbook: She will publicly say she’s not interested in the job, while remaining open to the option behind the scenes if sufficiently urged to do so by others.

Weingarten’s name has been floated in the past as a U.S. Senator and a Secretary of Education. I have no idea if she is interested in being president of the AFL-CIO. Clearly, neither does Bloomberg Law, but it didn’t stop them from posting a column about it.

I can think of at least one good reason she wouldn’t want the job. She made $405,793 last year as AFT president. Trumka made $261,779.

What does this all mean for the UFT and Mulgrew? Hold your breath. Parts 2 and 3 are coming soon. 

Bernie will take away your healthcare plans - Union Leaders (Mulgrew, Randi) Need to Answer for Opposition to Medicare for All as layoffs and loss of health care mount

As even those with good health care plans are laid off and lose

them, there is a lot to answer for opposing and even mocking Bernie Sanders' single payer ideas that would have protected all those with much loved health plans (Not). As for how he would have paid for it -- where's your God now, Moses?

Remember those much loved health care plans union leaders were defending in their attacks on Bernie? Remember the "how will you pay for that?" arguments by anti-Bernie Dems and union leaders and even some of my friends? Bernie's answer was that in his plan it doesn't make a difference where you work and if fired or laid off or if changing jobs, you still were covered. As for how we would have paid for Single payer --- Triple LOL. Joe Biden's comments about expanding Obamacare are double, triple LOL. And how about paying for Corona virus treatment? And how about the insane world of profit in the healthcare industry which Bernie attacked at every opportunity.

Now we see a cone of silence with the only words that Bernie should drop out, not that he was so correct. And in the midst of this Biden says he still would veto a Single payer bill but Bernie is expected to drop out.

And also in the midst of this are attacks on Bernie supporters who might

not rush to Biden, people forgetting that the very reason Bernie attracted so many young people is precisely because of his medicare for all plan. So fagetaboutit - Like there is no burden on Biden to move in their direction - that this is only about Trump.

As for our own union leaders who defended the current system of health care, they may think UFT members are fairly well protected in terms of health care. Well let's think of the massive budget cuts and layoffs coming in the fall and how many UFT members will lose their much loved health plans whereas they would still be covered under Bernie programs.

Hey, you anti-Bernies - you have a lot of splainin to do.

Instead of calling for Bernie to drop out you should hide your faces in shame.

Listen - I do believe Bernie's rhetoric and refusal to vary his argument and be more nimble in his responses. His self-branding himself as a democratic socialist is not even accurate. I heard Noam Chomsky call him an Eisenhower era Republican and Chomsky asked "why would you use the word "socialist" in this country  when at most you are an FDR traditional Democrat?

Jacobin:

There’s Never Been a Better Time for Us to End Private Health Insurance Than Right Now

WE Caucus makes inroads in Philadelphia Teacher Union Election Against President Jordan but the AFT Machine Still Prevails with big majority

Longtime teachers’ union president Jerry Jordan will hold on to his leadership post after fending off a challenge from an increasingly vocal and consequential caucus within the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers... Philadelphia Inquirer

The trend within teacher unions for more militant action bodes well for WE and caucuses like it. But in Philadelphia at least, it’s delayed by four years.... Mike Antonucci, Intercepts

March 3, 2020 - 4PM I'm watching a live feed on FB of Nancy Pelosi on the education bill with Randi standing next to her. Standing with them is newly elected Philly union president Jerry Jordan who just defeated the left WE caucus in the election last week. Hmmm. No Alex Caputo-Pearl who led a successful strike as president of the UTLA and was just elected VP after yielding to Cecily Myart-Cruz has been elected president of UTLA, the first biracial Black woman elected to lead the union in its 50-year history. UTLA, the 2nd largest union in the AFT after the UFT. Or Jessy Sharkey, president of the Chicago TU, the third largest local which was leaning Bernie but due to some Warren support did not endorse? (Randi endorsed Warren over the weekend- a political play since Mulgrew is running as a Biden delegate and we know they are on the same page. In other words, I see this as a shot at the left. (I wonder if WE pushed for an endorsement of Bernie as we saw MORE members under the guise of Labor for Bernie do in the UFT?)

I remember at the 2014 AFT convention in LA, a workshop was set up for Alex Caputo-Pearl and then Chicago union president Karen Lewis to discuss progressive unionism and Randi forced them to include Mulgrew and Jerry Jordan as part of the panel. I taped it but never published that very interesting debate. Alex and Karen were bulldozed by Randi.

Since I always look for conspiracy theories I see the Jordan presence as a slam at the left by Randi.

Anyway, here is some info on what happened in Philly where WE (Caucus of Working Educators) ran its 2nd campaign and doubled their vote from last time. I got to know WE people years ago when we hung out with them in LA before they were even a caucus and they were strong social justice people but with a real feel for the members. I liked a lot of them.

WE is affiliated with rising left wing opposition in the AFT through UCORE where elections were won in Baltimore recently - see my report: Why Can't MORE B more like BMORE? - Radical Teachers’ Movement Comes to Baltimore where I contrasted these rising movements with the failures of MORE in NYC. Look at the WE platform as described in the Inquirer story for an explanation.

The progressive group’s platform centered on empowering PFT members to have more of a say in the operation of their union, and on holding open contract negotiations with the district. It promised to fight for higher wages for paraprofessionals, better environmental conditions, and smaller class sizes. WE members have criticized the current PFT regime as too bureaucratic and slow to respond to members’ concerns, and not active enough on issues of social justice.

Last time WE focused on social justice - note the concentration on bread and butter. MORE fundamentally ignores the day to day issues UFT members face. MORE, by the way, ran a fundraiser for WE a few weeks ago. Look at the excellent WE web site: https://www.workingeducators.org/

And it is pretty interesting that WE, which was inspired by MORE in 2015 to form a caucus got almost 40% of the vote in its second run for office while MORE was destroyed in the 2019 UFT elections in its third run for office. [I have lots to say about why but will have to do that another time.] I believe if the undemocratic socialists hadn't blown up MORE we would have been able to push into the one third range by running a strong united front campaign. But that game is over for a long time.

Here is a fairly sympathetic article towards WE in the Inquirer and a more skeptical article by the right wing Mike Antonucci. I land somewhere between the two because Jerry Jordan is a weak union leader and Philly teachers have been slammed and he still got 62% of the vote. The turnout was tremendous - 60%, up from 44% in the last election in 2016, which accounts for the doubling of the WE vote from last time.
Compare that to the meager turnout in UFT elections - half that or less.

Still, 62% is not insignificant but we've always maintained that it is within striking range and if WE keeps organizing and doesn't make the same mistakes as MORE they may be serious contenders in 4 years. Or not, given the methods the UFT-like machines use to maintain control --- see above for Jerry Jordan appearance on the stage with Randi and Pelosi.

Philadelphia teachers’ union president Jerry Jordan fends off challengers, but progressives make gains

by Kristen A. Graham and Juliana Feliciano Reyes, Updated: February 26, 2020

https://www.inquirer.com/education/pft-philadelphia-teachers-union-jerry-jordan-caucus-of-working-educators-we-election-leadership-20200226.html

Jonathan Wilson

Longtime teachers’ union president Jerry Jordan will hold on to his leadership post after fending off a challenge from an increasingly vocal and consequential caucus within the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.

Organizing by the Caucus of Working Educators fueled strong turnout in the election, whose results were announced Wednesday.

Related stories

---

• Why these Philly teachers say the school district is afraid of them winning the union election
• Teachers are refusing to enter a Philadelphia elementary school because of asbestos fears
• With salaries capped at $30K, Philly’s classroom aides are demanding more

» READ MORE: Read more: The Caucus of Working Educators' bid to seize control of the PFT

The results are especially weighty given the PFT’s outsized role in the city’s political landscape. The union plays a crucial oversight role in the Philadelphia School District’s unfolding asbestos crisis, and it is negotiating the first contract since the union won back the right to strike with the district returning to local control in 2018.

Advertisement

Jordan’s slate, known as the Collective Bargaining Team, appeared to win 62% of the vote, with the early tally 4,453 to 2,761. Split-ticket votes have not yet been counted, but the early results made clear that most of the union’s 13,000 members favored Jordan’s steady hand, track record, and collaborative working style.

Jordan, who has led the PFT since 2007 and has worked for the union full time since 1987, said he was “delighted” by the results, which came on his 71st birthday.

"Our nearly 13,000 members are passionate, dedicated, and engaged, and working with them daily is one of the great honors of my life,” Jordan said in a statement. “The campaign was spirited, and it allowed us the opportunity to organize around a vision for public education that resonated with our membership.”

Nearly 60% of the PFT’s 13,000 teachers, counselors, nurses, secretaries, and paraprofessional workers cast ballots, up from 46% in 2016, the first time WE opposed Jordan’s leadership.

The Caucus of Working Educators, whose slate was topped by Kathleen Melville, a teacher at the Workshop School, a high school in West Philadelphia, made a stronger showing than it did in 2016, the last time it challenged Jordan’s leadership.

» READ MORE: Read more: With salaries capped at $30k, Philly's paraprofessionals are demanding more
 

The progressive group’s platform centered on empowering PFT members to have more of a say in the operation of their union, and on holding open contract negotiations with the district. It promised to fight for higher wages for paraprofessionals, better environmental conditions, and smaller class sizes. WE members have criticized the current PFT regime as too bureaucratic and slow to respond to members’ concerns, and not active enough on issues of social justice.

WE, part of a wave of young people turning to organized labor as a way to make change, comes out of a tradition of the rank-and-file educators who have taken over unions in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore. These are cities where union leaders have taken their members on massive, high-profile strikes — with significant public support — that reminded the country that unions are still a force to be reckoned with.

The Caucus of Working Educators’ campaign is part of a trend of rank-and-file challenges to the union establishment, as legacy unions have languished around the country. Union members — from journalists to UPS package handlers to truck drivers — have challenged veteran leadership, which they accuse of being too complacent and too cozy with management to fight for workers.

Melville, 37, congratulated Jordan and his team and said in a statement that WE looked forward “to continuing to push for a more engaged and empowered PFT membership together.”

The caucus’ stronger showing, she said, made it plain that “Working Educators’ vision has resonated with thousands of educators across the city."

Jordan, in an interview, said WE’s campaign “was a very serious challenge," but said that its platform “was very similar to the platform my caucus had” — focused on working conditions and meaningful wage increases.

WE members’ views will certainly have a place during negotiations, said Jordan, adding that so far only a few bargaining sessions have been held. The PFT president expects that the pace of talks will now accelerate.

So far, Jordan said, the talks have been “very professional.”

Now the Antonucci take:

Incumbent Holds Off Opposition in Philadelphia Union Election

http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2020/02/27/incumbent-holds-off-opposition-in-philadelphia-union-election/

On the heels of this story about a long-time incumbent union president being challenged by some members of his rank-and-file comes the election for officers of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.
Jerry Jordan has been president of PFT since 2007, but he faced strongly organized opposition from Kathleen Melville and her Caucus of Working Educators (WE).
WE wants to reverse PFT’s decline. It claims that membership has shrunk by 40%, from 21,000 to 13,000.
Turnout was high for a union election, with more than half of eligible members casting ballots. The final results have not yet been certified, but Jordan emerged as the clear winner, with somewhere between 60-66% of the vote.
The outcome was bittersweet for WE, which more than doubled its vote totals from four years ago and emerged as a force to be reckoned with. However, even as the caucus improved turnout, it couldn’t cobble together something closer to a majority.
WE is similar to other opposition caucuses throughout American Federation of Teachers affiliates in that it wants a more muscular approach to collective bargaining and a social justice focus. The caucus has received credit for demanding open contract negotiations, instead of the closed-door bargaining between district and union officers that is standard practice throughout the U.S.
But a closer look reveals that WE’s call for openness extends only to more members of the PFT. The caucus wants one member from each school to be present at the table, not the public.
The trend within teacher unions for more militant action bodes well for WE and caucuses like it. But in Philadelphia at least, it’s delayed by four years.

Mike's last comment is ridiculous. What does he mean that the public should be at the table? Unions are not public agencies. Let the city bring in the public if it wants.

Medicare for All Perfidy: Randi Stands With Culinary Union - Leadership, not membership - what else is new?

.... early Saturday morning the union leadership texted its members not to vote for Bernie - they didn't listen.

Fred Klonsky: Last week on Facebook I got a message from American Federation President Randi Weingarten blasting me for supporting Bernie Sanders on Medicare for All.
“Why are you not listening to so many of our members that want to drive down costs, that want to take on big pharma and the insurance companies, but they want to have the choice on their insurance?” Randi challenged me.
“I agree with Culinary,” she said.

Randi is listening to the anti-Bernie crowd, not "our members" who will ignore her as they have in the past. Randi wants us to have a choice in health plans. But more on that later.

And of course much of the Culinary rank and file went against the union leadership (and Randi) recommendation and voted for Bernie as Fred reports below. The story was subverted with the claims of the leadership that they were under attack by Bernie Bros - which probably has some truth but I never saw the name of one clearly identified Bernie supporter - in fact when you hear the Bernie Bro stories why aren't those people revealed and publicly shamed? From what I was reading, the actions of the leadership were very influenced by Nevada machine head Harry Reid (who may be the source of those phony "Bernie wanting to challenge Obama in the 2012 primary" stories. (Bernie told people to ask Harry Reid if it's true, yet the opponents like Biden continue to pass the story on.)

Here is a report from The Nation:

“How a Rank-and-File Revolt in Las Vegas Dealt Bernie a Winning Hand” [The Nation]. “Shortly after noon, caucus participants were asked to rise from their chairs and vote with their feet. The vast majority promptly marched directly to Sanders’s side of the room. Surprised by their strength, Bernie’s supporters erupted in cheers and more than one of us broke down in tears. It would be hard to overstate the political importance of Saturday’s win, which was replicated across the seven Las Vegas strip caucuses. A workforce made up predominantly of women of color enthusiastically gave their votes to a candidate who mainstream media pundits have repeatedly told them is backed only by white guys. Though one should never underestimate the perfidy of the corporate punditry, it’s possible that these strip workers, together with Nevada’s broader multiracial working class, may have finally put the ‘Bernie Bro’ myth out of its misery.”

But back to Randi, who still gives me a good laugh.

At yesterday's debate, Bloomberg talked about how well teachers were treated in NYC - just ask the union. While most teachers laughed out loud, I wasn't laughing because by "ask the union" he meant his old pal Randi Weingarten, then UFT president and not president of the AFT.

I reported on the great articles exposing Bloomberg's horror stories but so far haven't seen critiques coming out of the UFT.

Now she tries to play it coy about the Bernie movement, even adding him to the list of three potential endorsements (Biden and Warren too). But she had no choice given that if he won the nomination she would look real dumb. So Bernie was tossed in to the mix - and I also think that internal polling probably shows Bernie has the most support -- witness the UTLA and other teacher union endorsements for Bernie. So she had no choice.

But you know my mantra that I created by observing Randi - watch what she does, now what she says. Like the fact her surrogate, Mike Mulgrew is running as a Biden delegate -as a "private citizen" LOL - for where the leadership is really at. Randi is a super delegate and if Bernie doesn't get the majority going into the convention, and it's between him and Bloomberg, do we think Randi would vote for Bernie? I have my doubts.

On medicare for all, Fred Klonsky, a former Chicago area union president, reveals the real Randi on his blog: https://preaprez.wordpress.com/2020/02/23/on-m4a-im-with-culinary-weingarten-told-me-it-turns-out-she-isnt-listening/

Here are a few excerpts:

Last week on Facebook I got a message from American Federation President Randi Weingarten blasting me for supporting Bernie Sanders on Medicare for All.
“Why are you not listening to so many of our members that want to drive down costs, that want to take on big pharma and the insurance companies, but they want to have the choice on their insurance?” Randi challenged me.
“I agree with Culinary,” she said.

By “Culinary” she meant the Las Vegas Culinary Union leaders who, while making no endorsement in Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, issued a strongly worded statement opposing Sanders on M4A.

Props to the Culinary Union. They do have good health insurance and coverage for their members. 
But then Culinary Union members spoke for themselves on Saturday.

More than 60% of Nevada caucus-goers support eliminating private insurance and moving to a single-payer healthcare system, according to a poll conducted by Edison Media Research as Democratic voters entered their precincts Saturday.
The entrance poll showed that 62% of Nevada caucus-goers “support replacing all private health insurance with a single government plan for everyone,” the Washington Post reported. Single-payer received a similar level of support among Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Nevada caucus-goers also ranked healthcare as their top issue, followed by the climate crisis and income inequality.
“It’s fair to say Democratic leadership fails to understand how much everyday Americans hate their private healthcare coverage,” tweeted TIME contributor Christopher Hale.

It turns out Nevada’s culinary workers have a better sense of class solidarity than the President of the American Federation of Teachers.

Despite the leadership of Nevada’s largest union criticizing Bernie Sanders over his health care plan in the lead-up to the state’s presidential caucus, the majority of union members caucusing at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino on the Las Vegas strip backed Sanders on Saturday.
Some workers who spoke to BuzzFeed News said they support Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal, even though they appreciate the union health care they have, because they have friends and relatives who don’t have union health care and worry about what would happen if they lost their jobs.

One for all and all for one.

[Also see: Why Is Teachers Union President Randi Weingarten Attacking Medicare for All? - Jacobin -https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/randi-weingarten-medicare-for-all-aft-president-american-federation-teachers?
Randi got all upset when they didn't give her space to reply - the very definition of entitlement.]

And note that the Clark County teacher union - the largest in Nevada - endorsed Bernie - and also note that they are one of the few independent large unions - not NEA (which they left) nor the AFT.

Fred had another excellent post on the story: https://preaprez.wordpress.com/2020/02/22/nevada-illustrates-the-union-divide-between-leadership-and-rank-and-file-on-health-care/

My main take away from the election, aside from pleasure at the size of Bernie’s victory, is how it exposed a giant chasm between union leadership and the rank and file over Medicare for All.
Health care and health insurance was the number one issue for caucus voters and over 60% support Bernie on the issue.
Even as the leadership of the Culinary workers union trashed Bernie over it.
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten has been outspoken in her opposition to Bernie and Medicare for All.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka says he “hates” Medicare 4 All.
They all claim their members love employer-provided health insurance.
But nobody loves it.
Most workers don’t have it.
Get fired and there’s nothing to love.
But Nevada’s voters rejected their leadership’s position and demonstrated the rejection on Saturday in a big way.
Why are the union leaders so clueless about it?
Because they live lives that have nothing in common with the lives their members live.
They don’t share their members fears of serious illness and what that would cost them.
They say it is a great benefit that was bargained and won by them.
Those of us who had to bargain for health care every contract know how fragile a benefit it is for even those that have it.

 OK - it's Fred Klonsky celebration day here at ed notes: A third blast from Fred - I wish he were doing commentary for the Bernie campaign - where  he explodes Randi's argument that we want choice (jeez, echoes of the charter school bullshit).

Weingarten's Healthcare "choice" has echoes of Janus
What I find most troubling about Randi Weingarten’s response (the personal stuff about me not listening is just silly and typical of union leadership whenever their positions are challenged) is that she frames the issue with the language of choice. I was startled to hear a public employee union leader frame this debate using the language of the enemies of collective bargaining rights and collective action.

https://preaprez.wordpress.com/2020/02/13/weingartens-health-care-choice-has-echoes-of-janus/

Digging into the Culinary Workers union story
The actions of the leadership of the Culinary Workers in its attack on Bernie Sanders for his health care plan were somewhat dishonest and the response of the members in giving Bernie the big victory is telling about many union leaderships and the rank and file. Leaderships are often part of the Democratic Party apparatus. Harry Reid is a power in Nevada. A non-reported part of the story was that early Saturday morning the union leadership texted its members not to vote for Bernie - they didn't listen.

Esquire reported on the story soon after the New Hampshire primary before the Nevada primary: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30892848/new-hampshire-primary-results-bernie-sanders-pete-buttigieg-amy-klobuchar/

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would “end Culinary Healthcare” if elected president, according to a new one-pager the politically powerful Culinary Union is posting back of house on the Las Vegas Strip.

The new flyer, a copy of which was obtained by The Nevada Independent, compares the positions on health care, “good jobs” and immigration of six Democratic presidential hopefuls who have come to the union’s headquarters over the last two months to court its members. But the primary difference outlined in the document, which is being distributed in both English and Spanish, is in the candidates’ positions on health care, taking particular aim at the Vermont senator over his Medicare-for-all policy, which would establish a single-payer, government run health insurance system.

The flyer says Sanders, if elected president, would “end Culinary Healthcare,” “require ‘Medicare For All,’” and “lower drug prices.” The language it uses to describe the position of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who also supports Medicare for all after a transition period, is much gentler: “‘Medicare for All,’” “replace Culinary Healthcare after 3-year transition or at end of collective bargaining agreements,” and “lower drug prices.”

This is a huge and diverse union and it does not play games.

The union, considered an organizing behemoth in the Silver State, has been known to tip the scales in elections in the past. Though the 60,000-member union has not yet decided whether it will endorse in the Democratic presidential primary, the flyer appears to be part of a coordinated campaign ahead of Nevada’s Feb. 22 Democratic presidential primary and shows the union will not be sitting idly by, with or without an endorsement. A spokeswoman for the Culinary Union said the flyer is also going out to members Tuesday night via text and email.

Another Esquire story worth checking out:

The Kids Like Bernie. Maybe Everyone Else Should Listen.
A campaign that depends on The Youth Vote is a liberal-Democratic horror story. Can Bernie Sanders' movement be different? Sanders will get more and more McGovern comparisons if he keeps winning primaries.

Also see John Oliver on Medicare for all:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z2XRg3dy9k&feature=youtu.be

Labor for Bernie UFT members call for a democratic presidential endorsement process

[Addendum Nov.  21 - I watched the MORE people promoting this idea and getting people to sign for this democratic process - and many did - but since the idea is to get the union to support Bernie - which will never happen - why not just get UFTers on board who are for Bernie and promote a Bernie campaign inside the UFT because these halfway measures go nowhere other than when the reso is brought up in December for the January meeting the DA will shoot it down. In the NY State primary getting people to vote for Bernie is a goal and I can see using every UFT event as an organizing tool for Bernie.]

I wrote this article for the Nov/Dec print edition of Ed Notes, distributed at the Nov UFT Delegate Assembly. (There's also an article on health care reprinted from Under Assault: The public option needs to go on the “ash heap of history".

I'm for Bernie but I also have some doubts - about his program and the way it would be implemented - if at all.

We probably need transformational change but I fear it could as easily go right rather than left if it gets screwed up. Imagine an economic crash under Bernie or any Democrat - and this is what I fear - whatever Dem wins the economy crashes and a competent right winger comes into power.

Anyway, this is about democracy at the UFT over the presidential nomination process and there's a lot of irony in that it is being pushed by people in the MORE Caucus which certainly didn't poll the members when they suspended me and others over trivialities.

But while I still support the idea of any democratic process in the UFT though I wonder why a referendum on this issue over all others? I'd love to see one on class size. I also call into question exactly how democratic the process was in Los Angeles which basically had a Bernie up or down discussion and never went to referendum. I point out that the UFT will never go for a democratic process. Randi will decide and then we will have a series of events to endorse her choice - and that AFT choice will be the UFT choice despite Randi giving locals permission to make their own choices.

And exactly how would this process work in the UFT? And what if Biden get the most support -- what would MORE and Bernie for Labor do? No way they would be bound for Biden. So in some ways this is a way to charge the UFT with not being democratic and try to make some hay out of this in a future electoral campaign. Also an organizing tool to get people to sign the petition and use that list for future contacts and organizing opportunities. But no one ever said MORE was not opportunistic.

By the way - Labor 4 Bernie is having a debate watch tonight at Versa Books, 2 Jay Street in Brooklyn.

Labor for Bernie UFT members call for a democratic presidential endorsement process -- by Norm Scott

Let me state right up front. I support Bernie Sanders for president, but I am not Bernie or Bust, meaning I would support most (but not all – Bloomberg, Booker, Bennet) Democratic Party candidates. I have joined national and local Labor for Bernie groups, designed to gather union support for Bernie, who has been the most consistent supporter of labor unions and worker rights over his entire career of any politician in either party. 

Bernie's education and labor plans are the most supportive for our members of any candidate. [A Thurgood Marshall Plan for Public Education - berniesanders.com/en/issues/reinvest-in-public-education and The Workplace Democracy Plan –berniesanders.com/en/issues/workplace-democracy.] It should, theoretically at least, be a no-brainer for us here in the UFT to join with our colleagues in Los Angeles – the UTLA – which endorsed Bernie with an 80% vote of the UTLA DA equivalent in his favor. UTLA president Alex Caputo-Pearl said: “Sanders is shaping up to be the candidate with the best chance not just to win the White House, but to actually change the conditions of massive inequality and underfunding of public education.” I pretty much agree, though I feel Bernie has a better chance to defeat Trump than he has in getting the nomination. We know the party big-wigs hate him and when push comes to shove I wonder if they wouldn’t prefer Trump to an avowed socialist.

The Chicago TU coming off a major strike may soon follow. Two of the three largest teacher unions endorsing Bernie is not insignificant. Yet long-time chapter leader and union activist (now retired) James Eterno at the ICEUFT blog stated, “there is a one in a billion chance of the UFT endorsing Bernie.” (My odds would be more like one in a million.) How can that be? Getting into the politics of why is beyond the scope of this article other than stating that our union leaders here in the UFT and AFT have been firmly planted in the center wing of the Democratic Party.

Randi Weingarten has acknowledged that the 2016 nomination process was flawed, saying in a recent statement “we have enabled locals and state federations, if they choose, prior to any national endorsement, to endorse a candidate for the purpose of their state primary or caucus.” So we are freed in the UFT to take action without waiting for Randi to decide.

You may have seen petitions being circulated by Labor for Bernie pointing to the UTLA endorsement of Bernie and urging support for a Resolution for Union Democracy in the 2020 Election. The reso states: The campaigns have started, but it will take a while for most busy educators to educate ourselves about the candidates, their records, and their visions for the country. Once we have had time to research, discuss, and deliberate, nobody knows better what is best for our union than the members ourselves.

An interesting contrast to what happened in LA where they didn’t wait for people to research or even offer them a choice other than Bernie. Here is their process:

Sept. 11 – UTLA Board of Directors votes 35-1 to begin exploring an endorsement process for Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sept. 18 – UTLA House of Representatives votes 135-46 to confirm the process to explore endorsing Sanders.

Oct. 2 – School site leaders discuss and review endorsement materials.

Oct. 2 – Nov. 12 — School site leaders engage members on consideration of a UTLA endorsement of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Nov. 13 –  Membership advisory up or down vote at 9 regional area meetings. 72.5% of voters, representing more than 500 LAUSD schools, say yes to endorsing Sanders.

Nov. 14 — House of Representatives votes 80% to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The reso for the UFT goes in a very different direction than LA:

Resolved that 1) The UFT will wait to endorse a presidential candidate until after members have had a chance to learn about the candidates through the first six DNC debates through December 2019. 2) The UFT will hold forums for members to discuss the endorsements, and invite as many candidates to speak at such forums as possible. 3) The UFT will decide which candidate to endorse through a citywide, binding, one-member, one-vote poll of our members.

I am trying to parse what a binding one-vote poll of our members might mean for us in the UFT considering the politics of our union leadership and where our own membership might stand with so many candidates (yes, even Trumpers). 

So this petition is very different than the process in LA by calling for a referendum of sorts where all members of the UFT would get to vote for their candidate of choice. What if the UFT membership splits along the lines of the candidates with “the winner” getting, say, 25% of the votes. Thus, Bernie or Biden could “win” with a minority of votes. Would that be binding? Or democratic? The process being called for seems flawed, especially coming from a group billed as “Labor for Bernie.” Would a Biden endorsement by a clear minority of voters in the UFT be acceptable when they clearly have a preferred candidate in Bernie? Where do people in your schools stand at this point?

The reso being circulated in the UFT seems to recognize the realities of the control the leadership has over the Exec Bd, the DA and most of the schools, and never mentions Bernie. To go around that process, the sponsors are pushing for chapters to endorse the reso and hope that in schools where they have people, they can come to the DA with some chapter endorsements. The main group pushing this reso in the schools would be the MORE Caucus, whose leadership is prominent in Labor for Bernie. 

If a real referendum went against what the UFT leadership or even L4Bwants, that would put both of them in a box. So this reso has zero chance of passing, but putting it forth offers an opportunity to charge the leadership and Unity Caucus with not being democratic. And gathering signatures is an organizing opportunity for MORE. They’re certainly not interested in organizing me. But I will sign it anyway. Calling for democracy is good, I say, with some sense of irony (that’s an inside joke).

-->

Parsing Randi on Health Care - From Under Assault

This is a great post from a former ICEUFT colleague who blogs as Under Assault. She exposes the details of Randi's faux Medicare for All speaking out of 5 sides of her mouth. I keep wondering about the arguments our union leaders are making in favor of private insurance and arguing for the ability to bargain on health care in contracts when it is clear removing health care from bargaining can't be anything but advantageous. And then I began to think of the UFT Welfare Fund which gives the leadership control over the machinery (and patronage) that is paid for by the city.

"The glib and oily art to speak and purpose not" (part I)

https://underassault.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-glib-and-oily-art-to-speak-and.html 

Medicare for All means restructuring the tax code to eradicate a market-driven, for-profit industry that deprives Americans of coverage, needless expense and choice.

I'd venture to say that what the 99% really wants — in addition to universal coverage, of course — is a reduction of the overall costs we pay for health. Those include taxes and the out-of-pocket amounts we're hit with in the current design of things.

Unfortunately, as the Kaiser Foundation noted earlier this month, you can't discern that widely held position from the polls. Wording of the questionnaires themselves affects the responses you get, and how successful politicians and their spokespersons "sell" the various proposals in different parts of the country also makes analysis slippery.

The true Medicare for All candidates, catching the tailwind of the two bills already introduced in the Senate and House, are very clear on the issues. We have to change the tax structure to achieve two goals: make healthcare universal and reduce the overall cost. What's in their way is Big Money, Big Pharma and a couple of the Big Unions, ours included.

That the AFT/UFT's position on Medicare for All is not progressive, even spineless and duplicitous, is clear from Weingarten's Sept. 27th letter in the Jacobin, from which I'll riff on a few things she's written.

"I am supportive of AFT members fighting for diverse viewpoints and positions"
and "the AFT has embarked on a very different process — one that puts member engagement front and center."

Silky smooth. The fact that leadership may support members "fighting for diverse viewpoints" doesn't mean that Weingarten, Mulgrew or execs actually listen to or buy into the  arguments made by the rank and file, particularly those of us who support M4A legislation. In fact, I'd argue there is a certain hostility to polling the membership, much less following its lead.

"I want that glib and oily art to speak and purpose not." (Shakespeare, King Lear, act 1)

"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant." (Plato, The Republic, book 1)

"We agree that we must make healthcare a basic, universal human right ... but ... I don’t believe there is just one way to get there."
It's way too facile to agree with Progressives that healthcare is a basic right. To suggest that there's more than one way to get it is catastrophic for any real change. Every proposal that sidelines M4A legislation buttresses the fundamentally self-serving layer of bureaucratic redundancy and greed we have now in for-profit insurance. But Weingarten supports that fluffy prose.

"We may yet go singing on our way — it makes the road less irksome." (Virgil, Eclogue 9)

"The safest road to Hell is the gradual one — the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts." (C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters)

In fact, restructuring the tax code is the only way to kill this dragon and make healthcare truly universal and truly universally accessible.

"There is but one road that leads to Corinth" (Pater, Marius the Epicurean)

"I argued for Medicare for all as a floor, not a ceiling, with a role if people want for private insurance."

This stance is idiotic. Anyone who advocates for it condones for-profit healthcare.

"Here the boundaries meet and all contradictions exist side by side." (Dostoevski, The Brothers Karamazov)

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." (Mencken, Prejudices, 3rd series)

And, in fact:

"This was the most unkindest cut of all." (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, act 3)

"In concept, health insurance is supposed to lower the cost of care and expand coverage ..." That's a false premise right there. Let's be honest. The purpose of health insurance right now in this country is to limit the amount of care people can get and make money for shareholders.

"He who would distinguish the true from the false must have an adequate idea of what is true and false." (Spinoza, Ethics, pt.1)

"Truth exists, only falsehood has to be invented." (Braque, Pénseés sur l'Art)

"That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false." (Valéry, Tel quel)

... Unfortunately it hasn't worked that way. Medicare for All is one way to fix the concept, but it’s not the only way. The point is to get to universal coverage, and to stop the prohibitive costs that keep prescription drugs and healthcare out of reach for too many people."
You can't stop "prohibitive costs" when the biggest players back industry-driven out-of-pocket expenses. This argument is essentially a sham.

"A picture is something which requires as much knavery, trickery, and deceit as the perpetration of a crime." (attributed to Degas)

"If I be false, or swerve a hair from truth ...
Upbraid my falsehood!" (Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, act 3)

Upbraid her falsehood indeed.



" ... the goal for us as a union remains finding a standard-bearer who fights for universal coverage."
So they want us to fight just for universal coverage? If that's all she's willing to go to the mat for, our cause is truly hopeless.

What might ills have not been done by woman!
Who was 't betrayed the Capitol? — A woman!
Who lost Mark Antony the world? — A woman!
Who was the cause of a long ten years' war,
And laid at last old Troy in ashes? — Woman!
Destructive, damnable, deceitful woman!
         (Otway, The Orphan, act 3)

Health Care: Are union leaders giving us ALL the facts?

I am publishing this excerpt the hard copy of Ed Notes which I distribute at Delegate Assemblies and will be doing so today. Thanks to a former ICEUFT founder Julie Woodward who spent considerable time assisting with this article and clarified so much about the issue. Before working with her I was waffling on single-payer but she has made herself into an expert

and assists people with health care issues. Julie has brought back her blog and is focusing on the medicare debates. Here is her latest:

Under Assault: teaching in NYC

Is your union backing Medicare for All? Ours not so much

Health Care:

Are union leaders giving us ALL the facts?

By Norm Scott

I will be reporting on health care in what it means for UFT members in these special editions of Ed Notes for the delegate assembly, in addition to my blog, ednotesonline.com.

All sides of the political equation recognize that our health care system is a mess, with costs double and with poorer outcomes than other advanced nations. Yet, I’m still not clear on where our local and national unions actually stand. There is understandable confusion about various versions of “Medicare for all,” each with very different implications. “Medicare for all” is misleading because people think it means merely extending Medicare for those 65 and over to the entire population - a system that includes major roles for private insurance, co-pays and deductibles. Original Medicare has left over costs that must be paid out of pocket but there are a variety of supplemental plans available through mostly for-profit companies, with a variety of premiums depending on the type of coverage.

Bernie Sanders is talking about a very different system based on a simpler design, one that eliminates the ACA,  Medicare, and much of the private insurance industry (with is duplicative administrative costs, high salaries, and faulty incentives) and creates an entirely new tax structure. We’ve seen this kind of massive structural innovation before — with Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965 — and most people would fight hard to keep these programs until something even more efficient, universal, and protective comes along. The Sanders (Senate)/Jayapal (House) 2019 legislation currently in Congress also includes long-term care and other benefits. 

Some unions have endorsed Bernie’s total restructuring bill (National Nurses United (NNU). Other union leaders (our own included) and politicians have raised red flags, claiming the elimination of private insurance would make us lose our “much-loved” union negotiated plans and have backed a range of so-called “medicare-for-all” situations, including for-profit insurance, employer coverage, and public options. What they’d leave us with are the same bad players, and a variety of compromises that continue to feed at the public trough.

People think they like their plans, but they really like their doctors and hospitals.  Most people gripe consistently about the hoops they have to go through with their plans. They hate their copays.  They hate their huge deductibles.  The only time they reach a true comfort zone with their plan is when they get a very expensive operation or hospital stay, when the contrast is so very obvious between what they DO pay and what they WOULD HAVE HAD to pay if they didn't have a plan.

We are told we have given  up salary for decades in exchange for health care benefits and won’t be able to negotiate on health care in the future. Is that what we want to do instead of focusing on salary and working conditions instead of having to make choices to divert funds for those purposes to health care? Remember our 2014 contract where we agreed to help save the city billions on costs which has led to some reductions in coverage, with possibly more to come?

President Mulgrew pointed to the AFT taking a position in favor of “Medicare for all,” but that has been muddled. An article in Jacobin asked:  Why Is Teachers Union President Randi Weingarten Attacking Medicare for All?... Weingarten pulls her bait and switch; different versions of medicare for all, including plans “that preserve a role for commercial insurance,” are actually all the same, she argues, and are just different paths to universal coverage. Weingarten, wrote a recent piece in Politico: The false choice over Medicare for All: We can have both private health insurance and an expanded role for government. She argued for pretty much every plan, obfuscation at best. A role for private insurance  (five times the administrative costs of public plans) leaves a lot of money on the table for profit with executives and investors making millions of dollars and with much higher turnover of employees with less knowledge, poor response times and poorer general service.

Here's the crux of Randi's waffling. She wrote. "Easing the stranglehold private insurance companies have on the market and preserving the option for employers and unions to continue to innovate in health care is critically important… Unions can actually help navigate the transition to a health care system that works for more people, and we can help hold employers accountable for working with providers and employees to find cost savings without diminishing benefits."

    

Easing the stranglehold? A single-payer plan eliminates the stranglehold instead of easing it. Randi says "Preserve the option to innovate," while single player doesn’t play footsie with corporations.  They want corporations out of the picture.

In fact the Sanders plan offered in 2017 (improved in the current bill) was analyzed by a team of economists from the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). They found that it is not only economically viable, but could actually reduce health consumption expenditures by about 9.6 percent while also providing decent health care coverage for all Americans.

I was first convinced about single-payer by my wife who spent decades handling billing issues for a major hospital and dealt with every private and public insurance company. She maintained without a doubt that the most efficient and responsive people were those who worked for the Medicare system. There were long-term professionals while the private insurers were often clueless. It was her practical experience, not some ideology, that convinced her, and me, that only a single-payer government financed plan would create a much better healthcare for all.

Resources: UFT activist/blogger Julie Woodward, now retired, has specialized in assisting people with Medicare issues and her blog, Under Assault underassault.blogspot.com, has been brought back from dormancy to deal with the politics of Medicare for All. Last week I attended a presentation/debate on Medicare for all at The CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies with a fabulous presentation by Robert Pollin (www.peri.umass.edu/economists/robert-pollin).

Jacobin on Randi on Medicare for all - Speaking out of 4 sides of her mouth

Why Is Teachers Union President Randi Weingarten Attacking Medicare for All?... Weingarten pulls her bait and switch; different versions of Medicare for All, including plans “that preserve a role for commercial insurance,” are actually all the same, she argues, and are just different paths to universal coverage:.... Jacobin

This is ridiculous and it made me realize the exact type of harm she [Randi] caused within the UFT. When she backs this flim flam center neo lib shit, she alienates her own constituents on the left who hate it bc it doesn't do enough and on the right who hate it bc ... because. The only ones who remain are the other center and the 'yes' men. So, because she likes shit like this crap, she has to build her followers from that flock ... which makes us all like her policies even less.
And it's because at the end of the day she cares about the DNC more than she cares about her own union.... comment from a UFT member re: Randi obfuscations on health care.

Yesterday, I posted my comments on Randi Weingarten's Politico article on medicare for all which was more than a little confusing: Randi Weingarten on Medicare for All and a Rebuttal

Now be very clear -- Where Randi leads Mulgrew follows so whatever Randi says becomes UFT policy. I'm working with some former colleagues to put together a rebuttal for the October DA and for UFT Ex Bd meetings.

One of them just sent me this reminder of a 2018 AFT resolution which tries to say all things to all people: https://www.aft.org/resolution/support-affordable-care-act-and-expanding-healthcare-all?fbclid=IwAR2NS0Gwczws7Z31nK67gjRKJWi0miO-ivHtt2e7Ztnb_W5wu8EU5UKYwA8

One of our buddies sent the comment above that pretty much nails the Randi experience:

Yesterday, Jacobin came out with a rebuttal too.

Why Is Teachers Union President Randi Weingarten Attacking Medicare for All?.

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/randi-weingarten-medicare-for-all-aft-president-american-federation-teachers

President of Puerto Rico Teacher Union Resigns Over Conflict of Interest

There's a long history of the relationship between the various versions of the Puerto Rico Teachers Union over the past 15 years. There are two versions - the FMPR - the left - which pulled the PR union out of the AFT over a decade ago -- we covered that story extensively and over the years Ed Notes has been a political supported of the leaders of the FMPR through my old UFT colleague and pal, Angel Gonzalez.

Naturally Randi was vexed by the FMPR which came under severe attacks by the government of PR - and eventually was decertified which opened the door for the Randi/AFT friendly AMPR to become the official union in PR, a story we also covered extensively.

For links just search Ed Notes for FMPR -- there are probably dozens of articles. Here is one I posted 

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

MORE Supports Puerto Rican Teachers Union, Links to Backstory

Angel Gonzalez (left ), Lisa North, FMPR Pres. Rafael Feliciano at forum c. 2011

ICE, GEM and now MORE have been supporting the FMPR for over a decade, since they bolted from the AFT - they sued but lost and the FMPR won and withdrew 40,000 AFT members.We established contact with the FMPR through NYC teacher Angel Gonzalez who worked with ICE and then helped found GEM. His good friend, FMPR President Rafael Feliciano,  made a number of visits to speak at meetings and events. (We had some quotes from him in our movie.) It's been a long story, too complicated to tell now. I'm proud that MORE is contributing $200 to the support of the FMPR.

See also Dissent: Puerto Rico Remade
{https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/puerto-rico-remade}

Below is an article Angel sent me in Spanish that I used google to translate, followed by the AFT Randi praise of Aida Diaz.