UFT Caucuses: When to Hold and When to Fold, UFT Members Assembly - The ABCs of Better Pay

I agree (Union Activists - Are We Weird?. )  Prioritizing building an all-inclusive coalition is a losing game. We've seen where that goes and the fact that UFC evaporated shortly after the last election is all the evidence that anyone needs to know that these types of marriage of convenience strategies aren't built for long term organizing. How many UFC officer candidates left the DOE post election? This pattern of squabbling between elections and trying to come together last min is a real bummer.... Anon. comment on Ed Notes

A very incisive comment from someone who seems to be on the inside. And after the public service announcement below I will delve into the 50 year failures of election coalitions in the UFT - believe me I know. I helped put them together multiple times, only to see the coalitions come apart for years before they awaken like a bear out of hibernation to redo the same old thing once again when the election bell rings, the so-called Einstein def of insanity. Or the Pavlov dogs of the UFT. 

 

The current caucus structure even with one slate can't win - and if they did imagine each caucus doing what they always do - retreating to their corners to use their position to build their caucus so the next time they could ice everyone else out to try to win the whole thing for themselves. MORE is in a much better position than NAC to do that. After the 2022 election all pleas to MORE to keep meeting were ignored. It took most of the year for the break with New Action on the exec bd to come. MORE sits as far away as they could from NAC. (maybe now they will sit together to show a united front while they  gnash their teeth. So imagine this shot gun alliance now. Just like UFC the day after the election, win or lose, infighting and positioning will start. It's in their DNA. Only RA doesn't have to do that because a) it's an oligarchy and b) they have no competition from another caucus so they can act with impunity.

 

There's still time to register for today's ABC Member Meetup zoom.

We’re excited to invite you to an important UFT Members Assembly: "The ABCs of Pay: Let's Talk!". In this Zoom meeting, we will dive into one of the most pressing issues for educators - fair compensation.

Surveys show fair compensation is the leading issue for UFT members. This meet-up will focus on the nuances of pattern bargaining and how to break it, plus other ideas on how to increase compensation. Within two hours of posting this meeting, 100 people signed up. You can't run in an election calling for better compensation without an actual plan on how to win that and developing a strategy that differs from the Unity strategies. Explore the options and compare to how the current leadership approaches the issue - Hands up, surrender to the pattern. What is the Municipal Labor Committee and how do we break its stranglehold on pattern bargaining?

RSVP, Tuesday 12/10 @7PM: UFT Members Assembly - The ABCs of Better Pay

Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Time: 7-8 PM
Location: Zoom [rsvp.uftmembers.org]

RSVP: 12/10 Member Assembly

rsvp.uftmembers.org

UFT Members

 

Future meetups will focus on other issues. Tent Date for next one on How to win changes in Tier 6 is Jan. 7.

Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2024

 

UFT Caucuses: When to Hold and When to Fold

 

UFT Caucuses come and go - except for Unity. And there are some signs of lower level desertions.

 

Here's a little history of UFT oppo groups, over 55 years of observance where in most elections coalitions were built and ended the day after the elections.

 

My 1970s caucus, Coalition of NYC School Workers, was extremely active for a decade and was a one-third component of the New Action Coalition, a united front of 3 caucuses that came together every two years to run in UFT elections from late 70s through early 90s and then went their own ways between elections, often competing with each other for a scarcity of activists. The other two caucuses were New Directions (founded in 1976) and Teachers Action Caucus (c.1968) and merged c.1995. This pattern, while eventually winning some exec bd seats, which often seemed the sole purpose of running, made no progress in building a serious caucus to challenge Unity, a consistent fatal flaw.

 

The School Worker Coalition's key organizers began to lose interest in the early 80s - I bought a house in 1979 and began an MA in computer science and taught at Brooklyn College that took up the rest of the 80s into the early 90s. We didn't try to breathe life into a dying caucus corpse. The core stayed together and began to meet and eat socially - which those of us still alive still do. The main organizing we did was menus. But we continued to talk about the major issues and stayed informed. Discussions still ran deep and incisive and when I re-emerged those talks gave me a base with which to organize in my own school.

I came back to life in the UFT in 1994 when I became chapter leader, but my focus was on my school and district where I had to battle a principal and try to woo a district and local union leadership that had viewed me as an enemy in the 70s - and I was fairly successful in neutralizing them since they knew I could still be a problem for them if I did exposes. I did not have much time to do central UFT work other than go to the DA.

Not until 1997 when I was no longer teaching and working at the district did I have time and energy to do central union organizing work with the debut of Ed Notes, the newsletter. But I was a lone wolf in a sea of caucuses. I relished the freedom but understood you need a caucus to move the ball. The lone wolf phase lasted through 2003 when NAC sold out to Unity and I helped found ICE, not a caucus loaded with limits or norms (except me) in response. 

 

New Action was composed of the other two wings of the original election New Action Coalition that functioned from 1979-1995, TAC and ND.

TAC and ND continued as separate active caucuses through the 80s and early 90s. The original coalition, not the caucus New Action but the coalition of caucuses, began to win the high schools and the biggie came in 1985 with winning the HSVP and then 1991 winning the 13 HS and MS exec bd. But they lost it all in 1993 which opened Unity to taking away the right for divisions to choose their own VPs.

Then came the 1995 contract battle and the voting it down, led by TAC, ND and independents. (I played little part in that for reasons I can't remember.) Apparently talks for a merger of TAC and ND had been going on and that led to the current edition of New Action - New for ND and Action for TAC. Both groups knew it was time to fold into something new and it worked, attracting people like James and the future Camille Eterno. And Lisa North. So TAC and ND folded for something better - more big tent than either ND or TAC (which was considered the left at the time.)

There were other caucuses called PAC - Progressive Action Caucus. c. 1997. They were focused on teacher who were having trouble passing the license exams and they existed through the 2004 elections when they ran with ICE. They had a big court case and when that was lost they folded -- but funny thing they recently won on appeal 2 decades later.

And Teachers for a Just Contract (TJC) which was founded in 1992 but didn't participate in UFT elections until 2004. More on them later.

Now let's leap ahead to ICE - Independent Community of Educators -  which came out of a meeting I called on Halloween 2003. We attracted those who quit New Action like the Eternos, Ellen Fox and Lisa North plus very newly active UFTers like Jeff Kaufman and Julie Woodward, but also what was left of the core people from the old 70s School Workers Caucus. I was impressed by how many independents there were who were not interested in New Action, PAC or TJC and were looking for something that ICE seemed to offer - an Independent point of view freed from caucus hierarchies. And I will say, ICE has never had hierarchies.

 

This combination in ICE proved dynamic - for a few years. And then it wasn't after the 2007 election when we clearly began to shrink. Meetings of 50 went down to 12. While others persisted I read the cards. We had no real future as a traditional caucus but could continue in some ways to have influence in the UFT, even today. Despite my reluctance we gave it one more try in the 2010 elections, when we ran with TJC. It was time to fold as a traditional caucus after that, to the consternation of people like the late James Eterno and Ellen Fox.

Oh, TJC - Teachers for a Just Contract. They were around since the 90s but came to life as a caucus for the 2004 elections when ICE and TJC ran separate slates except for the high schools where we ran the same candidates and won. BTW - a formula for running two slates in the coming up election with enough candidates on both slates to win a majority of exec bd and ad com. A possible solution to settle differences. But leave that for another time. The older ICE socialists were very much opposed to the TJC version of socialism and  I would say ICE formed as much to stop TJC from representing the opposition. ICE was a bullwark to both NAC and TJC. To say TJC was pissed is putting it likely. They viewed ICE like ABC is viewed by the legacy oppo today.

TJC was the hot, younger thing then while ICE leaned older. So they may have had legs but also faded when the younger International Socialists (ISO) abandoned the older socialist Solidarity segment and by the 2010 election they could only field a relatively small number of candidates. It was clear that both ICE and TJC had no future.

In 2009, some of us in ICE founded a new non-caucus group called GEM - Grassroots Education Movement - a group that had no intention of running in UFT elections but was an advocacy group for public education. GEM attracted new people not interested in UFT politics and, unencumbered by the burden of trying to build a caucus, GEM took off like a rocket - we accomplished more in a 2-3 year period than any caucus I've seen - totally focused, not on positioning, but united on key issues. Even parents were involved. GEM had legs but we got waylaid.

Then came the 2010 Chicago victory of CORE, a caucus founded only two years before as a union study group. Suddenly some eyes in GEM lit up - we need a CORE in the UFT - and that folded GEM, sadly, and all groups linked to the UFT were invited to discussions of what became MORE - Movement of Rank and File Educators. I was involved in choosing that name - I always wanted to see the word Educators or workers in group names.

The day of MORE's first big meeting, TJC folded, but ICE people were a major presence in the founding of MORE. And don't think many ICEers weren't reluctant. Gloria, Lisa and I led the push for ICE to give up our autonomy and veto power as we entered MORE. James Eterno was a skeptic. The recently passed Ellen Fox never failed to remind me she opposed ICE giving up autonomy. She wanted to see MORE as a coalition of groups instead of a caucus. Sadly, I now think she was right.

But as MORE grew, ICE continued to function -- at times were accused by some in MORE of functioning as a caucus within a caucus which was LOL since we are the most undisciplined group of anarcho-socialists. Rice pudding over politics. One thing I learned in MORE was there were highly disciplined factions in MORE that did operate semi-undercover as a caucus within a caucus and were using MORE to recruit for their own outside groups. 

 

In 2014 a segment of MORE split off to form Solidarity Caucus, which is still around today. Solidarity was very dependent on the leadership of Francesco Porteles and Lydia Howrilka and when they left Solidarity has floundered. After MORE/NA won the 2016 hs seats (where they functioned fairly well together despite MORE steering attempts to interfere and "steer" the exec bd, to no avail - which led to the future troubles and the purging of ICE. 

So, I gave you a history of most UFT caucuses (I'm leaving out Retiree Advocate for now) and how they merged or folded or became something other than a caucus. 

 

The conclusion: I'm clearly not opposed to caucuses. I do push back against caucuses when I consider them fundamentally ineffective. Ed Notes once rated a caucus as A caucus in Need of Improvement. I reserve the right to be critical of caucuses  - some for external policies, but also for those with clunky over burdened internal process that bog them down in minutia and too many rules and norms - I hate norms.

I can only say my best experience in caucuses and uncaucuses had been when there is dynamic conversations on issues of concern to NYC educators -- while some caucuses spend a lot to time talking about themselves. 

So far my ABC non-caucus experience has been much more of the dynamic conversations with ideas flowing freely. I care more about that process at this point then imposing a formal structure on the UFT election process. 

The Caucus Role in UFT in Elections: The ICE Experience

The Caucus model works very well for Unity over 62 years. Not so well for the other caucuses. 

The premise for his and succeeding series of posts is that caucuses in the UFT are a necessity, but I question whether they should be the main driving force in UFT elections. I agree with their argument that they have the infrastructure and I don't preclude them using that infrastucture to support the effort. But they want control and that is where I push back.

That model hasn't worked very well but this time after the retiree and para and TRS elections, which had some caucus, but not all support, there is a feeling the model can work this time if there is a coalition like UFC from 3 years ago. I disagree. The vote totals for UFC were not much better than they were in 2016, but Unity votes slipped. A coalition might win this by default instead of a mass show of support. That would still be a leadership even if not Unity from the top. Without a major influx of new blood, mimicking the success of RA (which did have a massive influx of new blood even if from old people) will be impossible. Also can RA hold onto its 63% support if the Medicare issue fades.

Sunday, Oct. 6, 2024

Technically a caucus is any two or more people who come together over common interests. But in the UFT they mean a group that competes in UFT elections. A group that isn't interested in elections is more of a club.

The very fact there are competing groups that only come together for UFT elections to challenge and otherwise go their separate ways is the best friend Unity Caucus has. Let's face it, caucuses with a major aim of recruiting, generally put their own interests over the bigger picture, which is ending Unity's reign over the UFT. In fact over the 55 years I've been active in resistance groups, there have been few between elections examples of caucuses working together, Unity's best friend. This year, things may only get worse.

Why ICE was different

Let me just say that ICE was a factor in UFC in the 2022 election with James Eterno leading the way. Without James I have no stomach for making a case for ICE to have a share equal to other groups. ICE is not a caucus anymore in the traditional sense but still a collection of people with influence. In fact we are meeting on zoom tonight.

• UFT tribute to James Eterno: https://ufthonors.uft.org/eterno/
  

My experience in helping form ICE in late 2003 was a bit different than how other groups began. It was sort of serendipity.

The major oppo caucus, New Action, had just made a deal to work with Unity. I ran into Michael Fiorillo at a joint Unity/New Action rally and he was shaking his head. "What do you make of the NAC argument that Bloomberg is such a threat we need bipartisanship?" I said that kills the voices of resistance. We should get some of the gang together to talk about it. And so we did.

Teachers for a Just Contract had decided to become a formal election caucus. I had met a bunch of people who were not happy with TJC and its ideoligically driven program that at times seemed to be grafted onto the UFT but didn't touch on so many issues of concern, so I called them together, not to form a caucus, but to discuss the situation. Was NAC right to ally with Unity? Did TJC politics, molded by the ideologies driving the group, work for people? Some of us had attended a few TJC meetings and came away unhappy. 

This pre-ICE group meeting attracted over 20 people, including James and Camille Eterno, Ellen Fox and Lisa North who had left NAC (or been asked to leave). Most people were leftists of some sort but also pushed back against the TJC line of what they saw as a shallow, ideology driven program - which some recognize remnants in the current program MORE, with roots back to TJC, offers today. 

ICE decided to run in the 2004 election to raise crucial issues ignored by others

The meeting and those that followed were very program driven on issues no other group were focused on: the danger of mayoral control, high stakes testing, closing schools, attacks on teacher control of the classroom, class size, and others, all issues fundamentally ignored by the other caucuses. Three weeks later, we decided to form Independent Community  of Educators (ICE), not as a permanent caucus, but for the election in order to put forth our program in the NY Teacher. We did unite with TJC on the high school candidates only and surprisingly we won those 6 seats. It was only after that election that the group decided to stay together as a caucus and be active at the Exec Bd to support Jeff Kaufman, James Eterno and Barbara Kaplan-Alpert out winning HS candidate.

• Independent: Left leaning, we are non-sectarian and not tied to any party or tendency.
• Community: We are part of a broader community than UFT members in a school.
• Educators: We are broader than just teachers and include secretaries, paras, etc.

There is some irony that I helped found yet another caucus when I had always advocated bringing everyone together into one big tent, which I had tried to do with Ed Notes back in 2001 when I called all caucuses together for a few meetings to work together for the next election -- before a fistfight broke out and I gave up.

ICE Uncaucused

The caucus model did not work out very well for ICE. We ran with TJC in 2007 and 2010 with little progress (NAC was still in alliance with Unity and was granted a number of exec bd seats and jobs), which is why we shifted to a non-caucus group called GEM (Grassroots Education Movement) where we did amazing work for two or three years - not focusing on  UFT stuff, we fought charters, high stakes testing, closing schools and made a great movie. Then we got sucked into forming a new caucus (MORE) and GEM died. Some of us think that was a major mistake. It turned out the new caucus model hasn't worked out very well either in terms of taking power in the UFT.

Coming next: 

So why don't all the groups form one big caucus? 

Examining other UFT caucuses on their success and failures.

Offering a New Paradigm for the next UFT election.

 

 

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%.

ICE Meeting Friday - ICE and MORE - A Lesson for New Action

At the MORE meeting with New Action last October, we offered the ICE model to New Action as a way for their people to work within MORE for our common aims while keeping their caucus alive. They rejected that offer.

ICE will be holding a rare meeting tomorrow. These meetings take place when people feel a need to talk to each other in a relaxed atmosphere where few decisions have to take place.

ICE (Independent Community of Educators) was founded in late 2003 as a reaction to the deal between New Action, then the leading opposition caucus in the UFT, and Randi Weingarten, by supporters of Ed Notes and others - ie, people invited to leave New Action for opposing their deal, which led to seats for New Action on the UFT Ex Bd and job opportunities in the union.

ICE ran candidates in the 2004, 07 and 10 elections, jointly with Teachers for a Just Contract. But both caucuses had very different ideological backgrounds and methods of operation and there was very little interaction or cooperation.

In 2009, members of an ICE committee dealing with ATRs, testing and closing schools (soon amended to include fighting charter invasions) attracted people from outside ICE, including some from NYCORE and eventually people from other charter battles, like Julie Cavanagh and the crew from PS 15. By that time the committee had been spun off into a new organization that became the Grassroots Education Movement to defend the public education system. Not being a caucus in the UFT, many segments within and without the UFT were comfortable and ultimately the UFT oriented groups began to talk to each other about a big all inclusive tent for a new caucus - which became MORE.

Merging the ideologies and interests has not been an easy process, as the lessons of the march on Staten Island proved. See my piece lambasting the undemocratic ultraleft holier than thou ideologues - The Left and Right Attacks MORE on Garner March Position: I'm Shocked, There Are Social Democrats in MORE. And I do a number on the right wing racists too.

So, anyway - here is an announcement I sent out to the listserves. I'd love to invite every Ed Notes reader - because the rice pudding is so good. But there are only a few seats left - but shoot me an email if you are interested and I'll check.

ICE is meeting  Friday Aug 29 at 4:00 pm. Please RSVP if you haven't yet dome so if you are coming as there is limited space.

ICE meetings are usually the best place to go for real open discussions on issues impacting UFT members. People actually learn. Everyone gets to speak, as often as they like. Meetings don't end until everyone is satisfied that they had a chance to share their views, think about what others are saying and followup. That learning process leads people to an ability to modify their views and compromise during the course of the meeting (except for the rigid ideologues, who often don't stay very long because after all, they know it all and have nothing to learn and are only there to proselytize their views on others.) 

Of course size matters so this is not a criticism of MORE which has more people at meetings, though some ICE people do get frustrated at the more restricted environment of MORE meetings.

James Eterno has suggested we don't just chat n chew but work from a real agenda while chewing and chatting. Darn. Here are his suggestions, supplemented by some of mine, which means we will probably still be chatting and chewing at midnight.

Eterno:

1. ICE stayed together and did not disband in 2012 as TJC did after MORE was formed. I did not want ICE to stick around so we could merely get together and eat once or twice a year. We continued as an organization with a role to play in the union and education debates independent of MORE.
Note from Norm: At the MORE meeting with New Action last October, we offered the ICE model to New Action as a way for their people to work within MORE for our common aims while keeping their caucus alive. They rejected that offer.

2. We need to pay our respects to Gene and Loretta Prisco. We lost both of these wonderful people since we last met as a group. (Those who want their comments published will be videotaped).

3. Is ICE still needed?

If ICE still exists as an organization it should say something and take 

some positions, not just be a space for Jeff and I to share our personal views.  Our purpose as an organization should be on this agenda. Perhaps we are no longer necessary and should disband as TJC did in 2012. We can still get together and eat when we want to.

4. State of MORE and ICE's part in it.  Amazing young people have bred new life into opposition to Unity in the UFT. What, if anything, does ICE want to achieve as part of this opposition? Where do we see it heading?

(Combine items 3 and 4).

5. An ICE endorsement for Zephyr Teachout in the Democratic primary. Locals around the state are endorsing her. MORE probably won't do it so why not ICE? See support statement from James Eterno on ICE blog.

Norm amendment: ICE also endorses Green Party in general election.

6. NYSUT's Stronger Together. 

A legitimate statewide opposition to Unity is forming. The entire year at NYSUT should be reviewed. I propose ICE formally support Stronger Together. Some of us are already involved so why not formalize it if ICE still wants to play an active role in the union and education worlds? 

7. Midnight special - Discussing the controversy inside and outside MORE over the march, the UFT support of the march, what could have/should have MORE done? Not for voting, but for comment: did MORE do the right thing?

Has UFT/AFT Given Up Pretense They Are Opposed to Individual Merit Pay?

Teachers for a Just Contract has a pretty good analysis where they claim that agreements between the UFT and the DOE has broken down the so-called barrier between school-based merit pay and individual merit pay, something the UFT/AFT (which will endorse these schemes officially at next week's convention in Seattle) said it would never do. But they said they would never do a lot of things. I put the TJC position up on Norms Notes- "ANOTHER TABOO VIOLATED: UFT AGREES TO INDIVIDUAL Merit Pay..." which elicited this comment from a chapter leader:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post

What's missing from TJC's analysis, which is very good, is that UFTers who are selected for this merit pay scheme will be directly and or indirectly helping management rate their union brothers and sisters and potentially getting them fired. What other union would do such a thing. Can you think of one? This is the result of years and years of appeasement and a failure to build a strong, informed, democratic union.

The UFT is participating in the ruling elite's desire to crush teachers' unions, privatize public education and regiment teaching and learning through the use of data, high stakes testing and new teacher evaluations. All of this might be labeled as follows:

THE DICTATORSHIP OF UNIFORMITY!!!

The UFT understands this but like so many other unions today is unwilling to challenge Capital. Why? They believe they can temporize the situation. They believe they will "get through this." This can only be classified as self serving, infantile and unrealistic. The President of our country is leading this attack on education. Where is our vision? What are we fighting for? We are always "fighting" against something? What is our program and how do we communicate this to our members and the community?

Is the UFT afraid of events "catching fire" if they truly try to educate and mobilize our union? Are they afraid of losing power? Are they afraid of being crushed by the ruling elite, by Wall Street?

These are amazing times. What will be done?

Sincerely,
A Lonely CL by the Sea

--------
Afterburn: Later we'll delve into signs there will be an ATR "agreement" - sellout - before long.

TJC: ATRs UNDER THE GUN

From Teachers for a Just Contract

ATRs have been receiving a lot of negative publicity. ATRs are teachers who, through no fault of their own, do not have a program. Their school may have closed, or there may be fewer students in their school or taking their subject. Before Weingarten and her Unity Caucus messed everything up, teachers in this situation got placed in the closest vacancy. (And, no, they did not "bump out" any appointed teachers.) But three years ago, in the 2005 contract, Weingarten and Unity gave up this right. They claimed they were protecting jobs. But TJC urged everyone to reject the contract, writing at the time:

"Under the new contract, an excessed teacher, regardless of how many years of seniority, LOSES THE GUARANTEED RIGHT TO A TEACHING PROGRAM. The principal of a school must consent to let the excessed teacher into his or her school. The excessed teacher continues to be paid, but he or she may remain as an ATR (Absent Teacher Reserve), a kind of permanent sub. It is not clear what happens to this teacher if his or her school is being closed." ("Truth vs. Spin," TJC, October 2005)

Only a year later, the 2006 contract contained a new danger for ATRs: a potential buy out. We wrote at the time:

Buy Out for ATRs -
Anyone who has been an ATR (excessed teachers with no program) for a year can be offered a buyout. This paves the way for ATRs being threatened, pressured and harassed into accepting this "voluntary" layoff. Anyone of us could become an ATR at any time, regardless of our seniority, if our school closes or our department is downsized. What's worse, no amount for the buyout is set in the contract. It must be settled by negotiation or arbitration: and we will have no vote on it.

Excessed teachers once had bumping rights by seniority.
The union gave that up in 2005. We also had a no layoff clause. We were told the provisions for ATRs were the equivalent of a no layoff clause. It's a slippery slope: this new change makes ATRs an endangered species, and further erodes our seniority rights and job security." ("Vote No! We Can Do Better" TJC, November 2006)

Now the danger is a step closer to reality. The media and the ‘think tanks" are hot on the trail of the ATRs, claiming they are a waste of taxpayer money. (As opposed, let's say, to bailing out Bear Stearns) Randi, whose fingerprints are all over the knife sticking out of the back of the ATRs, is jumping up and down in seeming indignation. But it could be that, before long, she'll be crowing about the generous buyout she's gotten the ATRs, and pointing out that in Chicago, they would simply be laid off, implying "Take the money and run," while there's money to take. She'd like everyone to forget that it's her fault ATRs exist in the first place.


THE MOST POWERLESS VICTIMS
We support whole heartedly the ATRs and our colleagues who've been removed to reassignment centers in their struggles for justice. But the plight of untenured teachers is just as bad and often worse. Untenured teachers don't have even the right to a 3020a hearing. All it takes is one administrator or supervisor who is irrational, bigoted, eager to hire a favorite, or some combination thereof, and their teaching career is D.O.A. There is no second chance. The higher-ups who come in to observe invariably rubber stamp the school administrators. The so-called appeal procedure is a waste of time and a cruel joke. The union, though it collects the same amount of dues from these untenured people, provides far less protection for them. This is a tragic waste of teaching talent.

One of these many individuals has written a moving and indicting description of his experience. It reads, in part: "the principal . . . has decided that I am not qualified to teach math. Interestingly enough [he] is a medical doctor by profession, and has made this ‘diagnosis' at the end of the school year without a single [classroom observation]. What's even more interesting is that this "diagnosis," which was supposed to be backed by six [observations] - was accepted by . . . the DOE. My letter to the regional superintendent . . . was left without an answer. In another case, asking a . . . deputy chancellor about which non-existing document she is referring to when making her decision [upholding the U-rating], I received no response. . . . Theoretically, it is possible for a fired teacher to take his grievance to court. This is possible only in theory . . . due to financial reasons. Additionally, on the DOE's side . . . [the] regional superintendent . . .makes sure that the last step [of the appeal] at the DOE takes place only after the expiration date of any possible legal recourse . . . Only after this is the teacher within his rights to ask for any recording of the hearings held - - but even these recordings may be blank . . . as . . . in my case."

Kafka-esque, nightmarish: even these terms don't begin to describe it.

READY FOR SOME GOOD NEWS?
Persecuted by their principal, and with their Chapter Leader in league with him, a group of veteran teachers at Graphic Communication High School gave up on the union and hauled the miscreant into court. After much time, energy, and money have been expended, their rightful cause has met with success. On Sept. 19, after a two-week trial, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a jury found the New York City Dept. of Education and Jerod Resnick, principal of Graphic Communication Arts High School, guilty of intentional and willful discrimination on the basis of age against teachers Diana Friedline and Midge Maroni, and retired teacher Anthony Ferrero, and awarded the teachers monetary damages.

TJC congratulates these courageous UFT members on their well-deserved victory. It is an indictment of the UFT leadership that they needed to resort to an expensive, time consuming battle in court to get justice. We must carry on our efforts to reform our union from the grassroots to the top, to make it into a democratic organization that will serve our interests.

You can reach Teachers for a Just Contract.
Our mailing address is TJC, POB 1346, Bronx NY 10471

Albert Shanker, Image and Reality

I came across this by TJC's Swerdlow and Wainer written shortly after Shanker died in 1997.

"The Shanker-Feldman vision has so weakened teacher unionism that government officials can now openly consider the privatization of public education. Therefore, the future of [public] education may depend on the ability of rank-and-file members to challenge the Unity/Progressive Caucus and replace the union's rhetoric of professionalism with a strategic vision of militance, solidarity and democracy."

Ten years later, we can see the results as the very future of public education and the power of teacher unionism at the school level is threatened like no time before. The combination of iron tight Unity Caucus control of the UFT and by proxy, the AFT, combined with Weingarten's strategy of coopting the main opposition - New Action - has left ICE and TJC to attempt to resurrect some semblance of opposition to Unity from scratch.

And I'm sure some people may have some critiques of their critique, so fire away.

The entire article can be accessed at Norms Notes at this link.

One more note: I've read interesting stuff TJC people have written that does not get out to the general membership. I think TJC people limit their scope by keeping apples and oranges separate. More openness would have mitigated the impact of Unity's "Red Scare" attack on Kit Wainer in the last election.

Merit Pay, the UFT, TJC, and NCLB

At one point I did not understand how the UFT and Weingarten could support merit pay in any form. But after reading the Kahlenberg book on Al Shanker, it all makes sense. For those who think Randi has taken the union in a different direction than Shanker, take a look at the book and you will see just about all of the union's current policies in there from the early 80's on.

The UFT is against the individual merit pay provision in NCLB but will accept (even if they don't say so openly) building merit pay as not being as onerous. Sure. The UFT/AFT should be calling for the total abolition of NCLB, which has been so onerous to teachers, students and parents. But much of the NCLB law could have been written by Shanker.

I spent months in 2002 trying to get a resolution at the DA urging a fight against all forms of merit pay but was stonewalled by Weingarten. That frustrating experience gave me an insight into where she was really coming from and led to a break with her that moved me to change direction from trying to use friendly persuasion on Randi to open opposition.

Marian Swerdlow and others in TJC were totally supportive of my efforts at the time despite being mildly critical of Ed Notes for trying to play ball with Randi for the 5 previous years. They were so right.

My bone to pick with this resolution is that if there would be a nationwide demo, it should address the core issues of joining with others around the nation to fight against reauthorization of the entire NCLB Act and not limit it to such a narrow focus as merit pay. But this is a specificly targeted resolution that also addresses the building merit pay issue and if passed (snowball in hell territory here) it could be expanded in the future. Urge your reps to support it at Weds. DA. If they are Unity Caucus, ask them to explain why they are opposed.

To be presented at the UFT Delegate Assembly, Oct. 17 by Teachers for a Just Contract.

THE UFT MUST LAUNCH A REAL FIGHT AGAINST MERIT PAY
The reauthorized No Child Left Behind Act is heading towards the inclusion of a provision forcing school districts to implement individual merit pay to teachers as a condition for receiving important federal funding. Individual merit pay is not only intrinsically unfair, the competition among colleagues it engenders destroys our ability to act together as a union. It is also destructive to the mutually helpful cooperation that goes on among teachers all the time: comparing and sharing experiences, methods, lesson plans, etc. (School based merit pay is equally unfair and carries its own set of problems as well.) What this would mean is that part of the pay package we negotiate, instead of going to across the board raises, would be dedicated to this unfair and destructive scheme.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Weingarten and the union leadership have no credible plan to protect us from this threat. Teachers for a Just Contract will be proposing an effective launch for a serious campaign to defeat this threat at the Delegate Assembly on Wednesday, October 17, by proposing the resolution below. It calls for a nationwide demonstration by teachers in Washington D.C., to publicize the dangers of merit pay to education, and put our representatives - Democrats and Republicans alike - that we will take this fight to the mat.

Resolution Against Using the Threat of Defunding Schools to Impose Merit Pay

Whereas: Merit pay is intrinsically unfair and detrimental to professionalism and union solidarity among teachers;

Whereas: Any provision of federal law making Title I funding to a district conditional upon its imposition of pay for performance (a.k.a.merit pay), whether individual or school-based, as measured by testing, as proposed for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Law, virtually imposes this unfair scheme on nearly all of our nation's teachers;

Whereas: We cannot depend upon writing letters and lobbying Senators and Congresspersons to be enough to stop this strong and serious threat to our students, our profession and our unions;

Whereas: holding mass demonstrations in the nation's capital has proven an effective tool for pressuring Congress and winning public support for past social causes, including peace, civil rights and women's rights;

Therefore, be it resolved, that the UFT will initiate, organize and build among our sister teacher union locals a nation wide demonstration and protest, to be held in Washington, D.C., at the earliest optimal date for the dual purpose of focusing public attention on our powerful arguments against merit pay based on testing, and demonstrating to our elected representatives the strength and resolve of our opposition to this provision.

Election results reflect UFT crisis

By Megan Behrent, UFT | April 6, 2007 |
Socialist Worker Online, Page 14


NEW YORK--Elections in the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) ended with the re-election of the current president, Randi Weingarten, and her Unity caucus retained a strong majority.

Nonetheless, modest gains were made by Independent Community of Educators-Teachers for a Just Contract (ICE-TJC), the opposition caucuses in the UFT which formed a coalition to challenge the incumbents. The vote for the opposition, amid a record-low voter turnout, reflects increasing anger and disillusionment with the current leadership and direction of the UFT.

The total number of people voting was much lower than three years ago (which was already low, with only about 30 percent of the active membership voting). Thus, while over 160,000 ballots were sent out, only about 45,000 were returned. Of these, 22,000 were from retirees, which means that less than a quarter of the active membership of the union voted in this election.

This low turnout in part reflects the complete disillusionment with the union leadership and the UFT leadership’s failure to publicize the vote. Furthermore, the American Arbitration Association sent out faulty ballots that, while eventually corrected, created a great deal of confusion.

ICE-TJC ran a joint campaign, opposing givebacks in recent contracts that have led to a longer workday, longer work year and eroding rights in the workplace. The opposition argued instead for a strategy of militant rank-and-file organizing in the union.

Throughout the elections, the Unity caucus tried to attack ICE-TJC and its presidential candidate, Kit Wainer, through red baiting.

In a postcard sent to large sections of the membership, Unity accused TJC of being “stuck” in the 1930s and warned members against voting for a “militant socialist” who “advocates strikes and strike threats for political and ideological purposes.” Even though TJC is not a socialist formation, the caucus defended the role of socialists in the unions.

“Weingarten and Unity want to say that militant socialism is back in the ‘last century,’” a TJC flyer stated. “That's right: the century when the UFT itself organized through a series of militant strikes, when our union made real progress for members.”

Despite Unity’s dominance, its support declined, whereas ICE-TJC made gains. The opposition ICE-TJC got almost 20 percent of the votes from the active membership of the union (excluding retirees) and saw an increase in all divisions, gaining 20 percent of the Intermediate School vote, about 16 percent of the elementary school vote and 36 percent of the high school vote.

While ICE-TJC lost the six high school executive board seats they held for the past three years, this was expected. Since Unity did not run for these positions in the last election as part of a deal with the former opposition caucus, New Action, ICE-TJC was able to win.

For Teachers for a Just Contract, the election campaign was about organizing rank-and-file teachers in our union. While the outcome may seem disappointing to some rank-and-file members of the union, the gains demonstrate both the possibility and necessity for mobilizing the rank and file to fight back against the increasing attacks on our working conditions and our schools.

The process of rebuilding and reforming our union from below is part of a long-term process that will require us to build on the gains from this election to expand and train TJC's base of rank-and-file union members. The opposition needs to continue to push the leadership to fight for better working conditions and to stop the assault on schools from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein.

The UFT leadership has begun to fight against the mayor's school reorganization plan, which includes privatization and an emphasis on testing. The UFT has a citywide demonstration May 9 to put the “public back in public education.” This is a good start, but the opposition will have an important role to play.

The challenge now is to push the UFT leadership to take on the mayor's assault on contractual tenure and seniority rights and to develop a strategy that can stop the overall assault on public education, and begin to make real gains in improving working conditions in our schools.

For more information, contact www.teachersforajustcontract.org.

Breaking News: March 29, 2007

UFT vote count all day at Park Central Hotel, 7th Ave & 55th St. Election committee announced that mail received today will be counted. We may ask for Friday's mail also to be accepted. I will be there with Kit Wainer and Josh Kahn from TJC.

ICE meeting at Murray Bergtraum HS, Friday, March 30 at 4:15 to analyze election results, with a scavenger hunt to follow to find a restaurant in Chinatown.

When a question was raised at the DA yesterday about the red-baiting flyer Unity sent out, Randi as usual cried about how she has stood up to such terrible personal attacks -- like questions about her teaching credentials and said she lives as honest a life as anyone she knows. (Except for that statement on NY 1 she made not long ago claiming she taught 5 periods a day for 6 years.) Randi then gave Unity head Jeff Zahler the floor to engage in another round of red-baiting, saying he was proud to have sent that out and reading excerpts in an attack on Kit Wainer. He said accusations of McCarthyism are not true because in those times Kit would be thrown out of the union and not even have a job. He attacked Kit for criticizing Al Shanker for supporting American foreign policy (like the was in Vietnam, which apparently in retrospect Zahler must also support. When he started frothing at the mouth Randi signaled "enough" and he sat down like a good boy.

Kit tool a point of personal privilege but didn't go beyond referring to the TJC response on their web site. Many thought he should have gone on the attack the way NYC Educator did and said he was proud to be a socialist who is willing to fight for a strong union and if Randi was a socialist our people wouldn't be in such trouble.

By the way, not one New Action member said a word or tried to say a word. so ironic since Unity had always red-baited them. I had a brief confrontation with some New Action people before the meeting when I castigated them for lying down with snakes and for not standing up. They argued they had sent a strongly-worded protest to Weingarten and said something on their web site. Whoopdee-doo! They should have come to the DA and handed out a leaflet. No guts, no glory! They also said they objected to the counter red-baiting in TJC's response. Let's see what Zahler and his friends in New Action have to say when his Unity faithful finds out they have elected members of a certain leftist organization who ran on the Unity slate to the Executive Board. Call this counter red-baiting if you want. If you lie down with snakes, expect to get bitten.

Having been involved with people from the left in union politics for a long time, I always feel people should be open about their political affiliations, especially if they are associated with a party which can have such a major impact on their political stance. That goes for people in TJC and in New Action. The word "Independent" in ICE has a lot of meaning. There are a lot of left people in the group but they are truly independent, people not comfortable with left party ideology. At least the 3 Progressive Labor Party members in ICE are out front, though sometimes in an awkward way.

Speaking of which....

Ironically, Jonathan Lessuck from the Progressive Labor Party (and ICE) got up right after Kit on a point of order to make the annual PLP May Day motion because Randi had shunted the New Motion period to the end of the meeting as she usually manipulates that time. She began that with me back in 2000 when she didn't want one of my motions in front of the body and actually called me outside to apologize. She was fairly new, with a Unity party still loyal to Sandy and looking for allies - not nearly as arrogant as she has become. That was my first indication (ok, I was slow) of how manipulative she was.

Jonathan has proven very adept at handling himself in these sticky situations. I was almost hoping he would say what Kit wouldn't in a rigorous defense of left activism in the union but when Randi engaged in an attack on him for daring to upset the democratic process because there is a backlog of so many motions (due to her long reports, invitations to DA's to politicians and DOE officials, etc.) but as usual, she tried to blame Jonathan. But he turned the tables on her when he called her Dusty, followed by "oops! When under pressure I get mixed up with my repressive, dictatorial principal." The place rolled with laughter and even Weingarten had to laugh. Humor is the best way to work this crowd and unfortunately few use it. Kudos to Jonathan.

When his first sentence of the May Day resolution mentioned the word Communist I said "Uh, oh!" but he saved the day with a great case for celebrating May Day as a way to reinvigorate the labor movement. When the vote was taken even Randi said it was 70-30 against. 30% of the DA FOR the May Day motion? Holy Cow! We must be moving left. More kudos to Jonathan.

When people ask how it is to have PL people (Jonathan, Carolyn and Joan) working with ICE I answer that it has been a pleasure to have their viewpoint which is very pro-student, presented. (I know I'm simplifying - I object to them pinning every ill in the world on racism.) All to often, all you hear from teachers is the bad stuff about students. One of the reasons PL and ICE can work together is that we have always tried to deal with the rights of teachers and students (and parents.) Sometimes people, even in ICE arecritical, saying a caucus should only worry about teachers. My view is that is not a caucus I am interested in. Again, kudos to Jonathan.

I hung out in the back of the DA with Josh Heisler a teacher at Vanguard HS in the Julia Richman complex. Josh works with NYCORE (New York Collection of Radical Educators.) I met Josh through Sally Lee from NYCORE and Teachers Unite. Josh is doing work on anti-military recruitment. It was Josh's outrage at receiving the Unity red-baiting attack that spurred NYCORE, which usually doesn't get involved in UFT internal struggles, to endorse the ICE-TJC slate to their very large mailing list. I'm hoping we can get Josh to work with us in ICE.

The more I meet people like Josh and Sally, the more I appreciate the fact that there are still young leftists (Peter, Megan, Ellen from TJC) out there battling. Change in the UFT will only come from being spurred by the left and there is hope. I know there is a right-wing anti-Unity sentiment out there but it is not organized and frankly, I don't see that happening. If the right wants to get rid of Unity it will have create a caucus, join with the left, or sit on the sideline. Though I do not view myself as a leftist, I love meeting and working with them and there is a glimmer of a future for a movement.