UFT Resistance Caucuses: We Need Them, But Why Not One Big tent?

We really need to just merge the opposition caucuses into one United for Change caucus.... comment on a chat

 

That was original intent of MORE from the ice perspective in 2010 when talks began.  As time went on others in MORE did not want a big tent, more of a boutique caucus which alone cannot win power in the UFT. So I gave up now on one big caucus and went back to forming election coalitions of caucuses and independents ... Norm

Reply: As great as that sounds, I don’t think it’s realistic. There are some issues that I don’t see people agreeing on. The union is just way too big for that. Ideally there would be a few healthy caucuses, like most democracies have a few relatively strong parities

Even with healthy caucuses there is competition for those few activists and a focus on caucus building. Another model would be one big caucus with sub caucuses internally that allowed for internal debates. DSA has that. I actually made a similar proposal at the first big More meeting. Recognize we start out with internal factions....Norm

 

Reply: It seems like one opposition caucus and one caucus that maintains power would pose the same problems as any two party system.

I began this series on UFT caucuses with:

• 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.

Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2024

• Recent (past 30 years) caucuses in the UFT: New Action, ICE, TJC, RA, MORE, PAC, New Direction, TAC - When caucuses begin to fail they often look to merge or form new caucuses.

• How open is a caucus to new people? Does it have guard rails for membership? Do people have to agree to caucus fundamentals before becoming a member? Caucus discipline? Unity is known for its guardrails and discipline.
  

So why don't all the groups form one big caucus?  There are major differences in how each caucus operates.

 

I've been a critic of caucuses even when I was in one, some of which I helped found. I tried to see beyond the often narrow confines of a caucus, with their rules and structures, which often (and still does) drive colleagues crazy. That is why I was most comfortable in the more free-flowing ICE, which I and James Eterno sort of ran (I drove him crazy too). But let's face it, there can be no organized resistance to Unity Caucus without caucuses, so love 'em or leave 'em, we need 'em. In fact in today's UFT world, the more the merrier.

 

I'm constantly criticized for looking back to the past. But as an historian of sorts I don't believe you can move forward without learning lessons of the past. In UFT caucus history, there are loads of lessons to be learned. 

 

Currently, there seem to be 3 major caucuses beside Unity: New Action, MORE, and Retiree Advocate, with Solidarity and ICE considered minor compared to where they stood in the election 3 years ago. Daniel Alicea as EONYC last time was a sort of one man caucus but with tremendous outreach. Now he's joined New Action. But ICE and Solidarity still exist in some form.

 

ICE, which ran with TJC in the 2007 and 2010 elections fundamentally gave up official election caucus status to merge into the new MORE in 2011 with the idea to form a big tent. TJC went defunct while ICE continued with a blog, listserve and meetings. ICE was the biggest contingent in MORE at the beginning, with the International Socialists (ISO) being the second. But there were others: NYCORE, Progressive Labor Party, Teachers Unite,  TJC remnants, and non-affiliated.

MORE began with many internal factions and I proposed formal recognition of the factions which would allow differences but keep everyone together for the purpose of building a force to ultimately defeat Unity. That didn't happen.

Some of us in ICE noticed a certain segment of MORE that did not seem to believe in the vision of winning elections; having Unity in power as a foil seemed to fit their needs. Elections were not important, other than as a means to build the caucus and promote an ideology. I could see that point, though if you declare yourself a caucus how to explain not running? While mostly people were on the left, some see union work as a building block to socialism. Others  saw union work in more simpler terms - use power to improve conditions for teachers and students.

After a few years, it became clear there was a division: big tent vs. a narrow ideologically driven one. That faction didn't seem to want to win, arguing that winning was corrupting. Underneath it all was a belief that you must build a caucus with "the right kind of people" that can take power with a "unified vision". Reject people who don't agree with the dominant ideology and only make alliances with those you disagree with when absolutely necessary, but with the goal of jettisoning those alliances when the caucus is strong enough to go it alone.

Ultimately this faction did just that: It jettisoned the ICE members, actually branding the mostly leftists in ICE as right wing, and purified the MORE caucus.

But even that doesn't always work out and divisions over the 2025 UFT election have arisen, but in a new context of the possibility of winning this time, which has created new pressures throughout the Unity resistance movement.

The retiree and para massive victories created the possibility that a unified opposition can actually win. 

For most of the Unity resistance, that was a no-brainer. But the purists, a minority faction in MORE, do not want to win in a united front because that would dilute their political stances and violate their principles. And I respect that. In a recent internal vote, around 125 voted for a united front (but with specific conditions) and 35 voted against.

There is some irony in that minority position, given how often these very same people bow down to their "allies" in Chicago and LA as caucuses that actually took over their unions -- they obviously ran to win - and not initially with a very heavy social justice agenda. Win baby, just win, first and THEN change the union. As a fan of those movements who was involved with them from the early days of 2009, I have never gotten an answer to the contradiction between them and the so-called NYC version of them. I know a guy doing his PhD exploring this issue between Chi/LA and NYC. I hope he illuminates the differences - I see him heading in the direction I lean - Unity Caucus.

And here's the reality: At no point can one caucus actually win a UFT election without making alliances, so that subset of MORE will go on spitting into the wind endlessly. In my early years in MORE I urged the new caucus not to waste resources in running but to use the election to build outreach but the newbies were so excited to run. After the 2013 election, there was a year or two of stagnation - actually a slow decline over the next few years. That always seems to happen between election years.

One of the Retiree Advocate elected delegates, Lois Weiner, recently wrote an article appealing to these dissidents, an article I have some issues with but don't have the time to address them at this point. It seems the philosophy that has been driving MORE also explains the ICE expulsion:

...building the caucus then contending for power (a chronology I’ve advocated in my work about teacher union reform). To some, joining the coalition without having the caucus we want in place seems a violation of principle.

That's a standard position of the election purists in MORE - running in coalition with people not on the same page as you is a violation of principle. The theory of caucus building by reduction or purges, is very standard on the left but a philosophy that has been a proven failure in NYC and leads to a narrow ideologically driven "club" more than a caucus. Put out dog whistles to both keep people away and attract the ones you want. 

The winner is always Unity.

But here is where Lois Weiner makes her appeal to the "don't run" dissidents by differentiating NYC from the other cities:

The vulnerability of the retiree victory in its chapter election makes joining the coalition and building a progressive politics within it all the more urgent.

Proponents of union democracy and social justice teacher unionism should not wait out this election in anticipation of becoming stronger, more unified in shared principles, more democratic in functioning in time for the next election. The RA’s victory forces those who want a more militant, democratic union, in particular activists in the Movement for Rank and File Educators (MORE), a caucus inspired by CORE, to re-think the trajectory exemplified in CORE’s victory and its subsequent transformation of the CTU. CORE had and used the advantage of time we in the UFT do not have, time to build a unified caucus based on shared principles that fuse social justice with protection of economic protections for members, time to organize on its program to contend for leadership in a union election. Context counts. The comparative size of the school systems and their unions, along with decades of Unity’s rule, which has isolated reformers from possible allies in NYSUT, combined with the machine’s almost untrammeled exercise of power, its punishment of opposition and reward of those who take its orders, converge to make reformers’ task qualitatively different in New York than elsewhere, certainly in this country and possibly the world.

Credit to Lois, who I can't wait to see at the DA tomorrow, for seeing a new landscape. But let me point out a flaw that is a myth on the left - that CORE, founded in midst-2008 as a book club and won power in 2010, managed to build a unified caucus in a year and a half when they ran a campaign based on fighting closing schools and high stakes testing and defending teachers against attack and even attracting right wing supporters. MORE is now 14 years old since people first started meeting. If they haven't emulated CORE by now, then when?

MORE had to make an alliance in 2022 after their disastrous decision in 2019 to run alone (my opposition and reporting on that is what got me kicked out) and finish 3rd behind Solidarity and losing an enormous percentage of their 2016 vote. 

A few months later a key voice in that faction approached me at a DA and said, "you were right, Norm, we never should have run. As you warned it took a lot out of us even running a minimalist campaign." The 2019 lesson was learned and MORE joined UFC. And the majority still think that is correct. 

This time, as Lois points out, building a coalition to defeat Unity is even more imperative.

Next: A Way to Win: Offering a Different Paradigm for UFT elections: Less control by caucuses (not their elimination) and more from the rank and file. Plus the remarkable resurgence of the 30-year old New Action Caucus.

 

Forest Hills HS Monday Morn Update: Is UFT Behind Attacks on Principal Ben Sherman as Retaliation on CSA?

Mulgrew at Feb. 11, 2019 Ex Bd: We need to implement new contract. Union that reps principals hates our contract. They went to PERB against Bronx plan. We know schools run better with partnership and collaboration. CSA hates it. Says they don’t mean harm, but they want it stopped. When I hear of principals who don’t give instructional supplies, there is a procedure. He has five days, or it goes to superintendent, and then to me. Union that reps admin doesn’t like our agreement. Too bad. They don’t get to interpret what’s in our contract. ... NYC Educator report

Mulgrew repeated these comments about the CSA at the Del Ass two days later. This may be a stretch, but I am going to try to connect some dots between Mulgrew's aggression towards the CSA and insider reports I am getting that the UFT was behind the recent no confidence vote in principal Ben Sherman at FHHS and the media campaign (here, here and here). Maybe  a warning shot across the bow of the CSA?

Ed Notes readers know how critical I and other bloggers have been about UFT inaction or tepid responses over principals who go too far. Every time I have spoken at the UFT Ex Bd over the past 10 years it has been about principals and why the union doesn't take a more public stance. The response has often been that they work behind the scenes, that they bring it up at the monthly consult meetings with the chancellor and that the CSA is another union and open attacks are not a good idea.

Some ask why not use the NY Teacher to go after principals? It seems the UFT wants to use outside press when possible. From my conversations with insiders it seems there are some people who want to be more aggressive with principals and others in the leadership who feel they have other fish to fry and that the CSA is a useful political ally in bigger battles.

Of course many of we critics think dealing with supervisors is the biggest fish to fry. The funny think is, that after 7 years of being in a leading opposition group like MORE, I have come to the conclusion that they also feel they have bigger fish to fry. You may see it mentioned but MORE won't do any real work around the issue. New Action does spend time talking about bad admins and Solidarity has made that issue a focal point. But the reality has been that no opposition caucus has ever had the ability to do much. Now if the day ever comes that they combine - we'd have 30 really active people instead of 7 in each caucus.

The most effective field of operation seems to have been using the UFT Ex Bd meetings to bring people to raise issues and Arthur and Mike and Jonathan have played a role in bringing people and Arthur's reports on what they say have put UFT leaders on the spot.

At the last meeting Jonathan brought some people. She described an awful situation. Here is Arthur's report:

Yvonne Riesen—reps 10X213—BETA—dress in blue in solidarity for right of basic instructional supplies, no microscope, scales, money allocated not committed, no paper. Must dig through garbage for paper—principal verbally abusive, spreads fear, probationaries in tears, ATRs demoralized, take 4 in row or two C6 per day. Furniture falling apart, fights break out, fires, and we’re told not to use alarms. Teacher passed out and they debated who to call. Tyrannical nature of principal. Oppressive, incompetent admin goes unchecked. We need to move forward, and we can’t under this principal.

Schoor—Send me what you wrote. We will bring it up with DOE. Debbie Poulos will look at your complaint. Basic instructional supply issues have been being resolved quickly. We will send people to your school.

Howie saying they bring it up at the next consultation meeting is not satisfactory. He faulted Farina for not giving much of shit but says Caranza is more responsive. (UFT insiders say he is clueless and gets the runaround by the bureaucrats. These people are suffering. Pick up the phone and call Caranza and don't wait for the monthly meeting.

If I go tonight to the EB - I don't like cold windy days - I may bring some of these points up. Or I may stay out her snug as a bug and let Arthur do all the work.

Taking a birds eye view, are there signs that Janus has pushed the leadership to be more aggressive? More open to other points of view? We had some intense discussions touching in this point at the recent ICEUFT meeting, which I may report on - or not - a key point being that I never ordered rice pudding.

UFT ELECTIONS ARE COMING! - 2001 edition --- If an opposition party runs in a union election and no one notices, did it really run?

I'm running a series from the Ed Notes archives on UFT Elections Past, where the ghost of ed notes makes an appearance to haunt the modern Scrooges in the UFT and use the past to show the opposition parties in the UFT the future - unless they change their ways.

That very same ghost of Ed Notes past also haunts me as I see how my views have changed over the years. Ed Notes published in hard copy from 1998-2005. Revisiting this history might be of some use for activists in the UFT. Or maybe not.

Reprinted from Ed Notes, Feb. 2001, Volume 4, No. 3

NOTE: New Action (NAC) was the dominant opposition group after the merger of two caucuses (TAC and New Directions) in 1995. 

The marginal Progressive Action Caucus (PAC) was formed in 1997/8 by a former leader of New Directions, Marc Pessin, to focus mostly in defense of teachers under attack over their licenses. Their vote totals were around 2-3%.

Teachers for a Just Contract (TJC) was not an election caucus until 2004 the same year ICEUFT formed as an outcome of the organizing efforts of Ed Notes.

[UFT] ELECTIONS ARE COMING! - 2001 edition
There’s an old joke about some political groups: Put 2 of them in a room and they’ll split into 3 groups. That seems to have happened to the opposition parties in the upcoming elections.  

New Action/UFT (NAC) and Progressive Action Caucus (PAC) are both running against Unity Caucus. It is not clear what role Teachers for a Just Contract will play. 

An email from Marc Pessin explains PAC’s position:  
“We will be running our own slate in order to project a radical education program. However we will run NAC candidates on our slate so as not to divide the opposition in areas like the JHS and HS where we have a chance of winning if NAC agrees. We will back their candidates. Others in our group also might want to run on the NAC slate as well.” 

This is a significant change from the ‘99 election where PAC ran a slate that almost prevented NAC from winning the HS Exec. Bd. seats. PAC now takes a rational approach to the UFT elections: run to make people aware of your point of view and don’t compromise your point of view to pander to the voters. Unity has so stacked the deck that it is impossible to win other than in certain select areas (See accompanying article “How Unity Stacks the Deck”). 

NAC has taken a different tack, attempting to find a broader base of support. But NAC often seems to appeal to the least common denominator, at times seeming to base its positions on the common bond of merely being anti-Unity. NAC has had a fairly low profile so far, considering the importance with which they view elections. (ie. No literature at the Jan. DA and a lack of coherance at Exec. Bd. meetings.) 

Ed. Notes will have an article in a future issue titled “The NAC Election Campaign: The Sounds of Silence” which poses the age-old philisophical question: If an opposition party runs in a union election and no one notices, did it really run? It will deal with the promises and failures of NAC. 

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%.