VOTE NO, Unity Caucus Bullying Ramps up attacks on critics, major target Nick Bacon hits the Pentafecta - 5 times heckled in two days

The heckling needs to stop! Educators wouldn’t allow this in a classroom but here in the DA it’s condoned. Whatever, anyway I did buy a car without reading the contract, and you know what it mostly turned out okay!.. Mike M comment on NA blog

Yes, imagine a world where unionists were allowed to speak and honestly debate our contract. Imagine a world where the UFT staff members who we pay to protect our rights didn’t try to tear down working teachers for having even the slightest critical thought. Ha! on your car... BaconUFT: June 14, 2023, DA Votes yes to Send out Contract without a Copy: UFT Delegate Assembly – 6-13-2023 - comments

I'm not surprised that paid union staffers are heckling me (heckling increases) ---- Nick Bacon at Monday contract meeting

They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred. --- FDR, 1936 Madison Square Garden speech, what Nick Bacon may be thinking about Unity slime.

I love Nick Bacon --- delegate from MORE exiting the DA

Sunday, June 18, 2023

I was leafleting at the end of the emergency Delegate Assembly on Tuesday as people emerged. After hearing the stories about the two days of Unity heckling Nick Bacon because he wanted to see what he was voting for, I was loudly calling for a "stop the Unity bullying campaign." 

 

Two young female delegates I didn't know asked for leaflets and as they walked away, turned around and said, "we were just talking about the bullying and it was very upsetting to us." Unity is turning Nick Bacon into a folk hero - and providing fuel for his fire.

Unity Caucus is more and more becoming the Trump party of the UFT. And like Trump, they have no shame, which at one time they at least seemed to have. They've reached the stage where for the first time I am doubting they would run an honest election. Their desperation to hold onto all power is calling on them to resort to desperate means. To me, their increasing undemocratic tactics is a sign they feel they are losing control. 

 

As you can see, while the bullying may energize the union hacks, there are independents who are turned off. I heard even some Unity were turned off. The attacks also energize the opposition. I hope they keep it up - they are organizing for the opposition.

 

The Unity Caucus machine has ramped up attacks on critics - not just on the contract, but on any criticism at all. Don't dare say something bad about the tie Mulgrew is wearing. You will be vilified. For some in the opposition, these type of attacks is working to make them somewhat gunshy. But for Nick Bacon, it is fuel.

Now, I loved these attacks when they came at me. It shows they are feeling the pinch. All authoritarian regimes revert to bully tactics when they have no real answer to critics and feel a threat to their control. Just watch the dirty tactics to come in chapter elections next year and in the 2025 general election. 

Nick received an ovation from 25 oppo people on Tuesday when he emerged from the UFT Delegate Assembly at 6PM - he was heckled and booed at the 2PM contract committee, the 3PM Exec Bd and the 4PM DA -- the trifecta. And this after facing the same reaction from the Unity serfs on Monday at the 4PM contract committee and 6PM Exec Bd meetings. Nick set a 2 day record for Unity hatred with this Pentafecta.

 

Nick, a Unity defector two years ago, seems to irk Unity slugs more than anyone in the opposition. Fundamentally, he is being attacked for his outrageous demand to be able to read beyond a UFT/Unity press release on the contract. He asked for the MOU and both Mulgrew and Barr lied and said it was online. It wasn't. 

Nick noted in his notes: when will the MOA even be on the website? I ended up being the only person allowed to speak against, though many other hands were up, and that paragraph is towards the bottom.

 

Nick is purposely being allowed to speak to help make him a target and also to keep him from making his often cogent points.

Here is his full statement:

Sorry to even be in a position where I have to speak against this, but I’m on the negotiating committee, the executive board, and the DA and have not seen this MOA. We don’t even know when it will be on the website for our members to see. You don’t buy a house based on a PowerPoint the realtor showed you, or a used car based on the PowerPoint your used car salesman showed you. You look at the contract. There were issues with the last PowerPoint – not because anyone was trying to lie, but because it’s hard to see fine print in a PowerPoint. We need to see the fine print before we tell our members this is a deal worth voting yes on. *Around now, being heckled by UFT staffers* It’s OK, I’ve been being heckled all day, mostly by UFT staffers. We’ve also mostly heard from UFT staffers about why we should vote for this contract. They haven’t read the MOA either, and they also don’t have to live with the consequences. Working teachers – and other titles – will have to live with the consequences. We need to know what’s in this contract before we vote on it.

Here's where we really miss James Eterno's real time DA minutes because the burden falls on Nick to be active and take notes.

One of the more outrageous comments came from UFT VP Mary Vaccaro, who misused James Eterno's history of opposition to Unity by claiming he trusted the leadership. If not for James' condition, that would be an LOL moment.

 

 Here's an example of James' trust for the leadership re: the 2018 contract:

UFT MISLEADS MEMBERS AS RAISES IN PROPOSED NEW CONTRACT WON'T BEAT EXPECTED INFLATION PROJECTIONS

Here is an excerpt from a UFT bulletin trying to sell the proposed new contract by saying raises will beat inflation.

New salaries: Raises of 2%, 2.5% and 3% produce a three-year compound rate of 7.7 percent, above expert predictions of inflation of 6.2 percent (Federal Reserve Bank) and 6.8 percent (International Monetary Fund)

UFT spin, spin, spin=mislead, mislead, mislead.

Arthur shows how trusting UFT leaders ends up:

http://nyceducator.com/2023/06/vote-no-on-uft-contract-here-is-why.html

Juliwoo too:

Under Assault: teaching in NYC

It's all about trust, ain't it. -

 

A no vote sends a strong message to leadership on healthcare. It sends a reverberating message that our rank and file want it improved and not diminished.

 

 A comment from a delegate - corrected-

I was at the DA meeting over the phone. This is what I DIDN'T hear being talked about:
1. Healthcare.
2. Why our raises don't meet or exceed current inflation.
3. Why they added 25 minutes to the instructional workday. It was 6 hours and 20 minutes and in the tentative contract at a glance it says it is 6 hours and 45 minutes. Mulgrew said there were no givebacks or concessions. This doesn't look like what he said.
4. Fixing of Tier 6. I'm tier 4 but I feel for Tier 6 and believe it needs to be fixed.

I already know I will be voting NO.

The UFT bureaucracy’s avoidance of strike-readiness undermines the union’s bargaining power. 

 

Other unions seem to get it:

 

 

More links:

UFT Contract PSA: Beware of Distracting ‘Perks’

UFT Tentative Agreement Online (Mostly) – Not as Rosy as Mulgrew’s Presentations

Examining the 2023 UFT contract draft – a ‘tentative’ analysis

Return to the Bargaining Table with a Strike Plan

Vote "No" on the UFT-DOE tentative agreement, and call on the union to leverage its power for more

RoNNIE ALMONTE

 

As expected, the agreement veils pay cuts with sub-inflation raises and non-pensionable bonuses, and improves only a narrow range of non-economic issues. Therefore, I encourage us to send the Negotiating Committee back to the bargaining table. The Mayor sits on enough money to concede more. When they arrive at your school, vote “No” on your ballots. Persuade your co-workers that there’s room to augment the gains in the tentative agreement. Convince them the UFT should renew its contract campaign with transparent demands and a plan for strike preparation, because only strike-ready unions threaten employers enough to grant costly concessions. 

 

 

See a UFC vote no video.

 

Op-Ed: Thoughts on the 2023 UFT Contract STATEMENTS, UFT SOLIDARITY NEWS

An interesting point of view from Eric Severson comparing salaries over the decades and showing how UFT members have relatively lost ground when inflation is taken into account. He focuses on starting salaries. I would like to see a comparison of salaries after 23 years and how those compare based on inflation. I retired in 2002 at 70k a year but a contract was signed weeks before my retirement with retro and my salary jumped to 76k. That was after 34 years. 

Let me remind people that in 1995 the top salary was at 20 years and the first contract was voted down mainly because it raised it to 25 years. The NO vote forced a renegotiation and they came back with 23 years, so we lost 3 but gained two from the NO vote. When Unity slugs tell you there are never givebacks, remember that one and this time just VOTE NO --- and ignore the threats that you won't get a contract. History proves you will do better. But even assume that the contract is ratified, the bigger the NO vote the better long term it is for you because it sends a message to the leadership and the city. - Norm

 

solidarityuft.org/?p=11421&frame-nonce=711ce9dc38

 

As we mull over the tentative contract agreement, let us consider some historic trends to let us know where we currently stand salary and benefits-wise.

 

I am just finishing my 17th year at the DOE, which means that when I first joined the UFT my salary was $41,172 a year. When we plug that into the CPI inflation calculator, we can see that a $61,712 would be the bare minimum to keep up with inflation, and the current first year teacher salary falls just short of that coming in at $61,070. In other words, before this current contract we are slightly behind just in terms of keeping up with the cost of living generally, and New York City is known known for getting less expensive over time.

 

So, a first year teacher entering the profession now is making slightly less than I did back in September 2006 when inflation is factored in. That first year teacher also has a more expensive Tier VI pension which they will need to pay into until the day they retire if they make it that long. They also have a workday loaded with five teaching periods and one C6 assignment, an arduous and stressful tenure process involving jumping through hoops to meet every Danielson criteria, and a $30 copay to see any medical specialist. Even if the salary increases in the 2023 contract do keep up with inflation over the next five years, any new or recently joined teacher has it worse than I do, and things needed significant improvement in the not quite as bad old days of 2006!

 

So far UFT leadership is pushing a narrative similar to the one we heard in 2014, that this contract is a raise without givebacks and a victory for members. Last time Mulgrew and Company pushed that narrative we ended up with worse health care coverage and ‘common planning time’ that we don’t really have control of, so I am awaiting details before fully forming an opinion. At best, this is a contract that barely keeps up with inflation assuming the Fed’s 2% target is met soon. At worst, the devil will be in the details and we’ll give up rights, benefits, or autonomy even more than we already have. Even in the best case scenario we’ll be better off than with no contract as we were in the Bloomberg years, but let’s not allow those in power in our union to call this a victory when at best it’s avoiding even further setbacks.

About the Author: Eric Severson is a veteran Special Educator in a large Brooklyn high school. He has ran for office in the 2016, 2019, and 2022 UFT elections with UFT Solidarity Caucus and United for Change.

 

UFT Contract Vote: Comparing 2014 and 2018

Someone in MORE put this together. Do your own interpretation of the data. In 2018 More people voted yes. Less people voted. Note the total number drop in NO votes by teachers from 16k+ to 8k+.
I was speaking to a band member last night at the cast party at the RTC and he is a MS science teacher -- looked to be around 30. Non-political in terms of UFT. Not unhappy with school or principal. While recognizing the pay compared to inflation issue, he said the key to him was the less observations and he supported the contract as moving in the right direction. He didn't talk about health care.

 

UFT Contract Vote Prelim Report: OT/PT Reject But 87% over all — 80-85% for teachers

UPDATE - Monday -  OT/PT Chapter Leader urged YES Vote. Unity Caucus usually controls the functional chapters so this is not surprising.

======

Sunday 3:30 PM Update - I'm reposting the 1:30 with an update.
The OT/PT, nurses unit rejected the contract. I think the leadership will try to punish them for rejecting the contract by letting a lot of time pass so they will be not get any raises. That'll learn em for saying NO.

A CL emailed me:

The more I look at Mulgrew's letter, the more furious I get. "You just screwed yourselves, but we will stand beside you. While you screw yourselves." Solidarity forever.

OTs and PTs were furious that they didn't get a fair pay increase, pedagogical status, or recognition of enough paid hours to qualify for FMLA. Apparently they went to sleep the night before the tentative agreement being assured they'd get some combination of the above things. When asked about the betrayal at the October DA, Mulgrew tepidly responded by saying something like, "Well, the DOE didn't want to talk about any of that." The attached letter, that just went out to the OT/PT & Nurses chapter, is a classic example of passive-aggressive, supportive-but-actually-not-supportive, chastisement. Very disturbing.

Para Contract
There was some back and forth on the para contract, which I'm sure was overwhelmingly ratified. James Eterno sent me his position on the para contract and why he thinks despite due process it was not a good deal for them.

 Paraprofessionals winning better due process is all well and good from their contract which is a totally separate contract from teachers. The UFT has many distinct bargaining units. What about paraprofessional pay? They too are receiving paltry salary increases so that the starting salary for paras will be $28,448 a year in 2021 in this contract. In NYC that is basically subsistence wages for paras. That is less than half of what a starting teacher makes. Another non-teacher chapter in the UFT isn’t catching up with teacher salaries either. Occupational-physical therapists are not anywhere near pay parity with teachers and these professionals have advanced degrees. That is an outrage that has not been addressed. In addition, guidance counselors, school secretaries and other non-teaching titles did not get an arbitration provision in their workload dispute complaint procedures so administrators are free to just pile on the work and the dispute is never heard by an outside neutral party. Most of the non-teacher UFT contracts are not any better than the teacher deal. Because the paras have better due process, it is no reason to say yes to the teacher or guidance counselor or any other of these UFT contracts.

Will Some NOs opt out?
I also got some feedback from the earlier post -- like if there are over 15,000 people who voted NO, does that make them candidates to use Janus to opt out of the union in June?

Impact on Opposition
I will explore what this all might mean for the opposition that led the NO campaign. 80% of the teachers is a victory of sorts. How much did Eterno and MORE move the NO needle? Imagine if there were NO people in 300-500 schools. That they aren't far from being in triple figures after all this time is indicative of the glacial rate of organizing. In fact there has been shrinkage -- glacial organizing retreat. Still, if the number comes in at 80%, given that in 2014 it was less than 10% points lower among teachers, this is not the kind of +90 wave we thought we might be seeing.

Earlier I reported:

Sketchy report from UFT event at the Hilton. Not as high as we expected but higher than in 2014. We’ll do some analysis on what it may mean in terms of the NO vote campaign and the future UFT election in a few months.

By the way, I heard some birdies say that Mulgrew wants to push the election up from when they held it last time, which makes sense to capitalize on the contract numbers ASAP and also to stay away from the late spring when the window opens up to opt out due to Janus.

I keep asking the others in the opposition about the point of putting so much effort into a dead end election. First build up a network of a few hundred schools. Clearly many of the NO votes came from schools where there was an active NO network. Given how few schools the entire opposition are based in, these votes - say as an estimate - 12-14,000 teachers — is not insignificant in terms of building a network. The opposition must go out and find them and organize them, something it has not been able to do - witness 2014 when higher numbers voted NO.

UFT Contract Vote and UFT Election Update: The Split in the Opposition Doesn't Help

I am setting the over/under for this contract at 89% approval as that was the yes vote in 2006, the last early  contract.

James Eterno on ICEUFT Blog

HANDICAPPING THE CONTRACT RATIFICATION PERCENTAGES -

With UFT elections coming in the winter/spring and the contract vote ending today, there is a connection between the two events. With Eterno predicting 89% YES, I won't go that far.

My guess on the contract vote outcome on the teachers contract will be anywhere from 75% to 93% YES. The Unity campaign could only be counteracted by a strong NO campaign. It didn't happen.

[This is a reworking of my previous post: UFT Contract Vote Scorecard Update - Who's For and Who's Against?]

75% would be a major victory for MORE and ICEUFT blog, which led the VOTE NO campaign with yeoman work by James Eterno on the ICE blog, though Solidarity Caucus, with less outreach, also opposed. James' work has impressed people in MORE and there seems to be some healing going on since the rancor last April. The contract issue has closed a bit of the gap between ICE and MORE, though some ICEers are still outraged at the undemocratic behavior of MORE. (I promise to get into these weeds at some point.) How many NO votes can be attributed to the campaigns?

I think James' post, which by the last weekend had 14,000 hits, may have been the most effective of all:  EVERYTHING BUT THE KITCHEN SINK ON WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE NO.  But he has kept up a constant drumbeat.

Also see this excellent piece on the MORE blog:

Movement of Rank and File Educators

NYC teacher union loses all of the battles it never fights - The new UFT-DOE contract makes no change in the 50-year wait for lower class sizes, a fair grievance procedure, and a rational job security process, among ...

I know class size reductions cost money, but to leave this ragged grievance procedure in place is criminal.

New Action leader and Ex Bd member Jonathan Halabi urged a YES vote with reservations. New Action as a group has not even met on the issue so they have not taken a position. This is a problem for MORE. And for New Action. How do you run in the UFT elections against Unity without a position on the contract?

Two elected MORE/NA Ex Bd reps, Goldstein and Schirtzer, are strong YES votes. My beef with them is that it seems OK to wait another 50 years for grievance procedure or real class size relief. Two observations and parental leave are victories but let's keep an eye on where we should have been going. MORE will continue to lobby on the contract.

I'm going to wager that the lack of a strong unified NO campaign will push the YES votes higher. But if the numbers are similar to 2014 where we had a stronger campaign that will be a sign of unhappiness in the rank and file. But much higher means an accepting rank and file of Unity rule. Don't tell me, as I heard someone say, that people voted YES holding their noses. A YES is a YES.

ICEUFT is having its monthly meeting tomorrow to discuss the contract vote and election possibilities.

I am observing the count most of the day but it probably won't be completed by the meeting and besides I cannot share the outcomes with people no matter how much rice pudding they shove down my mouth. (UFT Contract Vote Count Friday - Embagoed Till Sunday).

I am guessing based on previous contract votes where there were Vote NO campaigns. The most effective was in 1995 when teachers voted down the contract. One thing people may not know is that one division of the union can turn down their contract while others may vote yes. I was not yet active in the UFT other than as a chapter leader focused on my own school and I would bet my efforts there helped the school to a NO vote.

In 2005 ICE and TJC led a massive campaign, with rallies at the DA and the UFT and the vote count was intense -- close to 40% of the teachers voted NO. New Action, in alliance with Unity, was not part of the movement though they did issue a leaflet in opposition.

In 2014, MORE led the Vote NO with about 20,000 leaflets handed out as we went around to schools stuffing mailboxes. (Old vets like Eterno and I were somewhat disappointed in the MORE effort.)

Teachers voted 75% in favor but with 92% voting the 25% against came to 16,000 votes and there was another 4000 NOs from other divisions.

This time MORE led a Vote No campaign, but due to its internal issues that have led to a shrunken MORE, there was limited outreach in the schools but a more effective campaign on multi-media. MORES seem to think that in the schools they are in and active, there will be a NO vote -- I agree but there are too few of them.

The OT (Occupational Therapy) teachers are most upset as they were in 2014 where they did ratify the contract despite reports they were organizing to turn it down and this time they seem to be furious, so I will keep an eye on their vote. Expect paras to vote overwhelmingly -- maybe 95% YES.

UFT Election confusion

A contract vote over 85% would make the UFT election pretty much a waste of time. And many veteran opposition people are talking about sitting it out.

Here is what is clear. Things look bleak if not impossible to have one group opposing Unity -- which would be the only way to win the high school seats this time.

MORE in no way will run with Solidarity -- At the MORE meeting on Saturday someone branded it as a right wing group. I pushed back but apparently the Don't Tread on Me symbol is used on the far right and in the current political environment that is being used as a reason. Some people in New Action are using the same argument. Solidarity should address this issue publicly.

MORE may not even be willing to run with New Action due to the fact that NA is not taking a stand against the contract and Jonathan put out a YES vote. There would have to be some backsliding on its NO campaign to run Halabi as an Ex Bd member, though I can see that happening.

 

It was also pointed out that NA wants to focus on winning the high school seats. MORE does not agree -- that focusing on winning the high schools is a distraction and it wants to get its message out to all levels.

MORE does want the work NA would do in the election, since they are retired  mostly and would relieve the working MORE people to some extent, though given the last time when I handled the petition campaign for the election, NA can only contribute a limited number of signatures. So the bulk would have to come from the MORE people. But they would run a limited slate so that would take some pressure off.

What NA offers is a distribution campaign but NA would most likely put out its own lit instead of pushing the MORE line. 

 

But there is division in NA over running with Solidarity -- they are the "one opposition" people -- that there is almost no point in running if there are two opposition parties, while the other portion of NA wants to run only with MORE. A recent vote in NA leaned toward the pro-Solidarity people but that is still being revisited.

 

If the pro-Solidarity people lose they will not be involved in the election and that limits NA's distribution.

If MORE runs at all - which it probably will -- and probably with some accommodation with New Action if NA decides to abandon an alliance with Solidarity....

....it will be a limited campaign with the purpose of pushing it's political line on the contract and social justice issues. And a good chance it may run on its own. It has experienced people from Teachers for a Just Contract to run a limited campaign like they did when ICE ran with them -- they never put forth a lot of candidates.

The pro-election faction wants to use the campaign to push the "contract we deserve" campaign rather than focus on winning the high school seats.

There are people in MORE who do not feel MORE should run at all because it has shrunk over the years and needs to rebuild itself in the schools and that elections are a distraction. The argument that elections help you build has proven false in every single election I've been in. People emerge for a few weeks and then disappear after we lose badly to Unity.

MORE will discuss the elections at the Nov. 17 meeting.

That leaves everyone else -- and the question is if it is worth it to even run if there will be two opposition groups?

 

Solidarity has declared it is running, though I question whether it has the resources to do much of a campaign. It didn't get on the ballot last time because it was short of the 40 candidates. I assume they will get that many this time but doing all the election work is draining. Do they have the resources? They are willing to run with anyone. The elephant in the room for them is Portelos and some Solidarity people who attended the last ICE meeting said they have a broader base and he is playing less of a role.

 

Is it worth it for segments of NA, Solidarity and others who don't want to run with MORE to run a separate campaign?

 

Also there is the situation with EB members Arthur Goldstein and Mike Schirtzer who are alienated from MORE and free agents now and are being wooed by Unity. Both brought in a batch of high school votes in the last election. It is not clear what they will do, or even try to be on the Ex Bd again.

So at this relatively late date in the UFT election cycle, confusion reigns. James Eterno and I may start playing golf this spring.

UFT Contract Vote Count Friday - I'm Going as an Observer, But Must Sign a Non-Disclosure

I intend to check out the vote count this Friday at the AAA before heading to the ICE meeting but won't be able to report results as they come in due to the UFT Ex Bd voting yesterday to embargo the results so they can be announced on Sunday as part of the UFT's annual celebration of its first strike in 1960.

I told Leroy Barr that I would withstand water torture before revealing the outcome. I will release my own analysis of the outcome on Sunday on this blog.

You know, hanging out at the Ex Bd with Unity people (along with some oppositionists) can lead to a stockholm syndrome effect where hostages begin to identify with their captors.

You can read Arthur's report on the meeting here:

UFT Executive Board October 29th--Contract Voting Results Will Be Released Sunday

Also check out Chaz' rebuke of the allies who are backing the contract.

Chaz's School Daze

Why ATRs Voted No On The Contract. 

Some people who have been critical of the union leadership, have decided to support the contract.  These well-respected bloggers are nyc educator, DOEnuts, and JD2715.  One thing all three have in common is that they are not ATRs.

By contrast, all bloggers who are ATRs.  South Bronx Schools, ATR Adventures, and ATR NYC have voted no.  Moreover, ICEUFT, run by a retired ATR recommended a no vote.  Finally, I, as an ATR also voted no.

It's a pity that our usually reliable allies, while giving lip service in support of the ATRs, still voted yes for the contract, despite the contract not making any significant changes to the ATR pool.
 

 I do not necessarily expect people to vote NO only on the basis of the ATR situation if they think there are benefits for the majority -- ie. -- two observations --- but I expect them to at least point out the negatives.

I don't get it. There is absolutely no need for ATRs given the situation in the schools. The continuance of their status allows all kinds of abuses, especially when teachers are excessed into the pool - principals can weaponize the ATR pool. It seems to me that the end of the ATR situation should have been a line in the sand. Now I know many ATRs who are perfectly happy in the pool but it is time to end this farce -- appoint people to schools like it was done in the old days until 2005. The NYC school system survived 80 years without ATRs and could do so again.

UFT Contract Vote Scorecard Update - Who's For and Who's Against?

There is Joy in Unityland as Opposition Splits on Contract Vote.

I'm back from a two week trip to the former Yugoslavia's Croatia where I learned a lot about the transition of a socialism to capitalism with some pros and cons for both. Tito was a more complex leader than I imagined.

I note some tensions locally as I attempt to break down where the different voices are coming from on the contract and possibly why. Verrrrry interesting.

New Action co-chair Jonathan Halabi, voting as an individual not a formal declaration from NA, says YES with reservations -

JD2718:  Tentative Contract Agreement: Vote Yes, But Keep Talking… link

I wish I knew what Jonathan really means "But keep talking" other than a way out of giving unequivocal support, especially with possible talks with MORE and New Action over a joint UFT election campaign where the contract will be a major issue for MORE. How could MORE and New Action work together in an election if each group takes different positions on the contract? 

Jonathan ends with:  
And we must challenge Unity’s practice of making deals at the MLC without membership oversight. Overall, the good far outweighs these reservations. We should urge a yes vote.

Sorry Jonathan, but the only way to challenge Unity's practice is to vote NO as the bigger the YES vote the more brazen Unity will be.
There are people in New Action who agree with me.

Maybe New Action will also take a NO position - an equivocal NO position like they did in 2005 --- so they can work with MORE. Did I mention there is a split in opinion in NA over whether to work with MORE, Solidarity or both or not? Oy!

Leonie Haimson and class size matters say NO due to is not happy about class size issues at NYC Public School Parents:

Instead of addressing the need to lower the caps, the contract creates lots of new out-of-classroom positions, especially at the high-needs schools branded as “Bronx Collaborative Schools.”  These new positions will have questionable value to students, as I explained here:

More great contract stuff from Leonie:

• Class size in the UFT's current vs past contracts & the history of More Effective Schools--   https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2018/10/class-size-in-ufts-current-vs-past.html
• In new UFT contract, parents cut out of in "School based Collaborative Committees" in struggling schools  -- https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2018/10/in-new-uft-contract-parents-cut-out-of.html
• Another disappointing UFT contract when it comes to helping kids learn --- https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2018/10/another-disappointing-uft-contract-when.html

In the old days, Randi would have rushed to Leonie to get her to tone down her criticism but Mulgrew doesn't seem to give a crap about Leonie's views.
Correction:
Leonie sent this update:

Hey Norm – I have never told UFT members to vote no on the contract, nor would I.  I don’t think it’s my place.  

There are obviously good things in the contract that members have been asking for, like cutting down on the number of formal teacher observations etc.  Nor am I capable of judging issues re salary or benefits. All I have written about is that the contract is disappointing for me as an advocate primarily concerned with class size. I also think the comment Mulgrew made about supporting mayoral control in return for the contract was regrettable.

Please revise your blog accordingly.  And please forward this message to the ICE and MORE News groups to which I am not subscribed.

Thanks Leonie

Ed Notes' board of directors consisting of me, says NO:  UFT CONTRACT: Why Vote NO? It’s a matter of trust.
But more from me in coming days.

I don't follow much of what goes on in Solidarity caucus but from what I've seen is they are a solid NO.

Chaz's School Daze says NO -- The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Of The Contract. - UFT members are voting for the new UFT contract and while I will vote no. I can understand some people voting for it. --- link.

Former MORE John Giambalvo of the Doenuts Blog says YES:

The Doenuts Blog Vote Yes - Something crazy happened on the way to the teacher contract negotiations: My union stopped acting like a monolith top-down structure and showed sincere...
Former MORE (sort of) and ICEUFT's James Eterno says NO - numerous times. His most recent piece also appeared on the Diane Ravitch Blog as a counter point to Arthur Goldstein's YES column.

ICEUFT Blog.

EVERYTHING BUT THE KITCHEN SINK ON WHY YOU SHOULD OPPOSE THE UFT CONTRACT (25 BULLETS) 

James has loads of stuff on why the contract is not a good one.

• CUNY PROFESSOR DAVID BLOOMFIELD WRITES CITY LIMITS...
• A READER OBTAINED APPENDIX B SO WE CAN TELL YOU MU...
• CAN SOMEONE PLEASE FIND OUT ABOUT THE TRUE COST OF...
• UFT MISLEADS MEMBERS AS EXPECTED RAISES IN PROPOSE...
• NY DAILY NEWS ANTI-TEACHER EDITORIAL BOARD LIKES N...
• UFT TOP TEACHER SALARIES SINCE 2008

James talks for himself but I would assume many active in ICEUFT would line up with him, though Mike Schirtzer and Giambalvo are also connected to ICE. I've suggested a meeting on Nov. 2 even if too late to address the contract.

Schirtzer wrote his Vote Yes on the NYC Educator blog and also distributed a VOTE YES Leaflet at his school, Leon Goldstein, where an interesting debate between his former mentor, CL Kit Wainer, and he took place at the chapter meeting. The school had been one of the strongest anti-Unity schools for 25 years and now the MORE splits as exemplified by the one between Schirtzer and Wainer have spilled into the school that can no longer be counted on to stand up to Unity with a strong voice. As a friend of Mike who supported him in his struggles in MORE, I don't view the loss of a strong anti-Unity schools as a good thing. (I have more to say on this issue as I keep sorting it out.) - 

Arthur Goldstein, also a YES on the contract, also was connected to ICE but no longer due to what he perceives as the blog supporting a climate of anti-unionism due to the comments promoting people leaving the union. Arthur has also broken with his support for MORE due to all the shit that has gone on there.

And YES I blame the ideologues in the faction that now runs MORE, not Mike or Arthur, for this split. I'm working on a piece: How did MORE lose two of its 4 elected seats to the Ex Bd as Unity woos them?

Arthur's pro-YES vote appeared on the Ravitch blog and his blog: Why I Support the 2018 UFT Contract and is running at City Limits.

MORE says NO with some strong pieces from former TJC Caucus leader Marian Swerdlow and Dan Lupkin.

Dan is is one of the reasons I remain with MORE. A great chapter leader -- one of the few elementary people in MORE -- and he nails Unity on class size in this piece:
Class Size Limits, Militancy, and the 2019 UFT Contract
Dan says:

The core issue here is conciliatory bargaining- it is taken as a given by UFT leadership and their very cozy counterparts in the NYCDOE that the slice of pie we got in the 60’s is all the pie we’re going to get, and contracts are just a question of how we want that slice of pie apportioned; in fact, we are frequently reminded that if we make a fuss, we’re liable to lose the slice of pie we already have. It’s rarely discussed at the Delegate Assembly, at district meetings, or in official UFT communications that militancy was how our slice of pie was achieved in the first place, and if we want more, that’s how we’re going to have to get it.

I wish he would avoid using the term "militancy" -- the old TJC line that the union leadership does not organize people for militancy - as if they are even capable of doing so when in fact the very structure of the UFT hinges on not being militant.

The left condemns the militant 1968 strike - the most militant the UFT has been -- so I would be careful.

Marian brings her strong powers of analysis in this piece:
A Contract for Collaboration with the DOE.
I have had political disagreements with Marian over the years and probably continue to do so. She represented the TJC caucus point of view and she chose not to participate in MORE but seems to have returned as MORE turns back to the ideology of TJC.  An ideology that over the 20 years of TJC's existence (1993-2012) did not exactly resonate with the UFT membership.

MORE is holding two meetings this Saturday -- one to talk about the contract battle and one internal to address the splits in MORE and with the faction that fomented the split in control, I expect there some to be some interesting explanations. I will attempt to avoid laughing out loud.

Can I stand 5 hours of MORE meeting? Well, they are serving lunch at noon. There's also a nor'easter coming Saturday, so why not go?

UFT Contract: Why Union Officials Owe Ellen Fox, Me and MORE

View from my deck

Oh, what I gave up to spend 2 days observing the vote count as a MORE rep. (I'm still redoing my ravaged garden from Sandy.) 

The UFT owes Ellen and me bigtime. Here's why.

A call came in last night (I'm paraphrasing): "Norm, if not for your ed notes piece on the count being honest the people in my school - almost 100% NO - would be ready to storm UFT HQ over what looks like a shady vote count."

So I assured him from what I saw there was no way. "What about Unity chapter leaders doing something funny (there is such trust in the Unity machine out there)?" We went over possible scenarios and nothing really made sense - that a vast conspiracy would have been needed and someone at some time would talk.

UFT Contract Vote Lessons: Number 1- Unity DID NOT STEAL THE VOTE

You know why Unity didn't steal the vote? 
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO. 

(The first in a series of LESSONS - directed at the oppositionists to Unity - based on what I learned this time in the context of what I've known for the past 44 years.)

14 color cards for 9 bargaining units - why? beats me.

UFT Contract: Vote Predictions - Will the NO Voters Spark an Anti-Unity Movement?

Anyone for 80-20? 70-30? 60-40? How about 75-25?

(I scheduled this to be posted at 3PM, the rough time the vote count is expected to be announced. I will be there.)

Many of the bloggers have been out there predicting.

Mr. Talk Predicts: 2014 Contract Passes in a Landslide

Perdido Street School

UFT Contract Vote: Predictions And The Roadmap For The Future -

 Urban Ed is relatively optimistic:

My Contract Vote Prediction: 55% 45% (Sunday Morning Banter)

I view things from an organizational point of view - what does this vote mean, no matter what the count, for building an alternative to Unity? I know building MORE is an answer but I also don't want people who are not "joiners" to think they can't do anything -- but I'll explore that idea in a future post.

I remember the 2005 contract struggle where people came out of the woodwork - only to disappear once the rancor died down. The opposition - TJC and ICE were attracting people - but never managed to hold on to them. New Action had already sold out but did a faux "we oppose the contract".

So, Yes, I am wary this time about a post-vote movement.
Megan Behrent has a piece on the MORE blog.

What next after the UFT contract ratification vote? -
Megan did a great job on this analysis.

RBE at Perdido has a piece today with extensive quotes from Megan's piece: UFT Contract Vote: Predictions And The Roadmap For The Future -  

I tend to be pessimistic - my sense is 75-80 Yes because I feel the Unity machine reaches deep into so many schools the voice of opposition never gets close to. Only by facing this machine for 44 years do I know how they work. My younger colleagues tend to live in somewhat of a bubble. 

But this is a new world compared to 2005 - social media, MORE being a united opposition and so far the most effective group of people I've worked with - so there is hope.

Imagine a 20% NO vote and compare it with the vote for MORE in last year's election -- let's call it for sake of argument also 20%.

But comparing the two is apples and organges.

Our vote last year was 20% of the roughly 20% who voted in the schools. My math leads me to 5% of the total membership - say around 4000 votes - I'm too lazy to look it up. Unity's 80% in the elections was roughly around 15,000 votes - I may even be high.

Contract NO vote is a different thing altogether than union elections.

Let's look at how 20% NO votes translated if 80,000 teacher vote. I get 16,000 NO votes in what some people claim is a worst case scenario. If 70-30 that is 24,000 votes. And if the contract begins to fall apart in some areas - like an ATR slaughter fest, teachers from schools being excessed into the ATR pool, health care payments, etc. Those votes translate into opposition to Unity Caucus.

But a caveat -- they only translate into MORE's ability to coordinate this -- to become an effective alternative to Unity with wide outreach into the schools never touched and only subject to Unity propaganda. People do not realize how many chapter leaders are Unity - the key to their control. We will know more in next year's CL elections if there is a shift. If not don't expect widely different numbers in the 2016 elections. In other words if Unity controls 80% of the schools they will get 80% of the vote.

Unity machine exposed in contract struggle

A lot of people had their consciousness raised - it may be temporary  - but at some level the way Unity operates has been more widely exposed and infiltrated a certain portion of the rank and file who never really were aware.

Will they pay more attention one contract issue goes away?

The key to me is the work MORE is doing and can do.
It takes people power to challenge Unity - which in case you haven't noticed has lots of people power. The battles are won not on social media or at Delegate Assemblies but in the schools - in the trenches. If you think that battle is worth winning sitting on the sidelines is not an option

If you want to know MORE come to our meeting this Saturday form 12-3.

https://facebook.com/events/650100971732766

MORE General Meeting

June 7, 2014 at 12:00 pm – 3:00 pm

224 W. 29th St., 14th Fl. (Between 7th & 8th Aves) NYC

All are welcome! 

After the contract vote what are our next steps to build a better UFT? Come join us in evaluating the contract campaign and deciding on next steps.

How can we help organize the people who were opposed to this contract into a force that can defend UFT members from a bad contract?

Future steps: Organizing in our Schools, UFT Chapter elections, May/June 2015, UFT Elections, Jan-March 2016

Local/Regional groups: Meet with others who work in your neighboring schools or regions.

Reports from MORE action committees 

We hope to see you there!

Join us for post meeting happy hour at Pioneers Bar, 38 W 29th st (b/t 6th and 7th) NYC (http://pioneersbar.com/)