I'm not opposed to the concept of a caucus – a political party – inside a union. I think it is important for people to get together over ideas they agree on and whether in power or not fight for those ideas to be union policy. When there are two or more caucuses in a democratically run union with open discussion, the result would be better decision making and better policies.
But when you have a one party system with a caucus that has no interest in a debate on policy - even within the caucus itself - whose major focus is on maintaining itself in power - then you get distorted policies. Policies that are not decided upon in the cauldron of debate but from the very top that are then forced down on the members of the caucus in power to be further forced down on the rank and file they reach in the schools.
Of course I am describing Unity Caucus. Now things are not as simple as this. Most Unity Caucus members come to agree with the policies - they are convinced through selective arguments that don't give the kind of full picture they would get through an open debate. Those who don't agree - and these often come from the school level Unity people - mostly remain quiet due to a bunch of reasons: selfish (no jobs, no trips to conventions, no protection if attacked by supervisors) or in fear that they won't be able to service their members by being shut off.
It is important to point out right here that the people running the UFT have always paid the most attention to maintaining and building Unity caucus, even at the expense of the larger entity - the UFT. This is a true legacy of Albert Shanker (he is given too much credit for the wrong things) who was a genius at managing power.
One of Randi's real impacts was on how she changed Unity Caucus from a narrow invitation only to one where they invite everyone (even me at one point). That was her genius. Open it up to all, especially potential dissidents and coopt them into the caucus. We've actually been meeting some great, smart people who are in Unity - people who might have been part of an effective opposition. In fact, if there was a serious opposition that had a real chance of challenging for power, some of the people not happy with the direction of the union might go in that direction.
Randi's other genius was in making a deal with the leading opposition, New Action. While not in Unity, they might as well be. Eight Unity endorsed New Action members are on the Ex Bd. She gave New Action leader Michael Shulman his own little empire where he controls a batch of jobs - where a Unity person and a New Action person go into schools supposedly to help them organize. These jobs are coveted by retirees.
Unity tries to make sure they have top people running the caucus. And no matter what you read about the attacks on Jeff Zahler from within the moles at Unity, he was/is extremely competent at doing this. (I don't know his exact status now - Randi sent him to Wash DC as AFT staff director while she was still UFT Pres but he got sick and came back. But I bet he is involved in some way.)
Building caucus vs. building union?
Since we have been under the yoke of Unity - if you're not Swedish you might pronounce "yoke" a different way - we don't often think of what would happen to a caucus that actually won power. You now run a union. How does your caucus relate to the larger entity, especially if you don't want to be another Unity?
Events in Chicago over the last decade provide serious food for thought. I'll address that in Part 2, which I'll publish later tonight.
