Campaigning for Union Office:
An Excerpt from How to Jump-Start Your Union: Lessons from the Chicago Teachers
by Labor NotesLabor Notes' new book, How to Jump-Start Your Union: Lessons from the Chicago Teachers, shows how activists transformed their union and gave members hope. This excerpt tells how the Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators (CORE) campaigned for top offices, and won.It's one of the universals of organizing -- first you make a list.Elementary teacher Alix Gonzalez Guevara remembers staying up late transferring data about each school from a district-published book into an Excel spreadsheet: region, address, how many teachers, how many students.This became a Google document, an online spreadsheet available to everyone working on the campaign. The schools were grouped by regions. Within each, a couple of lead activists took responsibility to find people to do outreach at each school.Whenever someone went to leaflet or hold a meeting at a school, they'd document it in the central spreadsheet. They also entered their current percentage estimate of support at the school: an educated guess based on conversations with members there, what the delegate (steward) said, and how many had signed the petition to get CORE's candidates on the ballot.A Typical Visit
24-Hour BinsOne simple tool CORE came up with was the 24-hour bin. A member would volunteer to host a plastic bin outside his or her house in a place where people could get to it at all hours -- on the front porch, for instance, or under the stairs. The bin would be stocked with the latest flyers or posters.During the campaign there were five of these bins scattered around the city. The system proved so handy that CORE kept using it for caucus flyers after the campaign was over.On a typical visit, the CORE activist might spend a half-hour in the parking lot talking with teachers about the issues.Then she would go inside, chat with the clerk, stuff the mailboxes with the latest CORE flyer, and leave a personal letter for the delegate, with a phone number if he wanted to set up a meeting for candidates to meet teachers and answer questions."We had a group of 20 who were available to go debate with the other caucus candidates at the schools," said history teacher Jackson Potter. "The decentralized approach allowed us to run circles around the opposition, who only deployed the four officers."Over the course of the campaign, the caucus hit most schools three times and some five times. The tracking made it easier to prioritize larger schools, ones that hadn't been visited much, those where CORE's forces were weaker, or schools where the caucus wanted to build up a base of potential activists.At caucus meetings, activists would report on the schools they had visited and pick up five or more new ones. Sometimes they would role-play, reporting what new questions they were hearing and brainstorming how to respond.Busy, Busy, Busy
But while they were campaigning, CORE activists also continued their push to attend every school board meeting and school closure hearing. They picketed the mayor, organized marches, and held candlelight vigils.After all, CORE's activist identity was its campaign platform. All the events gave the candidates opportunities to make their case publicly, tell their personal stories, and prove their words were backed up by action."We always made sure we wore a CORE button, a CORE shirt," elementary teacher Sarah Chambers said. People would "look around when a school's closing, and they wouldn't see any UPC [the incumbent caucus]."The school closure fights were the reason math teacher Carol Caref was able to get so many teachers at her school to vote for CORE. "We were always afraid we'd be next on the list," she said."CORE was camping out all night in front of schools threatened to be closed, joining parents and kids," said social studies teacher Bill Lamme, "while the union was sitting on its hands and being a little too generous in their compensation packages for themselves."To learn much more, order the book.
Modeling the Education They Want To Be: The Great Chicago Teachers Union Transformation
By Eleanor J Bader, Truthout | Book Review
(Book cover via Verso Books)
Micah Uetricht's "Strike for America: Chicago Teachers Against Austerity" relates the stirring transformation of the Chicago Teachers Union into a democratically organized force for social justice.
According to labor journalist Micah Uetricht, it's high time for trade unions in the United States to decide whether they want to wither away and follow a "business unionism" model of concessions and shrinkage, or follow "social movement unionism," a bottom-up, democratic organizing strategy that is aligned with social justice movements throughout the country.
The Chicago Teacher's Union [CTU], Uetricht writes in his book, Strike for America: Chicago Teachers Against Austerity, is a prime example of the latter, a feisty, transparent, activist-led group that is willing to fight the good fight and challenge the entrenched attitudes that have made unions irrelevant to far too many workers.
Uetricht makes clear that the CTU was not always a beacon and charts the union's transition from a staid, top-down organization to one that engages teachers, paraprofessionals, students and neighborhood residents in community betterment efforts throughout Chicago.
The shift, he writes, began in 2010, when a slate of teachers calling themselves the Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators [CORE] took the reins of the 26,000 member CTU from CORE's predecessors, the United Progressive Caucus. "By 2010, the UPC leadership had atrophied," Uetricht explains, and was cowering in the face of school closures, the growth of nonunion charter schools, and the Renaissance 2010 "free market education reforms" championed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and supported by US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
Not so, CORE. Its slogan - a union that actually fights for its members - proved early on that it was willing and ready to challenge authority. "They held multiple forums on cuts to public education. They built relationships with community organizations fighting school closures. They held a study group on Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which argues that neoliberal reform is pushed by elites during times of crisis, when the population is disoriented," Uetricht reports.
By late 2008, shortly after its founding, CORE began organizing teachers in schools that were slated for shuttering. Then, in January 2009, it sponsored a massive public forum on education reform that drew 500 people, including hundreds of educators. It quickly became apparent that the audience wanted to do something concrete and, in conjunction with a parent group called GEM, The Grassroots Education Movement, CORE activists began planning a visible pushback, taking to the streets and voicing their outrage in newspapers, over the airwaves, and through social media. By May 2010, a CTU election resulted in a CORE victory, with Karen Lewis at the helm.
The improvement in teacher morale was immediate. "In the past," Uetricht writes, "the union had operated under a servicing model, where the union's staff handled whatever problems teachers faced in the classroom or with an administrator; if the teacher had no problems, interaction with union staff was unlikely. Now, teachers themselves were going to be carrying out the union's broad agenda for educational justice."
CORE quickly allocated the resources needed to create a CTU organizing department, something that had never before existed. What's more, the new regime slashed the salaries of union staffers so that what they earned was in step with teachers' pay. In addition, they created a summer program that trained activist teachers to organize their peers. Contract Committees were formed in every school to ensure grassroots input and provide a ready conduit for information sharing with cafeteria and maintenance workers, who were not part of the CTU.
Finally, the union decided to take on more than bread-and-butter issues. "The union made publicly funded corporate subsidies, most notably through the city's Tax Incremental Financing [TIF] system, a major issue and worked alongside community groups and other unions to expand the CTU's organizing to include the issue of austerity for poor neighborhoods of color throughout the city," Uetricht notes.
Slowly but surely, he adds, the nearly-moribund CTU of the early 2000s was becoming invigorated. This was tested, however, when the Emmanuel administration laid off 1,500 teachers, and the Illinois legislature passed SB7, a bill that required a strike authorization threshold of 75 percent and limited the issues over which a union could refuse to work.
Nonetheless, by September 2012, things had reached a breaking point and the city's refusal to offer CTU members a decent contract was the last straw. Despite SB7, the union stunned city and state officials by taking a strike vote that resulted in more than 90 percent of the membership agreeing that it was time to walk off the job.
It was the first teacher strike in Chicago in 25 years.
"The entire city felt transformed," Uetricht writes. "Teachers were engaged in highly visible, militant, mass action, and there was a widespread sense throughout the city of the legitimacy and necessity of such action - for educators and for other workers . . . The union held mass rallies nearly every day with tens of thousands of teachers and their supporters . . . Teachers began organizing actions themselves, independent of the CTU leadership. No union staffers planned the small marches on the mayor's house during the strike; teachers planned these themselves."
This had an enormous impact on union activists because the ability to do what they felt was necessary - without having to jump through bureaucratic approval hoops - gave the members a sense of CTU ownership.