New Action – UFT

Complain to UFT about abusive administration close to April, and you’re likely to hear something about DOE’s Open Market system. ‘Don’t like your school? Transfer out!’ Masquerading as a democratic platform by which teachers can find open positions at their dream schools, Open Market as actually implemented is a major bargaining failure of the UFT and an absolutely dreadful excuse of a check against abusive administration.

To understand the problems with Open Market, you have to understand a little bit of UFT history. Before Open Market, we used to have a system of seniority transfers, which had its own problems, but made it much easier for teachers with more seniority to transfer schools or get positions after a school closing. This system also overlapped with unit costing, under which schools weren’t penalized on their own budgets for hiring more senior teachers. The scrapping of that seniority transfer system coincided with the grotesque creation of the semi-nomadic ATR system for displaced teachers, as well as ‘fair student funding’ rules that made senior teachers too expensive to hire. Principals also no longer had to take transferring teachers who they didn’t want; under the new system, they essentially received complete power over who they could hire. As a result, it became virtually impossible for teachers with more seniority or with histories of union activism to switch schools, but it became much easier for younger teachers without seniority (and especially without tenure) to shop around for schools.

Open Market may be good as a solution for teachers moving from Co-op City to Far Rockaway and needing a better commute, finding a school where the mission aligns with their own, or finding a position where they get to teach their favorite grade or elective class, but it will never be a viable system-wide solution to our over-supply of toxic workplaces. Indeed, our flawed transfer system has a clear link to the production of toxic workplaces. Open Market (as combined with ‘fair student funding’) means that (1) younger teachers have no incentive to fight, since they can easily leave for other schools; (2) high turnover makes it difficult to build the solidarity necessary to fight abusive administration; (3) older teachers, who can’t leave no matter what, still fear becoming life-long ATRs in retaliation for union activity; and (4) would-be strong unionists fear the blacklist they will become a part of if they fight back, since principals have full discretion on who transfers to their building.

Moreover, it’s well documented that Mulgrew and co. turn their backs on abused chapters and make them fend for themselves, disincentivizing chapters from trying to fight back since the outcome is known in advance. And, if no one is fighting abusive admin, the abusive admin is going to stay. The more toxic workplaces that go unchecked by the UFT, the more likely it is that those who transfer will find themselves right back where they started: in another school that has abusive admin because teachers transferred instead of fighting back. Therefore, here are some suggestions I would make to improve (not dismantle) the Open Market system.

(1) Bring back unit costing, so that teachers with higher seniority don’t cost too much for principals to hire.

(2) End the ATR system by bringing back a form of seniority transfer rights for excessed teachers that, yes, would bypass principal choice.

(3) Create systematic safeguards for hiring that preclude principals from being able to hire in a nepotistic or discriminatory fashion, and place chapter leaders or (a delegate of their choice) on hiring committees that have real power to overturn principal decisions.

(4) Bring back the PINI system and create a ‘staff turnover threshold’ that would spark joint DOE/UFT investigations into those schools. Make sure those committees have the power to remove untenured principals or transfer tenured principals into non-human facing DOE positions.

(5) Ensure that our UFT leadership actually supports schools that have demonstrated that they are in trouble by (a) showing up personally after votes of no-confidence (where has Mulgrew been in the past?), (b) bringing back an organizing committee to picket outside of abused chapters, (c) making abusive principals a standing item on consultation agendas with the Chancellor, and (4) not taking no for an answer in consultation if the Chancellor refuses to acknowledge low staff morale.

Our jobs are incredibly human-centered. They require us not to be abused so that we can attend to the educational and socio-emotional needs of our students. We shouldn’t feel that leaving is our only recourse for dealing with toxic work environments in schools. Many of us would rather stay with the colleagues and students we’ve come to know, if only the UFT would stand up for our rights in the workplace. To build the necessary ‘anti-abusive infrastructures,’ we need to start by voting United for Change.

Have your own suggestions for reforming our transfer system and/or how to deal with abusive administration? Comment here or email one of our co-chairs.

In 2019, I was elected as a NYSUT delegate under the Unity slate. To be clear, I wasn’t joining Unity so much because I agreed with their politics as because I was ignorant of the other caucuses. I was a first year chapter leader, and a UFT staffer who I worked with a lot (and still respect very much) asked me to join to further my role as a unionist. Joining Unity was sold to me as a perfunctory extension of joining the UFT. It was as if other caucuses didn’t even exist. 

That mentality, that other caucuses simply don’t exist, is a problem with real ramifications. Unity’s mantra – that (only) Unity does the work – is another way of saying Unity is the union. In too many ways, the Unity leadership has made this a self-fulfilling prophecy, selecting only Unity members to do official work (then ignoring or vilifying the ‘unofficial’ work done by members of other caucuses). Joining Unity is too often the only way to receive an invitation to ‘do the work’ at a higher (city-wide) level. Joining Unity means getting a seat at the table on UFT committees, winning seats in elections, and potentially being hired part or full time to help others in the union. I don’t think most Unity members are corrupt; I think they just want a seat at the table. But caucus affiliation should not be the only precondition to getting that seat; indeed, our union would be stronger with more diverse representation from across the political spectrum of the UFT. 

Once you have your Unity-assured seat at the table, there’s a certain groupthink that prevails. It’s expected that you’ll vote a certain way at DAs and publicly agree with UFT officers, even when you privately disagree. That’s how you keep your seat at the table (along with the possibility of moving up the UFT hierarchy). When I read the healthcare reso back in November, 2021, I knew I was damning myself from ever getting a UFT job or any major seat at the table as long as Unity stays in power. My District Rep. has kept me on a few lesser committees, which I appreciate, but I can sense the suspicion from some other UFT staffers when I sign on, and while I respect the Unity members on the same calls, I lament the utter lack of other opposition voices around me. As long as Unity is in power, opposition voices will always be kept hushed or proportionally absent in major discussions. 

One of the major reasons why opposition voices don’t come through is because our elections are winner-take-all. That’s true both for at-large seats and the shrinking number of divisional seats. We should have proportional representation, but we don’t. One of the places this is most conspicuous is at the level of convention delegates–the very seat I won in the last election. These are the UFT members who go to vote in the NYSUT (state) and AFT (national) conventions each year. Because our elections are ‘winner-take-all,’ the entirety of these seats go to Unity members. That’s pathetically undemocratic, particularly because opposition makes up such a large part of some divisions (e.g. high schools). It’s also pathetically undemocratic, because Unity members are expected to vote as a bloc. Caucus documents and communications from voting captains are sent out telling members how to vote. Because there is no proportional representation, the entire UFT effectively votes unanimously in NYSUT and AFT conventions. When I realized this at the previous NYSUT and AFT conventions, when some truly bad decisions were made about COVID safety at one of the more dangerous moments in the pandemic, I had a mental reckoning. Seeing the lack of democracy under Unity and its state/national analogues (e.g. the so-called Progressive Caucus) was one of the major radicalizing forces that jolted me to later join United for Change and New Action.

United for Change has a decent chance this year to win the whole UFT election, and a lot of us are excited about what that could mean at the state and national levels. As a coalition made up of people with different points of view, we would favor debate rather than voting as a bloc. Just as with the DA, we’d also favor bringing real resolutions to the floor that don’t have mostly symbolic implications. But ultimately, United for Change’s platform specifies that we favor an increase in representational and proportional democracy. That means, even if we win the majority of future seats, we would work to make proportional democracy a reality for future elections. You heard that right: United for Change would make sure that Unity delegates had seats at the table even if we were in power. 

Make no mistake: right now we don’t have that, and that’s precisely because Unity doesn’t want other caucuses to have real decision-making power. I’m a United for Change candidate and only have the right to attend this next RA because of the fluke that I was elected under the Unity slate last year. In protest of the complete lack of democracy that comes from a ‘winner-take-all-election’ under which Unity makes all of its members vote as a single bloc, I will not be attending the final RA of my term as a NYSUT delegate. If elected to the High School Executive Board this year, I promise that one of the major things I will push for is bringing in proportional representation, so that we will finally have a viable union democracy in future AFT conventions and RAs. 

Finally, if Michael Mulgrew and his Unity Caucus want to signal that they are pro-democracy, their first step must be to agree to a debate between him and Camille Eterno. Dodging the debate that United for Change requested, as Mulgrew appears to be doing, is an insult to all UFT members. At a minimum, we should have a right to see the different politics of the top candidates in this UFT election before we vote.

Sunday, March 13th from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM, there will be an event to meet the candidates for UFT HS Executive Board running with United for Change. Two of our candidates, Nick Bacon and Ed Calamia, are New Action members. Please see the registration link and spread the word!