UFT Leadership – Before You Sue Someone in Our Name, Ask.

Today, ‘the UFT’ took a position against congestion pricing, which, if introduced, would force hefty tolls for drivers entering Manhattan anywhere in a zone that runs from upper Midtown to the Financial District. I (Nick Bacon, not necessarily New Action) happen to agree with the stance, which I’ll get to, but I’m just the teeniest bit concerned that our union leadership was able to miraculously come to this decision without a single ounce of membership input. I’m even more concerned to see that they filed a lawsuit in our name, paying the legal costs with our dues, without first checking with the UFT Delegate Assembly or Executive Board.

First, a note: I’m one of the many UFT members affected by impending congestion pricing—not because I drive (I gave away my car the day I moved to Manhattan), but because I commute nearly ten miles each way from upper Manhattan to lower Manhattan every single school day.  Usually, I go by bike, riding the bulk of my route on the West Side Greenway. Over the years, that route has gotten increasingly dangerous, as e-bike and motorcycle riders have illegally used it at turbo-speeds without an ounce of police enforcement to curtail the practice. That problem stands to get worse if congestion pricing is introduced – especially since motorcyclists will be able to get out of paying tolls if they can handle the moral weight of dodging baby carriages and dog walkers at 50mph+ speeds to do so. When I can’t bike because of weather or night meetings, I pack myself into an already over-populated sardine can of a 1-train, snail my way from Harlem to Chambers Street and walk nearly 15 minutes to my school just behind Tweed headquarters. It’s a joyless route, aggravated by a chronic foot injury, which will only be made worse if those train cars somehow get fuller. Half the time I already have to wait up to 20 minutes for a car I can actually fit onto; if would-be drivers now have to load themselves onto cars at Van Cortland or 225^th street, this experience only stands to get worse with congestion pricing.

Needless to say, even without getting into the broader politics of congestion pricing, which generally penalizes the poor and middle class while rewarding a mismanaged transit system, I’m against it.

But that doesn’t mean I wanted Michael Mulgrew to sue government agencies without checking with members first. Here are my thoughts, abbreviated in bullet form for the sake of time (I’m a working teacher after all).

1. Some of our members, apparently, don’t mind congestion pricing. In fact, they view it as anti-urban to see our union coming out against a policy that favors drivers over pedestrians and transit users. Since the policy is controversial, we should have voted on it before taking a stance.
2. We didn’t just take a stance. Suing government agencies—or really anyone—in our name is a major decision. Pundits can critique the union for attacking our government or our tax payers, and so any legal action can lead to fallout in terms of public perception. For that reason, lawsuits—just like strikes—should be done only after careful consideration. But in this case, there was no member input. Despite years of lead-up to congestion pricing (to be implemented in Spring), we never debated it at either the Executive Board or the Delegate Assembly – and we sure as heck didn’t vote to distribute dues money to support legal actions.
3. We have bigger fish to fry right now than congestion pricing. As much as I’m dreading the new tolls, I’m more concerned about the existential threat of reduced healthcare and 15% budget reductions. Mulgrew is actively working against the interests of UFT members to champion the healthcare cuts, and yet he’s fighting—or taking the appearance of fighting—congestion pricing without a vote. What gives?
4. Legal strategies are not always effective, and yet they seem to be our UFT leadership’s go to strategy. Heck, sometimes they even use legal strategies to sue (or rather threaten to sue) rank-and-file members into compliance. I wrote about this phenomenon (UFT’s go to strategy being lawsuits) in terms of the budget cuts a few weeks ago. We haven’t mobilized members against Adams’s draconian austerity measures, and yet we have filed legal papers that are likely to fail. This latest lawsuit, similar to one New Jersey filed, is also unlikely to succeed. I suspect UFT leadership realizes this but wants to look busy. Remember, Mulgrew’s job isn’t to represent members—not exactly. His real job is to convince members that he’s fighting for us so that we vote for him in the next election. That’s what makes it all the more ironic to see all the fallout from what was likely a purely symbolic campaign move in the first place.  
5. Most of the people I know who commute to District 2 by car aren’t teachers – they’re UFT staffers who work at 52 Broadway. I can’t shake the feeling that we just entered a lawsuit paid by teacher dues primarily to save dough for members of Mulgrew’s patronage mill. That would explain why we’re dedicating resources here, but not to stopping the implosion of our healthcare.

Next time, before suing government agencies in our name, I just have one ask, UFT leadership – please check with the members first.