New Action – UFT

I’m livid. Absolutely livid. I’m sitting in my hotel room in Tarrytown after a full day at the chapter leader weekend. I’m typing this on a phone, because I didn’t think I’d need to bring my laptop to blog.

Why am I livid? I was prepared for a little bit of electioneering when I got here. So when Anthony Harmon repeatedly talked about Michael Mulgrew as if he was a saint and made sure to drop multiple lines of the unity slogan “doing the work,” just after thousands of teachers received unity flyers in the mail, I jotted it down, but that’s not why I’m mad.

I’m mad, because I just saw how low the Unity led UFT is willing to go to silence members who they perceive as even remotely critical. When Mulgrew got up to give his overly long presidential address, Jane Rubio immediately got in line so that she would have a chance to ask a question. At the last event, she also got in line very early, but Michael Mulgrew filibustered his answers to the other questions and Jane never got a chance to speak. This time he couldn’t get away with that, because she was right there in front of the first mic, and had been standing for over a half an hour for the chance to speak.

When she got her chance, Jane asked a reasonable question, and in a completely reasonable way without reference to any caucus or the election. She simply asked why the president’s reports were so long at the delegate assemblies, citing the fact that only 1.5 resolutions have been passed a month since December of 2020, and noting that if the president spoke for less than an hour, maybe we could get to that business. Immediately, staffers and unity members began to shout her down. Then they cut the mic. There were audible attacks made on Jane and chants of “UFT,” as if Jane, a first-year chapter leader from the Bronx, who was donating her time to learn more about the contract so that she could better help her members, wasn’t even a member of the union that she does so much work to represent.

Eventually the mic went back on. Mulgrew responded that delegate assemblies are part debate but also part president’s report. He claimed that during a pandemic president reports simply have to be longer. Then he scolded that if we want to get political, there are shenanigans at the DA, implying that UFC, who spoke for a total of maybe 5 minutes at the DA, mostly to try and extend the meeting so that there could be debate, was the real problem. The problem, in other words, is that we won’t shut up completely and let Unity talk at us.

Keep in mind that in events like this, a significant percentage of the room is staff. There are district reps, officers, chapter delegates, and other staffers who are positioned both in clusters of UFT employees and also interspersed at tables with teachers. So after Michael Mulgrew spoke, responding to the woman he had just silenced, who his staff had literally cut the mic of so that she would stop making a point that didn’t paint him as god’s gift to teachers, the room erupted in applause. Now this is a chapter leader weekend. Most of the chapter leaders here are chapter leaders for the first time. They aren’t members of a caucus. Like me, when I was a first year chapter leader, they likely have no idea that every single person with a UFT job in this room must be a member of Michael Mulgrew’s caucus. And that’s why this is a campaign event. Because Unity Caucus can attack a female chapter leader who simply wants to know why no resolutions are ever discussed at the DA, put on the Unity laugh track after Mulgrew speaks, and make independents think if the majority of room is clapping, I guess I should too.

If Michael Mulgrew is going to turn dues-funded events like this into tyrannical displays of his one party caucus, the least he could do is agree to a debate with Camille Eterno, so our union can see the other side. But there’s only room for one person in the Michael Mulgrew show, and that’s Michael Mulgrew (and his Unity laugh track).

The March DA was December all over again, as Mulgrew avoided giving any space to members of United for Change by using every tactic under the sun to silence us, and really all non-Unity members of the Delegate Assembly.

1. Abnormally Long President’s Report: Mulgrew’s report dragged on for over an hour and left virtually no time for official business. He even invited some speakers to make the report particularly long, a tactic he uses when he really wants to filibuster. That presentation, full of glitches, was about an online system for chapter leaders that could have just as easily been an email. (Keep in mind, most delegates at the DA are not even Chapter Leaders…they’re delegates). It’s worth mentioning that one of the presenters was Unity Caucus’s Maggie Joyce, who Mulgrew suspiciously called on in the last DA too, even as he couldn’t manage to allow a single UFC delegate to speak in either of the last two DAs. Watching the talk, one couldn’t help being reminded of the December DA, when Mulgrew called on a staffer to give a time-share like presentation about how good Mulgrewcare was. Mulgrewcare, of course, was later scrapped after UFC’s own Retiree Advocate (working with some other groups) exposed it for the fraud that it was and won in court. And, despite a pretty interesting question period, with speakers making critical points about things like abusive administration, undelivered vacation days, and delayed payment to OT/PT, Mulgrew’s answers left much to be desired, though he spent tons of time answering them (to avoid taking other questions).
2. Making up rules: When Camille Eterno tried to make a minor parliamentary inquiry about a mistake on last month’s minutes regarding what she had said then, she was ruled out of order and not allowed to speak. The reason? Mulgrew claimed that parliamentary inquiries can’t be made during the President’s Report. Of course, the Delegate Assembly is deliberative–and as such uses Robert’s Rules. Searching as we have, we’ve found no place in Robert’s Rules specifying Mulgrew’s rules. That leads me to think he may have, you know, made it up, so that he could silence Camille. It’s worth noting that Mulgrew erroneously accused Camille of electioneering, even though she mentioned nothing about the election or about caucuses. Ibeth Mejia, who I’m running with for High School Executive Board, tried to use a point of order to advocate for them to take Camille’s point, stating that it was absurd for Mulgrew to interrupt her with a simple request about the minutes, but was also shouted down.
3. Not Calling on UFC Members (Redux): We at United for Change are used to not being called on by Mulgrew at this point. Indeed, we haven’t been called on for a new motion since November, and to this day I think I was only called on to read our resolution on healthcare back then because Mulgrew still thought I was with Unity Caucus. This time, when many UFC delegates were amongst the first to shoot their hands up, Mulgrew waited and palpably searched the audience for Thomas Conavoy, so that he could read the inherently uncontroversial resolution on recognizing Diwali. Another non-UFC person was called on after, and this was the last person recognized by Mulgrew. Earlier in the DA, Daniel Alicea asked a point of parliamentary inquiry about needing to rotate between those for and against given motions, and Mulgrew answered that when there is a debate they do have such a procedure, which of course begs the question: why was that procedure so conspicuously not followed in February, when a debate followed Camille Eterno’s motion to appeal the chair. Of course, that ‘debate’ consisted of Mulgrew recognizing the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, and another Executive Board member, all of whom of course agreed with Mulgrew. Indeed, in that debate, not a single person was called on who disagreed. Not a single person was called on from United for Change.
4. Not allowing the meeting to be extended: Mulgrew talked for so long during this DA that there was no way we were going to get to any resolution on this month’s agenda. He also prevented UFC from raising an important resolution on mayoral control, as well as another resolution on Tier 6 (which, ironically Unity was also prepared to present a similar motion on…if only Mulgrew hadn’t run out the clock). Peter Lamphere tried to make a motion to extend the time, but was ruled out of order for technical reasons. Mulgrew claimed there was too much important business to conduct right after the meeting, because the UFT members of the RA were meeting right at 6:00. I made a point of order, because I hold the invite, and it clearly says 6:30. He claimed that 30 minutes was needed to prepare the room. So I stuck around after the automatic adjournment at 6:00. When I left at 6:20, the chairs were exactly where they left them. There was no need to end at 6:00 PM, but I think we all knew that. (And by the way, Mulgrew, if you know in advance that you ‘need’ to adjourn at 6:00 PM, why not make your President’s report a little shorter in the first place so there’s no need to make a motion to extend)?

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.