Archive Page 2

Understanding the ‘Politics’ of the UFT’s Progressive Opposition

Members of Unity Caucus commonly claim that the High School Executive Board or its members have political motives. This was brought to a certain climax on Monday, Jan 23rd at the second January meeting of the UFT Executive Board with the word ‘political’ being used in response to a resolution that would have committed the UFT to fight the introduction of premiums to GHI. This post will probably seem like ‘inside baseball’ to most readers, but I think it’s worth analyzing what is meant by members of Unity Caucus when they claim opposition unionists are acting politically. I also think it’s worth assessing whether or not such a claim is true.

The meaning of political

What Unity Caucus means by the word political is ambiguous. However, the term tends to come up whenever a member of the opposition raises a resolution, asks a question, or publishes a blog post that Unity themselves would not have put forward, asked, or written. They could mean that we (the High School Executive Board, UFC, the opposition, etc) or some of us are:

  • (a). simply members of a union caucus/coalition who are trying to influence union policy or discourse within the standard confines of union politics and decision-making.
  • (b). a, but at a level of influence disproportionate to what our elected numbers should allow.
  • (c). simple elected unionists trying to effectuate changes in union policy that are irrelevant and external to our union.
  • (d). simple elected unionists who, for purely caucus-related reasons, want to destroy our union.
  • (e). controlled by outside political forces who want to change our union policy/discourse.
  • (f). controlled by outside political forces who want to destroy our union.

Possibility (a) is unlikely to be what is meant by Unity. If Unity Caucus members simply were characterizing us as fellow ‘union politicos,’ they would not be using the word ‘political’ as a pejorative. Note, however, that possibility A is how I would characterize the High School Executive Board.

Possibility (b) is more likely to be Unity’s meaning of political, but a thorough analysis excludes it. Yes, United for Change representatives only make up 7/102 seats on the Executive Board. However, about 42% of in-service teachers (and the majority of such teachers in high schools) voted for UFC candidates. Our lack of seats is frankly indicative of under-representation. Moreover, the power that Barr recently appeared to give us with his suggestion that we might be ‘burning the house down’ indicates that he does understand our power as reflected by the large number of people who voted for us. Therefore, we can exclude possibility b.

Possibility (c) isn’t entirely unlikely on its face. Some might suggest that activities like advocating for NYHA or against Medicare Advantage are external to our role as union policy makers. However, not all of the caucuses represented by United for Change support NYHA outright. And Medicare Advantage has only become an issue because of its specificity in respect to UFT retirees. A thorough look at our resolutions shows that all of them are related to specifically union policy. In fact, Unity Caucus resolutions sometimes do otherwise, as indicated by a resolution last DA that had to do with the situation in Iran. So possibility C is excluded both because it is not true of UFC and because it is sometimes true of Unity (and would thus be hypocritical). 

Possibility (d) is unlikely, because an organic grassroots organization of leftwing unionists would not logically want to destroy the union unless they had some external reason to do so. Therefore, they would not seek to destroy the union for purely internal reasons. As specifically presented, this can therefore not be Unity’s view.

Possibility (e) is likely to be Unity Caucus’s interpretation, though it is not actually possible. Unity may view outside political forces like DSA or other groups as having some sort of ‘top-down’ mechanism which they employ through UFC-elected delegates, chapter leaders, and executive board members in order to influence union policy. The problem with this view is that the opposition is a coalition of union groups and independents that don’t have the same relationships with other outside groups. New Action, for instance, does not currently have any relationships with any organization outside of the UFT/MLC. Ironically, Unity Caucus may be projecting its own relationship with the Democratic Party, which arguably does take such a form.  Some opposition members believe that Unity’s relationship to the DNC is why they are supporting Medicare Advantage, which our unions did not support until the DNC adopted such a policy. Unity, which, unlike UFC, is a single coherent organization and in an actual position of power to warrant any influence from outside organizations is much more likely in fact to have policy handed down to it from an external ‘political’ organization. Out of sheer projection, therefore, it is possible that Unity Caucus misguidedly thinks we are controlled by political forces, because they, to some extent, may be themselves. Again, while this is a possible thought of Unity members, it is not actually possible to be true of the union opposition.

Possibility (f) is not likely to be a view of Unity Caucus, though it is possible that Unity would sometimes rhetorically present such a view in order to sway UFT members to its side (or possibly, to divide the opposition). As the precondition to F is E, and E is not possible, this possibility is also not possible in real life.

Does the opposition believe that Unity is trying to hurt its own members?

The opposition is a diverse group with a shared platform that sometimes puts us at odds with Unity and union leadership. Let’s be clear: there’s nothing ‘political’ coming from opposition, not in a pejorative sense. We simply seek more aggressive and progressive solutions to the problems facing our membership. To that end, the High School Executive Board fits the definition of definition A: as simply members of a union caucus/coalition who are trying to influence union policy or discourse within the standard confines of union politics and decision-making.

Nevertheless, one reason that Unity has painted UFC as political is because they believe that the opposition, especially bloggers of the opposition, are painting UFT leadership in too negative a light. Bear in mind that I can only speak for myself here, but I’d like to dispel that claim. I do not believe Unity is actively trying to harm UFT membership for the sake of doing so. Rather, I believe Unity sees problems like healthcare costs being out of control and seeks out too conservative a strategy in response. In a time when things are getting worse, taking a moderate or conservative approach often means accepting some decline. Not aggressively pushing for the City to find funding solutions like taxing the rich instead of putting more costs onto retirees or in-service members is what leads to new premiums in GHI or the switch to Medicare Advantage. What’s worse, in order to undercut that the union leadership is accepting some decline, they often try to mislead membership into thinking that things are not getting worse, and that they are even getting better. Medicare Advantage with the option of having to pay for hitherto free Medicare is not better. Putting out an RFP to replace GHI with something 10% cheaper or add premiums to GHI is also not better.

As long as UFT leadership puts out conservative solutions that accept some decline, they should accept that the union opposition will put forward solutions in resolutions that seek the opposite. Moreover, as long as UFT leadership misdirects membership that they are ‘making things better’ when they are actually accepting some amount of decline, they should accept that there will be some criticism published in blogs and social media as well.

Advertisement

Healthcare and Charters: Exec Board, 1-23-2023

Summary:

Along with some meaningful speeches on contract from rank and file members, tonight’s UFT executive board meeting focused primarily on charters and healthcare.

Contract: A Chapter Leader commented on her perplexity at the rationale behind the contract ‘teach ins’ given the massive amount of work it takes to do them and the lack of a contract draft in place. A member from Brooklyn Tech advocated for vacation days.

Charters: UFT joined communities in beating Success Academy from co-locating in some specific school buildings. In a city-wide sense, we aren’t safe yet. Eva Moscowitz is back. But, then again, so are we. The fight goes on.

Healthcare: Michael Mulgrew gave a speech suggesting that UFT leadership plans to fight the city from lowering our options. A battle may be readying. On the other hand, he stated that our resolution on supporting NYHA was short sighted, because we hadn’t done a cost analysis yet. Once we did, he realized it was too expensive to have universal healthcare in NY state and such a bill would likely hurt education funding as a result. That’s why UFT leadership disregarded the resolution we passed. He also said ultimately we need a federal solution to healthcare. Unity later tabled a UFC resolution on ‘keeping GHI premium free’ (see text and motivation below) after Geof Sorkin spoke against it. Then LeRoy Barr gave a long speech, suggesting without specificity that, even if our intentions are good, the progressive opposition is harming the union in how it frames the issues. Ronnie Almonte countered with a wonderful rebuttal.

Commentary on Healthcare:

Some of this is going to take a full article to completely digest. Mulgrew and Barr both suggested a healthcare battle was brewing. They seemed to even suggest the possibility of striking without saying that outright. Some on the progressive left of the UFT were hopeful of that fact, though I lean on the pessimistic side. I think it’s just as likely (if not likelier) that Mulgrew and Barr were performing. Indeed, Barr tonight vocalized his ire at blogs that paint the UFT leadership as ineffective or worse. Knowing that I publish the minutes in full, they could very well have been responding to critiques of their inaction, such as the piece I wrote about the January DA when Mulgrew announced that members should prepare for premiums.

Mulgrew’s response about why we don’t support the New York Health Act despite a DA resolution in its support was interesting. Some have criticized unions for blocking this legislation as a power move to keep their control over members’ healthcare at the expense of other workers who also need good care. But, Mulgrew made some interesting points–if they’re true–about the expense of NYHA possibly blowing such a hole in the budget that education funding could be reduced as a result. My take is that, whether this is true or not (I don’t think it is – not when looked at circumspectly), the union should not change union policy without putting it to a vote. If Mulgrew came in with a resolution to present at the DA that asked us to rescind our support for NYHA because of new findings about cost, that would be one thing. If opposition did not have convincing enough arguments (or weren’t called on to make them), he’d probably get that resolution passed and could go on lobbying against NYHA with the consent of membership. However, union leadership should not be changing UFT policy voted in by rank-and-file delegates without that sort of vote.

Mulgrew’s response about a federal ‘single payer’ system is a good sign. However, it’s hard to believe him when he and the rest of UFT leadership are working to put retirees onto privatized Medicare Advantage plans. How are we going to have Medicare for all if we no longer even have publicly run Medicare for retirees? Moreover, how are we going to convince the rest of the U.S. to vote in Medicare for All if we undermine state-created versions like NYHA that could buttress such a movement?

Finally, on GHI. UFC put forth an unpolitical resolution, without particularly specific asks, merely committing that the union do what it can to keep GHI premium free (and without taking the money from other places like our pay or retiree healthcare). This was a very simple resolution. It was not an attack on Unity. Based on the way Mulgrew was speaking earlier, I almost expected Unity to vote it in. Geof Sorkin appeared to go rogue in his odd attack on union opposition, as no one joined him. (Later, LeRoy Barr also semi-attacked opposition, but only after the resolution’s debate was safely over). Vincent Gaglione immediately followed Sorkin by asking that we ‘table the vote’ for another time. No one else, other than me, was lined up to speak. Usually, when Unity doesn’t like a reso, they fight it. Dozens of people get in line. Not this time. Now, were they just avoiding having too many of their arguments against be published in this blog and others? Perhaps. Do they actually agree with our resolution but can’t support it publicly for reasons they can’t explain right now? Also, perhaps. Nevertheless, it’s still disappointing, that after a whole lot of talk about saving our healthcare, they couldn’t stand in support of a simple commitment to do what we can to keep GHI premium free.

That’s all for now. More full articles to come in the coming weeks. The full minutes follow.

Full Minutes:

Open Mic:

CL of Fashion Industries: Getting emails about Contract Action Teams. I’m interested to know in the context of a closed negotiation process, what is the role of that team. It’s a lot of work to put together – valuable – but fear that I’ll burn out our best, then once the contract comes out we might not have that much time to discuss before a vote. So having a sense of what the end goal is.

LeRoy Barr: You can talk to your DR.

Janella Hinds: Purpose of the team is to engage members as to the development of contract negotiations. It’s about hearing what the concerns are, what actions they’re willing to take, and to be unified from the beginning. Appreciate your concern. Would ask you to consider this as a venue you can use to organize around the contract.

Ben Morgenroth, Brooklyn Tech: Teaching about 10 years, nearly all in the public sector. Prior I worked in a hedge fund. Come from a family of public teachers – public education is really important. Want to bring an issue to your attention – recent survey showed that number one priority for job seekers is flexibility in the workplace. That’s really challenging to teachers relative to jobs that require similar levels of education. When we received the Spring Break arbitration decision, to me it set a precedent that that’s something that we could have going forward. One way to make our job more flexible is to get a few vacation days per year that would roll over. That allows teachers to go to say a family union outside of a regular school break. Know it’s already on your radar, but want to highlight the issue. Read Simon Rodberg, teaching must be more flexible until it falls apart. This is one of many possible things. This is important for teacher retention.

Minutes adopted.

LeRoy Barr: This weekend is the CL training weekend. Feb 2., beginning of black history film series. On that Friday, we have two events: CTE awards. Secrets of grand central scavenger hunt, please see Rich Mantell if you want to help participate.

Question Period:

Ed Calamia: Noticed the next exec board meeting has been moved. Why?

LeRoy Barr: Sometimes things happen. We’d rather move the date than cancel.

Ilona Nanay: When a resolution is passed, when/where/how is action taken by UFT leadership? (Mulgrew will answer).

Luli Rodriguez: In light of the decision on Senior Care that the City pays full up to the HIP benchmark? Shouldn’t we not have copays in-service?

Ronnie Almonte (missed): fair student funding task force update?

Michael Mulgrew: Thanks everyone who was involved in co-location fight. Eva Moscowitz was quiet for a few years, but is back now. We expected that with Adams coming in. We want to rescind the law that says we’ll give them free space (charters) and pay their rent. Our answer about raising the cap is simple – no. Want to know what the fiscals are. We want explusion policies – and dates (usually last week before November, we suspect). In terms of fair student funding task force, we said we weren’t necessarily agreeing to everything said there. City said they weren’t adding money in – said money had to come from somewhere else. In the end, it’s under mayoral control. State has increases in funding, but City has flat. That’s a big fight. City is actually running a surplus this year. We will have 10.6 billion dollars at end of next fiscal year. So this ‘cliff’ Adams says we’re going over, we don’t see where it is. Could there be a recession? Maybe. Overall, a city like New York is doing quite well. I agree with changes to add funds for students dealing with transitional funding. Breakage in SPED also an issue. Money comes per kid, but then only 3 kids have that IEP (can’t be funded). So that’s now part of the appeal process that can be changed – used to not be able.

On healthcare: unions negotiating contracts. It’s gonna get ugly. We don’t have a deal with Aetna. I don’t see it happening. The court case is an issue. They say we’re not responsible for HIP. What are you supposed to do if you haven’t done your home? We passed a reso without doing a fiscal. It took us 7 months to get the fiscal done if we did the NYHA. Showed that this would blow a massive hole in the state budget. Tax the rich? Fine with me, but not happening in Albany. So do we push for something we know is going to harm us? We’re not gonna have money put into education funding if they have to pour billions into a health act. We know we want it done federally. Here is the actual price tag? Maybe there should be clauses in resolutions? Also have to check things with AFT before can have some resos are made. When we pass resos before doing the homework and don’t add things like ‘pending…,’ that’s a problem. Healthcare costs have doubled in the last six years. City used to be good about this, but with costs where they are. Sick and tired of bad medical costs, but I don’t want us not to have the quality healthcare we do have. But it’s tough stuff when we’re talking about billions and billions of dollars. City’s position RE HIP we don’t agree with. Going to be a big point in this round of negotiation and then beyond. We have to decide how to increase HIP and GHI, but tricky situation. This one is gonna require some blowups.

Don’t diminish the great work of the charter fight. Yes, they’ll look at other locations, but this was big.

Reports from Districts:

Mary Vacarro: FSF, we didn’t agree with DOE. We all fought breakage and for an expected appeals process (August not after school starts). Money for SPED and other categories. Actual document that is going to be presented to CECs.

Name Missed: Trustees of Shanker scholarship took a vote. Students can now apply regardless of immigration status.

Janella Hinds: Deadline for academic high schools awards is Monday, Jan. 30. Please nominate!

Carl Cambria: Update on CAT trainings. They went awesome both in content and in turnout. We had 1200 people come and participate over three days. What’s incredible about that number. Of the people who registered, 90% of registered showed up. All of us organizers here, and we know that usually turnout for virtual events does not happen like that. We tapped into something here. K. Alford and R. Mantell had a conversation with our 500 member committee, sent out survey, and we had a lot of great ideas come in. The need to educate our membership was one of those ideas. That connection is at the heart of what these CAT teams are about – the relationship between action and negotiation. Amy Arundell, Brad Alter, Emily James (some others) were chief among people who helped make this happen. That’s not the final result – the final result is next Monday, Jan. 30, where we encourage all of those who participated. When a healthcare blowup happens, we need to make sure that membership is engaged and motivated – ready to spring into action.

Adam Shapiro Co-reporting with Ashley (last name missed): Promoting our event: going to a Met game. About 200 people went to that event. How do we make this event bigger and better? On May 30th we’re having Brooklyn Queens day with the Mets vs. the Phillies. Last event, tickets sold out in hours. Had to get more tickets. Then those sold out. Then more. Then more. In the end, 663 tickets sold.

Ilona Nanay: Teacher to Librarian (T2L) second certificate initiative: subsidizes over 80% of cost to become. Great opportunity, webinar on Jan 26 at 4:00 PM. http:/bit.ly/T2L2023webinar. Also see http:/bit.ly/2023T2L.

Amy Arundell: Proud of work done on an campaign against co-location of Success academy in DOE schools. Community reached out to UFT to help. Expanded. Mentions several key UFT staff members who helped, PEP. Schools all passed SLT resolutions against co-locations. Threat of Success Academy was mentioned not just for schools, communities, but to the borough. Hundreds of SLT resolutions attached to briefs against co-locations. This is what it’s all about. Of course we also lobbied, utilized UFT resources.

Mary Vacarro: In district 11, DR, rallied around 113. Huge amounts of people even in the pouring rain. Need to support the community around us, because it’s really powerful. We’ve pushed them back – but don’t think they aren’t coming elsewhere.

Seung Lee: District had some excellent gatherings which were great to discuss CAT conversations.

Special Order of Business (NYSUT Revolutions):

Mike Sill: rise in support of three resos.

  • One is on observance of a moment of silence for 9/11 at NYC schools. We passed a similar reso at the DA.
  • Reso for reducing turnover for our nurse siblings.
  • Reso on respect for Diwali, calling on recognition across state of that holiday (and how to make it work with their school calendars).
  • Reso on FEMLA: DOE had previously expanded FEMLA coverage to all UFT members. But there’s a technicality that makes the school year just too short for qualification. Off the clock provision, so presumption in law that teachers meet that 12,050 hours. DOE had extended that presumption to OTPT, Paras, then one day stopped. We’ve been able at the UFT. Resolution calls on all our state lobbing power to make sure that folks who work in schools, regardless of title, are covered by that law.

Motion carries.

Resolution to Keep GHI Premium Free:

Alex Jallot: Motivating resolution to keep GHI premium free and to make sure that union does the work to keep GHI premium free. GHI was formed was formed under Laguardia in 1937. It was meant to help working families to have a chance for healthcare and quality healthcare. Since that time we’ve been afforded. The spirit of this resolution is just that we will continue to fight to keep GHI premium free. It’s incumbent on us to be able to do that.

Resolution to Keep GHI Premium-Free

Whereas, GHI, which is by far the most popular health plan for in-service municipal employees, has been offered premium-free to UFT members for decades; and

Whereas, article 3G of the contract guarantees “a choice of health and hospital insurance coverage from among designated plans and the Board agrees to pay the full cost of such coverage; and

Whereas, healthcare is now negotiated between the City and the Municipal Labor Committee; and

Whereas,  the 1993 MLC and City letter of agreement mandates that any changes to healthcare be collectively bargained between the MLC and City; and

Whereas, in the short term, the addition of premiums would cause financial distress for members already dealing with record-high inflation rates, while in the long term, the addition of premiums would be remembered as one of the most damaging give-backs in UFT history; and

Whereas, in-service and retired members deserve sustained choice for access to quality premium-free healthcare on which they and their families depend; be it therefore

Resolved, that the UFT will use its power in the MLC to keep GHI premium free; and be it further

Resolved, that in the effort to preserve GHI coverage as premium-free, the UFT will not use any strategy that makes contractual concessions or reduces the healthcare quality of retirees and/or in-service members.

Geof Sorkin: I rise in opposition. I do believe that the intention behind this is misguided. I’m frustrated. For 50 years, we’ve had premium free coverage. Because of the efforts of the MLC, we’ve been fighting to continue for premium free coverage. That is our goal. This resolution pertains to both in-service members and retirees. Fails to acknowledge. Pandora’s box now open. This resolution would tie our hands from doing certain types of negotiations. Room is full of experts because of quick google searches. Vote this down.

Vincent Gaglione: Motion to table this motion.

Nick Bacon in line to speak but 2/3 vote carries to table motion, so debate ends.  

LeRoy Barr: Quandry. Know the intention was good. People think they’re doing the right thing. Then they write about it and say the UFT isn’t doing something about healthcare. This is dangerous. People don’t understand the moment we’re in. When we talk about the moment: hospitals are fleecing the working people. That’s the issue. We’re gonna go to war. Will you be there? So I appreciate the intent, but I don’t appreciate the spin. Feels like some people are spinning it for political gain at the expense of the membership. Appealing to you: I’m trying to help people, no intention to harm. Intended to help. Don’t make this political. You think we’re trying to hurt the members? Do you think we’re trying to hurt the members? We’re members too. You’re here, you’re leaders. Some people listen to us. The average member doesn’t know this stuff. Can’t burn the house down. We’re struggling to find an answer through this thing.  Respect ‘these guys’ right here (the high school executive board). But let’s think this stuff before?

Ronnie Almonte: Appreciate what you said and agree with it. But, this goes both ways. Would like to avoid ad hominem attacks – that what we do here is ‘theatre,’ that ‘we’re being political.’ Never called by name, whether it’s us or associates. If names were mentioned, maybe we could respond. But we’re here to work together and represent the high school members who voted us in. We’re organizers, some of us chapter leaders, but would like a little more benefit of the doubt. Feel some positivity, but not from all. If there’s feedback you want to give us, but nebulous critiques are ambiguous, and it feels directed to me. So I hope you do hit the streets. I hope we do have 1,000s. I think we can all agree that healthcare is a mess. We need to be united to win. Debate starts with having good intentions on both sides. We share the same spirit and thanks for allowing us to respond.

LeRoy Barr: Closes.

UFT: Let’s Organize for a Fair Contract

UFT members need a decent contract. With inflation at sky high levels and our pay rates stuck in the 2021-2022 school year, we frankly need that contract yesterday. On Jan. 30, many chapters across the city will engage in ‘teach ins’ to learn about and organize around the contract. Hundreds–if not thousands–of UFTers took part in initial trainings, so I’m optimistic that chapters will actually do them. Like my fellow UFT executive board member, Mike Schirtzer, I want these to be successful. Rather, I want these events to be a part of ensuring that our actual contract is successful.

Of course, readers likely know that I’m rather pessimistic on this subject. That isn’t to say I already plan to vote no on the next contract. Indeed, without seeing the final version, I can’t comment on whether it is a good contract or a bad contract. What I can say is that if we don’t organize and the City doesn’t see us organize, we’re less likely to get a good one. UFT leadership is therefore right to have organized these ‘teach ins.’ However, we always need to take what leadership gives us with a grain of salt. Back in 2018, I believed Michael Mulgrew when he said there were no givebacks. Heck, I turnkeyed his powerpoint back to my chapter and sold it to them. As we all now know, it turned out that in a hidden appendix there was a huge trojan horse with dangerous healthcare givebacks. Needless to say, I deeply regret organizing that ‘yes vote.’

We don’t yet have the UFT’s powerpoint on the next contract. We do have their powerpoint and lesson plan for the ‘teach in’ meant to organize for that contract. There’s some good here. The sheer fact that it encourages members to think about the contract and how it affects their lives as well as the broader New York City community is fantastic. For that reason alone, I think the ‘teach in’ is worthwhile. When teachers are conscious of the contract, they’re more likely to appreciate the rights they have, make sure those rights are enforced, and fight for rights they should have but currently lack.

Of course, back to that grain of salt. Is this just the 2018 powerpoint all over again? Is what seems like a presentation about organizing ourselves to fight the City for the best possible contract, really just propaganda by UFT leadership to organize us into thinking that whatever contract they come up with is worth fighting for? Is that why they’re asking us what we want in the contract despite knowing that negotiations have already been going on for months? Is that why they’re talking about organizing a fight, even though they’ve given us no reason to believe that the City is fighting our demands? Is that why in their official materials, the current contract is painted as the culmination of decades of brilliant bargaining and not the watered down shell of former contracts that it actually is? Is that why the parts explaining the negotiation process make it seem so fool-proof that a teacher would be crazy not to accept whatever comes out of it? Is that why nothing is said about a no-vote?

Maybe. But we should still do the ‘teach-ins.’ Members need to know about their contract. They need to think about their contract. And they need to be organized in case of a need to mobilize for a contract fight. That also means being ready to vote no and push for something better if the contract we’re given ends up not being worth the paper it’s printed on. Luckily, many of us in the progressive wing of the UFT have been thinking about this. On Sunday, Jan.29 at 7:00 PM – the night before the teach-in – please join Educators of NYC for their Contract Teach-in Pep Rally. Prepare to discuss: “

  • What does a fair upcoming contract look like? What does an unfair contract like?
  • There are items in any contract that require costing … are there some working conditions that we can demand for this contract that don’t really cost the city anything? What are they?
  • What does saying “no” to an unfair contract mean? Does it mean we strike?
  • In our teach-ins we will be sharing what actions we should take collectively. Do you believe we are prepared to take meaningful actions? Why or why not?
  • Some believe that the biggest obstacles for us taking meaningful actions are fear and apathy …How do we overcome fear and apathy in our union?”

These are just the things we need to discuss to make sure that the ‘teach in’s in our schools are not just infrastructure for an undeserved ‘yes’ vote, but a true means for chapters to think about what the contract means to them – and what sorts of contracts are worth that ‘yes’ vote.


Content Policy

Content of signed articles and comments represents the opinions of their authors. The views expressed in signed articles are not necessarily the views of New Action/UFT.
February 2023
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728