Why I Love Unions, But Not Always Their Leadership

[Hannah Bell]

It should seem obvious then, to most informed individuals, that teachers unions would be doing serious work...clearly presenting a positive alternative that could actually transform teaching and learning. This is why I love unions: They provide an opportunity for working people to have a significant voice in these matters, and they can organize their members in support of good policies and against bad ones.

And yet for some reason the Unity Caucus that leads the UFT (NYC), which has had practically unchallenged control over the union for decades, is not fighting... They have chosen not to come out strongly against charter schools, which concerns me and and many others who are wary of the spread of charters as a privatizing tactic... They have repeatedly undermined teacher protections and due process rights. The former president of the UFT and current president of the national AFT, Randi Weingarten, most recently said she would support the dismissal of tenured teachers without due process using a rating system that includes faulty test scores. Instead of capitulating to corporate-minded reformers who are pursuing these ill-advised changes, she should be arguing firmly that the focus on this small percentage of “bad teachers” is hugely misguided and a serious waste of resources...

Just as significantly, the UFT leadership has not adequately mobilized its members or galvanized school chapters to unite with parents and fight these misguided reforms. Instead, Unity continues to practice a failed method of preserving their seat at the table by capitulating, and of hoping that the Democrats whom they support with endorsements and finances will side with teachers and students. Too often the union relies solely on the legal system and the hope of a DOE error somewhere in order to try to stop the destruction of the public schools.

I’ve attended several Delegate Assembly meetings where members have brought up resolutions and essentially begged the leadership to do more to mobilize the base, to very little avail. ...Why are we, as a union, not fighting? Does the leadership not see mobilizing teachers and parents as a viable strategy? Does it not want to fight corporate reforms? Are UFT officials scared of losing control of the rank and file if the leadership makes a concerted effort to support us in organizing ourselves? I have been in far too many conversations, including two this past weekend at the NYCORE conference, where people have suggested their own theories about the true answer to the question, “why are they not really fighting...?

http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/30/why-i-love-unions-but-not-always-their-leadership/


The writer goes on to contrast what successful unions do v. what UFT/AFT are doing. She notes that UFT officials have actually counseled *against* push-back: "At a friend’s school the Unity-aligned chapter leader told her staff that they should not be involved in Fight Back Friday." She notes that the efforts the union *has* made have been one-time shows with no sustained mobilization.


Another writer responds:

Congratulations on your fine analysis of the shortcomings of the UFT leadership, but things are unfortunately even worse than you say.

The aggressive attacks against teachers and public education in NYC would not have been possible without the dictatorial powers the mayor has over the school system, and these powers would not have been granted without the approval of the UFT, and Randi Weingarten in particular.

The union had in the past successfully repelled mayoral power grabs, but in 2002 Weingarten acquiesed to it. The fragmentation, destabilization and privatization of the system started immediately, as intended. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver propsed a bill that would have given the mayor increased power over the Board of Education, but with checks and balances in place. Weingarten rejected that, inexplicably choosing absolute control of the schools by the mayor.

Worse was yet to come. The initial law granting the mayor absolute control of the schools was designed to sunset in 2009, allowing for the issue to be revisited, based on Bloomberg and Klein's actions. By that time there was widespread dissatisfaction with what Bloomberg and his factotum Klein were doing to the schools, and stakeholders began mobilizing to rein in the mayor's power...
Weingarten, however, had no intention of allowing that to happen, having apparently gotten used to getting rides in the mayor's private jet. So, using the craftiness that she never employed against the DOE, she impaneled a union committee to come up with suggestions for governance of the schools, in anticipation of the 2009 sunsetting of the law. This Governance Committee, of which I was a member, worked diligently to come up with an alternative to the executive dictatorship that is destroying public education in cities across the country....

http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/30/why-i-love-unions-but-not-always-their-leadership/

The writer says Weingarten sandbagged the effort on her own, without consulting membership or community, & approved continuation of mayoral control "with just a few meaningless adjustments."

http://gothamschools.org/2011/03/30/why-i-love-unions-but-not-always-their-leadership/


I think you could write a similar story for the destruction of the power of the auto unions -- and others.

[Hannah Bell]

1. kick

[Brickbat]

2. This is a big time for internal union workings, not just external.

There are a lot of union leaders who haven't had to fight over the past 20-30 years, or who came up through a union so demoralized that they don't know how to fight anymore. Some of them see the hard times coming are ready to just get out and make their pension. It's terribly frustrating.