Out of Touch and Out of Time: Why Mulgrew’s Fight Against Congestion Pricing Fails Teachers and the Working Class

In a recent New York Post article, United Federation of Teachers President Mike Mulgrew blasted New York’s congestion pricing plan, calling it a betrayal of the working class by Governor Kathy Hochul and state Democrats. Mulgrew’s criticisms, however, are riddled with inconsistencies and a troubling misalignment with the interests of the very people he claims to represent. His stance against congestion pricing not only misrepresents the working class but also undermines a policy designed to benefit all New Yorkers by improving transit infrastructure and reducing emissions.

Mulgrew positions himself as a defender of working-class New Yorkers, but his opposition to congestion pricing aligns more closely with suburban and Staten Island politicians who prioritize car commuters over public transit users. According to the Post, Mulgrew justified his position by claiming to protect “scores” of teachers who drive into Manhattan, but this argument falls apart under scrutiny.

The reality is that most New York City teachers—and working-class New Yorkers in general—rely on public transportation, not personal vehicles, to commute to midtown and downtown Manhattan. Rather than protecting the majority of his membership, Mulgrew’s legal battle against congestion pricing appears to serve the interests of a privileged few who drive. Moreover, it’s unclear whether the UFT rank-and-file membership even supports this lawsuit, raising concerns about whether Mulgrew is acting without their authorization.

One of Mulgrew’s key arguments, reported in the Post, is that congestion pricing will shift traffic and pollution to the outer boroughs, particularly affecting areas like the Bronx. He even mocked Governor Hochul’s announcement of a new asthma center in the Bronx, suggesting that residents would need it as a result of congestion pricing. However, environmental studies and real-world data from cities like London and Stockholm contradict this claim.

Congestion pricing is proven to reduce emissions overall by discouraging car travel and increasing public transit use. Revenues from the program are intended to fund critical upgrades to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, such as cleaner buses and expanded subway service, which would directly benefit outer-borough residents. Mulgrew’s suggestion that the policy will exacerbate pollution in these areas not only lacks evidence but actively ignores the benefits of increased investment in public transit infrastructure.

This episode highlights a broader issue with UFT leadership: a disconnect from the progressive and equitable values many educators hold. Teachers often champion sustainability and social justice, making it baffling that Mulgrew would use union resources to oppose a policy that aligns with these principles. The Post noted Mulgrew’s criticism of Democrats as “tone deaf,” but his own stance—clinging to car-centric commuting habits—is equally out of touch with the needs of teachers, students, and working-class families.

As UFT elections approach this spring, members should consider whether Mulgrew’s leadership truly reflects their priorities. Supporting policies like congestion pricing, which aim to create a cleaner, more equitable city, is far more consistent with the goals of public education and the well-being of students and families.

Congestion pricing is a forward-thinking policy that addresses multiple crises: traffic congestion, climate change, and underfunded public transit. By opposing it, Mulgrew risks sidelining the UFT from broader efforts to make New York City a healthier, more sustainable place to live. Rather than fighting congestion pricing, UFT leadership should focus on advocating for affordable transit fares, improved service for outer-borough commuters, and environmental policies that benefit the majority of its members.

The Post described Mulgrew as furious with Democrats for pushing a policy he sees as harmful to the working class. But in reality, his stance does more to harm the working class by ignoring the long-term benefits of congestion pricing. It’s time for UFT leadership to align with policies that prioritize the needs of their members and the future of the city rather than clinging to outdated, regressive positions.