Power and Loyalty: Parallels Between UFT Leadership and the Incoming Presidential Administration

The intersection of leadership practices and loyalty demands within unions and political organizations raises profound questions about democratic engagement and representation. By examining the United Federation of Teachers and the Trump administration, we uncover patterns that illuminate broader implications for governance, advocacy, and institutional integrity.

The UFT, a historically significant advocate for educators’ rights, faces increasing challenges from policies aimed at weakening union influence. This trend aligns with broader anti-union efforts, exemplified by Wisconsin’s 2011 legislation that severely restricted public sector collective bargaining. Such moves threaten educators' job protections and benefits, undermining the broader advocacy role of unions in shaping educational reform and policy.

At the same time, the UFT's internal dynamics have demonstrated a willingness to become more authoritarian and alienated from the rank and file. The union's one-party leadership structure, which has persisted for five decades, centralizes decision-making and suppresses internal dissent. This rigidity has stifled diverse perspectives, mirroring patterns observed in political leadership, such as the loyalty-driven appointments in the Trump administration.

A striking parallel emerges in the prioritization of loyalty over expertise. The UFT's leadership style creates an echo chamber, limiting members' opportunities to influence policies at local levels. Similarly, the Trump administration’s preference for loyalty led to the appointment of cabinet members and advisors based more on allegiance than qualifications, often sidelining seasoned professionals.

While the scale differs—union decisions primarily impact education policy, whereas presidential appointments shape national governance—both scenarios highlight the risks of suppressing dissent and fostering homogeneity in decision-making.

Weakening union power carries significant consequences. Research indicates that students in states with strong collective bargaining laws for teachers enjoy better long-term economic outcomes. A diminished UFT risks not only educators’ working conditions but also student success.

Similarly, loyalty-driven governance, as seen in the Trump administration, poses broader threats to democratic institutions. By prioritizing personal loyalty, the administration undermined checks and balances, marginalized dissenting voices, and destabilized trust in government operations. Proposals such as Schedule F, which would ease the firing of federal employees based on loyalty, exemplify these risks, threatening to erode the civil service's independence.

Both the UFT and the Trump administration underscore the critical importance of fostering transparency and accountability in leadership. Calls for reform within the UFT—such as adopting a multi-party system or creating avenues for open debate—could empower members and enhance representation. Likewise, addressing the Trump administration’s legacy of opacity and loyalty demands requires systemic safeguards to protect democratic norms and institutional integrity.

In the UFT, the concentration of power may limit opportunities for members to influence policy at the local level. In the Trump administration, the consequences of perceived disloyalty were often more severe, with officials losing their jobs if Trump felt they weren't doing his bidding or if they contradicted him in public.

Both scenarios raise concerns about the suppression of dissenting voices and the creation of echo chambers. However, the scale and potential impact differ significantly:

• In the UFT, the effects are primarily limited to the union's internal operations and its influence on education policy.
• In the Trump administration, the loyalty demands had broader implications for government functioning and national policy, potentially undermining democratic norms and the system of checks and balances.

The concentration of power, whether in unions or government, limits democratic engagement and suppresses diverse viewpoints. For the UFT, this means risking its effectiveness in representing teachers’ interests and adapting to the evolving needs of education. For the Trump administration, loyalty-based practices posed far-reaching consequences, potentially compromising national governance and public trust in democracy.

While the UFT and the Trump administration operate on different scales, their loyalty-driven dynamics reveal shared challenges in balancing effective leadership with inclusive representation. Both cases underscore the necessity of transparent, inclusive processes that empower stakeholders and uphold democratic principles. Whether in unions or political leadership, fostering debate, embracing diverse perspectives, and maintaining robust systems of accountability are essential to ensuring fair and effective governance.

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.

Ageism Is Anti-Union: Why Aqeel Williams’s Mocking of UFT Retiree Delegates Should Alarm Us All

In his recent blog post in Education Notes, Norm Scott highlighted a troubling incident involving Aqeel Williams, the UFT District 9 Unity Caucus Representative, who reportedly mocked retiree delegates with ageist memes in a group chat during a Delegate Assembly (DA). This incident might seem trivial at first, but it points to a larger issue within the United Federation of Teachers (UFT): an increasingly hostile stance toward retirees, a group who have given decades to this union and to New York City students. Ageism has no place in our union—or in any union for that matter. This incident serves as yet another indication of how disconnected UFT leadership has become from the rank and file.

Ageism isn’t just offensive; it’s fundamentally anti-union. Unions are built on solidarity and the understanding that every member, regardless of age or experience, brings invaluable contributions to the table. By mocking retirees, Williams undermines the very foundation of unionism: respect and unity among members. The retirees in question are not only dues-paying members but also educators who have dedicated years to our schools, our students, and the fight for fairer treatment and better conditions for all of us. For these members to be dismissed as “feeble” or ridiculed because of their age is not only unprofessional but a betrayal of the union values that should bind us together.

Williams is also a member of the UFT Election Committee, a position that requires impartiality, professionalism, and respect for all members. How can retirees—who make up a significant portion of UFT membership—have confidence in his role if he’s demonstrated such a dismissive attitude toward them? This is a matter of integrity and accountability, and UFT leadership’s silence on this incident only heightens the sense of division within our union.

This isn’t the first time Unity Caucus has failed to stand up for the rank and file. For years, we’ve seen a widening disconnect between UFT leadership and the everyday educators who work tirelessly in classrooms and beyond. Retirees, who have the benefit of experience and historical perspective, have increasingly become vocal advocates at DAs. They are some of our most engaged members, using their knowledge and time to ensure that the union remains accountable to the membership. But rather than welcoming these contributions, leadership seems almost fearful, as if these retirees threaten their hold on power.

Retirees have become essential voices in the UFT’s internal democracy, speaking truth to power and calling for reforms that reflect the needs of active and retired educators alike. Mocking them with ageist memes is an attempt to belittle and silence their contributions. Leadership’s failure to address this behavior reflects a troubling lack of solidarity with the very members they claim to represent.

This incident with Aqeel Williams highlights why the UFT urgently needs new leadership. The current leadership’s refusal to condemn these ageist actions sends a message that their priorities lie not with the values of mutual respect, professionalism, and solidarity but with maintaining power at any cost. The lack of action signals to members that leadership either condones or is indifferent to this divisive behavior—neither of which are acceptable.

The fact that Williams was “on the clock” and being paid with union dues while engaging in this behavior further emphasizes the issue. UFT members pay dues to support representatives who advocate for us, not to mock or disrespect fellow union members. With contract negotiations on the horizon and critical fights ahead, we need leadership that represents the professionalism, strength, and unity of the entire union, not just a select few.

Unions are only as strong as their unity, and that unity is jeopardized when segments of our membership—such as retirees—are treated with contempt. It’s time to push for a UFT that recognizes the value and wisdom of all its members, young and old, active and retired. Mockery and division weaken our ability to stand together, especially as we prepare for challenging negotiations and the continuing fight for public education. We need leaders who will uplift all members, who understand the stakes of our work, and who respect the rights and contributions of every educator who has fought and continues to fight for the next generation.

A call for new leadership isn’t just a reaction to one incident—it’s a call for a fundamental shift in how we respect and value each other within our union. Ageism has no place in the UFT, and our future depends on making sure that every member, regardless of age, is respected, supported, and represented. It’s time for leadership that embodies the values that define us as a union.

What the Trump Administration and Republican Congress Could Mean for NYC Schools: A Progressive Perspective

With a new presidential administration and a Republican-controlled Congress, teachers, parents, and students in New York City face a moment of profound uncertainty. Changes are expected that may shake the foundation of public education as we know it. As an opposition caucus within the United Federation of Teachers, it’s crucial that we prepare for potential impacts that could redefine classrooms across our city.

One of the newly elected administration's early proposals involves dismantling the federal Department of Education, an unprecedented move that would disrupt federal oversight, funding, and support. For our schools, this could mean the loss of critical Title I funds that provide resources to high-poverty schools, support for after-school programs, and funding for schools with high populations of underserved students. Without federal support, the burden to cover these programs could fall on already strained city budgets, forcing schools to choose between essential services.

New York City has long been a sanctuary city, and its schools serve tens of thousands of undocumented students. Under new federal policies, the protection of these students could be jeopardized. An administration that prioritizes immigration enforcement could encourage actions that make schools less safe for undocumented families, including potential data sharing with immigration authorities. We must be vigilant and vocal in defending our students’ rights to learn in a safe, supportive environment, regardless of their immigration status.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has been pivotal in enforcing anti-discrimination policies in schools. With a reduced or dissolved Office for Civil Rights, civil rights enforcement in NYC schools could suffer, impacting students of color, LGBTQIA+ students, and students with disabilities who rely on these protections for equitable education. Progressives must advocate for strong local protections and push NYC’s Department of Education to uphold and enforce civil rights standards independently.

Federal mandates, like those from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ensure that NYC’s special education students receive appropriate accommodations and support. Without federal funding and oversight, NYC schools could face challenges in meeting these needs, leading to inadequate support for students who rely on individualized services. We will need to push for commitments to special education funding and protect these students’ rights.

Federal funding also sustains vital programs, like the free and reduced-price breakfast and lunch programs on which thousands of NYC students depend. Cuts or eliminations of these programs could lead to higher food insecurity among low-income students, directly impacting their ability to learn and thrive. We should work with city officials to ensure that alternative funding is available to maintain these essential programs and advocate at every level for solutions that prioritize children’s welfare.

Protections for LGBTQIA+ students could be at risk under an administration that may not prioritize their rights. Federal guidance has previously protected transgender students’ rights to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. The rollback of these protections could create hostile school environments. Educators, allies, and families must stand together to affirm LGBTQIA+ students’ rights and ensure NYC schools remain inclusive.

This new administration has shown support for increasing religious expression in public schools, potentially blurring lines between church and state. NYC, with its richly diverse student population, benefits from secular education policies that respect all religions equally. We must continue to uphold the separation of church and state in our schools and maintain an inclusive, secular educational environment for students of all backgrounds.

A push for school choice, charter schools, and voucher systems could lead to reduced funding for public schools, funneling resources toward private and charter schools. For NYC’s public schools, which serve the vast majority of students, this redirection of funds could mean larger class sizes, fewer resources, and less support for teachers. As public education advocates, we should actively oppose policies that weaken public schools, and instead, call for investments that strengthen them.

The administration’s potential embrace of “right-to-work” laws could undermine teachers’ union rights, weaken collective bargaining, and erode job protections. This shift could reduce teachers’ ability to advocate for their students and classrooms without fear of retribution. It’s critical that we, as UFT members, work together to protect our union’s strength, support each other, and continue to advocate for conditions that allow teachers to provide the best possible education.

Federal support for science and climate education may decrease, particularly given the administration’s stance on climate change. As NYC educators, we must commit to teaching our students science grounded in evidence and fact. This includes continuing to educate about environmental issues and climate change, preparing students to address these pressing challenges in the future.

The potential changes ahead could profoundly affect NYC’s educational landscape. It’s imperative that we, as progressive educators, remain informed, organized, and active in protecting our students’ rights and access to quality education. Here are a few actions we can take together:

• Build Coalitions: Partner with other education advocates, civil rights organizations, and community groups to amplify our voices.
• Advocate Locally: Push for policies within NYC’s Department of Education and city government that protect students, maintain equitable funding, and uphold inclusive values.
• Engage Families and Communities: Inform and empower families about their rights and the potential impacts of federal changes on their children’s education.
• Stay Active in the Union: Participate in UFT meetings and initiatives, ensuring that our voices are heard and that we’re prepared to respond to policy changes.

The future is uncertain, but by standing together, we can continue to uphold the values of equity, justice, and inclusion in our schools and fight for a public education system that serves all students.

Out of Touch and Out of Time: Why the UFT’s War on Congestion Pricing Fails NYC Teachers and Students

In a misguided and poorly executed attempt to stall New York City's Congestion Pricing plan, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and its president, Michael Mulgrew, have not only acted against the interests of their members but have also launched a frivolous federal lawsuit, ignored the democratic voice of the union, and undermined critical environmental and public health goals. Congestion Pricing is essential for a healthier, more sustainable New York City, and by opposing it, the UFT has aligned itself with reactionary voices that put political expedience over public welfare.

The federal lawsuit filed by the UFT was dismissed almost immediately, illustrating its lack of legal merit and foresight. Mulgrew’s unilateral decision to start this lawsuit without consulting the broader membership is emblematic of an increasingly undemocratic approach to leadership within the UFT. Members deserve transparency and representation, especially in decisions that implicate public policy and use union resources. This legal misadventure was not just a waste of union dues; it was a direct affront to the values of collective decision-making.

Governor Kathy Hochul’s delay in implementing Congestion Pricing—backed by Mulgrew and the UFT—appears to be a concession to appease conservative suburban voters. This political move has come at a staggering cost to the city. Every day that Congestion Pricing is delayed means further deterioration of our public transit system, additional air pollution, and increased vehicular congestion. Our students, teachers, and communities are paying the price with their health, as higher traffic levels exacerbate air pollution, impacting lung health and making the city less livable for all New Yorkers.

Congestion Pricing, if implemented, would provide funding for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which is in desperate need of revenue for repairs, upgrades, and expansions. A stronger public transit system benefits everyone, including teachers who rely on reliable transportation to get to their schools, parents who rely on safe and dependable routes to work, and students who deserve a healthier environment.

The UFT’s opposition to Congestion Pricing is ostensibly based on the notion that some teachers need to drive into the Central Business District (CBD) to get to work. However, the reality is that only a small fraction of teachers actually rely on personal vehicles to commute into the CBD. Teachers who live in boroughs outside of Manhattan already know that parking outside of the CBD and completing their commute by subway or bus is a viable and affordable option. Not only would this reduce their transportation costs, but it would also align with the city’s broader environmental goals.

Mulgrew’s actions reveal a profound disconnect between UFT leadership and its rank-and-file members. Many educators support environmentally responsible policies and understand that a well-funded public transit system directly impacts their students’ quality of life. By spending union resources to fight against Congestion Pricing, Mulgrew has signaled that he prioritizes narrow interests over the union’s commitment to sustainability and public health.

Moreover, Congestion Pricing has widespread public support and has been recognized as an essential measure to alleviate traffic and pollution in New York City. Teachers, who live in neighborhoods directly impacted by vehicle emissions, should be champions for policies that improve air quality and promote sustainable transportation solutions. Mulgrew’s opposition to this essential policy runs contrary to the very ideals of social and environmental justice that the UFT should be advancing.

It’s time for the UFT to realign its leadership with the values and priorities of its members. New York City’s educators should be among the strongest advocates for a city that values clean air, sustainable transportation, and equitable public services. If the UFT leadership is out of step with these principles, it’s time for a serious conversation about the future direction of the union. Teachers deserve better than to see their union dues wasted on lawsuits that prioritize political posturing over real, positive change.

As union members, as teachers, and as New Yorkers, we should demand that Michael Mulgrew and the UFT leadership listen to the voices of their rank-and-file members, reconsider their opposition to Congestion Pricing, and join the fight for a greener, more sustainable New York City. The health of our students, the strength of our public transit, and the integrity of our union depend on it.

Lessons from the Boeing Strike: Why Opposition Groups Are the Key to Revitalizing Teacher Unions

The recent Boeing strike didn’t just make headlines for its powerful stand on wages and working conditions—it offered a model for how rank-and-file workers can take control, making union action more effective, democratic, and responsive to members. In contrast, public sector unions, especially teacher unions, have often struggled with stagnant leadership that, while well-meaning, may be slow to respond to evolving challenges. For teachers, opposition groups within unions—dedicated factions that actively push for more aggressive action and accountability from leadership—are increasingly essential. If teachers want unions that truly serve their needs, it’s time to strengthen these internal movements and take inspiration from Boeing’s rank-and-file approach.

The Boeing strike succeeded largely because of the power wielded by Boeing’s rank-and-file members, who pressed for more aggressive bargaining and refused to settle for weak compromises. The strike was ultimately driven by the workers themselves, not by distant union executives. This rank-and-file-driven power forced Boeing’s hand and made their demands impossible to ignore.

In the teaching profession, similar rank-and-file power often comes from opposition groups within unions. These groups push back against complacency, demanding real progress on issues like wages, classroom conditions, and respect for educators. By empowering these opposition factions, teachers can ensure that union leadership doesn’t become overly bureaucratic or lose touch with the realities teachers face daily. Without this internal push, teacher unions risk stagnating, stuck in cycles of weak contracts and timid negotiations that serve neither educators nor their students.

One of the reasons Boeing workers found success was because they refused to settle for less, even when it meant extending their strike and facing considerable financial pressure. For teachers, weak union contracts often result from leadership that may be hesitant to disrupt the status quo, opting for safer, more palatable agreements rather than fighting for meaningful change. Opposition groups within teacher unions play a critical role here by demanding accountability from leadership and insisting that members deserve better than incremental gains.

Opposition factions have already demonstrated their impact in recent years. In cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, grassroots-led movements within teacher unions challenged complacent leadership and mobilized members for stronger action. These factions pushed for contracts that addressed classroom conditions, school funding, and community support—issues that are often sidelined in favor of quicker, “safer” negotiations. The power of these groups shows that real change comes not from the top but from a strong, organized base that holds leaders accountable.

A key factor in the Boeing strike was the workers’ resistance to Boeing’s corporate power and influence over politics. This challenge to corporate control is equally relevant for teachers, who face well-funded lobbying efforts by privatization advocates, charter school networks, and those aiming to erode public education.

Opposition groups in teacher unions bring a fresh approach to this fight, often pushing leadership to adopt more aggressive stances against privatization and anti-union political agendas. They’re essential for countering the “reform” movements that aim to weaken unions and strip teachers of their rights. By standing firm against these influences, opposition factions can ensure that unions don’t become mere bureaucratic bodies but remain vibrant, fighting forces that prioritize public education over private profit.

One of the strategies that helped Boeing workers succeed was their ability to frame their demands as part of a broader struggle for dignity and corporate accountability—gaining public support in the process. Teachers’ opposition groups within unions have similarly worked to align their demands with the needs of their communities, framing issues like class sizes, school funding, and teacher pay as crucial to student success. This connection builds alliances with parents, students, and community organizations, creating a coalition that’s harder for school boards and politicians to ignore.

Where traditional union leadership may be cautious in pushing for community involvement, opposition groups have been the ones to lead the charge, highlighting the importance of classroom conditions and adequate funding. These groups understand that the struggles of teachers are tied to the quality of public education overall, making them more willing to engage in bold action and coalition-building that includes the communities they serve.

In the Boeing strike, the strength of the rank and file ensured that union leadership stayed in line with the members’ demands. Within teacher unions, opposition groups serve this role, holding leadership accountable and pushing back against any signs of compromise or stagnation. Without these internal movements, union leaders can become insulated from the day-to-day challenges facing teachers, prioritizing safe but weak agreements over the bold demands that members need.

Opposition groups are the mechanism through which teachers’ voices are amplified, and they make it clear that union leadership works for them, not the other way around. By challenging leadership to be more responsive and transparent, opposition groups ensure that union priorities align with the needs of teachers, not with preserving bureaucratic stability.

The Boeing strike demonstrated what’s possible when workers take control of their unions and demand real change. For teachers and public sector workers, the power of internal opposition groups offers a similar path forward. These groups are not divisive; rather, they are essential for fostering vibrant, responsive unions that can fight effectively for the rights of their members and the quality of public education.

Without the pressure from opposition groups, teacher unions risk becoming slow-moving organizations that settle for “good enough” contracts and shy away from hard battles. But with strong internal movements that challenge leadership, teacher unions can become true engines of change. In an era when labor rights and public education are increasingly under attack, building this kind of internal strength isn’t just beneficial—it’s necessary. As Boeing’s workers have shown, only a unified, empowered rank and file can win the gains that truly matter. For teachers, the message is clear: real change begins from within.

An Empty Win: How the UFT's Holiday 'Victory' Fails NYC Teachers and Families

In response to the press release by NYC Mayor Eric Adams regarding the new December 23 holiday for NYC public schools, it’s hard not to question the judgment — and perhaps even the priorities — of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) leadership. The announcement, which touts an "extra day with family," seems like an appealing gesture on the surface, but when examined more closely, it reveals an unsettling level of superficial negotiation by the union. The real problem lies in how this decision exposes both the union’s inability to secure meaningful concessions and a willingness to bolster the image of an embattled mayor rather than hold firm on issues that impact teachers daily.

One key concern is what, if anything, had to be traded to secure this day. In negotiations, unions seldom receive benefits without conceding something in return — especially when they lack leverage. The UFT has chosen not to address what was given up in this case, likely because they prefer not to draw attention to the fact that substantial trade-offs may have occurred behind closed doors. Without any transparency from the union on these details, it’s fair to question whether the union leadership’s priorities are misplaced. Did the union give up valuable bargaining power or specific provisions from ongoing negotiations to secure a token gesture that benefits the mayor’s image far more than it does UFT members?

Furthermore, one could argue that this decision plays directly into the political theater Mayor Adams is staging. As he faces legal issues and criticism on multiple fronts, this holiday adjustment provides him with a convenient way to curry public favor without addressing any underlying issues within the NYC school system. By standing beside him, UFT President Michael Mulgrew is inadvertently lending credibility to Adams at a time when union leaders should be holding the administration accountable for its actions. This does nothing for the long-term gains for teachers or students; it only serves to make a compromised mayor appear proactive and responsive.

While an additional day off sounds like a win for both teachers and students, it’s a hollow one. This minor adjustment fails to address the core issues teachers continue to face, from class sizes and support staff shortages to classroom resources and pay equity. The UFT could have used this opportunity to demand tangible improvements for its members — changes that would make a lasting impact on the day-to-day lives of educators and students alike. Instead, the focus on "family time" appears to be little more than a smokescreen for a weak negotiation strategy.

Ultimately, this decision may come back to haunt the union in the long run. Teachers and union members rely on strong, assertive leadership to secure real benefits and protections. When union leadership fails to negotiate from a position of strength and instead collaborates on photo-ops, it sends a message of weakness. If the union cannot stand firm now, what faith should members have that it will stand strong in future battles? This "extra day off" has revealed just how much is missing from the UFT’s priorities — and just how little it has fought for what truly matters to its members.