The Delegate Assembly has over 3,000 members, and votes on issues primarily of a political nature regarding education, social justice and the broader labor movement. Delegate Assembly minutes show, for example, that members voted on resolutions regarding which candidates to endorse in state and local political elections; whether to discourage the use of standardized testing in schools; whether to commemorate landmark events, such as the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington; and whether to support the causes of other teachers and other unionized workers.
The DOL goes on to say the DA has real constitutional governing powers but it does not use them. Since the DA resolutions are in large part pulled from Ad Com (officers) and Executive Board minutes, they basically represent what the union does.
It is kind of difficult to argue that our union isn't just a a top-down bureaucratic political organization that spends the bulk of its time and energy advocating for politicians, social justice, and education issues and not for better working conditions for its members.
33 comments:
Yup. Seems the Department of Labor missed the point, however. It is true that the real policy making gets made in the executive board (or advisory committee, or whatever it's called). But, one cannot have a representation on ad com without having a delegate, since members of ad com are selected from the delegates.
Appeal? They seem to be injecting their views on Friedrichs into an unrelated matter. The DOL are Obama appointees. A pack of brainwashed neo-liberal Kool Aid sippers.
She does seem to leave the door open for you to appeal.
Interestingly, she seems to be tipping the Admin's hand about what type of argument the Administratiin intends to make Jan 11 in the Freidrichs case (yes, I do believe the Obama admin is on board with Freidrichs). I am willing to bet money that they, too, submit minutes of DAs to attempt to show that the union is primarily political.
The argument is compelling. I think we will lose Freidrichs. But, courts always try to split the baby. I don't think the ruling will be such that we lose dues collection. Maybe it will simply be that the line is made starker between political activity and negotiations.
I read this as a very technical analysis of the sort that any quasi-judicial agency is required to undertake to determine whether the DOL has the jurisdiction to consider the complaint brought by James et al. I don't think this has a thing to do with Friedrichs or with any "political leaning" of the DOL. Nor do I think it makes any statement about the UFT being a "political union," whatever that is.
I have no idea whether James et. al. intended for the DOL to apply LMRDA, Sec. 29-401 to the case at hand but, evidently, DOL decided to do just that. LMRDA, Sec. 29-401 gives DOL the ability to review "elections of union officers." In order for the DOL to establish that it had jurisdiction under LMRDA to review the James et al. complaint it had to find that the UFT DA was the equivalent of a "union officer" or that it was a "governing body" that acted like a union officer.
So, DOL reviewed three years of minutes from DAs and threw up its hands, saying something to the effect: "This thing called a "DA" has broad powers under the UFT constitution. But since it appears to be such a neutered, powerless and supine thing, we conclude that it has failed to exercise any constitutional powers that it may have. In fact, it is such a waste of time that all it does is pass resolutions congratulating itself and other unions for being such good unions. Therefore, it is not the equivalent of a "union officer" election and we're out of here. Good luck, James et al., and next time try running for something that chooses to act like it has some power......"
So, the DOL doesn't think that James et al. have any recourse to the DOL because the DA is such a waste of time that the DOL can't, best that it tried, determine that it has any grounds to consider election to the DA to mean anything that falls within the jurisdiction of the DOL.
James, I hope you aren't offended by any of my comments here. I know that you all have taken this thing very seriously and I'm sorry, but not surprised, to find out that even, or especially, the DOL thinks our DA is a joke and a sorry excuse for a governing body. You have always tried, bravely, to use the DA as a place to make serious arguments but the DA just wants to be the dancing dog that its owners chose for it to be.
So, it's all-around-the-Mulberry-bush until we can take control of our union again and turn the DA into a real democratic decision-making body. See you in April....
Ad Com is the UFT administrative committee of the 12 officers elected every 3 years. They usually meet once a week. They send their recommendations to the Executive Board which then rubber stamps them which is then sent to the DA which also rubber stamps them.
So the AD Com is in reality the highest decision making body in the UFT - but even the majority of them rubber stamp whatever the leadership wants. Exactly who constitutes the "real" leadership is fuzzy. Shadow advisors/lawyers etc and even outside the UFT people may play as big a role as anyone.
My point is the same resolutions come up at Ad Com, the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly. So what is the governing body? Nobody I guess.
Some information refereed to on Friedrichs v. Cali. Teachers Association is very misconstrued. The Obama administration is against Friedrich, the Supreme Court doesn't care if politics and union dues are separate- the choices in this case are can you be forced to give money to a union or not. The arguments for money being a form of speech are absolutely overwhelming and this court has held over and over again that money is a form of speech. They may "split the baby" and separate a small amount for "legal contract negotiations" to avoid free ridership- this would be pennies compared to what we pay now; it would be a way around the free speech argument in that the money will only cover direct negotiations related to a specific contracts(again a very small amount).
The arguments are in and all the "friends of the court" briefs were filed already, you can read them her: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/
Chances are SCOTUS does some splitting the baby, but the UFT will suffer greatly as members hate our union and feel sold out by it. No one wants to be a teacher anymore, no one is making it a career anymore...police unions, firefighter unions, nursing unions, etc. will maintain full membership and dues, but unions who have deflated and defeated memberships will die.
Just read the city's brief for Friedrichs. Thanks for pointing me to it. I will be laughing all night long. If you think, a loss in Friedrichs will lead to strikes you have clearly lost your mind.
Lost my mind, eh? If you think 80,000 working teachers in NYC are going to sit back and watch this go down without striking, you're the one who's nuts. Everyone has a breaking point. The ones who are close to retirement could give a hoot. But, they're already gone (or close to it). Between 55/25 and the crappy contract that put targets on their heads, the capitulators have left the building.
The people who remain are mid-career. The flotilla of adventurers known as "Teaching Fellows" have come and gone. They are nowhere near the numbers that existed under Bloomberg. And, most of the Fellows in it now have told me they want out. I saw one quit last week. Better jobs exist.
So, we are now at a juncture where the vast majority of NYC teachers are ready to fight to make this a career. They have no leadership, but, that could change on a dime. The fear campaign and the divide and conquer tactics will be useless if some good leadership comes along.
Weingarten is too far removed to stop it. Mulgrew is a yutz who's only been able to hold the fort because of the conditions that I previously mentioned. One good blow could knock-out the Unity structure. That dude better break out his carpentry kit, because he'll be back on the job-site soon enough.
Obama doesn't support Freidrichs? Are you kidding me? You are aware that he appointed Duncan, right? And also John King. You do know who his donors are, don't you? They sit in the board of Success Academy. Obama is so into Freidrichs, it's ridiculous.
Also, if police officers are exempt from Freidrichs, then why did they file a friend of the court brief? Indeed, the FOP's brief was probably the most well written of all of them. I wish we had a union like that. Hell, Randi probably wrote ours. For our sake, I hope her legal briefs are better than her contracts.
To anon 10:20PM
Exactly who will be there to organize a strike? Or do you think teachers at PS xyz will just pick up one day and decide to walk out while teachers down the road don't even know about it?
This is what a union can do - but ours doesn't.
Go back to 1960-62. The pre-UFT put together an organizing effort to get enough people to walk out so the city caved and gave us collective bargaining rights.
Shanker left teaching in 1958 or even earlier to go to work full time for the AFT as an organizer in NYC -- it took years to build up enough forces to even have a pre-union.
But winning was also a trap - they granted the union dues checkoff and agency shop and made the union beholden - and fearful of the consequences of striking. The state has the power to cripple a union - it was only Shanker's playing ball after the 75 strike that lessened the impact of the Taylor LAw penalties.
If the union doesn't exist then there is no union to punish.
But then what does exist to do the organizing needed to pull off a strike?
Wildcatting is a concept - if a few schools go out things might catch fire - or not and those people just get fired.
Now if they were going to leave teaching anyway -
Not to say that without a union to punish we may end up back in late 50s territory with a new union movement that is more militant.
And that take me back to Friedrichs -- what do the powers that be prefer - a UFT that plays ball and controls its members or some wild card?
Even our pals in Chicago suffer under severe restrictions in what they can do. Note that Rahm is going to court to try to negate the legally held 95% strike vote. So the tricks never stop.
10:20 Lead us.
A huge mistake to opt out of the UFT. The charter folk, privatizers and deformers are counting on it. There are many schemes at work that we don't have an inkling of - all leading to the goal of low paid temporary teachers working in charter schools. The biggest mistake you can make is to opt out of the Union. People will be begging to join the UFT in 5 years, when there are only a quarter of the public schools left and teachers are working like slaves for Eva.
Ed Notes: (from anon 10:20) I believe '62 strike didn't have full participation. It was still effective. Wildcats can work.
I will still pay dues after Freidrichs, until a stronger more member-driven union presents itself; at which time I will start paying the newbie. I'm not cheering Freidrichs. Only a scab would do that. But, I am saying there is a bright-side.
This is not the preferred method to achieving a member-driven union. But, since no amount of organizing can change the SCOTUS, this is the path we have.
1960 was not that big. By 62, UFT was a force with 30,000 members. President Charles Cogen didn't really want the 1962 strike but certainly fought hard and they won a good settlement. It was the Roger Parente militant wing that pushed a strike. My source is Jack Shierenbeck's Class Struggles series in NY Teacher.
Thanks, James. I am reading Teacher Rebellion, as you suggested.
Must reading. Great book.
On what basis do you determine that the vast majority of teachers are ready to strike?
Abigail Shure
They aren't even ready to vote in a union election let alone strike.
James - there was 20% participation in the first strike - but that wasn't a wildcat - it was shanker and crew organizing it - my point is that there is a need for some kind of organization to make a strike happen -- let's say a caucus not in power but one that has gained enough currency in the schools.
An organization that has the ability to keep people together and not allow one school at a time to be picked off.
That is why one way is to stay in the UFT and build such an organization.
Another way is to leave the UFT and build an alt organization - but people with the skills to do that must available.
I would opt for the former since there is already a structure to work within.
On any level it would take a group with a wide outreach into many schools to accomplish this.
Charles Cogen led the first two strikes, not Shanker. One was in 1960 and the second was in 1962 which Cogen didn't really want but he led it rather well when you see what they ended up with. The militants pushed Cogen into striking. Participation grew in 1962 compared to 1960 but that was a different time when the government was not looking to use any excuse to fire people and it seems like all of those teachers in those days were daughters or sons of union workers. Organizing is very different these days, not impossible, but different.
(Anon 3:37 here) good points, you two. With respect to forming a more militant union, I think giving newbies a full accounting of what NYC teachers once had, (the specifics of job protections, 100% pension for Tier I) and how they got it, should be enough to persuade the newcomers. Honestly, I think very few people know what's been frittered away. They don't feel like they should ask for it because they don't know that anyone ever had it.
The frustrating thing about "give-backs" at the bargaining table is that they are so, so hard to get back. I'm not entirely convinced that the present day teachers won't fight. But, I am certain that once a few teachers start agitating, the Unity Causcus will send in the goons to disrupt and confuse. Our Union is the Handmaiden of the Democratic Party, which, as HRC has shown, is bought and paid-for by Goldman Sachs.
If you guys think it's worth sticking with the UFT post-Freidrichs. . . I don't know. . . I buy your reasoning on most things. But, I'm so ready for a change.
10:36
There is no viable alternative.
Abigail Shure
3:37/1036-If you are ready for change, then vote MORE-NAC in the UFT election and urge as many UFT members as you know to do the same. I mean really talk to them because most people throw the ballot out. There are thousands of votes out there that could be won over with a push from the dissident union and education blog readers. I agree with what you said about telling people what we have lost over the years. How do you explain the Increased Take Home Pay, pension based on one year salary and the rest of Tier I on a campaign leaflet? We'll have plenty more to say on Friedrichs as the decision approaches but Abigail's point must be answered and I am not convinced the unions will lose.
I'm not sure how other UFT chapter leaders and delegates feel about this but I think we need to use this decision to force the UFT to become more democratic. We schlep to Manhattan month after month to attend the DA which is touted as the "highest decision making body of the UFT" and the Department of Labor puts into writing what many of us know but refuse to admit... it's a big waste of our time and energy. A farce!
Well, I'm not going to accept that it's ok for UFT leadership to deny us the authority granted in the UFT constitution. I hope someone brings this DOL decision up at the next DA but whether they do or not, I am going to do everything I can to change how we do business at the Delegate Assembly.
Mary Ahern
Bring up the DOL decision and then ask Mulgrew to give us real authority? I doubt that will succeed.
The UFT constitution is followed to the tee. It was designed to create an undemocratic union.
As for the protections we have lost -- the seniority protections were major. The old BOE and UFT were partners and the principals were did not go after people. Bloomberg broke the social contract and just began to use the loopholes in the contract that were there all along.
We were writing literature in our caucus in the early 70s pointing out these loopholes.
As for Tier 1 -- every public union got that not just the UFT - and lost it around 1973 - over 40 years ago.
So let's not think that only Randi and Mulgrew have lost us stuff.
The 75 strike was about 15,000 layoffs -- no ATR world then -- people flat out being laid off. And we lost. More came in 1976.
It took about 6 years until the UFT lost the appeal over the penalties and they lost dues checkoff - and also had to move people out of headquarters and back into the schools until they got it back.
As for the early strikes - Kogan led them but he was timid and the hotheads like Shanker pushed the buttons.
Ed Notes, that one post is a gold mine of insight. I am a bit of a hothead in my comments here. I'll admit, there are many things I did not know and I had just been filling in the gaps. e.g. Tier I, strikes, etc.
The info you're giving is crucial. Maybe it doesn't fit on a flier. But, it needs to be common knowledge for chapter leaders, delegates, and rank-and-file. I have a lot more questions. Those selling the official line at 52 Bway are a much less informative about how we got to this point. So, thanks and keep it coming.
The hotheads were Charles Parente and his group for the most part. See 1959 evening high school strike for the real first strike.
Voting in an ersatz election and striking are two different things. Nobody thought Chicago teachers would strike. They had a higher proportion of TFA scabs than we do. But they voted twice to strike. Most recently they did so unanimously.
I think people would gladly do so. Indeed, the last contract negotiated before Weingarten was rejected and we authorized a strike. what happened? We got a better contract.
Once Freidrichs comes a long, we must strike. Nationwide strikes. We have nothing to lose at that point. The Justices will have pushed our backs to the wall.
Can I ask whether MORE can form a new union if Unity/UFT loses dues checkoff? I would RUN to give MORE double dues money, because I believe they would REALLY represent my interests as a veteran NYC teacher.
Run with MORE-New Action in the spring election. Don't wait until it gets desperate after a Friedrichs loss. The UFT would not lose dues checkoff if the supreme court rules against the unions. They would lose agency fee shop which means that those who don't join the union would no longer have to pay a fair share fee for what the union does.
Post a Comment