Wednesday, June 07, 2017

UFT DOES NOT SEEM OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING MANDATORY DUES CHECKOFF

NYC Educator has two pieces on the latest UFT Executive Board meeting. We have reported here on the ATR issue. We totally denounce the UFT's complete disregard for democracy and transparency in negotiating a new ATR agreement and not getting approval from the people impacted or anyone else for that matter.

Why is the UFT so shamelessly arrogant in the face of possibly losing mandatory dues for members or non members when the Supreme Court will more than likely rule mandatory union dues in the public sector for non-union members are unconstitutional (Janus v AFSCME)? One would think the union leaders would be on their best behavior as thousands of members could vote with their feet to leave the UFT after the Supreme Court makes their decision. That would cost the UFT millions of dollars. UFT President Michael Mulgrew may have given an answer in his report on Monday on why there is little UFT urgency over Janus.

From Arthur Goldstein's report:

Mulgrew said something very interesting Monday night.. He seemed to suggest that there was some workaround to the Janus decision that would come around next year being negotiated statewide. That might explain why there's all the cozying up to Cuomo and a potential endorsement. But then he said both the country and state would be right to work next year, so it was kind of a mixed message. 

It looks like the UFT's strategy if there is an adverse Supreme Court ruling might not be to mobilize members to ensure that everyone wants to stay in the union, but rather it could be to kiss the governor's ring while going to the State Legislature to pass some kind of state law that works around the Supreme Court.

UFT leadership shows time and again that they care more about preserving the institution of the union than the members of the union. If they did right by the membership, an adverse Supreme Court decision on automatic dues wouldn't matter much.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

This would explain why mulgrew and Amy don't care about ATRs

RBE said...

The workaround with Cuomo has long been rumored - I'm not surprised in the least that Mulgrew says it's in the works and will save all the goody money for UFT leadership and their shills to continue to live the Life of Riley.

If SCOTUS finds against automatic dues, that workaround negotiated can and will be challenged as well, however, so UFT leadership shouldn't get too jejune yet.

Anonymous said...

A state law would require automatic checkoff of dues?

Anonymous said...

Where can we find more information on this workaround?

Harris L. said...

Who the hell knows what Mulgrew is talking about but dues checkoff is being challenged on freedom of speech grounds: that all union activity, including collective bargaining, is inherently political and that members who do not support a union's negotiating strategy can't be forced to pay for it.

I def agree with RBE (been a long time, my friend!).

Hard to imagine that the lawyers bringing the case and the Supremes, themselves, haven't thought about ways that a ruling to strike down checkoff might be circumvented at the state level and might choose the language in their decision carefully.

I guess it's possible--somehow--but I don't think Michael or Andrew are that clever.

James Eterno said...

They might not be that clever but they certainly are that cynical Harris.

Don't bet against our new friend the governor challenging this and becoming the new buddy of unions. Not sure yet how they go about it.

Anonymous said...

Michael Fiorillo said...
Mulgrew shows up at the EB for eight minutes (sometimes he doesn't show at all) and blithely announces that we'll be a right-to-work (for less)country and state at this time next year, and has no plan for dealing with the consequences of that.

But Teacher's Choice is going up next year, so I guess it all works out.

Anonymous said...

Lets let the option arise first. We will probably have another terrible school year upcoming, plus our contract ends next year.

Anonymous said...

James, can you post the differences between the 2007-2009 ATR deal and the current one? Are rotations the only difference?

Anonymous said...

James:
You are confusing "Automatic Dues Checkoff" with "Agency Fee"

Automatic Dues Checkoff is the collection procedure for Dues or Agency Fees by the employer.

The Supreme Court cases have been about "Agency Fee". Is an employee required to pay the fee at all.

After the big strikes we lost "Checkoff" whereby CLs had to go hat in hand collecting. it is a completely different concept.

The cases are about fair-share or agency fee. It is better known as the Freeloaders Case.

Anonymous said...

Mulgrew is so corrupt. Guaranteed he has something illegal going on. I'd love for him and the rest of unity to get locked up

Anonymous said...

They have been shafting members for years, who wouldn't be surprised if they shaft us again by denying us the right to quit this sham?

James Eterno said...

Technically you are right 7:19 but I used the automatic dues, member or not, because it is easier to understand.We get dues taken out automatically whether we are members or not. I believe the union is going to work with the state to try to get this to continue no matter what the Supreme Court says. Regardless, I changed the title and the one line and updated the posting. I hope you think it is accurate now.

James Eterno said...

ATRS existed for a long time but in 2005 Joel Klein and Randi Weingarten created this mess when they gave principals veto power over all hiring. It was yearly rotations. Weekly rotations started in 2011 to save layoffs of everyone. 2014 brought about expedited dismissal hearings and mandatory interviews. That sunset Ted in 2016 and a year later this.

Anonymous said...

So if the Supreme Court decides against automatic agency fee collection and the NYS legislation passes a law allowing this automatic collection, then what would be the purpose of the union? The union does very little now in advocating and protecting its members but when the whole country is right to work, the union certainly will not be able to take a stand on issues. It would be a law designed to just keep the union afloat. Not sure how this would be explained to the rank and file or to the public.