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.

Silenced Voices and Broken Trust: How the UFT's Leadership Fails Its Own Members

For many educators in New York City, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is supposed to be a trusted advocate, representing their interests in a system that often feels adversarial. However, frustration and disillusionment among rank-and-file members have grown significantly in recent years, fueled by what many view as the union’s increasing detachment from the issues its members face daily.

Rather than providing transparent, responsive support, the UFT’s current leadership seems more focused on maintaining its power and allegiance to the Department of Education (DOE) than on protecting teachers, guidance counselors, and school staff.

Here’s a look at how the union's handling of members’ complaints, questions, and essential advocacy has deteriorated, often with serious consequences for New York City educators.

One of the most basic ways members should be able to seek assistance is through the union’s helpline. However, teachers and other school staff members report that their calls are often met with robotic menus that seem designed to frustrate rather than to help. Michelle, a third-grade teacher at an elementary school in Harlem, recounts her recent experience: “I called the UFT for guidance on dealing with a principal who was routinely scheduling mandatory meetings during our prep periods, which I knew was against our contract. After navigating a maze of options and waiting on hold, I was finally routed to an automated message that ended up hanging up on me. When I finally reached someone on a second attempt, they told me to ‘speak to my district rep’ without any clear guidance on how to do that.”

This impersonal and ineffective phone system only serves to deepen frustration and anxiety among members who are already overwhelmed by their daily responsibilities.

Ideally, district representatives would be chosen based on their effectiveness, knowledge, and advocacy skills. But in reality, district reps are selected more for their loyalty to the UFT administration than for their ability to support members. Daniel, a science teacher from a middle school in the Bronx, shared how his district rep, though personable, seemed unprepared and uninterested in addressing his school’s concerns. “We’ve had issues with overcrowding and lack of resources for years, but our rep never seems to bring these issues up with union leadership. When I asked him directly, he just shrugged and said, ‘These things take time.’ It feels like he’s more interested in keeping his position than actually advocating for us.”

This practice has created a network of district reps who are loyal to union administration but often out of touch with the real issues teachers are facing, leaving schools and staff to fend for themselves.

When members approve a contract, they expect the union to uphold it. But for many teachers, contract violations by principals and DOE officials are rarely, if ever, challenged by the UFT. Maria, a bilingual guidance counselor at an elementary school in Brooklyn, described how her principal regularly asked her to work through her designated lunch periods, a direct violation of her contract. “I filed a complaint with the union, hoping they would step in, but I never heard back. A few months later, I learned that the union had apparently discussed my complaint with the principal—behind closed doors, and without my involvement.”

Maria’s experience is unfortunately common. Many teachers feel that the union’s leadership is more interested in appeasing principals and DOE officials than in upholding the rights of their own members.

Perhaps the most significant betrayal of trust is the way the UFT has negotiated away essential health and welfare benefits without members’ consent. In the last MLC negotiation (the body the UFT heads to negotiate health and welfare benefits), the union accepted a deal that increased out-of-pocket costs for many members and reduced certain healthcare benefits, including mental health services that have become crucial as the demands on teachers grow. Tom, a math teacher previously at Washington Irving High School, feels particularly disappointed: “We’re already stretched thin financially, and then they go ahead and make it harder for us to access healthcare. It feels like they sold us out to save a few bucks.” This lack of protection for health benefits, particularly at a time when they are so necessary, has left many members questioning the union’s commitment to their welfare.

Union leadership insists that delegate assemblies offer a platform for open discussion and democratic decision-making. However, many delegates report that these meetings are heavily scripted, with little opportunity for genuine questioning or debate. Joanne, a delegate from a school in Queens, described her frustration: “Whenever I try to ask a real question about our contract negotiations or the lack of support for our Chapter Leaders, I’m either ignored or given a canned response. It’s clear they don’t want dissent; they want agreement.” The lack of transparency and open discussion has created a stifling atmosphere, where dissent is quietly suppressed rather than openly addressed.

The union’s failure to maintain an organized structure within schools is another serious concern. Many schools are left without Chapter Leaders, making it difficult for staff to communicate effectively with the union or to advocate for necessary changes. Schools without Chapter Leaders often struggle with critical issues like unsafe working conditions, overcrowded classrooms, and a lack of resources. Sarah, a cluster teacher at an elementary school in Brooklyn, has been working at her school for three years without a Chapter Leader. “Without someone to represent us directly, it’s like we’re invisible to the union,” she explains. “Whenever I try to reach out for help, they tell me to go through my Chapter Leader—which I don’t even have!”

When it comes to negotiations with city officials, the UFT’s ineffectiveness has become glaringly apparent. Despite Mayor Eric Adams’ administration facing various corruption scandals and a revolving door of DOE leadership, the union has made little progress in advocating for its members. The lack of stability in the DOE should theoretically be a bargaining chip, but the UFT has failed to use it to its advantage. Instead, teachers feel the union is more likely to make compromises than to stand firm on important issues.

John, a special education teacher in Staten Island, put it this way: “It feels like our union is more interested in making nice with the Mayor’s Office than actually securing us a fair contract. Adams is indicted, his DOE leadership changes constantly, and yet the UFT is content with settling for weak compromises that don’t actually protect us.” This lack of strong bargaining only weakens the union’s influence and leaves educators feeling abandoned in the face of systemic issues.

The union’s behavior has left many teachers feeling as though they no longer have a voice within their own organization. As the UFT continues to ignore contract violations, script delegate assemblies, and sell out vital health benefits, members are increasingly left with one pressing question: who is the union truly working for?

If the UFT is to regain the trust of its members, it must start with accountability, transparency, and a renewed commitment to advocate for the welfare of educators. Without real change, the union risks not only the erosion of its influence but also the alienation of the very people it is supposed to represent. As long as the UFT’s leadership prioritizes loyalty, secrecy, and compromise over its members' needs, teachers and school staff will continue to be left without the support they deserve.

Crossroads for Change: Why the UFT Election is as Pivotal as a U.S. Presidential Race

by Rebel Teacher

The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) presidential election this spring represents a crucial turning point. Much like a national election, this decision is a referendum on leadership, direction, and values, one that will shape the future of New York City’s educators, schools, and students. For decades, the Unity Caucus has held near-total control over the UFT’s leadership, dictating its policies, priorities, and strategies. Yet, under Unity’s rule, many members feel the union has grown increasingly insular, self-interested, and unresponsive to the needs of everyday educators. If this leadership is reelected, the UFT risks further disconnecting from its own members, leaving the very educators it claims to represent feeling unheard, unsupported, and disenfranchised.

Unity Caucus’s domination of the UFT has fostered a culture that prioritizes the maintenance of power over advocacy for change. Over time, this insularity has led to a fundamental shift in priorities, with Unity leaders focusing on consolidating their own positions rather than addressing the needs of rank-and-file members. Many educators believe Unity stopped truly caring about their struggles long ago, instead choosing to direct its energy toward securing its own influence within the union. As a result, the union’s leadership has grown increasingly detached from the challenges and frustrations experienced daily by teachers, counselors, and support staff in New York City’s schools.

If the current Unity-led leadership is reelected, members fear that the union’s lack of transparency and accountability will only deepen. Unity’s approach to communication has often been perceived as superficial, with meetings and announcements feeling more like public relations exercises than genuine efforts to address pressing issues. This pattern is unlikely to change with Unity at the helm. Instead, educators are concerned that Unity will continue to employ the same top-down methods that have stifled member input and prevented open, democratic engagement within the union. Without meaningful change in leadership, the UFT is likely to remain resistant to the kinds of structural reforms—such as transparent decision-making and member inclusion—that would empower rank-and-file voices and strengthen the union from within.

Unity Caucus’s self-serving approach has also fostered an atmosphere in which innovative ideas are either discouraged or ignored entirely. Union members who call for reform, suggest new strategies, or advocate for inclusivity often find their contributions unwelcome or dismissed. The centralized nature of Unity’s control over elections, committee appointments, and key decisions leaves little room for new voices to emerge, contributing to a stagnation that many members view as detrimental to the union’s long-term health. With Unity in power, this stagnation is unlikely to abate. Instead, the union’s leadership will likely continue down the same path, recycling outdated approaches and ignoring the demands of educators who want a stronger, more adaptive union.

Unity’s internal divisions have only exacerbated this sense of disarray. Reports of infighting within the caucus have emerged, revealing a leadership that is not only disconnected from its members but also divided within itself. These conflicts prevent Unity from presenting a strong, unified front, weakening the UFT’s ability to effectively negotiate on behalf of educators. With Unity reelected, this division is expected to persist, further diminishing the union’s bargaining position with city and state officials. As public education faces an array of external threats—from privatization and charter school expansion to standardized testing mandates and budget cuts—the UFT needs a leadership capable of unity, clarity, and vision. Instead, Unity’s internal discord compromises the union’s influence, leaving it ill-prepared to stand up for educators and students alike.

The Unity Caucus’s self-preserving behavior has also translated into an alarming detachment from the challenges that educators face on the ground. New York City teachers and school staff are navigating a range of unprecedented issues, including increasing class sizes, funding shortages, administrative burdens, and critical concerns about safety and working conditions. Yet, under Unity’s leadership, many educators feel that these realities are overlooked or dismissed. Rather than engaging directly with these issues, Unity has focused on preserving its control, leaving rank-and-file members feeling abandoned by a union that should be their strongest advocate. If Unity remains in power, it’s likely that these challenges will continue to be met with superficial responses, rather than the proactive and robust advocacy educators need.

In addition to lacking responsiveness to member needs, Unity has consistently failed to outline a clear, forward-thinking vision for the UFT. As the landscape of public education changes, the union must adapt to protect both educators and students. Yet, under Unity, the UFT has largely adopted a reactive stance, only addressing problems once they reach crisis levels instead of anticipating issues and preparing effective strategies in advance. Without a shift in leadership, this reactive approach is likely to persist, leaving educators without the proactive support they need in the face of mounting pressures. The absence of a cohesive vision undermines the union’s ability to inspire confidence and creates a sense of disarray, as members feel their leadership lacks both foresight and preparedness.

Ultimately, if Unity Caucus retains control of the UFT, the union risks becoming even more disconnected from its core mission: advocating for the welfare of educators and the quality of public education. Many educators are demanding a leadership that values transparency, inclusivity, and accountability, and that is genuinely committed to representing the interests of rank-and-file members. The UFT presidential election this spring provides a rare opportunity for members to make a choice—a choice to either continue down a path of stagnation, disunity, and self-interest, or to pursue a future in which the union serves as a strong, unified, and responsive advocate for its members.

Just as the U.S. presidential election impacts the nation’s future, the UFT election will determine whether New York City’s educators have a union that stands firmly by their side or one that prioritizes internal power struggles and self-preservation. The stakes are high, and the consequences of this decision will reverberate across New York City’s schools and communities. Members have a choice this spring: to either reelect Unity and endorse a continuation of the status quo or to embrace change and elect leaders who will commit to transparency, genuine advocacy, and a clear vision for the future of public education. The future of the UFT—and by extension, the future of New York City’s educators and students—hangs in the balance.