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.