Democracy, UFT style

In a rare move of inter-union solidarity, a CSA member gifted me the coffee cup you see pictured above. We’d both noted a long, unnecessary meeting that really didn’t help anyone. The principal got up and said lateness was unacceptable. We should fail students who came late, and we should tell the students they failed because they were late.

The principal then pivoted to the all-encompassing issue of how we could pass absolutely everyone no matter what. Suggestions included “legal” cheat sheets and “hints” on test papers. One teacher, who later became an assistant principal, said after tests, he’d go over results. Students would get half-credit for all corrected answers. Thus, a 50 magically becomes a 75. If you were stupid enough to, you know, study, and get 100, well, too bad for you.

The principal adored these ideas, and of course they weren’t shared in any email. He’s lucky no one called the New York Post. (I hadn’t yet picked up the habit.) Nonetheless, I’ve been to many, many meetings that could’ve been reduced to emails with far less risk. That includes virtually every talk I’ve heard from Unity’s Big Cheese, Michael Mulgrew.

I’ll come back to that, but first, let’s talk committees. Unity loves committees. If you go and complain about something, anything, to a UFT official, it’s likely as not they’ll start a committee and include you. I’ve been on some.

I spent three years on a UFT committee trying to battle Part 154, which pretty much destroys English language instruction for the newcomers to whom I devoted my teaching career. Unity appeared so gung ho on it that, having been unceremoniously dumped from an opposition caucus, I aligned with them for a few highly unproductive years. (We all make mistakes.)

Yet, after years of promises from UFT leaders, and state leaders like Betty Rosa, absolutely nothing was done. In fact, UFT folks running the committee, having somehow moved past it, started to get irritated when I brought it up. At one meeting, rather than discuss it, we got to listen for one full hour to some guy who expected to get an AFT job. What this had to do with us I have no idea, and he didn’t even get the gig. (However, he now sits on the UFT Executive Board, where he is beyond obsequious to Michael Mulgrew.)

Existing UFT committees are interesting too. A notable committee for Unity, these days, is the Contract Committee. Evidently they have over 700 members negotiating the new UFT contract. Except, of course, they aren’t allowed to discuss salary or health care. Who cares about stuff like that anyway?

Interestingly, despite the big build up, and all the hoopla Unity ties to it, there are some notable exclusions. A paraprofessional from Fix Para Pay told me she applied to be on the committee and wasn’t chosen. She was told it was because she hadn’t applied. When she sent them screenshots proving she had, the story changed and there were just no spots left. I guess a 700-member committee is fine, but 701? That’s beyond the pale.

And hey, who needs to Fix Para Pay when there’s a “respect” bill, hanging around for over a year, that might get them a non-pensionable tip, some day, perhaps? That should be good enough for anyone.

Then, of course, there is the health committee Unity created. That way, when Mulgrew unilaterally makes health changes, he can get a rubber stamped approval. It works great! The committee unanimously approved a health plan they were never permitted to see. Who else approves contracts they’re prohibited from reading?

Not only that, but I know multiple members of our slate, ABC, who were rejected for this committee. Thus, despite having come in a strong second in the last election, we have no representation whatsoever. Retiree Advocate has five of their self-selected members on the committee, and all voted yes. So much for opposition.

Then, of course, we have the election committee. It was specifically established to study the viability of electronic voting. However, it didn’t bother to study how it worked in other unions. It also didn’t bother to examine whether it might help correct the massive, overwhelming apathy that essentially cripples our potential power.

After only three meetings, this committee voted not to use electronic voting. Representatives from Retiree Advocate and ARISE voted along with Unity. I can only suppose they, like Unity, aren’t interested in studying how hybrid voting works in other unions, let alone activating our union. Only ABC reps opposed this resolution. So there is, still, a viable opposition somewhere.

As for our largest committee, the Delegate Assembly (DA), I’m always amused when Mulgrew sees fit to lecture on democracy. When does he do that? In fact, he does it whenever he feels like it. What better demonstration of democracy could there be? Our DA is billed as the highest decision making body in the UFT, but it’s actually a highly scripted, pre-planned charade posing as a union meeting.

The most outrageous factor of this meeting is Mulgrew’s message, with no time limit. If Unity wants time to get things done, it’s shorter. If they want to prevent things from getting done, it can go way longer. This gives Unity’s number one pretty much absolute control over how the meeting goes.

Just in case that’s not enough, Mulgrew knows exactly who to call on for each resolution or motion. He knows where they’re seated and what they’ll say. Sometimes, on a whim, he’ll call on someone off script, and sometimes that goes disastrously for the Unity Patronage Cult. Of course, that’s the exception rather than the rule.

If anyone dares question Mulgrew’s absolute control over the process, daring to utter the possibility of limiting his endless, redundant and often unnecessary address, he tells them they don’t believe in democracy. Admittedly, I’ve only been attending DAs for around 20 years, but I have no recollection of ever being polled as to whether or not Mulgrew should be permitted to speak as long as he likes.

For members, questions are limited to ten minutes. Motions to the agenda get another ten, as do resolutions. So there’s a total of thirty minutes there. However, when you consider that Mulgrew has pre-planned who he’d call on, for not only motions and resolutions, but also for debate on them, and knows where they are, the “democracy” becomes even more suspect.

To place a cherry on top of this, Secretary Mike Sill sends out an email featuring highlights. I have never seen anything but Mulgrew’s words highlighted. Mulgrew said this. Mulgrew said that. Membership, evidently, should be seen and not heard. That’s hardly the way to run a union.

We are sorely in need of representation in our union. The only way we’re going to get it is by dumping the Unity machine. It’s almost unfathomable that such a large group of educators is hugely indifferent to who’s in charge, but that’s a fact, Jack, and we need to work on it.