I was at every meeting going back to the March meeting where all caucuses had reps - though MORE said they were just there as observers. Everyone promised to keep Amy involvement under cover. There was agreement to wait and see the outcome of the big 3 elections which ended in mid June. We didn't reconvene until August when MORE again sent reps as observers -- they were deciding internally whether to join the coalition, which led to me thinking (I didn't want to roil the waters just yet) - why where they there deliberating and making decision for ABC when they might decide not to join and possibly run against us? Some people in New Action made the same point. Since MORE was deciding for the next month or 6 weeks we could do very little other than put out a survey. I and others called for a public open event to be more inclusive but the general consensus was to wait for the MORE vote - and when it came in mid-September it was 135-35 to join the coalition - yippie. But those pesky 35 insisted on making demands as a further condition and in insider told me they had to go with those demands in order to prevent a split in the caucus. These 35 were not marginal within MORE but with a lot of influence. They wrote a document trashing the rest of the coalition and making all sorts of claims about being harmed in the past and calling for every meeting to have some kind of arbitrator, plus more seats on steering and other demands, claiming they did more work than anyone in the last UFC election -- not true, but who cares about truth nowadays? Things began to break down at that point and New Action at the time opposed the MORE demands before switching sides - not a new thing for New Action since they spent 12 years switching sides by aligning with Unity and running Mulgrew as their presidential candidate in 2010 and 2013. They also claim their vast experience on the UFT exec bd when in fact they were elected in 2007,10 and 13 by running on the Unity slate. Now they attack ABC as being aligned with Unity, the biggest joke of all given their history of being on the UNity payroll, but they bury that history.
I distinctly get that vibe, about a small group needing to control things. It's a huge turn off, and a huge disadvantage for anyone advocating for democracy, member voice, and an activist union. That would be me, for one.
Please step up with regard to Hochul’s Executive Addendum that can upend the solvency of our pension. After confirmation from state legislator’s and others that lending money from three pension funds to Michael Mulgrew to be paid back beginning in 2033 can jeopardize the viability of the pension fund. We may have a defined pension benefit but if the money isn’t there, there will be problems. We’re counting on ABC to put forth an action plan to undo what Mulgrew wants. Waiting for Amy Arundell to speak to this new disgraceful betrayal by Mulgrew
For the life of me I will never understand why Retiree Advocate didn’t at least poll the 17k retirees that voted for them. Or, at minimum, the other 288 delegates that ran with them.
Likewise, I can’t wrap my head around how/why MORE would align with people in New Action that (to use their language) "don’t align with their values." Or why New Action would align with people their co-chair derisively referred to as "five hundred antisemites." They all hate each other and never stay together for more than a few months but want members to entrust stewardship of the union to them.
Regardless, I’m tired of the palace intrigue caucus stuff. People in MORE and New Action pretended for over seven months to be interested when they had zero intention of supporting Amy for president, despite that being one of the main topics of discussion at that first meeting. They never once voiced opposition to her being the candidate for president.
After bending over backwards trying to accommodate people (particularly in MORE) and getting nothing but unyielding intransigence and bad faith negotiations in return, I’m tired of having my time wasted and refuse to allow it any longer. I’m in this to beat Unity, end Mulgrew’s reign of errors, and democratize our union. A Better Contract is the vehicle best positioned to achieve that. ABC all the way.
In fairness, it would have been impossible to ID those who voted for RA. However, those of us who ran with them (and I say "them" only because I now know I'm not part of them), as well as those of us who actively supported RA deserved a vote. They have all our contact info. They could have held meetings and votes. That they opted not to speaks volumes. I am so disappointed.
I’m certain they built a mailing list. They could’ve thrown this question out there and gotten a broad response. They chose not to because the New Action retirees in RA knew they didn’t have the votes for a coalition with MORE.
At least Unity pantomimes democratic processes. RA ignored them altogether.
I can't say for sure why they chose not to do this, but my best guess would be they felt they knew best and didn't need any stinking input from us. That's a pretty creepy way to lead, and a pretty awful way to treat your supporters. It tells me all I need to know to support ABC. Who needs another Unity?
I was at every meeting going back to the March meeting where all caucuses had reps - though MORE said they were just there as observers. Everyone promised to keep Amy involvement under cover. There was agreement to wait and see the outcome of the big 3 elections which ended in mid June. We didn't reconvene until August when MORE again sent reps as observers -- they were deciding internally whether to join the coalition, which led to me thinking (I didn't want to roil the waters just yet) - why where they there deliberating and making decision for ABC when they might decide not to join and possibly run against us? Some people in New Action made the same point. Since MORE was deciding for the next month or 6 weeks we could do very little other than put out a survey. I and others called for a public open event to be more inclusive but the general consensus was to wait for the MORE vote - and when it came in mid-September it was 135-35 to join the coalition - yippie. But those pesky 35 insisted on making demands as a further condition and in insider told me they had to go with those demands in order to prevent a split in the caucus. These 35 were not marginal within MORE but with a lot of influence. They wrote a document trashing the rest of the coalition and making all sorts of claims about being harmed in the past and calling for every meeting to have some kind of arbitrator, plus more seats on steering and other demands, claiming they did more work than anyone in the last UFC election -- not true, but who cares about truth nowadays? Things began to break down at that point and New Action at the time opposed the MORE demands before switching sides - not a new thing for New Action since they spent 12 years switching sides by aligning with Unity and running Mulgrew as their presidential candidate in 2010 and 2013. They also claim their vast experience on the UFT exec bd when in fact they were elected in 2007,10 and 13 by running on the Unity slate. Now they attack ABC as being aligned with Unity, the biggest joke of all given their history of being on the UNity payroll, but they bury that history.
I distinctly get that vibe, about a small group needing to control things. It's a huge turn off, and a huge disadvantage for anyone advocating for democracy, member voice, and an activist union. That would be me, for one.
Please step up with regard to Hochul’s Executive Addendum that can upend the solvency of our pension. After confirmation from state legislator’s and others that lending money from three pension funds to Michael Mulgrew to be paid back beginning in 2033 can jeopardize the viability of the pension fund. We may have a defined pension benefit but if the money isn’t there, there will be problems. We’re counting on ABC to put forth an action plan to undo what Mulgrew wants. Waiting for Amy Arundell to speak to this new disgraceful betrayal by Mulgrew
For the life of me I will never understand why Retiree Advocate didn’t at least poll the 17k retirees that voted for them. Or, at minimum, the other 288 delegates that ran with them.
Likewise, I can’t wrap my head around how/why MORE would align with people in New Action that (to use their language) "don’t align with their values." Or why New Action would align with people their co-chair derisively referred to as "five hundred antisemites." They all hate each other and never stay together for more than a few months but want members to entrust stewardship of the union to them.
Regardless, I’m tired of the palace intrigue caucus stuff. People in MORE and New Action pretended for over seven months to be interested when they had zero intention of supporting Amy for president, despite that being one of the main topics of discussion at that first meeting. They never once voiced opposition to her being the candidate for president.
After bending over backwards trying to accommodate people (particularly in MORE) and getting nothing but unyielding intransigence and bad faith negotiations in return, I’m tired of having my time wasted and refuse to allow it any longer. I’m in this to beat Unity, end Mulgrew’s reign of errors, and democratize our union. A Better Contract is the vehicle best positioned to achieve that. ABC all the way.
In fairness, it would have been impossible to ID those who voted for RA. However, those of us who ran with them (and I say "them" only because I now know I'm not part of them), as well as those of us who actively supported RA deserved a vote. They have all our contact info. They could have held meetings and votes. That they opted not to speaks volumes. I am so disappointed.
I’m certain they built a mailing list. They could’ve thrown this question out there and gotten a broad response. They chose not to because the New Action retirees in RA knew they didn’t have the votes for a coalition with MORE.
At least Unity pantomimes democratic processes. RA ignored them altogether.
I can't say for sure why they chose not to do this, but my best guess would be they felt they knew best and didn't need any stinking input from us. That's a pretty creepy way to lead, and a pretty awful way to treat your supporters. It tells me all I need to know to support ABC. Who needs another Unity?