Separated at Birth

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Are these two guys bros? You wouldn’t think it offhand, but they don’t act very differently. Mulgrew loves to complain about Trump, but has more in common with him than you’d think. If I were Trump, in fact, I’d be jealous. Trump resists checks and balances, while Mulgrew doesn’t appear to have any.

I mean sure, there are elections. However, we have a union so cynical and apathetic that three of four members can’t be bothered voting. Why bother if Mulgrew’s just gonna win anyway?

And while Trump struggles to regulate how people vote, Mulgrew absolutely regulates how they vote. All by snail mail, though turnout has been abysmal for decades, and newly in-person voting is only allowed at Unity-dominated locales. Trump would love this level of control.

We’re divided both nationally and as a union. That’s potentially problematic for Trump, but not for Mulgrew. His Unity Caucus doesn’t practice proportional representation, so aside from thirty minutes a month at the DA when Mulgrew probably won’t call on you anyway, no one but Unity has any voice at all in union leadership.

Trump still has to face Congress, and that might become tough for him next year. Mulgrew will still face a group largely composed of people who have no future if they don’t support Whatever He Wants.

Since Mulgrew’s last purge, every union employee is a member of the Unity Caucus. You’d think a union leader would have to worry about due process when firing people. After all, due process is a cornerstone of unionism. I’ve spent many hours defending members, and made sure rules were followed for all. How I felt about these members was of no import whatsoever.

However, for hypocritical Michael Mulgrew, there are no rules about firing people. If he doesn’t like you, you’re out. Trump wishes he had it this good.

So what if Migda Rodriquez was elected by 75% of voting paras? Mulgrew doesn’t like her, so, to quote Donald Trump, “You’re fired.”

The other day I wrote about a new Senate Bill, designed to prevent “impersonation” of union officials. I wrote in the form of parody, but Daniel Alicea has written a more serious critique. Now it’s a fact that anti-union activists send out crap in which they pretend to be substitute unions. A regulation precluding this would be fine with me.

However, history suggests Mulgrew’s intentions are otherwise. I know of no time UFT lawyers went after these creeps. The only folks they’ve gone after, to my knowledge, are Daniel and me. This—targeting your political opponents—is very Trumplike. Trump’s pushed to silence Jimmy Kimmel, twice now. He seems to have pulled the plug on Steven Colbert, at least at what’s left of CBS.

Ever since 2005, when I started writing about education, I’ve been hearing variations on “Sit down and shut up,” from the Unity Caucus. It’s not surprising to see Michael Mulgrew coming after me, or Daniel, using whatever means at his disposal. Lots of Americans think Trump wants to be king (I do as well), but Mulgrew is way ahead of him there.

If you had a real argument, you wouldn’t need to silence your critics.

That’s not all, though. Look at Trump rallies. Trump speaks as long as he likes, and says whatever he wants. That’s precisely what Mulgrew does. To be fair, Trump’s actually supposed to be there speaking about himself. Mulgrew, ostensibly, is chairing a union meeting. He should be addressing our concerns impartially.

At the DA last week, Mulgrew had no issue departing from his prepared remarks and editorializing about 1096. In Robert’s Rules, the chair goes to the floor to testify, but rules don’t apply to Mulgrew. He mustered the audacity to maintain that UFT lawyers were somehow impartial, only acting in the union’s interest.

It’s obvious to those of us without geraniums in our craniums that a prime Unity interest is holding retiree health care as a bargaining chip.

Mulgrew also had no problem portraying his critics as contrary, simple-minded fools. I say left, they say right, he complained. I change to right, they say left. His opponents disagree with him, not because he’s wrong, but simply for the sake of doing so, he implied. Is this substantially different from Trump portraying his opponents as “low IQ individuals?” Is it substantially different from Trump saying he’s right about everything? If so, I don’t see it.

Let’s talk a little about double standards. Trump got quite upset when people said negative things about Charlie Kirk. He put the flags at half staff, and condemned anyone and everyone who had a disparaging word. On the other hand, he raised the flags from half-staff to full for Jimmy Carter, and when one of his enemies died, tweeted, “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I'm glad he's dead"

Mulgrew says his opponents spout “fairy tales,” make everything a conspiracy, and are veritable enemies of the union. He gets quite upset when anyone speaks ill of his people. They’re all doing a great job, he’ll say.

He was particularly upset that people various people at an RTC meeting failed to pay significant homage to UFT trustees. The trustees are, somehow, above reproach, superhuman. I find it hard to believe anyone who votes for a health contract sight unseen is any such thing.

I find it impossible to believe that trustees who sign a Unity loyalty oath, particularly when they know anyone who disappoints Mulgrew is summarily fired, will act in our interests rather than those of Mulgrew and his patronage cult. Nonetheless, until they’re fired, Mulgrew presents his Unity sycophants as above reproach.

And yet, someone, almost certainly a Unity Caucus member, placed an image of my friend Amy with the legend, “Piss on my face.” This plainly misogynistic and hateful act was followed by a cursory investigation that established nothing whatsoever. Did Mulgrew threaten, or even assign his cult to find out who the perp was? I very much doubt it. It’s just as likely he promoted the person, with a wink and a nod.

Tolerance for loyalty, while turning a blind eye to mediocre performance is another thing tolerated by both Mulgrew and Trump. Is there anyone on earth who deems RFK Jr. a health expert? Is there a scientist who agrees with his beliefs? Is there a parent who wants their child to emulate his bizarre behavior?

I’m not going to individually call out UFT staffers here. I will tell you, though, that a friend of mine had a pension consult via phone a few months back, and the staffer never called. I had her write the staffer, copy Mulgrew and Sill, and it was rescheduled for a month later. The same person failed to show again. I was able to find someone competent to help and get her an actual consultation.

How many of us have sat with unhelpful UFT reps? (I was chapter leader of a large school, so I’ve seen more than most.) How many of us have gotten bad info from one or another? How many of us have sat on endless hold since Mulgrew and Salesforce “improved” the phone system? As chapter leader, I had to tell members to call UFT, and if they got someone bad, to call me and I’d get them someone good.

The thing is, though, that some of the very best people have been fired for disloyalty. Donald Trump also fires people for disloyalty. Whatever you may think about Amy Arundell, she was the most helpful person to me, as chapter leader. She was far more helpful than my District Rep., whose actual job was to support me.

Trump’s just established a 1.8 billion dollar slush fund. It looks like a judge has blocked it for now, but we shall see. I don’t know how much is in the UFT Treasury, but I do know that, the first time I went to UFT as Vice-Chair of the Retired Teacher Chapter, we asked what funds we had.

We didn’t have any. Any and all expenses had to be approved by Mulgrew. Who knows what he spends money on? When’s the last time any of us saw what he puts on that UFT credit card? We’re always watching Donald Trump play golf on our dime. How many trips has Mulgrew taken with our dues? Who knows? Not us lowly duespayers.

Now they say that Trump has ties with a whole lot of bigots. As someone who grew up with bigotry, and deplores it, that upsets me. The American Psychological Association suggest ageism is one of the “last socially acceptable prejudices.” Michael Mulgrew, evidently, has not gotten the memo.

While I’ve mentioned this many times, one of Mulgrew’s hand-selected District Representatives circulated blatantly ageist memes at the Delegate Assembly. Not only did Mulgrew do nothing about it, but his Unity-dominated Executive Board actually applauded the guy.

Is Unity Caucus a bunch of ageist bigots? Not all, I’m sure. But not a single one of them has mustered the gumption to stand up and condemn the outrageously ageist behavior of one of their so-called leaders. That’s nothing short of disgraceful.

We really need leaders who represent us all. On multiple levels, we haven’t got them.