RA went wrong when they aligned themselves with ARISE without consulting its membership or at a minimum, the 300 delegates who represent them, and it’s been downhill ever since. I don’t support Mamdani and won’t vote for him in November but I know that ABC would have done things differently. They would not have rushed a DA vote during the summer (putting their thumb on the scale for one candidate), and certainly not without first polling the UFT membership to get a consensus on their views. RA has failed the retirees time and again, and needs to be held accountable. Their board meetings behind closed doors where they decide policy for the thousands of retirees are no different than what Unity is doing. They could learn a lot from ABC.
Arthur: I respect your courageous writing very much, including in the face of Unity's trying to silence you with various threats and the hate mail you have to endure.
It is very disappointing that Mamdani has not taken a stand in favor of preserving the well-earned healthcare of 250,00 retired public service workers by vigorously supporting Intro 1096 instead of avoiding that issue altogether. Does he think that seniors are expendable in his battle with Adams and Cuomo? Will his laudable plans for fare-free buses, a rent freeze and childcare, be financed by imposing new costs on NYC retirees?
And to the people who wishfully say, without any evidence whatsoever,: "I cannot believe a Democratic Socialist like Mamdani would allow privatization of health insurance." Joe Hill had a response to such thinking: you will get pie in the sky. There are many ways that you can unfairly shift costs to retireees besides via the deservedly discredited scam of, Medicare Advantage, such as high copays, deductibles and other "innovative" measures.
How should a person feel if he or she asked a man wooing his or her daughter if will he love and cherish her and that man just remains silent, or worse evades the question?
I am, in fact, a person who doesn't believe Mamdani would allow privatization of health insurance. I could be wrong, of course. What I do believe, though, is that he will oppose 1096 along with Mulgrew and Garrido. That's disappointing. Even if Mulgrew is telling us the truth about MA, he could certainly impose more fees on us and degrade our coverage in other ways. I don't remotely trust Mulgrew. Nor do we know whether Mamdani will win, nor who will succeed him. I'd rather see it enshrined in law. I don't want Unity in charge of my health insurance, and Mamdani will surely not address that issue. Intro 1096 does, though.
Arthur: I think I can be, and perhaps you too, too mild as to the URGENT need for Mr. Mamdani to take a stand on retiree healthcare by firmly supporting Intro 1096 now and learning about this bill from Marainne Pizzitola, who knows more about this Major (how's 250,000 people) issue and speaks more truthfully than 200 polticians put together.
When I think of the retirees receiving small pensions, including our heroic first reponders, and how retirees as a class need healthcare very much, I can feel something of the intense suffering that will be if the next Mayor does not stand up to Mulgrew and Garrido as to 1096. How does it feel to have to choose between visiting a Dr. or buying your medicine and paying your rent or even buying some of your food? This is no exaggeration, especially as food prices keep going up.
Mamdani seems to care for some people who have suffered a lot, but that is no excuse at all to greatly add to the suffering of other people, especially those who built this city and made it go. The earned and promised healthcare $ for NYC retirees should not become a fund to alleviate the suffering of others, by taxing retirees via raising copays, and deductibles and so on. And no one should be soothed by the fact that such measures are not privatization - the suffering will be just as bad.
Someone told me they know someone on his staff. I'll reach out if I get the chance. That said, I think the possibility of Mamdani supporting 1096 is remote to non-existent, and lean toward the latter. Mulgrew and Henry did not endorse him just for fun.
I agree Arthur. At this point Mamdani has shown no interest in protecting municipal retirees through bill 1096. IMO, It's shameful that he hasn't, and even more shameful that he doesn't want to understand the gravity of it for the fixed income senior and disabled population it would protect. Shouldn't he respond to Marianne Pizzitola's calls instead of ghosting her for the last 6 months? In stead of resigning ourselves to his unacceptable stand on it, shouldn't public pressure be a means of hopefully changing him on it? I'm under no illusion that practically everything we love is under attack, but bill 1096 is just as huge and urgent as other issues getting focused on. Let's please not allow Zohran Mamdani to ignore 1096.
It's not a really tough thing to know what RTC priorities are. It's not a really tough thing to know what we were elected for. It boggles my mind that people don't see that clearly, and think other things may compensate for it, or that people won't notice we aren't doing what we were elected to do. There's still time to fix that.
As one of the dozen members of the elite RA Organizing committee, I opposed the endorsement of Mamdani even though I support him for precisely the reasons people refer to here -- no consultation with the 300 delegates who ran with us. Since then I have been asked by a few why I attend meetings if I disagree. So Unity like. When does the Mulgrew-like purge come? RA went through the same process in joining ARISE and ABC tripled their retiree vote. I urged them to remain neutral and one member called me a Trojan Horse. I've also been accused of lying - more than once. That is the environment for someone who doesn't go along - so Unity-like as to be scary. But not surprising. RA and ARISE people are so happy with the Mamdani endorsement even when Unity ran the DA like they often do, though they were fine in calling on those who agreed with the endorsement when they came from the ARISE/loyal opposition, much preferred by Unity over the ABC upstarts.
The lack of democracy was abundantly evident at the DA, just as it was in RA. I too would personally vote for Mamdani, but would very much prefer a democratic process, even if it resulted in an endorsement that was not my personal preference.
Arthur I understand your concerns, but I take issue with one important conclusion you make. You say that RA was elected to do one thing, protect healthcare. Now that may be the issue that galvanized the vote, but we, all of us in causing you, ran on a MUCH BROADER platform. To remind you here is the link:
I am aware of that platform. It is not, though, what we ran on. It is not what we stressed during the campaign. More importantly, it is certainly not what we were elected for.
I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. You are saying that even though we ran on a full platform, covering many issues, we should only focus on one? Because I ran on that entire platform, and it is all important.
You are understanding me correctly. I'm not saying the issues are not important. I'm saying they are almost certainly not the priorities of those who elected us. The platform was composed by 12 people. It was deliberately not stressed during the election. The public message, as well as the piece in NY Teacher was about health care. The thing on retiree minds was health care. Marianne supported us, and featured Bennett on her show. We won because of health care. Whatever else in that piece had nothing to do with our victory. Furthermore, the pronouncements continue to come from 12 people. There are no surveys. There are no votes. It is blatantly undemocratic.
arthur, you are completely correct here. the statement above that we "all" ran on a much broader platform and not on the one issue of retiree healthcare/traditional medicare is patently untrue. I ran on the healthcare issue and I know many who did. I personally wasn't pleased with the platform produced by 12 people without input from the rest of us running. I saw the platform AFTER I had agreed to have my name on the ballot.
We didn't stress the platform when we ran, and I'm certain that was deliberate. I'm just as certain that we won on the basis of supporting real Medicare. I understand that some people liked the platform otherwise. However, we won based on health care, and health care alone.
But, you did run on THAT platform. Whether you stressed it or not, it was the RA platform, and you, as I, ran on it. ALL OF IT. You didn't back out when the platform was released. To say otherwise is a s much of a lie as a GOP congressman who says they didn't run on Project 2025.
I just read the platform. There's nothing I object to in it, though I'd say RTC ought to ultimately make major decisions. It seems to suggest we should. In fact, it seems to call for democracy. Odd, then, that Retiree Advocate fails to practice it. How do you explain that?
It is really funny. I am reading Uncivil Liberties by Joanna Perrillo, and the struggle between The Teachers Union and The Teachers Guild continue to be played out 90 years later.
This is a brief summary of a 30 page chapter. It is, of course, more complicated.
The first chapter describes the development of both unions, especially among teachers and families in Harlem during the 1930's. The TU was organized by teachers, many of them members of the Communist Party, who viewed their role as working with parents and local organizations to fight for more and better schools and resources. Very similar to those today who use the slogan "our student learning conditions are our working condition." The TG, which was mostly organized by Democratic Socialists viewed "outside fights" as a distraction. They organized around specific professional issues, often working with administrators.
That's interesting, and applicable. In America, socialist has devolved into a loser of a label. Most of us don't know what it means. I was arguing that Medicare was socialism to someone, who pointed out that in other countries the doctors work for the government as opposed to for themselves.
arthur, I fully appreciate and agree with your views of RA here. when I got the email telling me that RA was endorsing mamdani, I immediately wrote and asked if this had been done by polling members or had been decided by fiat as unity does. I got no reply. instead I later got the mass email from RA telling me basically that I had no choice but to support mamdani and the resolution to support him. the email stated that this decision was made by the leadership without surveying membership. I again wrote back stating that there were many reasons why I could never support mamdani, and I listed them saying that I was offended by all of this, again repeating that this approach was just like unity's approach which RA had run against. I also was offended that the email quite clearly implied that I was an islamaphobe and listened to red baiting if I was against mamdani, neither of which have anything to do with my reasoning for not being for mamdani and for the uft not endorsing him. the fiat decision of endorsing mamdani without getting input from members is huge. even if I was for mamdani I would have been against the endorsement, and especially against telling members that we have no choice but to endorse him....
I got no reply whatsoever to either of my unhappy emails about the endorsement of mamdani. not a good approach. not a good message.
In fairness, I don't believe it said that anyone who voted otherwise was an Islamophobe or red-baiting. It said that Mamdani was a victim of this sort of attack. While I like Mamdani better than you do, I very much objected to the way this was presented by Unity as a fait acompli, expressly without our input. I'd argue that, by making an endorsement with 12 unelected members, RA did pretty much the same thing as Mulgrew and Adcom.
you are correct. it did not say that anyone who voted otherwise was an islamophobe or red-baiting. and yes, it said mamdani was the victim of such. however, to me, with the way it was worded, with the saying there is no choice but to endorse him, and with the context of saying he has stood up to such inappropriate attacks and the overall tone of the email, there actually is the implication that those who would argue against supporting him actually are islamophobes and believe the red baiting...the tone of inappropriate name calling in the comments about adams and cuomo, who I also don't like, among other issues with the tone sets up a message that you have to agree or something is wrong with you. stating that mamdani has been up against islamophobia and red baiting combined with the rest of the wording and tone of the email sets up the implication that those against endorsing mamdani have those two qualities...
I understand. Here's what I will say about it--it was quite condescending. I was especially disappointed that it brushed away our concerns about health care even as it admitted Mamdani had not supported 1096, something our chapter overwhelmingly endorsed
Yes it seems that his supporters have taken it upon themselves to defend and protect his reputation against all detractors, as if any mention much less a discussion of his very open and obvious geopolitical actions, speech and stances are simply figments of our imaginations. Emperor’s new clothes, anybody? How could anyone take this candidate seriously when his supporters appear to be overly triggered by what is was essentially true, and the very reasons they so passionately want him as mayor??? Which words are “appropriate” when he has self-described all the things that are otherwise labeled as “hate speech” “baiting” etc???? Can anyone find the logic in this ridiculous game of “gotcha”???
I didn't see back and forth emails, so I can't speak to that. The email I saw said Mamdani was, "a supporter of civil rights for all people, including Palestinians, and has the courage of his convictions to say so - in the face of bigoted anti-muslim and red-baiting attacks"
Wait, he IS a Muslim, and he IS an avowed Marxist. So if anyone has real concerns regarding who he is connected to, is funded by, and openly supports, politically, any mention of this is automatic grounds for dismissal? Not to mention, a public flogging? This is 1984 in action.
He refers to himself as socialist--not Marxist as far as I know. And having spent a good part of my young life being judged because of my religion, I don't believe in doing that to others.
Not judging his religion, but he’s pretty clear and open about his radical geopolitical stances. Also he cites Marxist ideology as the foundation of his proposed policies and goals. Once again language is being twisted and weaponized to deflect from actual fact based analysis.
The RTC declined to file an amicus brief in the Bentkowski case.
Maybe if it had, the RTC could have pointed out how many retirees and their dependents live in states that can deny Medicare supplement insurance for pre-existing conditions. Maybe, just maybe the judges would have realized that these retirees have no options because they relied on the promises made to them by the City.
But we will never know because the RTC did not put that matter before the RTC delegates for a vote.
I'd conjecture it had to do with the fact I did not support their caucus, and that this consideration superseded serving the members. Of course, if anyone has a better explanation, the comments are open.
I'm so tired of unions endorsing a candidate! At least offer to your members a survey to determine what the majority wants. Mamdani as a choice? Never for me! His alleged platform of 'everything free' with no explanation of 'how to do it' coupled with his questionable background and too little years of experience....and exactly how is he defining himself these days? Free bussing? Government controlled groceries? $30 minimum wage? Sounds like Cuba's design to make folk totally dependent upon the ruler! No thanks!
Right - free buses makes us Cuba? Mamdani may convert Manhattan into sugar cane fields. Gee we have govt controlled schools, police, fire, sanitation - how cruel to shut out those private carting firms. Calculate the current min wage and see if you can live on it. Have you watched people board buses lately and half not pay? How about the number of drivers assaulted? Maybe put a cop on every bus? How much would that cost? What world are you living in?
Cannot disagree with you more! A rapper in a butcher's apron, half-naked ? No...it sounds like a version somewhat of MTG....pulling ideas from out-of-the-sky and offering no explanation for how. I suppose the greater votes came from young folk rather than we seniors. And yes, it was during the NY heatwave which forcibly kept many seniors from coming out to vote. So often, young folk who have not put a lot of time into working want and complain about everything! Perhaps, he represents to them a concept that everything should be given to them and everything should be free or, very cheap? Not crazy about some of his background ties and his rants.
Arturo: your measured tone and reasoned arguments are a balm in these tempestuous times. Grazie.
Now let me go rogue here!
WE can take BACK the RTC in 2 years, from RA et al. Enough is enough. F them.
It’s not “them” vs Unity. It’s those on the right side of union democracy vs the caucus power mongers. Period.
I’m so done a fork wouldn’t even get through the first layer of epidermis!
As far as the Democrat “socialist/Liberal/Marxist/communist/Muslim/Islamist/jihadist” nominee - and note my purposely using quotes so as to not be accused of “hate speech” anyphobia or racism etc - whatever whatever (I came to the brilliant conclusion today that he is, in fact, actually, either/all/none of the above! He’s a chameleon! He can’t decide and NEITHER CAN WE RIGHT NOW, yes?) - until there is further evidence of his actual capacity to run a city as complex as NY, I’d encourage everyone to take it all with a boulder of salt and consider that we as municipal employees and current/future retirees might be in a very big pickle once the dust settles and folks realize that, holy MAGA, Batman, we’ve got some really big problems to deal with, at every level of government. If the democrat nominee can change his tune and tweak his message/image, and actually go beyond rhetoric and commit to bringing divergent agendas to some consensus, maybe he could prove himself as a future leader. Right now that is just not happening, despite pie in the sky wishing and dreaming.
I’m a not nice proud Boomer lady of complex brain capacities who won’t STFU when the speech police start with me! Nosireee Bob! Bite me! (Not you, but others...)
As I was wont to say, I used to get paid to be abused! Right now I’m not accepting cancellation for any reason. I’ve earned the right to my opinions. No matter how “inconvenient” they may be.
agreed....so much of discourse lately feels like "you can have any opinion, as long as it is mine." and you are a (insert bad thing here) if you disagree with me.
I’ve attempted to open up discussion and examine these issues from more than one angle but it seems that my words fall on deaf ears (or closed minds) - so much for putting myself out there; at least I gave it a go.
I personally don't think the UFT should have endorsed ANY candidate for mayor. It's a big tent, and while many probably support him, there are a substantial number who are questionable about him. I am generally of the opinion of organizations not endorsing people regardless of their political leanings since I believe organizations like the UFT should strive to support its members and nothing else.
While it looks like he'll probably win, anything could happen and who knows, maybe he doesn't. Then the union looks silly. Also, it seems odd they opted not to endorse anyone for the primary, which is usually the main election because NYC politics and what not, but did choose to endorse for the general.
Should they have asked the members? Probably but it's not as if they have a habit of asking us lowly members what we think. Would another caucus do it differently, maybe, but it's easy to say that when that organization isn't in power.
As a younger teacher who has 8 years in the system and has been fighting for a more democratic union for that many years, I really cannot fathom how anyone begins to make the claim (and I welcome anyone to provide the argument without referring to non-NYC issues) that any other potential candidate for mayor could come close to offering the support for NYC teachers that Mamdani offers. Eric Adams has been tirelessly fighting to destroy our healthcare, Cuomo’s legacy is destroying my pension (not an issue that retirees seem so concerned with), and Sliwa wears a red hat. For a different perspective, let me say that I was surprised and elated that the UFT endorsed Mamdani, something that I never thought would happen after years of the UFT endorsing career politicians committed to destroying the profession.
Lousy union, lousy politicians. You’re all going over the cliff like Thelma and Louise when this know nothing Mamdani gets his paws on the city budget. Hell is empty. All the devils are here.
I have emailed and called Mamdani’s office numerous times and asked him to address his stance on our fight to keep our Medicare. All I have heard is crickets.
I have emailed AOC and asked her if she knows his position on this. Again crickets. Although NYC needs new blood and new ideas I have become fearful that he won’t support us. I know Cuomo does, but I don’t want to make a deal with the devil.
RA went wrong when they aligned themselves with ARISE without consulting its membership or at a minimum, the 300 delegates who represent them, and it’s been downhill ever since. I don’t support Mamdani and won’t vote for him in November but I know that ABC would have done things differently. They would not have rushed a DA vote during the summer (putting their thumb on the scale for one candidate), and certainly not without first polling the UFT membership to get a consensus on their views. RA has failed the retirees time and again, and needs to be held accountable. Their board meetings behind closed doors where they decide policy for the thousands of retirees are no different than what Unity is doing. They could learn a lot from ABC.
You're absolutely correct about what ABC would've done. Thank you.
Arthur: I respect your courageous writing very much, including in the face of Unity's trying to silence you with various threats and the hate mail you have to endure.
It is very disappointing that Mamdani has not taken a stand in favor of preserving the well-earned healthcare of 250,00 retired public service workers by vigorously supporting Intro 1096 instead of avoiding that issue altogether. Does he think that seniors are expendable in his battle with Adams and Cuomo? Will his laudable plans for fare-free buses, a rent freeze and childcare, be financed by imposing new costs on NYC retirees?
And to the people who wishfully say, without any evidence whatsoever,: "I cannot believe a Democratic Socialist like Mamdani would allow privatization of health insurance." Joe Hill had a response to such thinking: you will get pie in the sky. There are many ways that you can unfairly shift costs to retireees besides via the deservedly discredited scam of, Medicare Advantage, such as high copays, deductibles and other "innovative" measures.
How should a person feel if he or she asked a man wooing his or her daughter if will he love and cherish her and that man just remains silent, or worse evades the question?
I am, in fact, a person who doesn't believe Mamdani would allow privatization of health insurance. I could be wrong, of course. What I do believe, though, is that he will oppose 1096 along with Mulgrew and Garrido. That's disappointing. Even if Mulgrew is telling us the truth about MA, he could certainly impose more fees on us and degrade our coverage in other ways. I don't remotely trust Mulgrew. Nor do we know whether Mamdani will win, nor who will succeed him. I'd rather see it enshrined in law. I don't want Unity in charge of my health insurance, and Mamdani will surely not address that issue. Intro 1096 does, though.
Arthur: I think I can be, and perhaps you too, too mild as to the URGENT need for Mr. Mamdani to take a stand on retiree healthcare by firmly supporting Intro 1096 now and learning about this bill from Marainne Pizzitola, who knows more about this Major (how's 250,000 people) issue and speaks more truthfully than 200 polticians put together.
When I think of the retirees receiving small pensions, including our heroic first reponders, and how retirees as a class need healthcare very much, I can feel something of the intense suffering that will be if the next Mayor does not stand up to Mulgrew and Garrido as to 1096. How does it feel to have to choose between visiting a Dr. or buying your medicine and paying your rent or even buying some of your food? This is no exaggeration, especially as food prices keep going up.
Mamdani seems to care for some people who have suffered a lot, but that is no excuse at all to greatly add to the suffering of other people, especially those who built this city and made it go. The earned and promised healthcare $ for NYC retirees should not become a fund to alleviate the suffering of others, by taxing retirees via raising copays, and deductibles and so on. And no one should be soothed by the fact that such measures are not privatization - the suffering will be just as bad.
Someone told me they know someone on his staff. I'll reach out if I get the chance. That said, I think the possibility of Mamdani supporting 1096 is remote to non-existent, and lean toward the latter. Mulgrew and Henry did not endorse him just for fun.
I agree Arthur. At this point Mamdani has shown no interest in protecting municipal retirees through bill 1096. IMO, It's shameful that he hasn't, and even more shameful that he doesn't want to understand the gravity of it for the fixed income senior and disabled population it would protect. Shouldn't he respond to Marianne Pizzitola's calls instead of ghosting her for the last 6 months? In stead of resigning ourselves to his unacceptable stand on it, shouldn't public pressure be a means of hopefully changing him on it? I'm under no illusion that practically everything we love is under attack, but bill 1096 is just as huge and urgent as other issues getting focused on. Let's please not allow Zohran Mamdani to ignore 1096.
Pretty sure he chose to go with union leaders rather than us.
Arthur thank you!!! You speak truth to power here.
And yes, it’s not wise to withdraw union dues.
RA has not operated very democratically. I got that same email of endorsement, sent a reply and got a very unsatisfactory answer back.
Never have the 300 delegates been polled for important matters like who to run with or endorse. That’s uncontainable.
It's not a really tough thing to know what RTC priorities are. It's not a really tough thing to know what we were elected for. It boggles my mind that people don't see that clearly, and think other things may compensate for it, or that people won't notice we aren't doing what we were elected to do. There's still time to fix that.
As one of the dozen members of the elite RA Organizing committee, I opposed the endorsement of Mamdani even though I support him for precisely the reasons people refer to here -- no consultation with the 300 delegates who ran with us. Since then I have been asked by a few why I attend meetings if I disagree. So Unity like. When does the Mulgrew-like purge come? RA went through the same process in joining ARISE and ABC tripled their retiree vote. I urged them to remain neutral and one member called me a Trojan Horse. I've also been accused of lying - more than once. That is the environment for someone who doesn't go along - so Unity-like as to be scary. But not surprising. RA and ARISE people are so happy with the Mamdani endorsement even when Unity ran the DA like they often do, though they were fine in calling on those who agreed with the endorsement when they came from the ARISE/loyal opposition, much preferred by Unity over the ABC upstarts.
The lack of democracy was abundantly evident at the DA, just as it was in RA. I too would personally vote for Mamdani, but would very much prefer a democratic process, even if it resulted in an endorsement that was not my personal preference.
Arthur I understand your concerns, but I take issue with one important conclusion you make. You say that RA was elected to do one thing, protect healthcare. Now that may be the issue that galvanized the vote, but we, all of us in causing you, ran on a MUCH BROADER platform. To remind you here is the link:
https://jd2718.org/2024/06/11/retiree-advocate-platform-2024/
So yes, protecting healthcare is a priority, but there are many other issues that we were elected to fight around, and should not ignore those.
I am aware of that platform. It is not, though, what we ran on. It is not what we stressed during the campaign. More importantly, it is certainly not what we were elected for.
I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. You are saying that even though we ran on a full platform, covering many issues, we should only focus on one? Because I ran on that entire platform, and it is all important.
You are understanding me correctly. I'm not saying the issues are not important. I'm saying they are almost certainly not the priorities of those who elected us. The platform was composed by 12 people. It was deliberately not stressed during the election. The public message, as well as the piece in NY Teacher was about health care. The thing on retiree minds was health care. Marianne supported us, and featured Bennett on her show. We won because of health care. Whatever else in that piece had nothing to do with our victory. Furthermore, the pronouncements continue to come from 12 people. There are no surveys. There are no votes. It is blatantly undemocratic.
arthur, you are completely correct here. the statement above that we "all" ran on a much broader platform and not on the one issue of retiree healthcare/traditional medicare is patently untrue. I ran on the healthcare issue and I know many who did. I personally wasn't pleased with the platform produced by 12 people without input from the rest of us running. I saw the platform AFTER I had agreed to have my name on the ballot.
We didn't stress the platform when we ran, and I'm certain that was deliberate. I'm just as certain that we won on the basis of supporting real Medicare. I understand that some people liked the platform otherwise. However, we won based on health care, and health care alone.
Me too!
But, you did run on THAT platform. Whether you stressed it or not, it was the RA platform, and you, as I, ran on it. ALL OF IT. You didn't back out when the platform was released. To say otherwise is a s much of a lie as a GOP congressman who says they didn't run on Project 2025.
I just read the platform. There's nothing I object to in it, though I'd say RTC ought to ultimately make major decisions. It seems to suggest we should. In fact, it seems to call for democracy. Odd, then, that Retiree Advocate fails to practice it. How do you explain that?
I didn't know one could back out. the platform was released after all the petitions were turned in to be on the ballot. that was my understanding
Absolutely, Arthur.
Thanks Patricia.
It is really funny. I am reading Uncivil Liberties by Joanna Perrillo, and the struggle between The Teachers Union and The Teachers Guild continue to be played out 90 years later.
Tell me about that, please.
This is a brief summary of a 30 page chapter. It is, of course, more complicated.
The first chapter describes the development of both unions, especially among teachers and families in Harlem during the 1930's. The TU was organized by teachers, many of them members of the Communist Party, who viewed their role as working with parents and local organizations to fight for more and better schools and resources. Very similar to those today who use the slogan "our student learning conditions are our working condition." The TG, which was mostly organized by Democratic Socialists viewed "outside fights" as a distraction. They organized around specific professional issues, often working with administrators.
That's interesting, and applicable. In America, socialist has devolved into a loser of a label. Most of us don't know what it means. I was arguing that Medicare was socialism to someone, who pointed out that in other countries the doctors work for the government as opposed to for themselves.
arthur, I fully appreciate and agree with your views of RA here. when I got the email telling me that RA was endorsing mamdani, I immediately wrote and asked if this had been done by polling members or had been decided by fiat as unity does. I got no reply. instead I later got the mass email from RA telling me basically that I had no choice but to support mamdani and the resolution to support him. the email stated that this decision was made by the leadership without surveying membership. I again wrote back stating that there were many reasons why I could never support mamdani, and I listed them saying that I was offended by all of this, again repeating that this approach was just like unity's approach which RA had run against. I also was offended that the email quite clearly implied that I was an islamaphobe and listened to red baiting if I was against mamdani, neither of which have anything to do with my reasoning for not being for mamdani and for the uft not endorsing him. the fiat decision of endorsing mamdani without getting input from members is huge. even if I was for mamdani I would have been against the endorsement, and especially against telling members that we have no choice but to endorse him....
I got no reply whatsoever to either of my unhappy emails about the endorsement of mamdani. not a good approach. not a good message.
In fairness, I don't believe it said that anyone who voted otherwise was an Islamophobe or red-baiting. It said that Mamdani was a victim of this sort of attack. While I like Mamdani better than you do, I very much objected to the way this was presented by Unity as a fait acompli, expressly without our input. I'd argue that, by making an endorsement with 12 unelected members, RA did pretty much the same thing as Mulgrew and Adcom.
you are correct. it did not say that anyone who voted otherwise was an islamophobe or red-baiting. and yes, it said mamdani was the victim of such. however, to me, with the way it was worded, with the saying there is no choice but to endorse him, and with the context of saying he has stood up to such inappropriate attacks and the overall tone of the email, there actually is the implication that those who would argue against supporting him actually are islamophobes and believe the red baiting...the tone of inappropriate name calling in the comments about adams and cuomo, who I also don't like, among other issues with the tone sets up a message that you have to agree or something is wrong with you. stating that mamdani has been up against islamophobia and red baiting combined with the rest of the wording and tone of the email sets up the implication that those against endorsing mamdani have those two qualities...
I understand. Here's what I will say about it--it was quite condescending. I was especially disappointed that it brushed away our concerns about health care even as it admitted Mamdani had not supported 1096, something our chapter overwhelmingly endorsed
completely agree....and well said.....actually I thought it wasn't even civil with its language and tone....
Yes it seems that his supporters have taken it upon themselves to defend and protect his reputation against all detractors, as if any mention much less a discussion of his very open and obvious geopolitical actions, speech and stances are simply figments of our imaginations. Emperor’s new clothes, anybody? How could anyone take this candidate seriously when his supporters appear to be overly triggered by what is was essentially true, and the very reasons they so passionately want him as mayor??? Which words are “appropriate” when he has self-described all the things that are otherwise labeled as “hate speech” “baiting” etc???? Can anyone find the logic in this ridiculous game of “gotcha”???
FYI in the back and forth emails any criticism of him was deemed hate speech and racist etc.
I didn't see back and forth emails, so I can't speak to that. The email I saw said Mamdani was, "a supporter of civil rights for all people, including Palestinians, and has the courage of his convictions to say so - in the face of bigoted anti-muslim and red-baiting attacks"
Wait, he IS a Muslim, and he IS an avowed Marxist. So if anyone has real concerns regarding who he is connected to, is funded by, and openly supports, politically, any mention of this is automatic grounds for dismissal? Not to mention, a public flogging? This is 1984 in action.
He refers to himself as socialist--not Marxist as far as I know. And having spent a good part of my young life being judged because of my religion, I don't believe in doing that to others.
Not judging his religion, but he’s pretty clear and open about his radical geopolitical stances. Also he cites Marxist ideology as the foundation of his proposed policies and goals. Once again language is being twisted and weaponized to deflect from actual fact based analysis.
Me too! Canceled and censored with name calling and stereotypical accusations. So much for “diverse opinions”!!!!
Why isn't Jim Walden ever mentioned? He is an independent candidate running way before Mayor Adams declared himself an independent.
👉 Instagram: @jimfornyc
👉 X: @jimfornyc
Jim Walden's website
www.jimfornyc.com
He's mentioned in the article to which I linked, and he's polling at one percent.
Why didn’t the RTC call a special
emergency meeting of its delegates before the DA endorsement of Mamdani?
Did the RTC try to poll its members on the Mamdani endorsement?
Did the RTC do anything to reach out to its delegates prior to the Mamdani endorsement?
RTC did none of the above.
The RTC declined to file an amicus brief in the Bentkowski case.
Maybe if it had, the RTC could have pointed out how many retirees and their dependents live in states that can deny Medicare supplement insurance for pre-existing conditions. Maybe, just maybe the judges would have realized that these retirees have no options because they relied on the promises made to them by the City.
But we will never know because the RTC did not put that matter before the RTC delegates for a vote.
Why?
I'd conjecture it had to do with the fact I did not support their caucus, and that this consideration superseded serving the members. Of course, if anyone has a better explanation, the comments are open.
I'm so tired of unions endorsing a candidate! At least offer to your members a survey to determine what the majority wants. Mamdani as a choice? Never for me! His alleged platform of 'everything free' with no explanation of 'how to do it' coupled with his questionable background and too little years of experience....and exactly how is he defining himself these days? Free bussing? Government controlled groceries? $30 minimum wage? Sounds like Cuba's design to make folk totally dependent upon the ruler! No thanks!
I disagree with you about Mamdani, but I absolutely agree the members should have made the choice.
Right - free buses makes us Cuba? Mamdani may convert Manhattan into sugar cane fields. Gee we have govt controlled schools, police, fire, sanitation - how cruel to shut out those private carting firms. Calculate the current min wage and see if you can live on it. Have you watched people board buses lately and half not pay? How about the number of drivers assaulted? Maybe put a cop on every bus? How much would that cost? What world are you living in?
Cannot disagree with you more! A rapper in a butcher's apron, half-naked ? No...it sounds like a version somewhat of MTG....pulling ideas from out-of-the-sky and offering no explanation for how. I suppose the greater votes came from young folk rather than we seniors. And yes, it was during the NY heatwave which forcibly kept many seniors from coming out to vote. So often, young folk who have not put a lot of time into working want and complain about everything! Perhaps, he represents to them a concept that everything should be given to them and everything should be free or, very cheap? Not crazy about some of his background ties and his rants.
Arturo: your measured tone and reasoned arguments are a balm in these tempestuous times. Grazie.
Now let me go rogue here!
WE can take BACK the RTC in 2 years, from RA et al. Enough is enough. F them.
It’s not “them” vs Unity. It’s those on the right side of union democracy vs the caucus power mongers. Period.
I’m so done a fork wouldn’t even get through the first layer of epidermis!
As far as the Democrat “socialist/Liberal/Marxist/communist/Muslim/Islamist/jihadist” nominee - and note my purposely using quotes so as to not be accused of “hate speech” anyphobia or racism etc - whatever whatever (I came to the brilliant conclusion today that he is, in fact, actually, either/all/none of the above! He’s a chameleon! He can’t decide and NEITHER CAN WE RIGHT NOW, yes?) - until there is further evidence of his actual capacity to run a city as complex as NY, I’d encourage everyone to take it all with a boulder of salt and consider that we as municipal employees and current/future retirees might be in a very big pickle once the dust settles and folks realize that, holy MAGA, Batman, we’ve got some really big problems to deal with, at every level of government. If the democrat nominee can change his tune and tweak his message/image, and actually go beyond rhetoric and commit to bringing divergent agendas to some consensus, maybe he could prove himself as a future leader. Right now that is just not happening, despite pie in the sky wishing and dreaming.
Thanks for your kind words. I'm not quite at screw them. I am, however, not going to ignore what they do either.
I did warn you that I was going “rogue”!!!! Haha!
I’m a not nice proud Boomer lady of complex brain capacities who won’t STFU when the speech police start with me! Nosireee Bob! Bite me! (Not you, but others...)
As I was wont to say, I used to get paid to be abused! Right now I’m not accepting cancellation for any reason. I’ve earned the right to my opinions. No matter how “inconvenient” they may be.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Signed, older and have more insurance
I'm not the speech police. I'm just hopeful.
No you are not, thankfully. I think it’s a “younger” generation thing.
agreed....so much of discourse lately feels like "you can have any opinion, as long as it is mine." and you are a (insert bad thing here) if you disagree with me.
I’ve attempted to open up discussion and examine these issues from more than one angle but it seems that my words fall on deaf ears (or closed minds) - so much for putting myself out there; at least I gave it a go.
I personally don't think the UFT should have endorsed ANY candidate for mayor. It's a big tent, and while many probably support him, there are a substantial number who are questionable about him. I am generally of the opinion of organizations not endorsing people regardless of their political leanings since I believe organizations like the UFT should strive to support its members and nothing else.
While it looks like he'll probably win, anything could happen and who knows, maybe he doesn't. Then the union looks silly. Also, it seems odd they opted not to endorse anyone for the primary, which is usually the main election because NYC politics and what not, but did choose to endorse for the general.
Should they have asked the members? Probably but it's not as if they have a habit of asking us lowly members what we think. Would another caucus do it differently, maybe, but it's easy to say that when that organization isn't in power.
100% correct. Unions should not endorse anyone. Every member should make their own,personal decision.
As a younger teacher who has 8 years in the system and has been fighting for a more democratic union for that many years, I really cannot fathom how anyone begins to make the claim (and I welcome anyone to provide the argument without referring to non-NYC issues) that any other potential candidate for mayor could come close to offering the support for NYC teachers that Mamdani offers. Eric Adams has been tirelessly fighting to destroy our healthcare, Cuomo’s legacy is destroying my pension (not an issue that retirees seem so concerned with), and Sliwa wears a red hat. For a different perspective, let me say that I was surprised and elated that the UFT endorsed Mamdani, something that I never thought would happen after years of the UFT endorsing career politicians committed to destroying the profession.
Lousy union, lousy politicians. You’re all going over the cliff like Thelma and Louise when this know nothing Mamdani gets his paws on the city budget. Hell is empty. All the devils are here.
I have emailed and called Mamdani’s office numerous times and asked him to address his stance on our fight to keep our Medicare. All I have heard is crickets.
I have emailed AOC and asked her if she knows his position on this. Again crickets. Although NYC needs new blood and new ideas I have become fearful that he won’t support us. I know Cuomo does, but I don’t want to make a deal with the devil.
EXACTLY!
what does it mean when a red box suddenly appears around your and my comments in the comments here
I think it means you're looking at a new comment.
thanks