Unity Awakens

Only to demand UFT go back to sleep.

The Unity Caucus resolved, eleven years ago, to do something about turnout in UFT elections. The above illustration should give you a pretty fair notion what they’ve done since.

But last May, an apple fell on their head. They lost two concurrent elections in landslide numbers. They’ve been rather harshly awakened from their moribund state of perpetual torpor and cynical indifference. They thought they could dump retirees into an inferior health care system and we’d fail to take note. After all, we’re old, and Unity deems that hilarious! But NYC Retirees failed see the humor, and have done all the work Unity failed to do.

Of course, some things haven’t changed at all. Unity may not have problems openly applauding ageism, but taking a chance on expanded voice is strictly verboten. The whole performative democracy thing remains in place, and they’re welded at the hip to voting via mailbox. Sure, it’s been a colossal failure. However, they’ve only lost two major elections that way. Rank and file have shown a distinct aversion to mailboxes, so why take chances?

Unity voters, terrified for their patronage gigs, will all go to the mailbox. They’ll drag their friends, relatives, and acquaintances kicking and screaming (if necessary). Rank and file, though, may not bother. And that works for Unity. After all, why encourage or enable voters to select representatives when, by simply taking no action, Unity can effectively select their own voters?

Here’s a handy guide to electronic union voting, from the US Department of Labor. Here’s a story about how PBA used electronic voting in its last contract vote, and guess what? They managed 85% turnout. In fact, were we to do the same, it would eliminate all the loose talk about chapter leaders tampering with ballots.

Instead of exploring systems readily available to us, Unity acts like they’re doing us a favor by perpetuating a system in which three out of four voters don’t participate. What could they be thinking?

We’ve always done it this way. We’ve never done it any other way. The folks who want to open up the voting are dangerous! They want to sow chaos and confusion! We will fight for your rights by making sure everything stays the same! After all, I’m teaching one class a day and pulling in over 200K a year. Also, unlike those idiots who teach all day, I’m not getting rated by Danielson! What’s better than that? (Hmmm…maybe better scrap that part.)

Unity has taken action! After the election, we’ll have a meeting, maybe two, and discuss this thing! Yeah, that’s the ticket. After all, if we open up voting, we could lose, and then we might have to work in classrooms instead of offices. That would suck! So let’s pretend we’re interested, and then put if off at least until we all retire with both pensions. Meanwhile, let’s try to give the appearance we’re living in the 21st century.

Unity is indeed focused on appearances. They’ve started their own Substack, like I did. They’re sharing Executive Board notes, like I did. They’ve even taken the innovative step of having trolls attack those of us who support union democracy, anonymously of course. (It wouldn’t do for us to know these guys have union gigs, second pensions, and thus a vested interest in protecting the status quo.)

That’s not to say they were doing nothing before. For example, they deemed it vitally important to shut me down, so they paid lawyers to threaten me with civil and criminal penalties for parodying sacred cow-in-chief Michael Mulgrew. Shortly thereafter, my domain was blocked on Blogger. I moved here and now have thousands more subscribers and readers. (Thank you, Unity!)

I’ve taken a peek at their Substack. You won’t find critical comments there, because they don’t allow comments at all. This notwithstanding, they have no issue responding to me. In response to ABC’s demand for an updated voting system, they claim we’ve done nothing for three years.

They can make that argument if they like, but this also confirms they’ve done nothing for three years (much longer, actually). And unlike us, they don’t spend their days teaching. So that’s a curious argument from a group that claims “we do the work.” Maybe they should amend the argument to we do the work, except when we don’t feel like it.

In fact, they’ve done nothing to improve voting turnout, and opposed opening electronic voting in lockstep when it came to the Executive Board three years ago. You’d think 25% participation in the following union elections might have led them to at least suspect there is a problem. Here’s the thing—nothing is a problem for Unity as long as they win elections and keep those cushy gigs at 52 Broadway.

Exactly how long has Unity been aware of this issue? Well, way back in 2013 they resolved to do something about it.

What have they done since then? We know for certain they haven’t investigated the possibility of electronic or hybrid voting. They just wrote a long piece saying let’s not be hasty. Unity had, and continues to have, the absolute ability to change things.

Unity controls the Executive Board, and Unity controls the Delegate Assembly. Unity does everything they can to shut out grassroots voice. The DA is a scripted event, with ten minutes for whoever Mulgrew feels like calling on, and the Executive Board allows ten minutes total for lowly members to comment. If there are ten members, each gets only one minute. In fact, I hear they’ve even cut down questioning for elected members, now that opposition is a regular thing.

Unity scoffs when we suggest increased participation represents increased unionism. This is not the right time, they say, because they only have three months to work it out. They’ve had eleven years since it was first brought up, and have deliberately done nothing. Then they muster the gall to criticize us.

How stupid of us to be focused on elections when there’s an upcoming election. Unity, on the other hand, wants to take another eleven years to think about it. Let’s start a group. Let’s have a study. Maybe we need a symposium.

That, in fact, is what Unity resolved to do, eleven years ago, and never did. Maybe they need to go to Tibet, sit on top of a mountain, and meditate until an answer comes to them, or until a literal light bulb starts blinking above their heads. That would certainly suit the cartoon logic they employ in the column.

Why can’t we simply approach AAA, with whom we worked for decades, and ask them about the system they have in place to run union elections? Why don’t we ask how this hybrid system—mailbox and electronic voting—works for PSC? What if they have multiple examples of how it’s been successful? What if they can set it up quickly, easily, and save us a bundle on postage?

Let’s not even bother to find out, says Unity.

In fact, I hear that Unity has hired a new vendor called GES. Odd they’d suddenly do that, given that we need to wait years and years to make changes that benefit members. But I also hear these new folks have the same hybrid option AAA does.

Who cares if other unions have used this system successfully? Who cares if they have proven safeguards against multiple voting? The important thing, for Unity, appears to be the passive suppression of votes so they can retain their stranglehold on power. While it may not work, it’s even less likely to work with increased participation.

Bet your bottom dollar Unity knows that.

They are terrified of making voting accessible to a larger percentage of voters, and claim it’s irresponsible to even suggest expanding the pool. They were unwilling to accept it in 2021, saying let’s wait until next time. (Memo to Unity—it’s next time now.)

They paid lip service to it in 2013, suggesting meetings and such, and they’re saying exactly the same thing now. Of course they add their trademark baseless accusations, suggesting those of us who want a more democratic and inclusive union are irresponsible.

Like all Unity District Reps, even the ones who laugh over juvenile ageist memes with the chapter leaders they’re paid to support, the guy whose name appears on the Unity piece has around 200,000 annual reasons to preserve the status quo.

The simple fact is this—the history of this issue demonstrates that Unity never intends to increase accessibility to voting.

That’s one more reason why, this May, they must go.