Quite a discussion going on right now in the comments section of the MORE blog. This post challenges the union's?commitment?to?improving the working?conditions of teachers and learning conditions for students. It also (rightly) asserts that the leadership has turned away from the principle of collective bargaining rights when it announced it's support of the governor's role in making a final decision (they are saying it's like fair and independent arbitration. MORE is saying it's more like having your boss' boss weigh in and make a final decision).
Something about it must hit a nerve, because the (Unity) party faithful are out in full force leaving comments, calling MORE a bunch of names (dishonest names at that) and throwing punches at the at the ol' straw man (no offense, but Unity fights the straw man an awful lot. You'd think people would grow tired of it, but I digress).
Anyway, through all the vitriol is this comment from MORE member Kit Wainer, which lends a bit of?sobriety to the craziness that the Unity folks are?bringing?to the discussion.
There are two essential points, both of which this post ignores.
1. Prior to negotiating a new evaluation procedure with the state the UFT never mobilized us for a battle against evaluations based on standardized test scores. Nor did they follow the Chicago Teachers Union model of insisting that the problem in education is not teacher quality but the lack of services. CTU did that by making the demand for ?wrap-around? services a central contract demand. And they mobilized their members, struck, and won partial victories. Had the UFT leadership mobilized us through massive rallies and job actions, and then compromised and accepted only partial victory, we could have judged their actions differently. Had the union fought and only partially won (as was the case in Chicago) I think we could have accepted compromise. But the union never fought. Mulgrew negotiated secretly with the state and then presented us with a fait accompli. There had been no mobilizations leading up to that deal. We don?t know what we could have won had we mobilized. What we know is that Mulgrew gave in without a member-driven fight. And since the new evaluation procedure became state law, our union leaders have continued to not mobilize us. Instead they relied on their negotiating skills, which proved unable to pressure the mayor to accept even a sunset clause.
2. The membership has been left out of every step of this process. Unity did not campaign in the 2010 UFT elections on a platform of having us evaluated based on test scores or shifting the burden of proof onto us during 3020a hearings. Prior to the deal with the state the leadership never proposed to us that we engage in an effort to find a compromise. Nor was the membership asked for input or approval. In fact, even the DA was kept in the dark until after Mulgrew negotiated with the state. After that, the leadership never went to the membership to ask what should be negotiated within the confines of the new state law. Nor will they tell the membership what they were willing to settle for in January. The membership finds out what its union is doing by reading the newspapers. The Unity leadership has turned the UFT into another organization that imposes changes on us without any consultation, without any opportunity for the members to decide what kinds of compromises it might accept.
Those are the real issues. The whole schoolyard and pot banging metaphors are cute but beside the point.
?The comments reminded me of something. There isn't a dearth of union rights and strength in New York City. Only a dearth of will and of a?commitment?to the democratic process of running a union. Bravo Kit, for bringing it back to where it should be.
Source: http://nycdoenuts.blogspot.com/2013/02/wow-is-it-uft-election-season-or-what.html
protect ip act jim caldwell internet blackout jessica capshaw seattle times seattle times walker recall
No comments:
Post a Comment