THE TWO FACES OF OUR LEADERSHIP

Just out…
The UTP membership department has forwarded a membership application to the office of President Randi Weingarten. We strongly suspect that she may want to join the reform caucus because her cry of “let voters decide” is so similar to the basic convictions of UTP ideology.

As our President and union attempt to raise awareness of class size as a major educational issue in our city, our UFT leadership finds itself in the same boat as the rank and file: hollering for democracy and representation, but having leadership--political leadership in this case-- turn a deaf ear. With not the slightest hint of irony, Randi asks for a democratic process and asks to let the voters of the city decide. Yet the dues paying rank and file can not choose their District Representatives. Director Joe Mudgett attempted to ask for this process at the most recent DA. But just as the city has twice bumped class size issues of the ballot, Randi asked for any other motions, looked directly at Joe, who had his hand raised ten rows from the podium, ignored him, and closed the motion period. Apparently our President thinks that there is a time and a place for democracy, and the DA clearly isn’t the place. As is common, the motion period was eaten up with Unity-time; that is, in this case, a chance to rudely interrupt and mock Presidential candidate Kit Wainer. Of course all this is commonplace in the would-be democracy of the DA, where totalitarianism and a dictatorship merely wear the cloak of democracy.

How ironic that Randi gets to see just how that feels.
How disgusting that the two faced nature of our Unity leadership is out there for all to see.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT!

(Guess it's not just the UTP.)
From the NY POST, 5/4/06:
TEACHER UNIONS VS. . . . TEACHERS

By RYAN SAGER

May 4, 2006 -- IT'S old news that teachers unions put their members' desires - short hours in the classroom, zero accountability for test scores - above the needs of children. What gets more clear every day, however, is that union leadership puts its own interests above those of rank-and-file members.

Case in point: The Los Angeles Times reported last week that New York State United Teachers, the state's largest teachers union, takes $3 million a year from Dutch insurance giant ING Group to steer its 525,000 members into questionable retirement plans. The returns on the plans can be well below par, thanks to sometimes-hefty fees.

The $3 million gift doesn't go directly into union officials' pockets, but it does help subsidize the state teachers union's extraordinary spending on salaries, overhead, conferences, entertainment and the like. (Supposedly the money goes only for administering members' benefits, but that just frees up cash for other UFT expenses.)

Earlier this year, the Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability (a conservative education-reform group) compiled a report on NYSUT's lavish lifestyle. Among the highlights of NYSUT spending:

* More than $206,000 a month ($2.5 million a year) in occupancy costs for its 218,000 square foot headquarters (the size of five Wal-Marts) outside of Albany.

* Even though the NYSUT headquarters has a conference center, the union spent some $4.5 million in 2004-'05 for meetings and conferences ($501,307 at the four-diamond-rated Otesaga Resort Hotel in Cooperstown, $334,608 at the Gurney's Resort & Spa in Montauk and $1 million for its annual conference at the New York Hilton in Manhattan).

* $45,000 to the Group Sales Box Office in New York City for "entertainment."

* $42.3 million on salaries for employees of the union (including a $197,995 salary for union President Richard Iannuzzi, plus $25,839 in expenses).

* A fleet of vehicles values at $2 million.

New York City's local union, the United Federation of Teachers (an NYSUT branch), also racks up the expenses, including a salary of more than $250,000 for union chief Randi Weingarten - plus expenses.

Same story with the National Education Association: The The Wall Street Journal reports that the national union has a payroll of $58 million for just 600 employees - more than half make six-figures.

In other words, the real money in education is in union administration, not in working with the kids.

Then there's the unions' political giving. Last year, the NEA gave millions to political-advocacy groups. Some were education related, like $500,000 to Protect Our Public Schools, a group trying to block charter schools in Washington state. (Of course, since charter schools are public schools, the cash just went to protect the union-friendly-but-kids-failing public-school status quo.)

But other gifts included Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition ($5,000), the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation ($39,940), the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute ($35,000) and the Human Rights Campaign ($15,000).

Any of these groups might be peachy on its own merits, but if union honchos want to give away money to liberal causes, shouldn't they dig into their own (hefty) salaries? And shouldn't rank-and-file members have a right not to have their dues parceled out to all takers?

The unions can spend their members' dues however they want, within the law. If high pay is what it takes to attract talented managers, good for them. If a fleet of cars and expensive conferences for union officials make union members' lives better, so be it. If union members want millions of their dollars diverted to liberal causes with little connection to education, that's their prerogative.

But the rank and file might want to start paying a little more attention to the fat cats upstairs. And parents might start wondering: If these guys aren't even looking out for their own members, where exactly does my kid sit on the food chain?