Friday, June 16, 2006

WHY UNITY MUST GO


If you are one that frequents this site often, you may have seen the Unity caucus application. It’s an interesting item, but what is disturbing about the application is that it states, in no uncertain terms, that the caucus is more important than the Chapter, and the entire union. For example:

“Support the decisions of the caucus and the Union leadership elected from the caucus.”

And,

“Support in Union elections those individuals who are endorsed by the caucus.”

And similarly,

“Actively seek chapter leadership positions particularly when they are held by opposition caucus members.”

How are we to trust and accept leadership that demands that you mindlessly support the “leadership elected from the caucus”? What if that Unity leadership sucks? What if they constantly return poor contracts and provide less than acceptable services?

Why would you support individuals “endorsed by the caucus” if they are ineffective or inept? I guess being part of the caucus must be a good enough reason. Apparently incompetent Unity is better than competent Independents, or anyone else for that matter.

Finally, if someone other than a Unity member is in a “chapter leadership position,” you must oppose them. Why? Once again, effectiveness, militancy, and leadership do not matter; only being a Unity member matters. It’s a club: a special club. Kind of like an old boy’s club, but not exactly. It discourages criticism. It fosters cliques. It functions to further its own ends, not those of the members. It squelches opposition in any way possible. It fights against reform. If you’re Unity, though, it is more important than being UFT.

And that is the entire problem.

Some got to see the Unity cult work out their machinations in schools during recent chapter elections. It’s Unity tactics in microcosm. While we, in our school, have grown accustomed to our Unity person’s antics (removing material from mailboxes, taking flyers down off bulletin boards, spreading lies with slander and gossip, etc.), we saw it taken to the next Unity level.

We have a very aggressive, militant CL that defends our rights (what few we have left) and happens, on occasion, to be very critical of Unity. He replaced a CL that did nothing and was in bed with the Administration. He ran for his position again and won handily. The slate was also filled with candidates for the open Delegate positions, too, because democracy and a new energy had taken hold of our place: people saw what could be done. The exiting Unity Delegate in our school, though, did not run for any office (apparently breaking the Unity rule). Instead, she urged the staff (in a poorly written newsletter) to vote for anyone but the incumbent CL and Delegate. In fact, the Unity Delegate went so far as to recommend someone (an Independent) that they had never spoken a word to in their life.

But all this was typical. The Unity Delegate had for years done what they pleased. They had voted what they wanted, or what they were told, at the DA. They had never reported to the staff in writing, or at chapter meetings, what was said at the DA. They had anonymity and apathy: two things that they seem to enjoy most, because it allows them to feed unfettered.

At the school level and at the city level, Unity encourages apathy so they may continue to do what they wish with your dues. They are unaccountable and unrelenting in their avarice, lies and failures. They spin their lies with the ferocity of a dervish, and make the DOE look like rank amateurs.

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unity is a parasite feeding off our vigor,
Unity is a weed, choking out all others,
Unity is a plague, sapping our strength,
Unity is a cesspool, filled with gross corruption,
Unity is a machine, serving itself,
Unity cares not for the rank and file,
To save our union,
UNITY MUST GO!

6/17/2006 12:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A beautiful piece of work. Great analysis of Unity and all so true. You cover both the big and the small picture here.

DA Math
By the way, the retired teacher chapter is holding elections and with winner-take-all no matter what % of the vote the opposition gets, Unity takes all 300 delegate seats at the DA. With 800 people showing up to the average meeting and the 80 Unity Exec bd members plus the 800 (at least) rest of Unity members who show up when there is something the leadership wants badly, DA math = a delegate assembly that does not equate to the rank and file.

6/17/2006 12:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's about time that people started to see the Unity machine for what it is. I think it is obvious to anyone that cares about our union that we must rid ourselves of leadership that protects their interests at the expense of its membership. Unity lackies try to paint anyone that opposes Unity as being "anti-union", but the opposite is true. The people who are trying to free our union from the grip of Unity's tentacles are the ones who truly care about our union. We need a more democratic, more militant union. Unity is an obstacle that must be overcome to achieve this goal. Anyone who cares about this union needs to do something to save it. Contribute any way you can.

6/17/2006 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone want to put that poem to music.

6/17/2006 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The writer of this blog has covered most of what is wrong with Unity. In my school we were able to get two independent people into office and end Unity's control for the fist time in over twelve years

6/18/2006 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of what has been posted here has been anti-union. Democracy and militancy is part of our union's history and has grown more so month by month and year by year.

All you are doing is bashing everything for your own (or Norm's) political gain. I'm still waiting for how WE ALL move the union forward together.

6/18/2006 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've noticed that every UTP call for reform, or criticism of Unity, is met with the refrain "anti-union." Stop beating the drum of distraction. Address their reform issues.

6/18/2006 8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously making the "anti-union" allegation is all Unity is able to do. I believe that the reform issues contained on this site cannot be effectively argued without Unity exposing its duplicitous nature. The idea that members should play an active roll in electing their own District Representatives is democratic and while Unity espouses democracy it does not actually support democracy.
The argument that Randi appoints better DRs than union members could elect is both absurd and insulting. The bottom line for their refusal to debate reform issues is the fact that they run the risk of exposing their true nature which is self serving, arrogant and greedy.

6/18/2006 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO:
"I'm still waiting for how WE ALL move the union forward together."

Show us how democracy has grown? You're probably referring to the 10,000 member negotiating committee. But how about institutional reforms that might put some checks and balances on one person rule in the UFT?

The way Unity runs the union is anti-union. So many bad decisions have been made (support for mayoral control, failed mayoral endorsements, etc, etc etc.) because of this 1 person rule and the fact that the UFT PR department really sets policy - how it will "play" with the public and the members is the operative factor.

Tell us what you disagree with in the following program and call on the union leadership to pass these reforms with as much vigor as you use to attack us for being anti-union.

That's one start on how WE ALL can move the union forward together. But it won't happen because Unity has one prime directive that takes precedence over the interests of the members: to hold on to power. And these reforms would interfere with that aim.

Here are some principles of union democracy that I urge you to support:

*District representatives shall be elected in a separate secret ballot election by the members they represent and shall be subject to recall by such members

*An end to at-large voting for divisional vice-presidents i.e. elementary, junior/intermediate high school and academic and vocational high school vice-presidents. These vice-presidents as well as the special ed vice-president should be elected only by the constituents within their division or special area.

*New York Teacher shall be required to publish a regular column by any group, slate or individual that receives at least 15% in a secret ballot election for officers.

*The complete text of all proposed contracts or memoranda of agreement shall be distributed to members of the Delegate Assembly and the membership at large with sufficient time (at least one week) for meaningful delegate and membership review and discussion.

*The New York Teacher shall provide equal space for the printing of statements both for and against ratification of proposed contracts.

*All contract modifications and side agreements between the union and management shall be subject to ratification by secret ballot votes by the members covered by said contract.

*Union officers have the positive obligation to inform members regularly of their rights under federal and state law, and how to have them enforced.

* Election of delegates to NYSUT and AFT conventions should be based either on proportional representation or by direct election from each school or unit based on a weighted vote.

*An end to at-large voting for all Executive Board positions. (Right now 6 HS are elected by HS teachers and 6 more HS are elected at-large. All 12 should be elected by division.)

* Delegates to the Delegate Assembly elected in functional chapter elections where there is slate voting, like the retired teacher chapter, shall be apportioned based on the percentage of votes each caucus receives instead of the current winner-take-all system that gives Unity all 300 retiree delegates to the DA.

One note: Until the system is reformed there is no chance for anyone but Unity to make any "politcal gain" which you accuse us of being interested in. My guess is you know that there is little opportunity for political gain and charges that we reformers are out for our own political gain are just a smokescreen to call Unity critics names.

6/18/2006 9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The anger directed at Unity is justified. After selling out their own membership time and time again what can they expect.
Unity can knock Norm and the UTP all they want but Unity has turned our union into an arm of the DOE.

6/18/2006 10:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Norm,

I'd like to pick on one of your points: "*District representatives shall be elected in a separate secret ballot election by the members they represent and shall be subject to recall by such members"

CLs are elected by all of the members in their schools, by the members they will serve.

DRs essentially provide back-up and service directly to CLs. They should be elected by those whom they are responsible to. DRs should be elected by the CLs they serve.

Frankly, I'm not convinced we need a secret ballot for that, but I won't argue that point.

An election in a school draws members into conversation and discussion. That is perfect (and necessary) for electing chapter leaders. (wish me luck. I'm up for reelection Friday).

A district-wide election, on the other hand, is anonymous. An election among Chapter Leaders is, in theory at least, an election by activists. This is the way to go for electing DRs.

jd2718
(jonathan)

6/20/2006 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To jd2718:
Best of luck on your election. My sense based on reading your stuff is that your members are very lucky to have you as CL.

I won't quibble on how DR's are elected. UTP and others say direct election by the members and I'm using their reso. I was a chapter leader and still felt the members should elect DR's. We saw the power they wield as the bridge between the members and the top leadership in the contract fight. They represent all members, not just CL.

In ICE we have disagreement on this issue with some long-time CL's supporting your position. Since we do things by consensus we have not yet resolved where we stand as a group other than to call for elections of DR's in some way (but not as part of the slate in the general UFT elections where 50,000 retirees would get to vote for all DR's, a potentially slick move so Unity can say, "see, we have elections.")

I should point out that in all the years of elections, Unity people always got elected except for Bruce Markens in Manhattan HS which became the hot bed for independent action during the 90's. Bruce was able as DR to be one of the leaders of the successful defeat of the '95 contract. Could a DR in your wildest imagination have openly worked for the defeat of the last contract?

Bruce retired and passed the torch to Tom Dromgoole. With elections cancelled, he is dependent on Randi in order to keep his job instead of the CL who originally elected him. As the only non-Unity DR he still stands alone but his position is always tenuous. If there were elections it would be a slam dunk.

Bruce, by the way, helped put together the list of democartic reforms, which I hope will be the basic ICE platform on democratic reforms in the union. As a former DR Bruce still supports direct election in the interests of democracy.

Sometimes Unity people competed with each other in the old days if the leadership did not have a strong preference. But let's not fool ourselves and think the good ole days were a bed of roses. There were lots of jerks who were DR's. The system required 5 signatures of chapter leaders and no one could sign more than one. This led to CL's who wouldn't sign for anyone but the incumbent, fearing retaliation if they should support an insurgency. In district 14, my school CL (who was in Unity) got 5 people to sign for him against the Unity candidate supported by the Dist Supt (who had been the DR, built a political machine and had himself made Supt.) All hell broke loose and many of those 5 came under attack and some were defeated. Most school principals were part of the machine so it was scary for anyone to not only run but to sign to allow someone to run.

This is why I am not for just going back to the system we had.

6/20/2006 9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The system we had with chapter leaders electing district reps was light years ahead of what we have now.

6/20/2006 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To jd2718:
Best of luck on your election. My sense based on reading your stuff is that your members are very lucky to have you as CL.

I won't quibble on how DR's are elected. UTP and others say direct election by the members and I'm using their reso. I was a chapter leader and still felt the members should elect DR's. We saw the power they wield as the bridge between the members and the top leadership in the contract fight. They represent all members, not just CL.

In ICE we have disagreement on this issue with some long-time CL's supporting your position. Since we do things by consensus we have not yet resolved where we stand as a group other than to call for elections of DR's in some way (but not as part of the slate in the general UFT elections where 50,000 retirees would get to vote for all DR's, a potentially slick move so Unity can say, "see, we have elections.")

I should point out that in all the years of elections, Unity people always got elected except for Bruce Markens in Manhattan HS which became the hot bed for independent action during the 90's. Bruce was able as DR to be one of the leaders of the successful defeat of the '95 contract. Could a DR in your wildest imagination have openly worked for the defeat of the last contract?

Bruce retired and passed the torch to Tom Dromgoole. With elections cancelled, he is dependent on Randi in order to keep his job instead of the CL who originally elected him. As the only non-Unity DR he still stands alone but his position is always tenuous. If there were elections it would be a slam dunk.

Bruce, by the way, helped put together the list of democartic reforms, which I hope will be the basic ICE platform on democratic reforms in the union. As a former DR Bruce still supports direct election in the interests of democracy.

Sometimes Unity people competed with each other in the old days if the leadership did not have a strong preference. But let's not fool ourselves and think the good ole days were a bed of roses. There were lots of jerks who were DR's. The system required 5 signatures of chapter leaders in order to run and no one could sign more than one. This led to CL's who wouldn't sign for anyone but the incumbent, fearing retaliation if they should support an insurgency. In district 14, my school CL (who was in Unity) got 5 people to sign for him against the Unity candidate supported by the Dist Supt (who had been the DR, built a political machine and had himself made Supt.) All hell broke loose and many of those 5 came under attack and some were defeated. Most school principals were part of the machine so it was scary for anyone to not only run but to sign to allow someone to run. Maybe Dist 14 was an anomaly but I heard stories from other districts as well.

This is why I am not for just going back to the system we had.

6/20/2006 10:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

District Reps. need to be elected by the members of this union. As Norm insightfully pointed out when DR's were elected by chapter leaders they were all Unity people. Unity has its ways of brow-beating and coercing CL's into following the Unity party line. This is a prime example of the disconnect between the membership and the leadership of this union. Unity maintains its stranglehold on this union in part by buying off chapterleaders with promises of better service for joining Unity, and threats of less service if they don't. Imagine that... the leadership of this union is willing to cut its dues paying member loose just to maintain its power. District Reps should be elected by the members to at least offer an alternative to being a cog in the wheel of the Unity machine. If the DR's are no longer beholden to Unity then neither will the CL's and the membership will no longer be held hostage by these power mongers.

6/21/2006 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How aboutdoing this for all of the working class:

http://edwize.org/
minumum-wage-in-the-senate-a-call-for-support#comments

6/21/2006 11:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How the hell is that a union issue??

6/22/2006 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Snakehead you are so narrow minded! Slither on over to the DA tonight and you might see many issues crucial to our union discussed.
Such as:
1) The Resolution to remove references to sex and gender as eligibility requirements for civil marriage.
2) The Special Order of Business discussion of domestic wiretapping.
3) The Resolution on Darfur; and,
4) The Resolution on Immigration.

If you can't see how your dues are helping you then you must be blind.

6/22/2006 5:00 PM  
Blogger NYC Educator said...

I, for one, am certainly glad Unity is working on such vital issues. I'm fairly sure if such issues keep them occupied they can't do any more damage to working NYC teachers than they have already.

6/22/2006 5:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter