In the last few days, my thoughts have often turned to Sandy Feldman, who recently passed away after a long and difficult struggle with breast cancer. As most readers know, Sandy was a past president of both the UFT and our national union, the American Federation of Teachers. But she was also a special person for me. Sandy was the person who initially convinced me that I could best pursue my goals as an educational activist, that I could best achieve my efforts to ensure that my students would have a chance to build lives of meaning and purpose, from within the UFT. She knew the power of collective, democratic voice for teachers, and she knew that such organized power could be used to great effect for our students, especially those with the greatest needs, as well as for ourselves.
Sandy and I met in strained circumstances, but we nonetheless quickly bonded. We shared a great deal in common, including love of political ideas and a passion for intellectual debate, as well as a background in the democratic socialist left and in the civil rights movement. I could call Sandy a mentor, but it would be an inadequate description, because in many ways, she felt like an older sister or a second mother. I never finished a conversation with her, including our last one in late spring, without feeling that she cared deeply about me and my welfare, as much as she was interested in the project on which I sought her opinion or the paper I wanted to discuss with her.
With the crush of events these past weeks, it has been hard to steal the time to grieve Sandy’s passing and to find the peace of mind to remind myself of the special moments we shared. Every time I would begin that process, I could hear her saying, “there is important work to be done,” in the way that Sandy would talk when she was serious about getting something done. But something inside me kept saying back, “remembering you is important work.”
Remembering Sandy is important work not just because she left us with fond memories of rich friendships, but even more, because she helped create a legacy for this union that is vital at this moment of trial. Sandy’s legacy, and the legacy of her mentor Al Shanker, is that teacher professionalism and teacher unionism must be inseparable. That legacy must guide us now.
When the UFT first organized, the factory model school and the industrial mode of organization reigned unchallenged in American education. The Mayors and Chancellors of the day declared that the substance of education was a management prerogative, and that the still fledgling UFT should only have a say on questions of wages and working conditions, just as the autoworkers union only negotiated wages and working conditions for their members. But Sandy and Al always insisted that there was a world of difference between the production of automobiles and the education of children, and they never missed an opportunity for the UFT to assert the professional voice of teachers on educational matters. They had a vision of teacher unionism in which teachers would take control of and responsibility for our educational labor and our professional knowledge, guaranteeing the quality of the service we provided to the public by educating and policing ourselves.
One initiative which captured that Feldman-Shanker vision of teacher unionism was the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a Shanker idea that has been successfully implemented nationally with the full support of both the AFT and the NEA. The National Board was modeled after the practice of board certified doctors in the medical field, and organized around professional standards of teaching excellence. Just like a board certified doctor or surgeon, a National Board certified teacher undergoes a long, rigorous process of certification in which she demonstrates excellence and accomplishment in her field of teaching.
Sandy and Al conceived of the National Board in part as the teacher’s answer to calls for “merit pay.” Whenever critics said that teachers don’t want to recognize and reward teaching excellence, and that is why we oppose “merit pay,” we could simply point to the work of the National Board, and the lie is exposed. Unlike the zero sum games of “merit pay,” every teacher can seek National Board certification. Moreover, the National Board’s objective standards for teaching excellence were developed by teachers, and teacher peers evaluate the professional portfolios submitted for certification. Most importantly, National Board certification identifies real teaching excellence, not managerial favorites.
Progressive-minded school districts – not New York City – provide salary differentials for Board certified teachers. Cities such as Rochester NY which have pioneered ‘lead teacher’ and ‘master teacher’ programs, in which accomplished teachers remain part-time in the classroom while taking on mentoring and professional development responsibilities, often use National Board certification as the qualification for teachers to achieve this status.
Sandy’s and Al’s vision of a professional teacher unionism had its critics, both externally and in our own ranks. For those external foes who never reconciled themselves to the idea of democratic teacher voice in American education, a professional teacher unionism simply extends the organized power of teachers into educational matters where they do not belong: our job, they insist, is to teach what we are told to teach. [And in 10 minute workshop lesson segments, at that.] One of the real achievements in this contract agreement is the language which specifically prohibits lesson micro-management, and thus defends the professional autonomy of teachers.
In a strange way, the critics within our own ranks who want no part of a professional teacher unionism – including the opponents of this contract agreement – have a similar view of the world to those external foes. They believe that union solidarity somehow depends upon a homogenized labor force, in which all workers are the same as all other workers, and they oppose any differentiation among teachers based on accomplishment and teaching excellence. Our unity, they insist, depends upon rejecting the notion that we are professionals with a responsibility for our educational labor and knowledge, and instead embracing the notion that we are indistinguishable, de-skilled workers engaged in a common fight with management. They could not have a more impoverished vision of who we are and what we are capable of as teachers.
Understanding that both the Chancellor and the opponents of this contract share an opposition to professional teacher unionism makes more comprehensible their common arrival at the same incredible misreading of the ‘lead teacher’ program as “merit pay” last week.
In the tradition of Sandy Feldman, we have a different vision of ourselves as teacher unionists. On matters educational, you will hear from us. And we will continue to promote quality public education and teaching excellence. Our students– and ourselves – deserve no less.
29 Comments:
1 luke
· Oct 11, 2005 at 10:18 am
Leo,
First, my condolences on the loss of your friend and mentor. Sandy Feldman has not been mourned as she would have been if we weren’t in a contract battle, but recalling her tough defense of teachers helps clarify some of the issues we’re facing. The nasty comments that have been directed at you on this blog seem all the more assinine after reading your post.
Some critics of the contract do seem to be working from an old industrial model of unionism. Solidarity is something we can learn from that model. But as you say, viewing teachers as interchangeable cogs is not. Even the industrial unions moved away from that 20-30 years ago.
And viewing the principal as an overwhelming authority figure who can only be opposed, never influenced, is another way that old model comes up. In that view, negotiations are handled by union “bosses,” who come to terms with the “owners” on a combination of threats and sellouts, then dictate the terms to the rank and file.
Thanks to Sandy Feldman and other progressive unionists in education, we have moved far off that model now, despite what seems like willfull misunderstanding by some of your screechy critics.
Also,
2 outraged
· Oct 11, 2005 at 12:00 pm
What does this have to do with the current contract. Would the removal of the cap on charter schools be more important? Bloomberg announced his intentions to have twice as many charter schools next year and is lobbying for the state to remove its cap.
3 roseba
· Oct 11, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Outraged:
Your post is off topic. Posts do not have to be about the contract.
And from the disclaimer:
“EdWize was established by the UFT as a place where New York Teacher (NYT) staff, public education advocates and others can express opinions in an effort to establish an agora of informed commentary on public education and labor issues. “
4 NYC Educator
· Oct 11, 2005 at 3:42 pm
“…the critics within our own ranks who want no part of a professional teacher unionism – including the opponents of this contract agreement – have a similar view of the world to those external foes.”
I love it when folks pigeonhole the way their opponents think by placing them in neat, stereotypical little boxes. Leo Casey places us in a box with our “external foes.”
What a shame he can’t conceive that some of us, quite independently, have determined this to be a bad contract, and have chosen to fight it. What a shame he can’t see us as individuals.
That stereotypical mindset is precisely what leads every narrow-minded bigot to end up hating Americans, Jews, Gays, African-Americans, Latinos, or whoever they’re hating these days. It’s precisely the same way regular readers of the teacher-bashing Daily News might end up stereotyping teachers.
It’s disgraceful that Leo Casey would presume to know what we think or why we think it. It’s further disgraceful that he disguises this steretype-laden, diatribe as a tribute to Sandra Feldman.
5 Teacher31231
· Oct 11, 2005 at 4:17 pm
This article is being put up because every other union article regarding the contract is getting negative responses. This is to throw a monkey wrench in the negatives.
This article is a farce to cover over some of the negative responses.
I mean god, you put up all pro articles regarding the contract; now you can’t do that, because they are all muted by the bad responses, so you have to get off the topic all together. What a farce!
6 madmatt151
· Oct 11, 2005 at 5:08 pm
I would like to agree that the passing of Sandra Feldman has been overshadowed by the contract talks here, but she died almost a month ago. NOW you post about it here? I do agree she did wonderful things in this union and tghr national level, but why wasn’t this brought up the week she died? I agree with the fact that teachers should be board certified and compensated for it, but I also disagree with this contract. How do you pigeon hole me then? I do like the idea of teacher unionism, but disagree with the vague wording of this contract on so many important issues. I find it a bit disgraceful and in bad taste to use Sandra Feldman’s death as a rally cry or a way to break down opposing opinions.
7 divina
· Oct 11, 2005 at 5:25 pm
madmatt151:
You mean like the post “Sandra Feldman, former UFT president, dies at age 65” dated September 19, 2005?
8 northbrooklyn
· Oct 11, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Leo-I was a progressive teacher when you were still trying to figure out how to spell the word…I am opposed to the contract. Try out this new bumper sticker-DUH-diversity unites humans. cheers.
9 mvplab
· Oct 11, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Hey NorthBrooklyn:
Leo’s pretty old! Did you learn how to spell progressive in a one room school house?
NYC Educator:
Some of the arguments we see here in opposition to the new tentative contract appear to be very similar to those made by anti-union pundits and–I hope I’m not insulting you–management. But no one is trying to silence the criticism just trying call it what it appears to be.
On Leo’s post: Some of the most forward thinking of any union came during the Shanker/Feldman leadership years. (Part of that time included Randi as their neophyte negotiator.) I’m thinking back as a chapter leader how I wanted nothing to do with SBM (School Based Management) and even though it hasn’t lived up to all the expectations for it, it gave greater voice to teachers, parents and others in the educational community. It was one of the many attempts by the union to give educators and parents a voice in education planning.
Wow, I hated it then! THEIR job was to manage and MY job was to grieve! But we all learn and now I wish we had more voice in education planning. We certainly wouldn’t have had the PD fiascos of the last two years.
The idea to “professionalize” our union was the fountainhead where the concept of the Teacher Center sprung and the of Peer Intervention Program germinated.
It grew out of mindset that the labor/management model had to evolve to survive and in organizations that have developed that model unionism has thrived.
I can thank Al/Sandy/Randi for showing us the way.
10 mvplab
· Oct 11, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Oops! add the “idea” of the Peer Intervention Program germinated.
11 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Oct 11, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Teacher31231:
You are like a crack dealer smoking his own product. You think that if ten of your kind spend your entire life on this blog writing comments, that means that you have a mass movement of NYC teachers. Little intervening facts, like the Delegate Assembly’s 4 to 1 vote today to recommend acceptance of the contract, mean nothing. There is always some ex post facto justification for why you and your nine other malcontents writing away madly at your keyboards are the true voice of NYC teachers.
But the only one who believes what you write is you…
12 HS SHOP TEACHER
· Oct 11, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Guess what, NYC Teacher, I know how to follow a hyperlink! And when I linked on the phrase “including the opponents of this contract” in Casey’s post, what did I find but an essay by an ICE-UFT opponent of the contract, linked to the ICE-UFT web site, in which he attacks the UFT for calling itself a “union of professionals.”
It sure provides a lot of support for you raving about how Casey is a bigot, now doesn’t it?
13 Kombiz
· Oct 11, 2005 at 10:15 pm
Please keep the conversation civil in these threads, it makes the threads easier to read for visitors.
14 R. Skibins
· Oct 12, 2005 at 11:16 am
HS Shop:
I was at the DA. The vote was more like 60-40. It’s funny how this “tribute” to Sandy Feldman appears right after Randi and her followers worked out such a lousy, giveback-laden contract that sent both Sandy Feldman and Al Shanker spinning in their graves!
15 luke
· Oct 12, 2005 at 12:22 pm
I was at the DA too. I put it at about 75-25. Too bad we didn’t count. But 60-40 may be your eyesight, it surely wasn’t the vote.
16 eumenides
· Oct 12, 2005 at 3:38 pm
R. Skibins:
You can say what you want about the wisdom of the proposed contract, but don’t exaggerate the support the “no” position had at the DA. I was there and the “no’s” were lost in a sea of “yes” votes. You do your position no good by puffing up the results. To me,(and I was standing on a chair to be sure) it looked like an 80-20 split, and the second vote–with retirees cautioned by Randi W. not to weigh in–not that different. In a situation where unionists disagree on strategies, can we at least agree on the facts, and not contribute to any more urban legendry about “sell outs” and “stolen votes.” Nothing was sold out, stolen or undercounted. People of good faith disagree on the contract and on how to beat back the DOE. Don’t make it worse than it is.
17 Kombiz
· Oct 12, 2005 at 4:06 pm
I responded last night after I made it home from the DA to someone’s comments about the vote. I watched the DA from the front of the room looking back on a sea of people, and my estimation was the no’s we’re 15-20%, which is what I put up in the comment last night. I didn’t realize there was a concerted effort to question that estimate, but here are some pictures of the vote from last night’s DA, you can click on them to get a larger picture.
18 NYC Educator
· Oct 12, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Actually, a vote count would be a far better idea.
19 NYC Educator
· Oct 12, 2005 at 4:49 pm
And a secret ballot would be a nice touch too.
20 SOC ST TEACHER
· Oct 12, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Yeah, 60-40. I recommend that you use the UFT Welfare Fund Optical Benefit. If you don’t want sexy frames, you can even get the glasses for nothing. And you need them.
21 northbrooklyn
· Oct 12, 2005 at 6:30 pm
mvplab-we called them cottages.
22 R. Skibins
· Oct 12, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Spin it any way you wish, but the vote was more like 60-40. When this “contract” is voted down, what kind of spin will you put on it?
23 eumenides
· Oct 12, 2005 at 11:57 pm
R. Skibins:
I could ask you the same insulting question: when the contract is voted up, what fantasy will you spin to explain your loss? That the vote was stolen or coerced? That the members are sheep? Or cowards. Or less intelligent than thou? Perhaps we just disagree with you? Perhaps it’s a tougher call than you will admit. Or do you prefer to do your fighting in cyberspace? You must know that 40 percent of the delegates did NOT vote to oppose the MOA. Even 25-30 percent is a too-generous reading. (Look at the photos that were posted.) What is the benefit of pretending you have support that you do not have–and on a life or death issue like a contract ratification.
Argue the case on the merits, but stop running on about “spinning.” You’re the only dervish in this exchange.
24 mvplab
· Oct 12, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Northbrooklyn:
I stand corrected.Cottage it is!
25 mvplab
· Oct 13, 2005 at 12:08 am
RSkibins:
No matter if it’s 80-20;70-30;60-40; you lose and the members win. They get the right to vote on their future. The UFT leadership will spin their version, you will spin yours,and Ice will spin theirs.
So now the spin is out there with a life of its own, and in a couple of weeks we’ll know what the members think and how they want the leadership to proceed.
26 redhog
· Oct 13, 2005 at 11:15 am
R. Skibens: I wish I could plagiarize the following, but it’s too darned popular and a grossly tutored person like you would notice: “You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.” Gee, I’m glad I thought of that!
27 NYC Educator
· Oct 13, 2005 at 4:38 pm
You know, there would be no dispute at all if someone just counted the votes.
Who runs this election, Katherine Harris?
28 R. Skibins
· Oct 13, 2005 at 8:30 pm
How it really went down:
Notes from the Delegate Assembly
October 11, 2005 Brooklyn Marriott Hotel
by Marian Swerdlow, UFT Delegate FDR High School
(These notes represent the views of the author and not necessarily those of Teachers for a Just Contract as a group)
A little more than three years ago, in June 2002, the Delegate Assembly met to consider a Memo of Agreement, which, like the present one, closely followed the recommendations of a state fact-finding panel. But beyond that, the two meetings could hardly have been more dissimilar.
The amazing degree of the difference was apparent before even entering the hotel. A crowd of well over a hundred teachers outside the hotel was protesting the contract. Most were walking in an orderly yet spirited picket line, carrying signs from many schools all over the city and chanting their denunciations of the proposal. Others were standing with their signs (including, “It’s not the photo; it’s the contract!”) and many were giving out leaflets, from chapters, groups or even anonymous individuals with the same message: vote this one down. (Photos will be posted on the Teachers for a Just Contract website shortly) This was exactly the scene the union leadership had tried vainly to avoid by emailing all the delegates that it had discovered a group that planned to disrupt the DA and prevent a vote (a specific uncorroborated threat, no doubt). But people were too serious to be deterred by such a ploy.
Inside was the largest crowd I have ever seen at a Delegate Assembly. No “visitors” were allowed in the hall, although a separate room was provided for them to watch a video monitor. Present in the hall however were a disproportionate number of people of retirement age and also some people who were most likely union staff.
Three years ago, Weingarten had boasted that the Executive Board had “unanimously” recommended the contract, because New Action had abandoned its role as an opposition and supported the 2002 deal. But this time, five Executive Board High School members from the opposition groups Teachers for a Just Contract and Independent Community of Educators, had voted against it. Weingarten proposed a special way of running the meeting. She said she would report the contract neutrally, “every agreement has its pros and cons.” Then, she proposed, there would a speaker in favor of the contract to motivate a “yes,” vote and a speaker opposed, to motivate the “no.” Next, rather than her picking speakers, there would be a microphone on one side of the room for people who wished to advocate a ‘yes’ vote, and one on the opposite side of the room for the advocates of a “no” vote. This sounded good and the body agreed pretty much unanimously. That was the last moment of agreement that afternoon.
Weingarten started, “The question is, have you done the very best you can under the circumstances?” She then spent the next thirty plus minutes making the case that she had. Almost immediately, she evoked the recently departed former UFT President, Sandra Feldman, as having said that our union was “up against its toughest adversary” in Bloomberg/Klein. “Everything is arrayed against us.”
It very soon became obvious that her presentation was anything but neutral. This provoked a point of order from Jeff Kaufman to that effect, but the faithful hooted him down. Weingarten was able to continue making her definitely biased case in favor of the contract. “Never in labor history has labor strife affected the outcome of a mayor’s race.” (I could rejoin: Never in New York City history has the UFT, or any municipal union gone on strike after two years without a contract during the mayoral campaign!) Her next debating point was to try to prove that no other union “in the last few years was able to extract more from Bloomberg.” She next began to inveigh against Klein, and a shout rang out from the body, “Why do you hug him?” followed by whoops and applause. Stung, Weingarten retorted that it was obvious she had “grimaced in pain.” The members were unconvinced by this.
She set out to subtly undermine the argument that we should have prepared ourselves to pose a real strike threat by seeming to embrace the strike strategy, the better to attack it. “The biggest leverage is a strike. The Taylor law creates a huge uphill battle. We all know about our membership in terms of the willingness to pursue a long-term strike.”
Certainly, if a leadership – during more than two years under an expired contract – consistently refuses to prepare its membership for militant action, and instead does everything possible to paint a strike as a suicidal act, it doesn’t take much to guess how much there will be of “willingness to pursue a long-term strike.”
“Many said to me, ‘please don’t’ (presumably, don’t strike) and when they did – they did not say it to me publicly, except for TJC and ICE – ” I was scratching my head, when did Teachers for a Just Contract ever say to Weingarten, publicly, privately, any way, “Please don’t strike.” We did, and still do, strongly object to the way Unity uses the threat of an unprepared, unplanned strike to try to intimidate members into accepting bad contracts. And we are totally opposed to any action, let alone a risky, unplanned strike, when the goal is givebacks. But we wouldn’t waste our time saying “please don’t” since we have never believed in the slightest that this leadership would ever take us out on a strike. No doubt based on this, Nick Licari, CL of Norman Thomas HS and a member of TJC set up an outraged cry of “That’s a lie!” and even the person behind me, whom I don’t even know, said out loud, “TJC said build for a strike.” It was gratifying to know the honest rank and file had gotten our message loud and clear.
Sarcastically, Weingarten said, “I don’t understand why people are calling out today – ” which merely provoked more moans and catcalls. She went back to her point about how it was the members’ fault we couldn’t be more militant: “I knew to have more leverage, we needed to have a long strike. You all figured out ways to say to me, our members did not have the willingness to do that.” But part of the point of strike strategy is to figure out how to have such a well-timed, well-planned strike that it need not be a long war of attrition.
“We did not cut the pay of new teachers -” she went on with her apologia. This was met with more hisses. Technically, no, the pay was not cut. But first year teachers coming in after the ratification date will not receive the same raise as everyone else: they will get only 9% instead of 15%, and the wider gap that creates between steps 1 and 2 will persist in the future. About working two more days, right before Labor Day, she said, “People must be given time to prepare their classrooms.” About the ten additional minutes, she said, “The fact finders put in ten minutes because we made a big deal about suburban salaries,” and this was met with a huge outcry of teachers shouting that our conditions were so totally different from the suburbs, especially our far larger class sizes, that making us work more time on top of that would only make our relative working conditions even poorer. She said, “For most schools, the day goes back to six hours and twenty minutes, and there is a thirty seven minute . . . ” she was practically drowned out by the anger this mush-mouthed construction provoked. Teachers clearly do not buy the leadership’s argument that the thirty seven minutes is anything other than classroom time. Weingarten tried to make a distinction by saying “there is a monetary penalty if the number of kids goes above ten,” but the rank and file weren’t buying it. Clearly, ten was enough of a class, and anyway, they’d seen how effectively union appeals of other injustices worked. She claimed a sixth teaching period would be “a strike issue,” but people started muttering that they’d heard such tunes change before.
She said that if the number of letters placed in people’s files actually increased, “I will ask to have the contract reopened.” This weak piece of rationalization was met with groans and shouts. Among her final points was that the contract gave more of a raise than the fact finders had recommended. At the end she told us that the balloting would take place, in the schools, between Monday, October 24 and 27, and the ballots counted “no later than November 3″ which was different from what had been said when the Memo was announced last week, that the vote would not happen until after the November 8 mayoral election.
Michelle Bodden, the VP Elementary Schools, motivated the “yes” vote. She concluded by saying it would be “the height of arrogance” for us to deny the members the right to vote on this proposed contract by voting no. (Begging the question of why we should vote on it at all, and of course, taking a pass on the arrogance that would put such a self-destructive deal before the members at all and tell them, in effect, it’s this or nothing.)
The speaker to motivate the “no” vote was Kit Wainer, Chapter Leader at Leon Goldstein High School, Brooklyn. That made all of us in Teachers for a Just Contract very proud, since he is one of our most active members, and was our candidate for High Schools Vice President in 2004. He said, “What strikes me is the extraordinary disconnect between the cheering for this contract here at the DA and the extraordinary anger that is out there among the membership. We see it in the hundreds of UFT members outside this meeting protesting against the contract. We see it in the petitions circulating in schools around the city. I’ve been getting emails from members I’ve never heard of expressing their outrage.
“And it’s not surprising they are angry. They’re angry about the extra time which will become almost an extra class – you can call it by any legal language you want, that’s what it will be. We will have to prepare and instruct. We can be observed and written up for what we do during those 37 and one-half minutes. And they’re angry because they think their union should be fighting to reduce our workload, not to increase it.
“Until the 13th of September the official position of this union was that the right to grieve letters in the file was one of the most sacred and important rights we had. When I was first elected Chapter Leader, I spent hours in excellent training classes on how to grieve file letters led by people in the front of this room. “19 ways to defeat a letter in the file” was the theme we were taught. I recently found that “19 ways” handout sitting on my principal’s desk. He obviously thinks this is an important issue. How can you not be worried about the demoralization this will cause in the schools if you take away this right? Just today a Math teacher came to me all upset about letter threatening a “U” rating he had received from his supervisor. I don’t want to have to tell him that under the old contract I could have helped him but now all he can do is wait three years and hope for the best. The members are angry because our union should be fighting to strengthen union solidarity and confidence in the workplace, not bargaining those away and pretending they never mattered.
“And let’s be honest about transfers: Under this contract the union leadership has bargained away our transfer rights. We no longer have a right to transfer if we have to ask for permission of the principal of the school to which we have to apply. We were always able to ask permission of a supervisor for almost anything. A right is something we can do without their permission. No wonder members are angry. They believe our union should be trying to strengthen our rights, not give more power to principals.
“And they are angry because they believe a union should be using the threat of a strike to threaten the employer, not to threaten the members into accepting a bad deal.
“10 years ago I was one of those angry people standing outside the closed doors of the delegate assembly as the delegates approved that terrible contract package. The leadership warned that if the members rejected that 1995 contract, thousands of teachers and paraprofessionals would be laid off. Dire consequences would befall us if we failed to accept that contract. But the members voted “no” and there was no wave of layoffs. The leadership was forced back to the bargaining table and returned in 1996 with a contract that was slightly better.
“We should be representing that anger, not hiding from it. We should be sending a message to the city that we will not roll over and play dead. Let’s vote this contract down and then begin a real struggle to win the kind of contract we all deserve.”
There were cheers and applause from the embattled rank and file throughout this impressive outpouring. Finally, we were hearing what our members and our hearts had been telling us, conveyed knowledgeably and clearly, conveying exactly why we were so angry over the distance between what we want our union to do, and the shameful things it has done. This was so undermining to Weingarten’s flimsy case that she started in to answer it, typically, with a hypocritical disclaimer, “I do not want to speak after every – - ” And she was shouted down, “So don’t speak!” and less politely, “So shut up!”
A speaker in favor of the givebacks was next, Jackie Bennett of the Petrides School. She had also spoken last month in favor of the fact-finding report. This shows that when you take away retirees and non-classroom staff (who are at a disadvantage speaking in support of a contract) Unity does not have a very deep bench! Bennett tried to argue that losing the right to grieve a letter in the file was actually terrific, because the letter comes out in three years. She claimed the worst part of getting such a letter was always knowing it is there even after many years. But in fact a letter is most painful and most dangerous when you first get it. This contract would eliminate any way to enforce any standard of “fairness and accuracy,” so we can expect the letters will become even less fair and less accurate, and more painful. And if they take out one after three years, nothing simpler than to add another!
The next speaker was from the “vote no” microphone. However, dishonest chicanery cheated the rank and file of a speaker who spoke for them. The Chapter Leader of PS 233, although she mentioned she would vote no, went on to attack the people opposed to the contract, taunting that “if you want to slay the dragon, get your tails down to City Hall,” and declaring she had “problems if your disrespect” Weingarten, much to the delight of the Unity boosters. So those opposed to the contract were cheated out of the fair share of speakers by this dishonest woman, who should be ashamed of herself. There were loud boos and hisses and people demanding that the “no” side should now get a speaker, but Weingarten smugly said she was playing by the rules we had all agreed upon. When the tumult grew, she threatened her own union members, “I don’t want anyone to be escorted from this room,” which was met with more boos and hisses.
The next pro-contract speaker argued that “we are directing our anger against the wrong person,” that it should be the boss we should be angry with. But the reason we have unions is that bosses have never put their employees first. That’s why unions were born. UFT members are angry at Klein. But we are also angry at our union leaders for not doing their job to represent our interests, in all the ways that Wainer described.
Chris Balchin, Delegate from Norman Thomas finally gave the opposition a speaker, after we had to endure three speakers in a row against us. He criticized Weingarten for the unconscionable length of her defense of the contract, and for the divisiveness of the contract.
There were only two more speakers. From Museum School, there was a speaker against the contract, and Michael Friedman, off-site services, spoke in favor of it. (He had also spoken in favor of the fact-finders report in September: see the comment above about Unity’s shallow bench)
It was then 5:40, and the DA had lasted about an hour and a quarter. For half of it, Weingarten had defended the contract. For the second half, there had been three speakers against the contract and five in favor of it. But now, Unity had suffered enough “democracy.” The next Unity speaker called the question, and the vote was in favor of calling the question.
Despite her promise at the October 6 Executive Board meeting that she would ask retirees not to vote on the contract at the D.A., she made no such request. The contract carried. After the vote was taken, there was a point of order and a chapter leader made a poignant plea for more debate, saying that many people had come and wanted to express their members’ views and this was the only opportunity to do so. Weingarten declared this out of order, since the vote to call the question had been taken. She also claimed she had told the retirees not to vote, although she had not. So she hurriedly held another vote, before most people, who had already begun leaving, knew what was going on.
Ideas about the vote varied. The second vote was closer than the first. Although some people had left, there’s no reason to think that more “yes” votes had exited than “no” votes, so the difference was probably that some retirees obeyed their leader. The second vote was probably around three in favor to two against.
So it was with some cynicism that those present read in the press the next day that the vote had been “overwhelmingly” in favor of the contract. To return to the D.A. of three years earlier, at that June 2002 meeting, the vote had indeed been overwhelmingly in favor: there had been a head count of the “no” votes and it came to 54, out of a meeting of 1,300. The opposition to givebacks, to trading time and working conditions for money, has grown in three years from dozens to hundreds.
29 shouldhavegonetomeds
· Oct 15, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Honor Sandy’s memory!!1 Just vote no!!!