Skip to content


September 24, 2006 am30 10:20 am

During contract discussions last fall, there was a groundswell of opposition. I wandered over to Edwize, where I got my first real introduction to talking to ICE. They were loud, they did not allow reality to temper their criticism, and their complaints often were personal condemnations of individual UFT leaders, but they were against a very bad contract.

I continued to ‘talk’ with them when I opened this blog. They occasionally commented here. I linked to the ICE blog, some of their supporters’ blogs, and other related sites.

It was, I thought, possible to have thoughtful conversations with people who agreed with me on some things, but not on all.

I never lost sight of how strident they were, and how all-or-nothing condemnatory they could be, nor how their idea of fixing the UFT seemed to be ‘vote us in’ with nothing else. Their program of “Hate Unity, Vote for Us, Everything Will be Better” is juvenile. But many of their complaints were on target.

Click for more —–>
It was an iffy proposition, so it didn’t take much for me to decide to end the conversation. There was some really tasteless commenting on ICE’s own blog last week. And on one of their supporter’s blogs I found myself personally attacked by an outspoken ICE supporter. Par for the course, but the blog owner, an ICE leader, and an ICE supporter, all of whom knew the attack was wrong, chose to let it stand.

Last Sunday I temporarily cut links to TJC, ICE, and all ICE supporters whom I had blogrolled. Chaz complained. He “always thought that dialogue between us was professional and informative.” He also mentioned that “I am more anti-Unity than pro ICE.” Well, what do you think ICE is, other than anti-Unity?

The others? Hard to tell. Looks like the blog-owner thought it over and decided it was easier to delink me then to correct his associate or address his embarassing inaction.

Anyway, I’ve dropped the links (except Chaz) and won’t be restoring them any time soon. TJC stays. In the Bronx, in my school, I will continue to work with all union members without regard to caucus.

Oh, and here’s what pissed me off. The comment below, which was directed at me, and the lack of response by ICE supporters who knew better.

As for me, I learned to keep my mouth shut this year and just go with the violations because of people like you who don’t give a crap about the rest of us.

It really is typical of them, and is a good sign of what may happen if they hold office and someone disagrees with them.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. September 25, 2006 am30 2:38 am 2:38 am


    All the caucuses have different agendas but they share one thing. They are are anti-unity.

    It is impossible to support Unity after the last contract. Look what they gave us!

    *two work days before Labor Day.

    *37.5 minutes more – four days a week.

    *90 day unpaid suspension based upon a student accusation.

    *Loss of seniority transfer – see what has happended to the
    1,200 ATR’s.

    * Loss of grievance rights for a Letter in a File.

    *Mindless Micromanagement and a once size fit all approach.

    * 190 days for this calander year – the most ever!

    We gave up all this and subject to all that for what?? A raise less than the cost of living?

    Finally, let me remind you when I complained about the 90 day unpaid suspension based upon a student accusation (not proved). Leo Casey accused me of supporting perverts and pediophiles. Talk about name calling!

  2. September 25, 2006 am30 3:07 am 3:07 am

    By the way, go to my blog and find out what I want from my union. Whichever caucus can best approach what I want will get my vote. I suspect that Unity’s priorities are much different from mine, based upon their Edwize articles and policies, and will not be getting my vote next year.

    I am very transparent, I just want respect as a classroom teacher I expect it from my children, my students, other teachers, and yes, even administrators. I don’t get it from the Unity educrats and because they are not in the classroom it seems iUnity is incapable in understanding that.

  3. October 1, 2006 am31 12:02 am 12:02 am


    when I complained about the 90 day unpaid suspension based upon a student accusation (not proved). Leo Casey accused me of supporting perverts and pediophiles. Talk about name calling!

    is not true.
    Leo, on several occasions, made it seem that those who opposed the ‘no pay during investigation’ part of the deal were opposed to ‘zero tolerance.’ I thought it was a cheap debater’s trick, and beneath him, and I called him on it. But that is just not what you are claiming.
    He addressed such comments to Eterno in a major post, to me in comments. I didn’t find any such writing addressed to you (though it might exist).
    However, Leo never accused another UFT member of supporting perverts or pedophiles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: